Fisheries in The Economies of The Pacific Island Countries and Territories

Pacific Studies Series
Fisheries in the Economies

of the Pacific Island Countries and Territories
THE WORLD BANK
Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacific Island Countries and Territories
Robert Gillett
2009 Asian Development Bank All rights reserved. Published 2009. Printed in the Philippines. ISBN: 978-971-561-708-6 Publication Stock No. RPS090148 Cataloging-In-Publication Data Gillett, Robert. Fisheries in the economies of the Pacic island countries and territories. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2009. 1. Fisheries 2. Pacic I. Asian Development Bank The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. ADB encourages printing or copying information exclusively for personal and noncommercial use with proper acknowledgment of ADB. Users are restricted from reselling, redistributing, or creating derivative works for commercial purposes without the express, written consent of ADB. Boundaries shown in the maps represent approximate exclusive economic zones. They are for illustrative purposes only, and do not imply recognition of any disputed claims. Note: In this paper, $ refers to US dollars. Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 632 4444 Fax +63 2 636 4444 www.adb.org For orders, contact: Department of External Relations Fax +63 2 636 2648 adbpub@adb.org
Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................................x Foreword...................................................................................................xiii About the Author....................................................................................... xv Acknowledgments..................................................................................... xvi Currency Equivalents.............................................................................. xviii Executive Summary................................................................................... xix Part A. Introduction ........................................................................ xxxv Study Considerations and Denitions................................................ 1 Scope..................................................................................................1 Study Area..........................................................................................2 Denitions..........................................................................................4 National Accounts, GDP, and Fishing.................................................6 Structure of the Report.......................................................................7 Part B. Fishery Benets in the Independent Pacic Island Countries. ...... 9 Cook Islands.................................................................................... 11 Fish Production. ................................................................................11 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.......................................................17 Export of Fishery Products................................................................20 Government Revenue from Fisheries.................................................21 Employment.....................................................................................22 Fish Consumption............................................................................24
iv Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
Federated States of Micronesia......................................................... 26 Fish Production. ................................................................................26 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.......................................................32 Export of Fishery Products................................................................33 Government Revenue from Fisheries.................................................36 Employment.....................................................................................37 Fish Consumption............................................................................38 Fiji Islands ....................................................................................... 39 Fish Production. ................................................................................39 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.......................................................46 Export of Fishery Products................................................................49 Government Revenue from Fisheries.................................................52 Employment.....................................................................................53 Fish Consumption............................................................................56 Kiribati. ............................................................................................ 58 Fish Production. ................................................................................58 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.......................................................65 Export of Fishery Products................................................................68 Government Revenue from Fisheries.................................................68 Employment.....................................................................................70 Fish Consumption............................................................................74 Marshall Islands............................................................................... 76 Fish Production. ................................................................................76 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.......................................................83 Export of Fishery Products................................................................85 Government Revenue from Fisheries.................................................88 Employment.....................................................................................89 Fish Consumption............................................................................91 Nauru............................................................................................... 92 Fish Production. ................................................................................92 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.......................................................97 Export of Fishery Products................................................................99 Government Revenue from Fisheries.................................................99 Employment...................................................................................101 Fish Consumption..........................................................................102 Niue. ............................................................................................... 104 Fish Production. ..............................................................................104 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................108 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................110
Contents
Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................110 Employment...................................................................................111 Fish Consumption..........................................................................113 Palau.............................................................................................. 114 Fish Production. ..............................................................................114 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................121 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................123 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................124 Employment...................................................................................125 Fish Consumption..........................................................................126 Papua New Guinea......................................................................... 127 Fish Production. ..............................................................................127 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................135 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................137 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................140 Employment...................................................................................141 Fish Consumption..........................................................................143 Samoa............................................................................................. 145 Fish Production. ..............................................................................145 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................150 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................152 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................154 Employment...................................................................................155 Fish Consumption..........................................................................157 Solomon Islands............................................................................. 160 Fish Production. ..............................................................................160 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................168 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................170 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................172 Employment...................................................................................173 Fish Consumption..........................................................................174 Tonga............................................................................................. 175 Fish Production. ..............................................................................175 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................180 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................183 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................185 Employment...................................................................................187 Fish Consumption..........................................................................188
vi Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
Tuvalu............................................................................................ 191 Fish Production. ..............................................................................191 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................196 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................198 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................198 Employment...................................................................................200 Fish Consumption..........................................................................202 Vanuatu.......................................................................................... 203 Fish Production. ..............................................................................203 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................209 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................212 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................213 Employment...................................................................................214 Fish Consumption..........................................................................215 Part C. Fishery Benets in Pacic Island Territories........................... 217 American Samoa............................................................................. 219 Fish Production. ..............................................................................219 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................223 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................225 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................226 Employment...................................................................................226 Fish Consumption..........................................................................227 French Polynesia. ............................................................................ 228 Fish Production. ..............................................................................228 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................233 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................237 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................238 Employment...................................................................................238 Fish Consumption..........................................................................239 Guam............................................................................................. 240 Fish Production. ..............................................................................240 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................244 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................245 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................246 Employment...................................................................................246 Fish Consumption..........................................................................247
Contents vii
New Caledonia............................................................................... 248 Fish Production. ..............................................................................248 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................251 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................253 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................253 Employment...................................................................................254 Fish Consumption..........................................................................254 Northern Mariana Islands.............................................................. 255 Fish Production. ..............................................................................256 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................259 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................260 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................261 Employment...................................................................................261 Fish Consumption..........................................................................262 Pitcairn Islands. .............................................................................. 263 Fish Production. ..............................................................................263 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................266 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................267 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................267 Employment...................................................................................268 Fish Consumption..........................................................................268 Tokelau. .......................................................................................... 269 Fish Production. ..............................................................................269 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................272 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................274 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................274 Employment...................................................................................275 Fish Consumption..........................................................................276 Wallis and Futuna ......................................................................... 277 Fish Production. ..............................................................................277 Contribution of Fishing to GDP.....................................................280 Export of Fishery Products..............................................................281 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................282 Employment...................................................................................282 Fish Consumption..........................................................................282 International Waters....................................................................... 283
viii Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
Part D: Regional Fisheries Production, Benets, and Factors Inuencing Benets............................................ 287 Fisheries and Aquaculture Production Across the Region. .............. 289 Summary Information....................................................................289 General Observations......................................................................295 Measuring the Production of Small-Scale Fisheries..........................296 Changes in Fishery Production during 19992007.........................297 Aquaculture Production..................................................................299 Fishery Benets Across the Region................................................. 305 Contribution of Fishing to GDP in the Pacic Island Countries.....305 Exports of Fishery Products.............................................................317 Government Revenue from Fisheries...............................................324 Employment Related to Fisheries....................................................333 Fish Consumption..........................................................................344 Fishery Benets by Zone.................................................................355 Issues in Measuring Benets........................................................... 358 Household Income and Expenditure Survey. ...................................358 Satellite Account for Fisheries. .........................................................363 Subsidies in Fisheries.......................................................................369 Some Factors that will have Major Impacts on Fisheries Benets... 371 Climate Change..............................................................................371 Fuel Costs.......................................................................................373 Fishery Benets and Economic Rent...............................................375 Recommendations and Concluding Remarks................................. 377 Recommendations for Improving the Measurement of Fisheries Benets.....................................................................377 Concluding Remarks. ......................................................................379 References...................................................................................... 385 Appendixes......................................................................................... 423 Appendix 1: The 2001 Study.......................................................... 425 Appendix 2: National Accounting and the Fisheries Sector............ 435 Denitions and Conventions in the System of National Accounts. ..435 Weaknesses of GDP........................................................................440
Contents ix
Appendix 3: Guidelines for Calculating the Fishing Contribution to GDP..................................................................... 442 General...........................................................................................442 Value-Added Ratios. ........................................................................444 Appendix 4: Preliminary Assessment of the Eects of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacic.......... 451 Introduction...................................................................................452 Changing Climate and Ocean.........................................................452 Eects of Climate Change on Fisheries Worldwide.........................455 Potential Impact of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacic.....................................................458 Adaptations to Maintain the Benets of Fisheries and Aquaculture..........................................................................466 Gaps in Knowledge and Priority Activities......................................468 Appendix 5: The Energy Costs and Fishing Study.......................... 470 Fuel Supply Markets.......................................................................470 Exposure to Fuel Price Fluctuations................................................473 Operational Changes as a Result of Increased Fuel Costs. ................477 Market Changes..............................................................................477 Reduction of Exposure to Fuel Price Fluctuations...........................478 Recommendations..........................................................................480
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADB ADO AusAID BMR CBSI
Asian Development Bank automotive diesel oil Australian Agency for International Development Bureau of Marine Resources (of Palau) Central Bank of the Solomon Islands
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CNMI CO2 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands carbon dioxide
COFISH Pacic Regional Coastal Fisheries Development Programme DEVFISH Development of Tuna Fisheries in the Pacic ACP Countries DFMR DOF EEZ ENSO FAD Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources Department of Fisheries exclusive economic zone El NioSouthern Oscillation sh aggregation device
Abbreviations xi
FAO FFA FOB FSM GDP HIES IMF
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Forum Fisheries Agency free on board Federated States of Micronesia gross domestic product household income and expenditure survey International Monetary Fund
ISIC International Standard Industrial Classication of All Economic Activities ISPF JICA MIMRA NFA NFMRA NMFS Institut de la Statistique de la Polynesie Francaise Japan International Cooperation Agency Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority National Fisheries Authority (of Papua New Guinea) Nauru Fisheries and Marine Resources Authority National Marine Fisheries Service (of the United States)
NORMA National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (of FSM) NSO OFCF PCS PICTs PMDC PNG RMI SNA National Statistics Oce Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation (of Japan) Palau Conservation Society Pacic Island Countries and Territories Palau Mariculture Demonstration Center Papua New Guinea Republic of the Marshall Islands System of National Accounts
SPC Secretariat of the Pacic Community (formerly, South Pacic Commission) t ton (metric)
xii Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
UNDP US VAR WCPFC WCPO WPacFIN
United Nations Development Programme United States value-added ratio Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission Western and Central Pacic Ocean Western Pacic Fisheries Information Network
Foreword
n early 2001, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) expressed concern that the importance of sheries to Pacic Island economies was not being fully appreciated by the countries of the region or by the donor community. Discussions with Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC), and the World Bank led to a study to improve the accuracy of the estimates of the contribution of sheries to national economies. The output of that study was the publication The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacic Island Countries. That report identied the ocial contribution of shing to gross domestic product (GDP), articulated a simple approach for estimating shing contribution to GDP, and reestimating shing contribution to GDP for each Pacic island country. It showed the major reasons for dierences between the ocial and reestimated contribution of shing to GDP and discussed the common diculties found in estimating the contribution. It also made estimates of quantities and values of production from the four major components of shing in the region: coastal commercial, coastal subsistence, oshore locally based, and oshore foreign-based. Finally, it provided summaries of the available data on shery aspects of employment, trade, government revenue, and nutrition. Since the report was published, several signicant changes have occurred in the sheries sector of the Pacic islands concerning the shery resources; shing practices; and national, regional, and international policies. In 2007, the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) produced a framework for engagement in sheries-related development assistance in the Pacic, which called for the development of regularly updated and disaggregated information on the contribution of subsistence, small-scale, commercial, and industrial sheries to the economies of Pacic island countries. AusAID and ADB subsequently agreed to update the 2001 publication.
xiv Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
Discussions between AusAID, ADB, FFA, SPC, and the World Bank (project partners) resulted in an understanding that the new study should be similar in scope to the 2001 project. Major changes for the new study were the inclusion of nonindependent Pacic island territories; production from freshwater sheries and aquaculture; shery production from high seas areas in the Central and Western Pacic; gender aspects of sheries employment; benets partitioned by zone: inland, inshore, coastal, and oshore; and specialized studies of factors that could have signicant impacts on the benets that ow from sheries in the region (i.e., fuel costs, climate change). ADB recruited a consultant for the projectRobert Gillett, who led the 2001 studyand work began on 1 August 2008. Visits to collect information were made to most Pacic island countries and/or territories and headquarters of the regional organizations in August to October. A meeting of all project partners was held in late September. Country-specic information was assembled, analyzed, and passed to sheries and statistics experts in each country for comment. During September to December 2008, two consultants, recruited by the World Bank and ADB, studied the impact of fuel costs on benets from sheries. In mid-January 2009, an SPC ocer summarized for the study the likely impacts of climate change on sheries in the Pacic islands. This new publication brings much new information and advice on a wide variety of sheries-related matters that will be of great use among the independent and nonindependent economies of the Pacic region. I am condent that it will be an important reference document for several years. However, the present study was also intended to provide the basis for progressive renement and development of a regular assessment of the regions sheries, which ideally would be done every 45 years. I urge that national and regional agencies involved with sheries and their development partners consider ways of institutionalizing the collection and dissemination of economic information on sheries in order to give the sheries sector the priority it deserves. Sultan Hafeez Rahman Director General Pacic Department Asian Development Bank
About the Author
Robert Gillett, a director of Gillett, Preston and Associates (gillett@connect. com.fj) has been involved in marine resources development in the Pacic islands for the past four decades. He has undertaken work for several regional and international organizations active in the marine sector in the region, including United Nations Development Programme, Secretariat of the Pacic Community, Forum Fisheries Agency, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Bank, Secretariat of the Pacic Regional Environment Programme, University of the South Pacic, Pacic Islands Forum Secretariat, Commonwealth Secretariat, and Asian Development Bank. Mr. Gillett has authored over 250 publications, books, and technical reports on sheries in the region.
Acknowledgments
any people contributed to this study. The project partners consisted of people in ve institutions that participated in formulating the project, were involved in its implementation, and provided technical guidance. The agencies and associated sta were the Asian Development Bank (Thomas Gloerfelt-Tarp), Australian Agency for International Development (Gordon Anderson), World Bank (Oliver Braedt and Gert van Santen), Secretariat of the Pacic Community (Lindsay Chapman, Johann Bell), and the Forum Fisheries Agency (Peter Philipson and Len Rodwell). In addition, the Directors-General of the Forum Fisheries Agency and Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC), Sua N.F. Tanielu and Jimmie Rodgers, provided endorsement and enthusiastic support for the work. Others at these two regional institutions provided valuable assistance: Peter Williams, Aymeric Desurmont, Mike Batty, Jean-Paul Gaudechoux, Ben Ponia, Mecki Kronen, Amanda Hamilton, and Peter Terawasi. The sta of SPCs Statistics and Demography Programme: Gerald Haberkorn, Chris Ryan, and Greg Keeble introduced the project to the statistical agencies of the region and responded to many technical enquiries. Special studies were carried out under this project in the areas of fuel economics (James Wilson, Mike McCoy) and climate change (Johann Bell and team). The valuable contributions of these authors are acknowledged. People at several agencies made technical contributions to this project: Zia Abassi (International Monetary Fund), Ben Starkhouse (University of British Columbia), Paul Dalzell (Western Pacic Fisheries Management Council), David Hamm and Ray Clarke (both of US National Marine Fisheries Service), Kate Barclay (University of Technology, Sydney), Peter Cusack (International Finance Corporation), David Abbott (United Nations
Acknowledgment xvii
Development Programme), Glenn McKinlay (National Statistics Bureau of the Seychelles), and Kelvin Passeld (World Conservation Union). The advice provided by Les Clark in the 2001 study is still quite evident in the present report. At the national level, the sta of sheries agencies, statistical ocers, and sheries specialists gave freely of their time and provided much relevant information. Special thanks are extended to people who contributed far beyond the call of duty: Colin Brown, Francis Hickey, Sylvester Pokajam, Ian Bertram, John Kaso, Maurice Brownjohn, Hugh Walton, Bill Holden, Eugene Pangelinan, Tim Adams, Mike Savins, Josie Tamate, Cedric Ponsonnet, Arsne Stein, Alexandre Ailloud, Justin Hunter, and Ray Newnham. The maps in this report were kindly provided by SPC.
Currency Equivalents
The average yearly exchange rates for the US dollar used in this report are shown below. Countries and territories not shown use the US$.
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
New Zealand dollar (Cook Islands, 1.86 1.89 2.19 2.38 2.15 1.72 1.51 1.42 1.54 1.36 1.32 Niue, Pitcairn Islands, Tokelau ) Fiji dollar 2.00 1.98 2.13 2.33 2.15 1.85 1.73 1.70 1.73 1.60 1.51 (Fiji Islands) Pacific franc (French Polynesia, 107.00 112.00 130.00 133.00 127.00 106.00 96.00 96.00 95.00 87.00 80.00 New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna) Australian dollar 1.59 1.55 1.74 1.95 1.83 1.52 1.36 1.31 1.32 1.19 1.10 (Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu) kina (Papua New 2.06 2.55 2.76 3.36 3.89 3.55 3.22 3.10 3.06 2.96 2.77 Guinea) tala 2.94 3.01 3.27 3.47 3.37 3.00 2.78 2.71 2.78 2.62 2.52 (Samoa) Solomon Islands dollar 4.82 4.84 5.09 5.28 6.75 7.51 7.48 7.53 7.61 7.65 7.67 (Solomon Islands) paanga 1.35 1.58 1.64 1.95 2.18 2.19 2.04 1.93 2.01 2.02 1.85 (Tonga) vatu 127.52 129.08 137.80 145.70 139.10 122.20 111.90 109.00 110.00 104.00 96.77 (Vanuatu)
Source: ADB Subregional Office, Suva, the Fiji Islands (T. Gloerfelt-Tarp, personal communication, December 2008).
Executive Summary
his report updates and expands on the 2001 report on The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacic Island Countries. The focus of that publication was the contribution of shing to gross domestic product (GDP) and it provided an independent estimate of that contribution. In the present report, the scope is expanded to include Pacic Island territories, aquaculture and freshwater sheries, and some important factors likely to aect the ow of benets from sheries in the future. Information on benets from sheries is provided for each of the 22 Pacic island countries and territories in terms of (i) recent annual production and value for six categoriescoastal commercial shing, coastal subsistence shing, locally based oshore shing, foreign-based oshore shing, freshwater shing, and aquaculture; (ii) ocial and reestimated contribution to GDP and exports; (iii) government revenue; (iv) employment; and (v) contribution to nutrition. Where data were available, comparisons are made between the situation in 1999 and 2007, the focus years of the 2001 study and the present study, respectively.
Regional Fisheries and Aquaculture Production

Total sheries and aquaculture production in the region in 2007 is estimated to be 1,330,345 tons (t), plus 305,336 items (pieces) of aquaculture products (i.e., pearls and aquarium items not usually sold by weight) (Table1). Ranking of countries by total sheries production was strongly inuenced by the level of tuna catches. Also, there was a general pattern of decreasing total national catches from west to east across the region, and from equatorial to higher latitudes.
xx Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
Table 1: Total Regional Fishery and Aquaculture Production, 2007 (t)

Offshore Coastal Commercial 44,789 44,789 Coastal Offshore Offshore SubLocally Foreign- Freshsistence Based Based water 109,933 109,933 401,096 864,685 23,858 23,858 Aquaculture Regional Total
Item Fishery category totals Totals adjusted for duplicate offshore fishing
t = ton.
2,984t 1,447,345t and and 305,336 305,336 pieces pieces 2,984t 1,330,345t and and 305,336 305,336 pieces pieces
1,148,781
Source: Authors estimates.
Other signicant features were a relatively large contribution of oshore foreign-based production in Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu; relatively large contribution of oshore locally based production in the Marshall Islands and (to a lesser extent) the Fiji Islands; relatively large contribution of aquaculture production in French Polynesia and (to a lesser extent) New Caledonia; and relatively large contribution of non-tuna production in Fiji Islands. Catches in the seven international sea areas in the Western and Central Pacic Ocean (WCPO) region during 20022007 were equal to about half (range 38%59%) of all in-zone catches of the 22 countries and territories of the Pacic islands. The total catch in 2007 from international waters was about 21% of the catch taken from the entire WCPO, including the WCPO catch of Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, and Taipei,China. Of the 2007 catch, 17% of the total catch and 37% of the total value were made by longliners; 60% and 42%, respectively, by purse seiners; and 23% and 22%, respectively, by pole-and-line vessels. For the 14 independent countries in the region, the 2007 information can be compared with the situation in 1999. A look at the changes in shery production shows a remarkable increase by Papua New Guinea (PNG) and moderate increase by most other countries. By shing category, substantial production increases were noted in oshore sheries while coastal shery production showed no overall change. The stagnation of coastal shery production means that a certain level of food and employment has to be spread among a growing number of people. With the generally expanding oshore sheries, the distribution of benets
Executive Summary xxi
from sheries sector in the Pacic islands is already undergoing a profound change. Benets from employment and nutritionthings that directly aect Pacic islanders, and which disproportionately come from the coastal zone are stagnating. The less tangible and more abstract benets (contribution to GDP, exports, and government revenue) tend to come disproportionately from the oshore area, and are expanding. However, estimating the production from coastal sheries in about half the Pacic island countries is largely guesswork. In very few of them, the levels of coastal catches are well known. This is likely to be a factor in the under appreciation for these sheries in many countries. Poor data on coastal sheries production creates considerable diculty in accurately portraying shery benets, especially in GDP contribution, employment, and nutrition. Protection of village food sh supplies is arguably the most important objective of the management of coastal sheries in the Pacic islands, but to know if such management eorts are eective overall, some idea of the gross coastal sheries production is required. In terms of government priorities, it seems that a lack of production information tends to lead to lack of attention. Aquaculture in the region is strongly dominated by pearl production in French Polynesia and shrimp farming in New Caledonia, but both territories have a high degree of economic support from France and have large subsidies for aquaculture. PNG is also a special case due to its relatively huge population and because over 87% of the population live inland and have no direct access to marine resources. If aquaculture production from these three atypical countries is eliminated from consideration, signicant aquaculture production comes from a limited range of activities, most notably large-scale private sector pearl culture and shrimp culture where there is a signicant tourist trade. There is substantial tilapia and/or milksh and giant clam culture, but net benets depend on the degree of subsidizationa situation that is often not clear.
Regional Fisheries and Aquaculture Value

The total value of sheries and aquaculture production in 2007 is estimated to be over $2 billion (Table 2). Oshore foreign-based shing accounted for about half the value of sheries in the region, oshore locally based accounted for about a quarter, and the remaining quarter was shared almost equally by coastal commercial, coastal subsistence, and aquaculture. French Polynesia and New Caledonia produced 95.5% of the combined value of aquaculture in all the 22 Pacic island countries and territories.
xxii Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
Table 2: Value of Total Regional Fishery and Aquaculture Production, 2007 ($)
Offshore Coastal Coastal Commercial Subsistence Offshore Locally Based Offshore Foreign-Based Freshwater Aquaculture Regional Total
Item Fishery category totals Totals adjusted for duplicate offshore fishing
165,691,002 200,366,961 596,836,589 1,086,581,587 23,115,025 146,872,423
165,691,002 200,366,961
1,513,418,176
23,115,025 146,872,423 2,049,463,587
Note: Table includes aquaculture. Values are dockside, at first sale, or farm gate. Source: Authors estimates.
The estimated total value of the six shing categories in each country and territory is shown in Table 3. The four countries with the highest value produced almost 72% of the regional total; the eight highest producers contributed 95%.
Table 3: Value of Fisheries and Aquaculture Production by Country and/or Territory, 2007
Country and/or Territory Papua New Guinea Kiribati Federated States of Micronesia Solomon Islands French Polynesia Marshall Islands Fiji Islands Nauru New Caledonia Tuvalu Samoa Vanuatu Value ($) 812,067,902 244,185,828 224,483,967 202,003,233 188,656,724 108,125,102 103,420,625 81,518,168 49,663,126 43,773,582 42,939,982 34,397,887
continued on next page
Executive Summary xxiii
Table 3: continuation
Country and/or Territory Palau Tonga American Samoa Cook Islands Wallis and Futuna Niue Northern Mariana Islands Guam Tokelau Pitcairn Islands
Note: Values are dockside, at first sale, or farm gate. Source: Authors estimates.
Value ($) 24,139,152 20,571,101 14,793,083 10,323,529 7,540,230 2,520,588 1,786,700 1,370,000 1,108,812 74,265
Figure 1: Official and Reestimated Fishing Contribution to GDP, 2007

12 10 8 Percent 6 4 2 0 Cook Islands Niue Tuvalu Palau PNG French Polynesia American Samoa Tonga Vanuatu Northern Mariana Islands Solomon Islands Samoa Nauru Wallis & Futuna New Caledonia Fiji Islands Guam FSM
Official
Re-Estimate
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Authors estimates.
xxiv Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
Contribution to Gross Domestic Product

The ocial shing contributions to GDP in 2007 were compared with reestimates of that contribution based on revised production estimates determined in this study. The data are summarized in Figure 1. In most cases, the reestimate was larger than the ocial gure. In two (Cook Islands and Nauru), the reestimate was substantially smaller. Based on good knowledge of the shing sector, the ocial results in those two countries are likely to be erroneous. Increases in shing contributions to GDP from 1999 to 2007 were greatest in the Marshall Islands (with the establishment of a locally based oshore eet) and PNG (with increased activity of the locally based oshore eet). There were pronounced decreases in the Cook Islands (with the decrease in production from pearl farming) and Nauru (with the termination of locally based oshore shing and a decrease in coastal commercial shing). At least some of the observed changes were due to improved estimates of various categories of shing. An important point is that, for national accounting purposes, the sector is shing, rather than the more inclusive sheries. Postharvest activities, including sh processing, are not included in the shing sector when estimating GDP. To compensate for this, a crude satellite account to include these subsectors was made for the Fiji Islands, which showed that the sheries sector contributed 34% more to GDP in 2003 than the shing sector. Based on the Fiji Islands total GDP in 2003 of F$4.4 billion, the contribution to GDP increased from 1.8% for the shing sector to 2.3% for the sheries sector. Simple and obvious ways are available to improve the accuracy of estimating shing contribution to GDP. The most important are that statistics sta should (i) obtain technical sheries expertise when devising methodology, collecting data, making the estimate, and reviewing the results; and (ii) compare the ocial estimate to the reestimate of the shing contribution given in the country chapters of this report and evaluate the dierences and any need for modifying the methodology.
Fishery Product Exports

Exports of sheries products are very important to the countries of the region (Table 4). In about half of these countries, these exports represent over half of all exports. In six Pacic island countries and territories, the export value of shery products is about 80% or greater of total exports. Where they represent less than half of the value of national exports, exports are mostly quite large in nominal terms, as in New Caledonia
Executive Summary xxv
($157million), PNG ($101 million), Fiji Islands ($63 million), and Marshall Islands ($37 million). The three with the largest value of exports are American Samoa, New Caledonia, and French Polynesia. Of the total $996 million in shery exports in the region in 2007, about three-quarters are from these three territories. By far the most important exports in value are tuna products. Tuna exports from American Samoa alone are close to the value of all the other shery exports in all other Pacic island countries combined. In nominal terms, the value of shery exports of the region almost doubled during 19992007. Fishery exports have increased relative to total exports in most countries, but have fallen signicantly in the Solomon Islands and Samoa.
Table 4: Value of Fishery Product Exports ($)
Country Papua New Guinea Fiji Islands Marshall Islands (2006) Solomon Islands Palau Federated States of Micronesia Samoa Tonga (FY 2007) Cook Islands Kiribati Vanuatu (average for 20042007) Tuvalu Nauru American Samoa (2006) French Polynesia New Caledonia Wallis and Futuna Pitcairn Islands Northern Mariana Islands Guam Tokelau
FY = fiscal year, n/a = not available. Note: Data are for 2007, unless otherwise noted; prices are free on board (FOB). Source: Authors estimates.
1999 48,106,666 29,193,745 473,000 35,472,033 2,213,419 4,878,387 10,785,287 2,573,670 2,919,136 1,483,871 394,954 4,233 0
2007 101,000,000 63,217,953 37,342,000 19,784,631 19,000,000 12,301,318 7,634,000 4,861,780 4,120,828 1,893,375 1,230,189 4,216 0 438,529,360 128,379,310 156,908,046 78,161 37,542 0 n/a n/a
xxvi Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
Interestingly, several countries located in areas of good tuna shing (as judged by access fees) export little or no tuna, such as Kiribati, Nauru, Tokelau, and Tuvalu. If they were included, the data would better reect the potential importance of foreign sheries production for the local economy. In addition, in most countries, the ocial value of shery exports is underestimated compared to other sources of similar information (e.g., importing country information, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [CITES] records, and audited exporting company accounts). This could be due to the complexity of tracking a multitude of dierent sheries products each with dierent values, large numbers of small shipments, and many dierent export points. Often, there is no examination by customs departments of the exported commodities. Also, some countries record as nonshery commodities some products that would often be considered sheries products, such as coral.
Foreign Fishing Access Fees

Access fees received by Pacic island countries are provided and compared to total government revenue, population, and catch value. Total access fees received in 2007 were $78.5 million, an increase of about 25% since 1999. For the independent countries covered in both studies, access fees increased in nominal terms for all but three countries, with an overall increase of almost $18.7 million. Access fees uctuate widely from year to year because of changing shing patterns, eet movements, and exchange rates. On a per capita basis, fees in 2007 ranged widely, from less than $1 per person in the Fiji Islands to $1,264 in Tokelau. Fees also varied widely in terms of their proportion of the catch value of the foreign eets, mainly due to varying levels of shing; sometimes there was no shing in a zone although access fees were paid. For the independent countries covered in both studies, access fees increased in nominal terms for all but three countries, with an overall increase of almost one-quarter ($18.7 million) in the 7 years between the estimates, although it should be noted that access fees can uctuate widely from year to year because of many factors (e.g., eet movements, exchange rates). Information on access fee receipts was available in the public domain for most countries. Where this was not the situation, sheries and/or nance ocials cooperated to furnish the information. This favorable change appears to be in accordance with the Vavau Declaration on Pacic Fisheries Resources issued at the Thirty-Eighth Pacic Islands Forum held in October 2007, which stressed the importance of transparency in sheries licensing
Executive Summary xxvii
arrangements. In the 2001 study, considerable secrecy was encountered surrounding access fee payments, even at the aggregate national level, and much of the data on access fee payments in that study were estimated with considerable diculty.
Fisheries Employment
For each country of the region, the best readily available information is provided on the relative importance of (i) employment in commercial sheries, and (ii) involvement in subsistence shing. Most formal employment in sheries appears to be tuna-related. Participation in mixed subsistence and/or commercial shing is signicant in survey results from Nauru, Niue, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, but is likely to be important in several other countries also. Regionwide, involvement in subsistence shing is vastly greater than formal sheries employment. Typically, 1020 times more people sh for subsistence than for commercial purposes. Two important features of the data are presented. One, the importance of participation in subsistence sheries seems to have a strong relationship with the type of island. For example, in the Cook Islands, 92% of people engage in shing in Mangaia Island, one of the outer islands, while on the main island, Rarotonga, less than half of all households (44%) sh. In general, the level of importance is highest in atolls, followed by small islands, and least in large high islands. Two, the importance of sheries in formal employment seems to be related more to business conditions than to island type. These conditions include, among others, the proximity to processing facilities and airline connections to fresh sh markets. PNG stands out in participation in coastal subsistence sheries, with one often-quoted study estimating between 250,000 and 500,000 such shers. These numbers approach the magnitude of the participation in all the other countries of the region combined. Information on sheries employment is critically important not only for estimating the benets to the countries concerned but also for sheries management. In the many trade-os that sheries management entails, it is important to know how many people will be aectedpositively or negativelyby management decisions. With the possible exception of employment related to tuna (shing and/or processing), few data are available for employment by shery in any of the countries of the region. The message is that the availability of sheries employment information by shery could improve sheries management decisions. Other disaggregations that would be useful to sheries management are by sex, by urban and/or rural
xxviii Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
resident, and by local and/or expatriate. A ban on relatively high technology (e.g., use of scuba gear) would favor rural shers. The use of Asian versus local crews on locally based tuna vessels is a topical sheries management issue in several countries of the region.
Participation of Women
Due to national and regional eorts over the past 15 years, much more is now known about womens sheries activities in the Pacic islands. Presently, the main diculties that aect the accurate portrayal of the importance of women in sheries employment appears to be (i) the concept of using main unpaid activity in surveys for dening the subsistence sheries sector, as it downplays the importance of secondary activities (e.g., even for women who do considerable shing, childcare is often the main unpaid activity); and (ii) placing commercial sh processing in some countries (where many women are employed) in the manufacturing sector. A survey in 2008 of villages in 17 countries or island groups by the Secretariat of the Pacic Community showed a general dominanceof shing at the village level by men, although the proportions diered by country from about 80% males in French Polynesia, Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa, and Tuvalu, to nearly equal numbers of males and females in the Fiji Islands, PNG, Wallis and Futuna, and Vanuatu. Invertebrate harvesting (such as through reef gleaning), is still the womens domain.
Fish Consumption
For most countries, there have not been any dedicated national level studies of sh consumption in the last decade. Ranges in national sh consumption as determined by various studies in the 1990s are shown in Table 5. In general, countries comprising small islands have high sh consumption rates, while large island countries have low consumption rates. The exceptions to this are Tonga, where the studies suggest surprisingly low sh consumption rates, and Palau, where reported sh consumption rate is remarkably high. Most Pacic island countries exceedby a large marginthe world average per capita shery product consumption rate of 16.5 kg. Based on the predicted age structure of populations in the Pacic until 2030 and age weight relationships, an annual average per capita sh consumption of 3437 kg is estimated to provide about 50% of the recommended protein intake for people in the Pacic island countries.
Executive Summary xxix
Table 5: Ranges of Estimated Annual Per Capita Fishery Product Consumption

Country Cook Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Islands Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu
kg = kilogram. Note: Estimates are on whole fish equivalent basis. Source: Authors estimates.
Range of Estimates (kg/year/person) 47.071.0 72.0114.0 44.062.0 72.0207.0 38.959.0 46.7 49.0118.9 84.0135.0 18.224.9 46.371.0 32.232.7 25.230.0 85.0146.0 15.925.7
Some of the past comparisons between sh consumption surveys and between countries may be inappropriate due to methodological dierences. The main diculty is that most studies on sh consumption in the region determine one of two kinds of consumption: either the amount of food actually ingested or the whole weight of the sh that produces the food. Comparing sh consumption surveys should be avoided unless the methods used by the studies are known and they are either the same or corrected so that equal features are being compared. In recent years, most Pacic island countries have had a household income and expenditure survey (HIES). All of the independent Pacic island countries and several of the territories are planning for the HIES in the next few years. The HIES may be a good opportunity to improve the measurement of small-scale sheries. Indeed, the HIES may not just be an option for obtaining information on small-scale sheries; an improved HIES may represent the only cost-eective mechanism for obtaining information on small-scale sheries.
xxx Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
Some signicant problems, however, are apparent in the present use of HIES for shery purposes. A feature common to many countries of the region is that coastal sheries production estimated by the HIES appears to be relatively low. The HIES generally suggests sh catches signicantly smaller than that estimated by other survey techniques or smaller than that perceived by specialists familiar with national sheries. For example, in the eight countries in the present study from which sheries production levels could be obtained from both the HIES and a more sheries-focused estimate, the HIES indicated or suggested a lower production in six countries, similar production in one country (Cook Islands), and higher production in another country (Samoa).
Effects of Climate Change

Alterations in ocean temperatures and currents and the food chains in the open ocean are projected to aect the future location and abundance of tuna species in the Pacic islands. Initial modeling indicates that the concentrations of skipjack and bigeye tuna are likely to be located further to the east than in the past. The simulations have yet to be done for yellown and albacore. Signicant changes to the future distribution of tuna will make the zones of some Pacic island countries more, or less, favorable for the surface shery for skipjack tuna. Displacement of tuna stocks further east in the Pacic would be a windfall for the countries in those areas. Reduced abundance of skipjack in Melanesia should have a far lower impact on their GDP in relative terms, but there will be substantial losses in real terms given the large quantities of tuna currently caught there. There may be negative eects on the viability of canneries in the western Pacic. Signicant changes can also be expected in the availability and relative abundance of (i) sh and invertebrates, including such export products as trochus and bche de mer, that currently support coastal sheries in the Pacicdue to degradation of coral reefs and seawater conditions from increasing temperature and gradual acidication of the ocean; and (ii) other habitats, such as mangroves and seagrassdue to increases in temperatures, sea level, storm intensity, and turbidity of coastal waters because of higher rainfall. Since coastal sheries are vital to subsistence throughout the Pacic, one of the greatest impacts that climate change is likely to have is on food security. If future production of sh from coral reefs and the other coastal habitats decreases, or is comprised of sh not readily accepted as food by local communities, the emerging gap in the sh needed for food security will
Executive Summary xxxi
increase. This will place even more pressure on governments to allocate an increasing proportion of their tuna resources for local food security.
Impact of Fuel Costs

Fuel price impact on shing has uctuated considerably among sheries and countries. While the largest component of domestic fuel pricethe international bulk pricehas risen and declined dramatically over the past 10 years, very signicant variations in fuel prices occur between countries, the lowest price being in French Polynesia ($0.56/liter) and the highest in Vanuatu ($1.87/liter). Of the main categories of shing gear used in the region, tuna longliners have the highest fuel consumption per ton of catchon average, over 4 times as much as purse seiners. Small-scale coastal sheries fall between the two, consuming about twice as much fuel per ton as purse seiners. The costs of fuel per dollar of catch value show similar dierences, but less pronounced, because prices of some sh products have increased more than others. The nancial impact of fuel price increases of longliners is still greater than that of purse seiners but the dierence is very much smaller than that in specic fuel consumption per ton of catch, because of increases in sh prices. Artisanal shers are the most nancially exposed of all the eets analyzed. The exposure of aquaculture to energy cost uctuations varies substantially: pearl aquaculture is estimated to consume only about $3 per $100 of product value, and intensive penaeid shrimp aquaculture is estimated to consume 1.7 t of fuel per ton of product, but if feed production were to be taken in to account, its fuel consumption would be higher. Changes in operations as a result of increasing fuel costs in the oshore purse seine sector have been virtually zero; increased technical ecacy and favorable prices for skipjack and yellown tuna oset increased fuel costs. For domestic-based longliners that faced increases in fuel prices without product price increases while experiencing drops in catch per unit of eort, modest operational changes were made. Many small-scale sheries facing higher fuel costs reduced the distance traveled and changed gear.
Satellite Accounts
An example of a satellite account for Fiji Islands sheries that included postharvest activities indicates that the importance of sheries in most Pacic countries and territories is being underestimated. By international convention,
xxxii Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
the shing sector for GDP purposes does not include postharvest activities, which are quite important in many Pacic island countriesand are likely to become more important in the future. Preparation and publicizing of such accounts would elevate sheries in national agenda. Satellite accounts would be most useful in countries where there is a sizeable sheries industry, development plans that could aect the industry, and various industrial sectors competing for government attention. In this regard, a satellite account would be an important tool for industry champions, individuals who are inuential in stressing the importance of the sector. At present, the sheries sector is not active in most countries at advertising its importance. Several comparisons are made with the tourism sector, where it was noted that, for example, a huge benet like that from transshipping sh would be publicized in the tourism sector with enthusiasm.
Fishery Benefits and Economic Rent

A recent study provided a theoretical assessment of the potential regional economic wealth of tuna resources and the relative drain of economic rent the dierence between total revenue in the shery and the shery costs resulting from the current sheries governance model. The study estimated that future governance based on a business-as-usual approach over a period of 50 years would generate economic losses in net present value terms of at least $3.4 billion compared to optimal harvesting. This is despite the fact that, overall, the sheries currently generate positive prots.
Main Conclusions and Recommendations

Fisheries are Important in the Region. In 2007, the shing sector in the region contributed up to 10% of GDPbut these contributions excluded postharvest activities. Fishing sector GDP estimates for countries, with sh processing and transshipment activities, are likely to substantially underestimate the economic importance of the broader sheries sector. Contributions of the shing sector to GDP between 1999 and 2007 increased due to both higher sh production and landed value of the catch. Coastal Resources: Reaching the Limits. Stagnation of coastal sheries production in most countries of the region has major implications for local income and nutrition levels, as well as for government sheries agencies
Executive Summary xxxiii
many of which are oriented to developing coastal shery potential. The situation may require their fundamental reorientation to include a strong emphasis on safeguarding the existing food and jobs from the coastal zone. Determining production levels of coastal sheries deserves more attention because these sheries have the greatest direct eect on the lives of Pacic islanders. A promising way that would serve several purposes is to improve the conduct of HIES through cooperation of sheries and HIES specialists in an initiative to improve the applicability of HIES to the sheries sector. Subsidies: Hidden Costs of Benets. As noted, sheries-related subsidies in the region, while not necessarily all bad, suer from lack of transparency and lack of an exit strategy. Discussions of subsidies are not common in the sheries and aquaculture literature of the region. Further investigation could result in any subsidies being more eectively applied, or alternatively, it could point to more eective uses of public funds. Schemes that subsidize various aspects of sheries should be regularly analyzed by individuals external to the subsidy program to determine if the objectives of the subsidy are being achieved, if there is a favorable costbenet ratio of the subsidy, and if alternative mechanisms could be more appropriate or eective than the subsidy.
Improving Management. Given the huge economic gains that can be made through improved management of tuna sheries, changes in tuna sheries management should be considered. The specic nature of these changes should be the subject of future studies. Reducing Fuel Costs. Fuel price uctuations in recent years have aected domestic coastal sheries. Policy options that combine technical measures with eorts to improve competitive and ecient sourcing of fuel could be considered. Temporary adjustments of taxation and excise on fuel could also be considered.
Aquaculture: Improving the Track Record. The contribution of aquaculture to the economies of the region, although presently small, could be increased. Suggestions to improve both national and regional aquaculture potential are (i) to regularly evaluate the eectiveness of the development models being pursued, especially if the model has resulted in limited success over many years; and (ii) to analyze periodically the net benets and potential of aquaculture development initiatives. Economic Analysis: Ensuring Objectivity. The economic analysis of benets from the sheries sector should ensure that the analytical work on
xxxiv Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
specic subsectors is completely independent of individuals involved in promoting that subsector. An independent analysis of subsidies, as discussed earlier, is also important. Promoting the Fisheries Sector: Where Are the Champions? Measuring the sheries contribution to the economies of Pacic island countries could be improved markedly by closer liaison between sheries and statistics agencies. The sheries agencies are in a position to provide information on new developments, technical insights, and recent dataall of which could improve the measurement of sheries benets. This cooperation, however, rarely occurs in the Pacic island countries. Because sheries agencies have a vested interest in assuring that the importance of their sector is not underestimated, they should take the lead in improving this cooperation. The sector is also underemphasized in the region at present, despite its critical importance in many Pacic islands. Inuential persons to act as champions should be encouraged to publicize the value of a countrys sheries; a satellite account would be an invaluable tool in such an eort.
PaRT A
Introduction
Study Considerations and Denitions
Scope
This study updates and expands on the 2001 study on The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacic Island Countries. The focus of that study was the contribution of shing to gross domestic product (GDP). It provided an independent estimate of that contribution. In the present study, the scope is expanded to include Pacic island territories, aquaculture, and freshwater sheries, and some important factors likely to aect the ow of benets from sheries in the future. Included are (i) country information on specic topics (sheries production, contribution to GDP, and others), (ii) a discussion of important regional topics (e.g., the regional signicance of access and exports of shery products), (iii) some important features of the benets from sheries that have emerged from this study, and (iv) major factors that inuence the ow of benets from sheries. An important dierence between this present publication and the 2001 report concerns prices. In this report, except where otherwise noted, sh prices given are the prices paid to the producereither dockside prices, prices at rst sale, or (for aquaculture and subsistence shing) farm-gate prices. For oshore shing, an analogous system is used in which the readily available world market prices for the concerned shery commodities are discounted by an amount to cover transport of the commodities to those markets. In other words, it uses a pricing system that closely reects the in-zone valuean important consideration in periods of high fuel costs.
Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
In most cases, prices for the production from oshore shing are based on those given in a study by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) (FFA 2008). Where information judged to be more accurate is available (i.e., data from the American and French territories), the more precise source is used. Unless otherwise stated, all GDP values are expressed in current market prices. The valuing of subsistence sheries production requires special attention. Several methods could be used to assign a monetary value to subsistence production, including (i) farm-gate pricing (used in this report), (ii) value of calories produced, (iii) opportunity cost of labor, or (iv) reservation price of labor. Farm-gate pricing uses the market price of the product less the cost of getting that product to market. This means that the value of own consumption is equivalent to the price the product could be sold for in the market, less the cost of getting the product to market. The approach assumes that the amount of subsistence production would have little or no eect on the market price if it were to be marketed. While each of these valuation methods has its advantages and disadvantages, there are practical issues that determine which method is best used. In this report, the farm-gate pricing method was used, as recommended by the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC) in the publication, A Guide to Estimating the Value of Household Non-Market Production in the Pacic Island Developing Countries (Bain 1996).
Study Area
In reference to the sheries of the Pacic island region, there is often uncertainty over the geographical area involved. It could range in size from the entire western and central Pacic Ocean (WCPO) to the coastal waters of the countries of the region. In this report, the region consists of the internal waters and 200-mile zones of the 22 Pacic island countries and territories plus the international waters in the tropical areas covered by the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). This can be seen within the wider WCPFC area covered in Figure 1.1. Summary details of the geography and populations of the Pacic island countries are given in Table 1.1.
For simplicity, the term Pacic island countries and territories is shortened to countries in the remainder of this report, except where they are discussed separately.
Figure 1.1: Area Covered by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
Source: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.
Table 1.1: The 22 Pacific Island Countries and Territories

Land Area (square kilometer) 180 702 18,376 726 720 21 258 500 461,690 2,934 29,785 696 26
b
Country or Territory Cook Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Islands Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Pacific Island Territories American Samoa French Polynesia Guam New Caledonia Northern Mariana Islands Pitcairn Islands Tokelau Wallis and Futuna
a b
Area of 200-Mile Zone (square kilometer) 1,830,000 2,978,000 1,290,000 3,550,000 2,131,000 320,000 390,000 629,000 3,120,000 120,000 1,340,000 700,000 900,000 680,000 390,000 5,030,000 218,000 1,740,000 1,823,000 800,000 290,000 300,000
Estimated Populationa (July 2007) 15,473 109,999 834,278 93,707 52,701 9,930 1,587 20,162 6,332,751 179,478 503,918 102,264 9,701 227,146 65,029 260,072 173,995 242,561 64,050 54 1,170 15,369
Independent Pacific Island Countries
12,189 197 3,521 549 19,103 475 5 12 124
From the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2008a). The fish catches made in the Mathew/Hunter area (claimed by both Vanuatu and New Caledonia) are not included in this report.
Sources: Gillett and Preston (1997), SPC (2008a).
Definitions
This study places sh harvests in the Pacic islands in six production categories. By using a classifying scheme that focuses on the fate of the catch (rather than on type of shing), many of the diculties that arise in classifying sheries
(e.g., the indistinct boundary between subsistence and small-scale commercial sheries) are avoided. The categories are: Coastal subsistence. The catch that is retained for consumption by the sher or given away to family or friends. For simplicity, catches from recreational shing are also included. Coastal commercial. The catch that is sold and that comes from shing operations in lagoons, reefs, deep slopes, and shallow seas. This category also includes sh caught by trolling and/or handlining from small vessels in the open sea adjacent to islands. Oshore locally based. The catch from industrial-scale tuna shing operations that (i) are based at a port in the Pacic islands, and (ii) are generally from more than 12 nautical miles oshore. McCoy (1991) further denes industrial shing as those operations that ooad the catch primarily to a sh plant or processing facility. Oshore foreign-based. The catch from industrial-scale tuna shing operations that are based at ports outside the Pacic islands. Aquaculture. The production from the farming of aquatic organisms, including sh, mollusks, crustaceans, and aquatic plants. Farming implies an intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding, or protection from predators (FAO 1997). Freshwater. The catch from streams, rivers, and lakes, whether for subsistence or for commercial purposes.
Some additional terminology clarications are as follows: In this report, shing is considered as the harvesting of aquatic animals and plants, and includes aquaculture, unless otherwise stated. Similarly, sheries is considered to be an inclusive term and includes aquaculture and postharvest activities. For GDP purposes, the economic sector is shing rather than the more inclusive sheries. In this report, the term sheries sector includes the shing sector plus postharvest activities. Fish is dened (as in the legislation of most Pacic island countries) to be aquatic living organisms and the term includes invertebrates
Commercial sport shing (i.e., the activities of charter boats) is not covered in this report because data on this activity were found for one country only.
and plants. To emphasize the narrower denition of sh, the term nsh is used. The phrase information not readily available used in this report means that the information may exist, but could not be located despite intensive searching by the consultant for several days in country and as opportunities arose over a period of several months.
National Accounts, GDP, and Fishing

National accounts are an accounting framework used to measure the current economic activity in a country. Most of the countries in the Pacic publish national accounts. The method used in each country is generally based on a standardized System of National Accounts (SNA) that was originally introduced by the United Nations in 1953. The SNA has since been revised, rened, and was republished in 1993 (SNA 1993). It is currently being modied and is likely to be published again in 2009 or 2010. For this present study, no major changes that will have an impact on the shing sector are anticipated in the revision, and as SNA (1993) is current at the time of writing, that version is used here. In practice, while the methods used to construct national accounts are based on a standardized system, there are dierent approaches that can be used and the quality of the data available can vary signicantly. There may be substantial dierences in the methods used by each country, so care should be exercised when making cross-country comparisons. In a few cases, the methods used in a country have changed; hence, comparisons over time for those countries should also be approached with caution. Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) gave considerable attention to points in SNA (1993) that are especially important to the shing sector, reproduced as Appendix 1. In brief, these are: Fishing versus Fisheries. The sector according to SNA is shing, rather than the more inclusive sheries. Postharvest activities, including sh processing, are not included in the shing sector; they are generally counted in manufacturing and other sectors. Both aquaculture and subsistence shing are considered by SNA to be components of the shing sector. Unless otherwise

Much of this section is taken directly from Gillett and Lightfoot (2001). A more comprehensive description of national accounting is covered in most macroeconomic textbooks. In addition, the supporting document to the System of National Accounts (SNA) 1993 provides a comprehensive description of the procedures and conventions used in preparing national accounts.
stated, this report follows the SNA conventionand for GDP purposes, the sector is shing and does not include any postharvest activities. Residency. The nature and extent of residency is a core concept of the SNA. It denes what shall be counted as domestic product. For goods and services to be included in the GDP of a particular country, a resident of that country must produce them. A resident is an individual or enterprise whose center of economic interest is within the country. The residency concept is especially important in several Pacic island countries that have locally based foreign longliners, or that have purse seiners that sh in the zones of other countries. For one country covered in this study, a careful interpretation of SNA residency rules resulted in the consultants estimate of shing contribution to GDP that was about 60 times that of the gure calculated by the national statistics agency. Weaknesses of the GDP concept. It must be kept in mind that GDP is an estimate of economic activity; it is seldom a precise calculation. Even though the SNA sets out fairly straightforward procedures, in practice, the analyst is usually confronted with many uncertainties. Another diculty is that GDP is an imperfect indicator of the ow of economic benets from economic activity. This can be quite important in countries where, according to SNA, locally based foreign shing is part of the local economy but where much of the prots are remitted overseas. The net eect of shing on economic activity, the multiplier eect (Appendix 2) can give more information than GDP contribution, but in practice can be dicult to calculate. Appendix 3 contains guidelines for calculating the shing contribution to GDP. It gives some overall considerations, general information on valueadded ratios (VARs), VARs determined from 22 shery studies in the Pacic islands, and the VARs used in this report for 14 categories of sheries and aquaculture.
Structure of the Report

In the following chapters, information on benets from sheries is provided for each Pacic island economy. These chapters contain the most recent and readily available data on recent annual shery harvests: quantities and values covering the six shery production categories: (i) coastal commercial shing,
(ii) coastal subsistence shing, (iii) locally based oshore shing, (iv) foreign-based oshore shing, (v) freshwater shing, and (vi) aquaculture; shing contribution to GDP: the current shing contribution, how it was calculated, and a production approach recalculation based on annual harvests obtained during the study; shery exports: amounts, types, and the share in all exports; government revenue from the sheries sector: access fees and other revenues; sheries employment; and sheries contribution to nutrition.
The information presented generally covers the period since the 2001 study but in some cases there have not been any new data. Most often, employment and nutrition lacked new data. For most areas listed above, the country sections simply cite and summarize existing studies. In all countries, considerable analysis and, in some cases speculation bordering on guesswork were required to determine the amounts and values of recent annual sheries harvests in the six production categories. The 14 Independent Pacic island countries are listed rst, followed by the eight Pacic island territories. There is also a section on shery harvests in the seven bodies of international water in the CWPO. Features of regional production and value and how they have changed in the past decade are also outlined, followed by discussion of the absolute and relative benetsand their measurementto the various countries and territories. The implications for both shers and the resources of climate change and changes in fuel costs are summarized. Finally, attention is drawn to several aspects related to sheries benets and some recommendations oered. Appendixes give additional details on the previous (2001) study, national accounting and methods of calculating contributions to GDP, and the eects of climate change and changing energy costs on the sheries sector in the Pacic.
PART B
Fishery Benets in the Independent Pacic Island Countries
Cook Islands
Source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community.
Fish Production
Coastal Commercial Catches
Annual commercial sheries production, based on data from late 1980s and early 1990s, was estimated at 124 tons (t) valued at $314,761 (Dalzell et al. 1996). In 2000, commercial production consisted of an estimated 80 t of
12 Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories
food sh valued at NZ$650,000; pearls at NZ$18.4 million; aquarium sh at NZ$252,000; and trochus at NZ$200,000, according to senior ocials of the Ministry of Marine Resources (MMR). An estimate for the late 1990s was 80 t for coastal commercial shing and pearl farming (together worth NZ$19.5 million) (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). A 2007 study showed that the annual catch from the sh-aggregationdevice (FAD) shery by subsistence and semi-commercial shers in recent years averaged 2050 t, with 49.3 t caught in 2007 (MMR 2008). Average price of whole sh at the domestic market was around $8/kilogram (kg). Assuming that one-third of the 49.3 t was sold and the farm-gate pricing for subsistence catches was applied, then production can be estimated as a commercial catch of 16.4 t valued at NZ$131,280 and subsistence catch of 32.8 t valued at NZ$183,680. The report noted that, although the information was the best available, the data (especially the FAD catches) may not be very accurate (I. Bertram, personal communication, January 2009). The MMR study also reported that 300500 t of commercial and subsistence catches were harvested annually from inshore sheries (i.e., reef sh and shellsh). In 2007, the main semi-commercial inshore sheries of trochus, parrotsh, and live reef sh had mixed performances. No trochus harvest was reported in 2007, 18 t of parrotsh were marketed in Rarotonga at NZ$12/kg, and 1,5001,600 aquarium sh worth NZ$54,000 were exported. Assuming that one-third of the inshore catch was sold, the market price was NZ$9/kg, and that farm-gate pricing could be applied to subsistence production, there would be a commercial production of about 133 t valued at about NZ$1.4 million and a subsistence production of about 267 t worth NZ$1.7 million. The Cook Islands household expenditure survey in FY2006 showed a total expenditure of NZ$5,091,700 on sh including shellsh (Statistics Oce 2007). Unpublished data supplied by the SPC Statistics and Demography Programme provided additional information on coastal commercial and/or subsistence production (Table 2.1). Table 2.1 suggests that in FY2006, commercial sheries production was 139 t and subsistence production was 239 t. To obtain an estimate of coastal commercial production, some adjustments need to be made for expenditure on sh from oshore shing and for the export of aquarium sh. The household expenditure survey concluded that the estimates of coastal sheries production are reasonably close to those of the MMR report. The studies give similar results for coastal commercial sheries (within 7%) and for subsistence sheries (within 20%). Indications exist that production from small-scale sheries in the Cook Islands has fallen in recent years. The population in the predominantly sh-
Cook Islands 13
Table 2.1: Fishery Production Information from the Household Expenditure Survey (kg)
Bought Product Tuna Flying fish Frozen fish Other fresh and/or frozen fish Paua Mussels Octopus and/or squids Crabs Seaweed Kina Smoked fish Snapper Other shellfish Total
kg = kilogram. Source: Unpublished household expenditure survey data.
Caught Total 45,247 1,329 4,369 Rural 43,287 545 0 Urban 22,069 412 693 Total 65,356 957 693 Rural 52,606 1,181 0
Total Urban Total
Rural 9,319 636 0 10,287 1,947 144 0 1,399 1,604 0 0 0 458
Urban 35,928 693 4,369 32,429 7,784 9,799 6,937 8,026 542 0 262 3,354 3,469
57,998 110,603 1,105 5,062 2,286 5,062
42,716 106,949 9,731 9,943 6,937 9,425 2,146 0 262 3,354 3,928 12,165 49 3,851 5,721 1,008 0 59 33 1,246
30,703 137,652 117,235 3,410 0 6,528 0 249 207 0 0 116 15,575 49 10,379 5,721 1,256 207 59 33 1,362 14,112 193 3,851 7,120 2,611 0 59 33 1,704
63,133 180,368 11,194 9,799 13,465 8,026 791 207 262 3,354 3,586 25,306 9,992 17,316 15,146 3,402 207 321 3,387 5,290
25,792 113,594 139,386 174,913
64,387 239,300 200,705 177,981 378,686
eating outer islands has decreased, while sh consumption in the expanding Rarotonga population has been tempered by a ciguatera outbreak a few years ago. Movement of sh from the outer islands to Rarotonga has been constrained by a recent decrease in capacity of local cargo vessels. For the purpose of this study, the annual production from coastal commercial sheries in the Cook Islands in the mid-2000s was estimated at 133 t valued at about NZ$1.4 million.
Coastal Subsistence Catches

The annual subsistence catch was estimated at 858 t valued at $3,047,683 based on data from late 1980s and early 1990s (Dalzell et al. 1996). The estimate for 2000 was 795 t valued at about NZ$2 million (MMR 2001). Following the analysis above that used more recent data together with earlier information, it is estimated that annual production from coastal
subsistence sheries in the Cook Islands in the mid-2000s was 267 t valued at NZ$1.7 million.
Locally Based Offshore Catches

The Cook Islands has two sub-eets participating in oshore shing. Vessels operating north of 15 south latitude target albacore tuna and unload at canneries in Pago Pago, American Samoa. Vessels operating in the southern part of the zone set shallower, targeting swordsh and other associated species either for export or for sale at the local market. Some 35 longline vessels and 1 troll vessel were licensed to sh in the (Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)) area in 2007, with the majority of the longline vessels concentrating their eorts at the Cook Islands exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Anon 2008a). Estimates of catches and values of the four main commercial species of tuna in the WCPFC area were made by the FFA (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. Bycatch, although it is an important component of locally based oshore longline sheries, was not included. Table 2.2 gives the FFA (2008) tuna catch estimates modied to include bycatch, as noted in the table. The catch values given in FFA (2008) cannot be used in estimating total value due to the atypical marketing channels for the sh from Cook Islands longlining. The following alternative data appear more reliable: The catch in the northern (i.e., Manihiki, Rakahanga, and Penrhyn) shery was valued at NZ$7.68 million in 2006 and NZ$5.54million in 2007 (MMR 2008).
Table 2.2: Catches by Cook Islands Offshore Vessels (t)

2002 Longline tuna catcha Troll tuna catch Total catch
t = ton.
a
2003 2,462 688 3,889
2004 3,343 528 4,874
2005 3,247 212 4,433
2006 2,972 254 4,118
2007 2,819 254 3,919
769 166 1,166
The longline catch was increased by 30% to include bycatch.
Source: Modified from Forum Fisheries Agency (2008).
Because these vessels are registered in the Cook Islands and sh predominantly in Cook Islands waters, they are considered in this report to be oshore locally based.
Cook Islands 15
Using the partition in catch between the northern and southern sheries given in MMR (2008) and marketing information in Philipson (2006), the dockside value of the catch in the southern shery is estimated to be NZ$2.34 million in 2006 and NZ$1.64million in 2007. The value of the oshore troll shery was $679,088 (NZ$1,045,796) in 2006 and $494,792 (NZ$672,917) in 2007 (FFA 2008).
From the above, the total value of all three eets is estimated to be NZ$11.1 million in 2006 and NZ$7.85 million in 2007.
Foreign-Based Offshore Catches

In this study, oshore vessels registered in the Cook Islands that sh mainly Cook Islands waters from either Rarotonga or Pago Pago are considered locally based. The only foreign vessels authorized to sh in the Cook Islands zone are purse seiners shing under the United States (US) multilateral treaty. Unpublished US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) public domain data show the following catches made in recent years by US purse seiners in the waters of the Cook Islands, during licensing period: June 2006June 2007: June 2005June 2006: June 2004June 2005: June 2003June 2004: 7.5 t 45.4 t 0.0 t 0.0 t
FFA (2008) data indicate that the values of these catches, by calendar year, were as follows: 2003: 2004: 2005: 2006: 2007: $0 $4,166 $110,309 $15,621 $0
Freshwater Catches
A signicant catch of eels on Mitiaro was reported, tilapia are commonly caught on many islands, and apart from the introduced giant freshwater
prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), six species of freshwater prawns were recorded (FFA 1993). However, the Secretary of Marine Resources believes that M. rosenbergii is no longer present in the Cook Islands; the prawns did not establish a permanent population due to the small river systems (I. Bertram, personal communication, January 2009). For the purpose of the present study, it is estimated that annual freshwater shery production in the mid-2000s was 5 t valued at NZ$50,000.
Aquaculture Harvests
Pearls harvested in 2005 were just above 100,000; in 2006, about 190,000; and 186,725 in 2007, with 89% of the harvest from Manihiki and 11% from Rakahanga. The gross farm-gate value of the pearl harvest in 2007 was estimated to be NZ$3 million (MMR 2008). Apart from pearl culture, aquaculture production in the Cook Islands is small and limited to subsistence and semi-commercial production of tilapia, milksh, and clams. In 2007, 36,000 tilapia fry were imported by the MMR for a trial with a sh farmer in Rarotonga. After 8 months, the rst harvest was around 8,400 tilapia with an average weight of 160250 grams (MMR 2008). The Secretary of Marine Resources (I. Bertram, personal communication, January 2009) stated that the tilapia farm operator harvests about 70150 sh weekly, depending on demand from the previous week. The MMR hatchery produced 3,058 live giant clams in 2007. Some 1,858 were exported for the aquarium trade, up from 320 juvenile clams in 2006. An additional 1,200 clams were transferred to Rarotonga for the construction of coral gardens for tourists. The average price per clam was NZ$3.40 at the farm gate (MMR 2008). The Secretary of Marine Resources (I. Bertram, personal communication, January 2009) indicated that the hatcherys production had increased since 2007. About 40,000 clams were produced in a one-month period in late 2008. Anecdotal information suggests that milksh stocks are relatively abundant in the northern islands, but low in Mitiaro. A small milksh harvest was made in 2007 from a research growth trial on Rarotonga (MMR 2008). The data are summarized in Table 2.3. For the purpose of the present study, it is estimated that aquaculture production in 2007 was about 190,000 pieces and 3 t worth about NZ$3.04 million.

This apparently includes the value of pearl shell. The Secretary of Marine Resources believes that a milksh population was never established on Mitiaro.
Cook Islands 17
Table 2.3: Aquaculture Production in the Cook Islands, 2007

Product Pearl and pearl shell Tilapia Giant clam Milkfish
kg = kilogram, NZ$ = New Zealand dollar. Source: Consultants estimates.
Production 186,725 pearls plus shell 1,680 kg 3,058 pieces not available
Value (NZ$) 3,000,000 16,680 10,397 not available
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, an approximation of the annual catches and values of the shery and aquaculture harvests in 2007 can be made (Table 2.4).
Table 2.4: Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvests in the Cook Islands, 2007
Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore locally based Offshore foreign-based Freshwater Aquaculture (pieces and weight) Total
NZ$ = New Zealand dollar, t = ton. Source: Consultants estimates.
Quantity (t) 133 267 3,939 0 5 190,000 pieces plus 3 190,000 pieces plus 4,347
Value (NZ$) 1,400,000 1,700,000 7,850,000 0 50,000 3,040,000 14,040,000
Contribution of Fishing to GDP

Current Official Contribution
A summary of the national accounts of the Cook Islands is given in Statistics Oce (2008). Sta of the Statistics Oce kindly provided a disaggregation of the agriculture and shing component, from which the shing contribution

The values in the table are dockside and/or farm-gate prices.
Table 2.5: Cook Islands GDP and Fishing Contribution (NZ$000)

Item GDP Fishing contribution to GDP Share of fishing in GDP (%) 2001 13,528 2002 15,610 2003 20,411 2004 17,640 2005 18,125 2006 16,752 2007 18,113 205,679 220,550 246,038 258,428 261,347 277,649 286,711
6.6
7.1
8.3
6.8
6.9
6.0
6.3
GDP = gross domestic product, NZ$ = New Zealand dollar. Sources: Statistics Office (2008) and unpublished data of the Statistics Office.
to GDP was determined (Table 2.5). Discussions with Statistics Oce sta conrmed that shing includes subsistence, small-scale commercial, locally based oshore, and aquaculture (T. Tangimetua, personal communication, October 2008).
Method Used to Calculate the Official Fishing Contribution to GDP

Sta of the Statistics Oce provided the following details on the method used to calculate the shing contribution to GDP: In 2004, the Statistics Oce began working closely with the MMR. To determine the value added from subsistence shing, the Statistics Oce uses data from MMR and from household surveys. Statistics Oce sta believe that the latter uses a better sampling strategy. For small-scale commercial shing, the data are from surveys of incorporated businesses. For large-scale shing, the data are from MMR and prices from the canneries in Pago Pago. For pearl culture, free on board (FOB) export values are used as the value added.
Given the level of detail available, only limited comment can be made on the methodology. It is likely that surveys of incorporated businesses may miss small-scale commercial shing operations. If the value added for pearl culture is taken to be simply the FOB value of the product, then errors are introduced by not considering intermediate consumption and by not using farm-gate values. These two problems may also apply to the value-added calculations for other forms of Cook Islands shing.
Cook Islands 19
Alternative Estimate of Fishing Contribution to GDP

Table 2.6 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in the Cook Islands. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing/aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 2.4 above. This approach also determines the value added by using value-added ratios (VARs) characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and use of previous studies (Appendix 3). It is not intended that the approach in Table 2.6 replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly on a need for modication. Table 2.6 was constructed using the gross value of production in 2007 for only the Rarotonga component of the oshore eet (given in the section Locally Based Oshore Catches). The gross value of production for longliners based in Pago Pago is not included because those vessels have their base of operations in another country. The other values of production are the general mid-2000s values determined in earlier sections. The 2007 shing contribution to GDP of NZ$4,011,000 is considerably less than the ocial shing contribution to GDP of NZ$18,113,000 in Table2.5. Two possible reasons for the large dierence are (i) the use of the gross value of production from each type of shing as the value added (i.e., not subtracting the intermediate consumption), and (ii) inclusion of the activities of oshore shing vessels that are not based in the country.
Table 2.6: Fishing Contribution to GDP in 2007 Using an Alternative Approach
Gross Value of Production (NZ$, from Table 2.4) 1,400,000 1,700,000 1,640,000 50,000 3,040,000
Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore Rarotongabased Freshwater Aquaculture Total
Value- Added Ratio 0.65 0.80 0.20 0.90 0.45
Value Added (NZ$) 910,000 1,360,000 328,000 45,000 1,368,000 4,011,000
GDP = gross domestic product, NZ$ = New Zealand dollar. Source: See Production section of this report.
Export of Fishery Products

Fishery product exports are compared to total exports in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7: Fishery and Other Exports (NZ$000)
Product Live fish Fish, fresh or chilled Pearls Pearl shells Total fishery product exports Total exports Share of fishery products in total exports (%)
NZ$ = New Zealand dollar. Source: Statistics Office (2008).
2003 281 8,258 2,843 49 11,431 78.4
2004 135 2,898 3,177 37 6,247 58.0
2005 111 3,381 1,646 3 5,141 7,417 69.3
2006 141 1,066 2,044 3 3,254 5,420 60.0
2007 62 3,129 2,129 278 5,598 7,052 79.4
14,588 10,771
MMR (2008) commented on the exports of the important shery commodities, as follows: The total value of fresh or chilled sh exports for 2007 rose by 195% to NZ$3.14 million compared to $1.06 million in 2006 due to a large shipment to the Peoples Republic of China in the third quarter of the year. That market in 2007 accounted for around 80%90% of the total value of sh exports, with the remaining 10%20% to Japan. In addition to exports to these two markets, a trial shipment of tuna loin of around 33 t was exported to New Zealand in the fourth quarter of 2007. The estimated value of catch in 2007 from the northern shery ooaded in American Samoa for canning fell 29% from NZ$7.68million in 2006 to NZ$5.54 million. An overall drop in total catch, coupled with a weak US dollar, drove down the value of catch from the shery. The strong New Zealand dollar and low pearl production continued to dampen export returns despite world pearl prices recovering in recent years. New Zealand, Australia, and Japan remained the main markets for pearls, although there had been a sharp increase in exports to the US, buoyed by a growing pearl jewelry market. Around 1,858 live juvenile clams, mainly Tridacna derasa, were supplied for export to the aquarium trade, up from 320 in 2006.
Cook Islands 21
The main export markets for live reef sh are the US and Japan. In 2007, the value of live sh exports totaled NZ$54,000, dropping to 62% from NZ$141,000 in 2006.
Government Revenue from Fisheries

Access Fees for Foreign Fishing
The only foreign shing vessels authorized to sh in the waters of the Cook Islands in recent years are US purse seiners. Under the terms of the US multilateral tuna treaty, the Cook Islands and other Pacic island countries receive payments from the US government and the US tuna industry that are associated with shing access by US purse seine vessels. Some Pacic island countries consider that all payments under the US treaty are for shing access, while others treat some components as aid. Table 2.8 gives the payments to the Cook Islands in recent years. These payments represent about 0.4% of the total crown receipts of NZ$86.0 million listed in the FY2008 budget estimate (Maoate 2008).
Other Government Revenue from Fisheries

The other signicant sources of direct government revenue from sheries activities are license fees for domestic oshore vessels. According to the
Table 2.8: Payments to the Cook Islands from the US Tuna Treaty
Licensing Period June 2003June 2004 June 2004June 2005 June 2005June 2006 June 2006June 2007
PDF = Project Development Fund.
a The 15% shares ($2,042,050.92 in 2008) are shared equally between all countries that are parties to the treaty. b The 85% shares ($14,273,117.87 in 2008) are apportioned to countries based on where the catch by US vessels is made. These amounts in the table are zero because US seiners have not attempted to fish in the Cook Islands in over 20 years. c
15% Shares a 147,357.28 147,310.43 147,209.70 145,860.78
85% Shares b 0.00 0.00 12,350.57 2,378.62
PDF Shares c 111,125.00 111,125.00 111,125.00 111,125.00
Total ($) 258,482.28 258,435.43 270,685.27 259,364.40
The PDF shares ($1,555,750.00 in 2008) are shared equally between all countries that are parties to the treaty for project development work. Source: National Marine Fisheries Service (of the United States) unpublished public domain data.
In the table, the amounts listed are as though all fees are for access.
MMR licensing ocer, these fees in recent years were as follows: FY2006, NZ$95,000; FY2007, NZ$110,000; and FY2008, NZ$220,000 (J. Marurai, personal communication, October 2008).
Employment
Following are some general features of employment in the Cook Islands relevant to the sheries sector (ADB 2008a): Expanding tourism and rising household spending have reduced unemployment on the main island of Rarotonga to low levels. Rising numbers of foreign workers are required to meet the needs of the islands expanding private sector. The Cook Islands has, by far, the highest wages of any independent Pacic island country. Employment in agriculture and sheries dropped from about 30% of the labor force in early 1980s to less than 5% in 2001. Pearl farming is the major area of private sector employment in the outer islands.
The Cook Islands 2001 Census of Population and Dwellings had a limited amount of information specically on sheries employment. Of the employed population recorded in the census (5,928 people), 427 (7.2%) indicated they were employed in agriculture and shing. Of those people, 183 were on Rarotonga (Statistics Oce 2003). The employment situation in subsistence shing was very dierent between Rarotonga and the outer islands. A recent SPC survey on Mangaia indicated that almost all households (92%) were engaged in sheries with an average of 1 to 2 shers each. In total, there were 309 shers on Mangaia, including 148 women and 161 men. One-third (111) of all shers were men exclusively catching nsh and about another third (101) were women exclusively harvesting invertebrates. The remaining shers were doing both (Kronen and Solomona 2008a). A similar SPC survey on Rarotonga showed that less than half of all households (44%) were engaged in sheries, with an average of one sher per two households. These gures also included sport shers and households having a motorized boat used for weekend trolling outside the outer reef. About half (155) of all shers were predominantly men targeting nsh. About a quarter of the shers (69) were women exclusively harvesting invertebrates. The remaining shers were doing both (Kronen and Solomona 2008b).
Study Considerations and Denitions 23
ADB (2008a) described the pearl farm employment situation on Manihiki and Rakahanga as follows: The Manihiki pearl farm workforce in 2000 consisted of household members and others. In the former category were 103 pearl farm operators working an average of 15 hours/week, 32 paid workers working an average of 34 hours/week, and 90 unpaid workers working an average of 9 hours/week. In the other category were 37 paid workers and 13 unpaid workers. Workers were mainly men: 203 compared with 72 women. The average wage for paid laborers was NZ$435/month, with 1 in 5 workers receiving free housing and/or food. Of the 103 pearl farm operators, 24 respondents indicated that they derived all their income from the pearl farm, 13 derived half to three-quarters, and 38 derived one-quarter to one-third. The Rakahanga pearl farm workforce in 2000 included among household members 11 pearl farm operators working an average of 6hours/week and 17 unpaid workers working an average of 8hours/week. One other paid worker worked 30 hours/week and another was unpaid. Of the workers, 29 were males and 1 female. The average wage for paid labor was NZ$125/month. Free food and/or housing were provided to two workers.
The Secretary of Marine Resources oered an alternate view on the Rakahanga pearl farm workforce in 2000. He indicated that there was actually one community farm with mainly unpaid workers (the farm was to raise funds for the church). Most of the work was done on a very informal basis and, therefore, dicult to quantify (I. Bertram, personal communication, January 2009). Recent information (R. Newnham, personal communication, October 2008) indicates there were only 32 active pearl farms in the Cook Islands in October 2008. It is likely that present employment related to pearl farming is considerably less than that described above for 2000. The numbers of small-scale commercial operators, mainly trolling and midwater shing around FADs for tunas and other pelagic sh, were as follows: Rarotonga, 20 full-time and 2025 part-time; and Aitutaki, 5 fulltime and 1015 part-time. There were also several hundred operators in the outer islands shing around FADs at a subsistence level (Chapman 2004). Employment in oshore tuna shing in recent years is shown in Table2.9. Barclay and Cartwright (2007) observed that the early aspirations for the employment of Cook Islanders in the tuna industry, particularly on shing vessels, were not fullled. The Cook Islands has a labor shortage: there
Table 2.9: Employment in the Tuna Industry

Item Local jobs on vessels Local jobs in shore facilities Total
Source: Gillett (2008).
2002 50 15 65
2006 15 15 30
2008 12 10 22
is not the unemployment problem that exists in other Pacic island countries, such as the Fiji Islands, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands. Work on shing vessels is physically hard; some vessels stay out shing for months at a time and the pay is not high for ordinary crew. Cook Islanders have taken up employment opportunities on some of the small vessels operating from Rarotonga that do not stay out at sea, and in processing facilities.
Fish Consumption
Annual per capita consumption of sh on Tongareva Island was estimated at 219.0 kg (Passeld 1997). For the whole Cook Islands, it was estimated at 63.2 kg in 1995, based on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) data on production, imports, and exports (Preston 2000). Another national estimate around that time was 47.0 kg (MMR 2000). For Rarotonga, surveys showed per capita daily seafood consumption to be 317.7 g in1989 and 270.7 g in 2001 (on an annual basis, 115.9 kg and 98.8 kg, respectively) (Tuatai 2001). Another survey, in September 2006 (Moore 2006), indicated a further decline to 176 g per capita per day in 200610 (64.2 kg/year). The decrease in nsh consumption was attributed to many factors, including ciguatera, marine protected areas (MPAs), changes in the lifestyle of residents, and the high cost of nsh as opposed to meat products. Where lagoon and reef species were consumed, they were generally received from the outer islands. SPC carried out some recent studies in the Cook Islands that allow seafood consumption in Rarotonga to be compared to other islands in the country. Table 2.10 gives the results from Rarotonga and Mangaia.

Discussions with the author indicate that the per capita consumption was a mixture of whole sh weight equivalent and food weight (T. Tuatai, personal communication, October 2008). The text of the report is not clear whether the per capita consumption is whole sh weight equivalent or food weight.
10
Study Considerations and Denitions 25
The major change in sh consumption in Rarotonga during 19982008 was the availability of sh from longliners. The domestic market absorbed around 40%50% of total catch from the longline vessels based in Rarotonga. In 2007, about 120150 t of whole sh equivalent were sold domestically to the tourism industry and the local population on Rarotonga (MMR 2008). A household income and expenditure survey (HIES) in FY2006 showed that for the whole of the Cook Islands, annual per capita sh consumption (whole weight equivalent) was 34.9 kg, of which 81% was fresh sh. For rural areas the gure for per capita consumption of sh was 60.9 kg, and for urban areas, 24.8 kg (Bell et al. 2008).
Table 2.10: Seafood Consumption on Rarotonga and Mangaia
Rarotonga Fresh fish consumed (kg/capita/year) Frequency of fresh fish consumed (times/week) Fresh invertebrates consumed (kg/capita/year) Frequency of fresh invertebrate consumed (times/week) Canned fish consumed (kg/capita/year) Frequency of canned fish consumed (times/week) Mangaia Fresh fish consumed (kg/capita/year) Frequency of fresh fish consumed (times/week) Fresh invertebrates consumed (kg/capita/year) Frequency of fresh invertebrate consumed (times/week) Canned fish consumed (kg/capita/year) Frequency of canned fish consumed (times/week)
Sources: Kronen and Solomona 2008a and 2008b.
31.66 (4.62) 1.85 (0.17) 1.43 (0.61) 0.33 (0.08) 10.88 (2.02) 1.16 (0.19)
65.71 (13.39) 3.16 (0.26) 7.54 (2.05) 0.72 (0.11) 15.05 (3.22) 1.13 (0.19)
Federated States of Micronesia
Fish Production
Annual coastal commercial sheries production for the early 1990s was estimated at 637 t worth $1.5 million (Dalzell et al. 1996), based on information from FFA sheries proles (Smith 1992a) and from a nutritional survey in FY1988 (Elymore et al. 1989). This estimate and four other sources were used to derive an estimate for the late 1990s of 5,000 t worth $14.5million (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). However, an ocial of the FSM governments Department of Resources and Development with substantial sheries experience across FSM felt that the latter was too low (M. Henry, personal communication, October 2008). He cited a 1990s survey in which small-scale sheries production (both commercial and subsistence) was a million pounds per year in Chuuk alone. For Pohnpei Island, total coastal shery production was estimated to be about 1,780 t (75% reef/inshore, 25% pelagic) (Fisheries Engineering
Federated States of Micronesia 27
1995). This was partitioned as subsistence catch (780 t) and commercial catch (1,000 t), of which about 28% was consumed by the commercial shers themselves. An intensive survey carried out in 19982008 concluded that 475 t of reef sh were caught and sold in Pohnpei each year (Rhodes and Tupper 2007; Rhodes et al. 2007), considerably less than the nding of the Fisheries Engineering (1995) survey a decade earlier. However, the results did not include subsistence catch, sh sold to schools and hospitals, or exports (George 2008). Their inclusion leads to an estimated 680 t consumed annually on Pohnpei. Further, neither study covered catches of pelagic sh by coastal sheries, which are made by both trolling and hand-lining in Pohnpei. Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) suggested that pelagic catches represent 25% of the sh from small-scale sheries in FSM. An HIES in 2005 indicated that $23,034,000 was spent on sh and seafood, of which $15,732,000 (66%) were for home produced products and $9,200,000 for those purchasedpresumably, from either local sheries or imported (Statistics Division 2007a). Expenditure in Chuuk (for both home produced and purchased) represented about half of that for all FSM. The results of the HIES suggest that the value of subsistence sh is signicantly greater than that from commercial sheries and imported sh combined. The value of coastal shery exports is shown in Table 3.1. Because Continental freight section is listed as a source of data, the table presumably covers the informal exports as airline passenger baggage. FAO shery export statistics (FAO 2008) do not separate coastal shery exports, but they show an export in 2006 of coral and the like valued at $151,000. The population of FSM increased by 3.2% between 2001 (the period covered by the Gillett and Lightfoot estimate) and 2007. In terms of distribution of population between the states of FSM, 50.1% now live in Chuuk, 32.2% in Pohnpei, 10.5% in Yap, and 7.2% in Kosrae.
Table 3.1: Federated States of Micronesia Coastal Fishery Exports
Item Reef fish Weight (kg) Value ($) Crab/ lobsters Trochus shell Weight (kg) Value ($) Weight (kg) 2000 15,123 2001 20,049 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 21,624 214,335 16,273 152,159 5,630 244,241
75,273 100,823 109,512 733,022 17,097 14,140 22,314 6,142 41,442 0
55,650 520,382 241,421 841,376 3,651 25,369 0 6,311 45,362 2,193 19,831 6,887 39,163 23,714
172,339 177,948 206,480 0 0 9,562
0 135,100
kg = kilogram. Source: Division of Statistics (2008).
The average price received by commercial small-scale shers in Pohnpei was $1.87/kg in 1997, rising to $2.42 in 2006 (Rhodes et al. 2007). Fish were sold by shers in Chuuk during most of the early and/or mid-2000s for $2.20/ kg, and in mid-2008 for $2.97/kg (M. Henry, personal communication, October 2008). Considering the above information, a crude revised estimate of FSM commercial coastal sheries production was made by adjusting the Rhodes estimate for Pohnpei for export and institutional sales (George 2008), for coastal pelagic shing (by ratios from Gillett and Lightfoot [2001]) and for other areas of FSM by ratios of population distribution. This methodology, albeit weak, resulted in an estimate of annual coastal commercial sheries production in FSM in the mid-2000s of about 2,800 t. Assuming a price of $2.70/kg, this production was worth $7,560,000 to the producers.

Subsistence production in early 1990s was estimated at 6,243 t worth $11.2million (Dalzell et al. 1996), and in late 1990s at 5,000 t worth $10 million (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). The 2005 HIES indicated that $15,732,000 of sh was home produced in FSM. At a price of $1.60/kg (70% of the 2005 market price of $2.30), the HIES value equated to about 9,800 t of annual subsistence sheries production worth $15.7 million.

Given the available data, estimation of catches by FSM-based longliners requires the assumption that all catches in the FSM exclusive economic zone (EEZ) by FSM-agged longliners and PRC-agged longliners are by vessels based in FSM, and that these FSM-based vessels sh entirely in the FSM EEZ. Individuals familiar with tuna shing in FSM express the opinion that these assumptions are reasonable (E. Pangelinan and M. McCoy, personal communication, November 2008). Tuna catches in FSM waters by FSM- and PRC-agged longliners are shown in Table 3.2. These catches are modied for bycatch in Table 3.3, which takes the total longline catch of tuna from Table 3.2 and adds 30% for bycatch. It also takes the catch of tuna by FSM seiners from FFA (2008) and increases it by 5% for bycatch.
Table 3.2: Tuna Catches by Locally Based Longliners in Federated States of Micronesia (t)
Vessel Nationality Federated States of Micronesia Peoples Republic of China Total 2003 633 2,925 3,558 2004 379 912 1,291 2005 78 53 131 2006 44 405 449 2007 49 1,020 1,069
Source: National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA) (2008).
Table 3.3: Catches by Locally Based Offshore Vessels in Federated States of Micronesia (t)
Gear type Longline Purse seine Total
t = ton. Sources: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008) and consultants estimates.
2003 4,625 32,911 37,536
2004 1,678 29,700 31,378
2005 170 30,205 30,375
2006 584 10,599 11,183
2007 1,390 14,832 16,222
Table 3.4: Value of Catches by Locally Based Offshore Vessels in the Federated States of Micronesia Zonea ($)
Gear type Longline Purse seine Total
a
2003 25,981,629 9,583,639
2004 10,247,501 20,949,954
2005 1,043,545 21,777,637
2006 3,461,922 7,928,233
2007 8,366,856 15,541,521
35,565,268 31,197,455 22,821,182 11,390,155 23,908,377
Purse seine catch values were reduced by 15% for sea transport to get the catch to those markets (i.e., the value of the catch in Federated States of Micronesia waters). Longline catch values were reduced by 25% for air transport to those markets and increased by 10% to include bycatch sales.
Sources: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008) and consultants estimates.
Table 3.4 places values on the catches in the table above. The values are the destination market values given in FFA (2008), modied for bycatch and shipment costs as shown in the table.

Catches by foreign-based oshore vessels in the FSM zone in 2007 were estimated by taking all catches in the FSM as given in NORMA (2008) less the catches by FSM vessels in the FSM zone as estimated by SPC (unpublished information, 2008b). The tuna catch was then adjusted for bycatch (Table3.5).
Table 3.5: Catches by Offshore-Based Foreign Vessels in the Federated States of Micronesia Zone, 2007 (t)
Tuna Catch by FSM Vessels in FSM Zone 3,356 250 0 3,606 Foreign Tuna Catch in FSM Zone 131,108 4,370 0 135,478 Foreign Total Catch in FSM Zone 137,634 5,681 0 143,315
Type Purse seine Longline Pole and line Total
Total Tuna Catch 134,473 4,620 0 139,093
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, t = ton. Sources: National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA) 2008, and Secretariat of the Pacific Community, unpublished data, 2008b.
Table 3.6: Value of the Foreign Catch in the Federated States of Micronesia Zone, 2007
Type Purse seine Longline Pole and line Total
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, t = ton. Sources: Table 3.5 and Forum Fisheries Agency (2008).
Foreign Total Catch in FSM Zone (t) 137,634 5,681 0 143,315
In-Zone Value ($) 152,085,570 25,110,020 0 177,195,590
The value of the catch in Table 3.5, based on the 2007 destination market prices given in FFA (2008), less 15% for transportation to those markets, are given in Table 3.6.
Freshwater Catches
The larger islands in FSM have freshwater streams and ponds in which freshwater sh and invertebrates are found, including eels, tilapia, and freshwater shrimp. The capture of eels is low due to cultural attitudes. The capture of tilapia is also low because the sh is perceived as an invasive species. Small amounts of freshwater shrimp are eaten. For the purpose of the present study, annual freshwater sheries production in FSM in recent years is estimated to be 1 t worth $8,000.
Presently, the only signicant aquaculture operations in FSM are the culture of giant clams from the government aquaculture facility on Kosrae and black pearls on Nukuoro Atoll. On giant clam aquaculture, unpublished data on the Kosrae facility from the FSMs Department of Resources and Development show the following annual clam sales: $8,000 in 2005, $17,000 in 2006, and $27,000 in 2007. An ocial of the department indicates that these were all sales for export (M. Henry, personal communication, October 2008). The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) gives exports of live clams from FSM as 10,118 in 2005, 13,374 in 2006, and 20,195 in 2007 (CITES 2008). Pearl oysters (Pinctada margaritifera) have been cultured since 1994 on the remote atoll of Nukuoro. The farm is community-based (owned and operated by the municipal council) and has received funding and technical support since its inception. The farm produces black pearls and relies on the collection of wild spat (Lindsay 2002). Discussions in October 2008 with members of the Nukuoro community selling pearls in Pohnpei revealed the following annual pearl harvests on Nukuoro: 3,000 pieces in 2005; none in 2006; 2,000 in 2007; and none in 2008. All the pearls are retailed in Pohnpei. The pearl sellers were unaware of farm-gate prices, but indicated that retail Pohnpei prices ranged from $20 to $480 per pearl. For the purpose of the present study, annual aquaculture production in FSM in recent years is estimated to be 16,000 pieces of clams and pearls valued at $80,000.
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of the shery and aquaculture harvests in 2007 was made11 (Table 3.7). The extremely weak factual basis for the estimates of coastal commercial and coastal subsistence catches should be recognized.
11
The values in the table are dockside/farm-gate prices, except in the case of oshore foreign-based shing where the value in local waters (overseas market prices less imputed transshipment costs) is given.
Table 3.7: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in the Federated States of Micronesia, 2007
Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore locally based Offshore foreign-based Freshwater Aquaculture Total
t = ton. Source: Production tables above and consultant estimates.
Quantity (t) 2,800 9,800 16,222 143,315 1 16,000 pieces 16,000 pieces and 172,138 tons
Value ($) 7,560,000 15,732,000 23,908,377 177,195,590 8,000 80,000 224,483,967

The Statistics Division does not give information on contribution to GDP by sectors, such as sheries. Discussions with present and past sta of the Statistics Division and the Statistics Division data (2007b) indicate that the current GDP methodology is geared toward satisfying the requirements of the Compact of Free Association; and it is not necessarily the most appropriate methodology for the country. In theory, shing by companies would be covered by information from social security and tax records while subsistence shing would be covered by the HIES. Fishing carried out by small-scale commercial shers may not be captured by government records (tax and/or social security) or the (1998) HIES. However, the 2005 HIES was designed to overcome this type of situation (G. McKinlay, personal communication, October 2008).

Table 3.8 estimates the shing contribution to GDP based on the values of the ve types of shing/aquaculture activities (summarized in Table 3.7). Value added was determined by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The total value added from shing in calendar year 2006 in Table 3.8 ($23,750,301) was 10.0% of the
Table 3.8: Fishing Contribution to GDP in 2006 and 2007 Using an Alternative Approach ($)
Gross Gross Value of Value of Production Production 2006 2007 7,560,000 15,732,000 3,461,922 7,928,233 8,000 80,000 7,560,000 15,732,000 8,366,856 15,541,521 8,000 80,000 ValueAdded Ratio 0.75 0.85 0.20 0.50 0.95 0.55 Value Added 2006 5,670,000 692,384 3,964,117 7,600 44,000 Value Added 2007 5,670,000 1,673,371 7,770,761 7,600 44,000
Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore locally based longline Offshore locally based purse seine Freshwater Aquaculture Total
13,372,200 13,372,200
23,750,301 28,537,932
GDP = gross domestic product. Source: Consultants estimates.
GDP of $236.9 million in FY2006. The total value added from shing in calendar year 2007 was 14.4% of the projected GDP of $197.5 million in FY2007. Although information on sheries production is available through calendar year 2007 (Table 3.7), the latest year for which the FSM GDP is available is FY2006. As mentioned above, due to lack of precision for the estimates of production from coastal commercial and coastal subsistence sheries, those estimates are almost equally applicable for 2006 and are used in Table 3.8. For locally based oshore shing, the gross values of production from 2006 and 2007 (Table 3.4) are used. It is not intended that the approach in Table 3.8 replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication.

Fishery exports were reported in Statistics Division (2008b). Some of the sheries-related issues raised in the document were as follows: There is no existing requirement in the FSM for exporters to complete an exports declaration form to Customs. Therefore, the Division of Statistics uses an estimated number from other data sources.
Data sources for oshore sh exports are the National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA), the National Fisheries Corporation, and sta estimates.12 Data sources for inshore sh exports are quarantine records and Continental Airlines freight records for Chuuk State. The policy for inclusion/exclusion in sh exports is that sh should be included in exports if the company exporting is considered part of the FSM economy. Fish should also be included in exports if they undergo processing in the FSM. Fish should not be included if they are caught in FSM waters but do not have any other connection with the FSM economy aside from paying a license fee. In practice, the available data sources require some compromises because of the variety of arrangements for individual ships and companies and the diculty in examining each of these in detail. The FSM Division of Statistics has decided to present sh exports as follows:
Longline catches: 1. Domestic vesselsincluded in exports 2. Domestic-based foreign vesselsincluded in exports 3. Foreign licenseexcluded from exports but included separately for information purposes Purse seine catches: 1. Domestic vesselsincluded in exports 2. Domestic-based foreign vesselsincluded in exports 3. Foreign licensenot presented because, apart from license fees, these do not contribute to the FSM economy With the above guidelines in mind, the Statistics Division has compiled FSM exports for recent years. The marine product exports and a summary of nonmarine exports are given in Table 3.9, which indicates that in 20032007, marine products represented 70%94% of all exports from FSM, the latest value, 2007, being 76%. While Table 3.9 and the source document (Statistics Division 2008b) represent tremendous progress in monitoring exports, there is room for further improvement. For example, in 2006 and in 2007, there were denitely exports from longliners based in FSM, as indicated by NORMA sta (E. Pangelinan, personal communication, October 2008) and Table 3.8.
12
One of the most experienced oshore sheries specialists in Micronesia joined the Statistics Division in 2007.
Table 3.9: Marine and Nonmarine Exports of Federated States of Micronesia

Product Marine products Offshore fish purse seiner (domestic) purse seiner (domestic-based foreign) longliner (domestic) longliner (domestic-based foreign) Reef fish Crab/lobsters Trochus shell Live clams Other Marine Products Weight (kg) Value ($) Weight (kg) 470,009 10,821,634 12,332,619 5,848,499 2,368,895 211,259 7,206,011 0 7,535,195 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
9,670,269 5,465,828 11,155,265 0 0 0
Value ($) Weight (kg) Value ($) Weight (kg)
1,064,767 8,528,891 7,957,251 3,236,000
0 1,832,053 2,070,220 823,468
0 364,300 1,417,127 152,000
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Value ($) Weight (kg) Value ($) Weight (kg) Value ($) Weight (kg) Value ($) Weight (kg) Value ($) Weight (kg) Value ($) Total marine products
1,947,816 214,335 733,022 6,142 41,442 0 0
930,519 16,273 55,650 3,651 25,369 0 0
591,280 152,159 520,382 6,311 45,362 0 0
0 5,630 241,421 2,193 19,831 135,100 430,970 2,474 17,349
0 244,241 841,376 6,887 39,163 23,714 78,255 4,281 29,780 22,723 157,480 7,837,039 7,837,041
0 0
52 90
58 225
14,553 38,506
Weight (kg) 12,666,636 13,497,131 13,007,447 6,008,449 12,668,639 13,499,135 13,009,452 6,010,455 Value ($)
14,113,193 10,287,859 12,244,645 6,213,906 12,301,318 6,213,905 12,301,319 461,352 919,099 3,158 3,174,077 963,401 788,890 9,758 2,925,854 344,547 445,365 319,576 2,791,431 4,124,752 1,096,892
Nonmarine products Total agriculture products Total all others Weight (kg) Value ($) Weight (kg) Value ($) Total
kg = kilogram. Source: Statistics Division (2008b).
611,865 2,273,678 17,800 127,925 39,531 434,756
Weight (kg) Value ($)
13,131,146 14,470,290 13,369,794 6,493,345 12,281,368 13,133,149 14,472,294 13,371,799 6,495,351 12,281,368 18,206,369 14,002,603 12,984,435 8,922,341 16,189,640 8,922,399 16,189,642
Fish exports were reported to be an average of 93% of FSMs recent annual exports of $20 million (IMF 2006).

FSM, through NORMA, licenses foreign vessels to sh for tuna in its EEZ. In 2007, the foreign licensed eet included 104 longliners, 8 pole-and-line vessels, and 158 purse seiners (NORMA 2008). The access fees for this foreign shing activity and their relative importance as a revenue source are given in Table 3.10. Table 3.10 shows that about 10% of total revenue and grants of the Government of FSM come from shing access fees. The $14.8 million in access fees for 2007 represents about $134 dollars for each of the 109,999 residents of the country in 2007.

The NORMA annual reports do not provide information on government revenue other than shing access fees. Apart from these fees, the governments of other Pacic island countries receive various types of revenue from the
Table 3.10: Access Revenue and Total Revenue and Grants ($)
Fishing Access Revenue 14,270,097 15,671,779 13,443,126 9,177,660 12,512,425 12,697,369 12,753,806 13,753,956 14,757,221 Total Revenue and Grants of Government 149,400,000 148,800,000 141,100,000 160,300,000 170,400,000 133,600,000 135,900,000 139,700,000 145,200,000 Percentage Access Revenue to Total Revenue and Grants 9.6 10.5 9.5 5.7 7.3 9.5 9.4 9.8 10.2
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Sources: Access fees 19992006 are from National Oceanic Resource Management Authoritys (NORMA) unpublished data; access fees for 2007 and government revenue are from the Statistics Division (2008c).
sheries sector, including sh transshipment charges and export levies on shery products. No information is available on the amount of such revenue in FSM, if any. Any licensing of small-scale shing would occur at the state level.
Employment
The 2000 census gives some insight into employment in FSM. Of all positions in 2002, 37% were in government, 17% in retail/wholesale, 6% in manufacturing, and 5% in transport. The three productive sectors of the FSM economy (agriculture, tourism, and sheries) provided little formal employment. Of the 15,712 people employed in the FSM as wage earners in 2002, only about 1,000 were employed in these three sectors (Division of Statistics 2004). Numbers of people in FSM employed in shing in recent years are given in Table 3.11 (Statistics Division 2008c). From the sources of information (FSM Social Security Administration records, government payroll) it appears that the survey was conned, or at least oriented, to formal employment with the larger shing companies. The Statistics Division (2008) survey also indicated that 109 people in Pohnpei during FY2006 were employed in shing. The sheries study carried out in Pohnpei between January 2006 and January 2007 indicated that there were 756 small-scale commercial shers in Pohnpei at that time (Rhodes et al. 2007). DEA (2002) mentioned 275 active full-time shers in Chuuk in
Table 3.11: Fishing Employment in the Federated States of Micronesia

FY 2006 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Estimate 16,126
Item Number of employed persons, total Number of employed persons in fishing Percentage of employed in fishing
FY = fiscal year.
16,579 16,668 16,869 16,551 16,405 16,225 16,463
300
231
180
193
189
154
132
215
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.8
1.3
Source: Statistics Division (2008c).
Table 3.12: Employment in the Tuna Fisheries of Federated States of Micronesia

2002 89 131 220
2006 36 24 60
2008 25 140 165
2002, whereas Statistics Division (2008c) gave the shing employment in that year in Chuuk as two people. The number of jobs related to tuna sheries (shing and postharvest) over 7 years is shown in Table 3.12. There has been limited attention to quantifying gender participation in sheries in FSM. In 2000 and 2001, at the request of the Government of FSM, baseline surveys were conducted in Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei, and Yap, assessing the role of women in the sheries sector, opportunities and constraints to their development, and areas for assistance (Lambeth and Abraham 2001). Although some valuable ideas were put forward, little quantitative information was produced on the participation of women in sheries.
Fish Consumption
The 1998 HIES indicated a retail expenditure of $4,429,000 on canned sh, or about 27 kg of whole weight of sh per capita per year (the report of the 2005 HIES does not give expenditure on canned sh). Annual per capita sh consumption in FSM in 1995 was estimated at 72kg, based on FAO production, import, and export data (Preston 2000). Per capita sh consumption in late 1990s was estimated at about 87 kg per year, based on the above estimate and other factors (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). Using the same approach, an estimate for 2007 is 114 kg. To this gure must be added any sh leakage from the tuna transshipment operations. Applying the 27.0 kg of canned sh from the earlier HIES to the 2007 production gures results in a per capita consumption of 142 kg. For the whole FSM, annual per capita sh consumption (whole weight equivalent) in 2005, based on information from the HIES conducted that year, was 69.3 kg, of which 92% was fresh sh. For rural areas, per capita consumption of sh was 76.8 kg, and for urban areas, 67.3 kg (Bell et al. 2009).
Fiji Islands
Fish Production
Several estimates of the magnitude of coastal commercial sheries are given in government documentation. The total quantity of seafood retailed through domestic markets in 2004 was 10,969 t, with a value of F$44,903,587 (DOF 2005). A comment was made that this had increased 82% over the previous year, likely due to an enhanced data collection system. The artisanal catch in 2005 was about 5,994 t of reef sh (67%) and invertebrates (33%). The value of these landings, as estimated from the market
prices, was approximately F$27 million (DOF 2008a). In 2006, production was about 4,922 t of nsh worth F$28.6 million and non-nsh valued at F$18 million (DOF 2008b). A study in 2008 by researchers from the University of British Columbia estimated the catch of reef-based artisanal sheries by considering past estimates and by undertaking original research, and indicated an annual catch of reef-associated nsh and invertebrates of 7,743 t, with a nal market value of $33.4 million (F$53.4 million) (Starkhouse 2009). However, that study did not consider exports. Including pelagic sh caught by coastal commercial shers, about 8% more nsh should be added in both quantity and value. The total also needs to include exported trochus (raw shells and button blanks), bche de mer, aquarium products, and coral. It is not possible to use Customs Department export data to determine the quantities of such exports because the classication system used does not always discriminate between exports from coastal commercial shing and exports from oshore shing or from aquaculture. For example, the category other sh fresh or chilled could easily be a mixture of tuna and inshore species. Annual coastal commercial shery production in the Fiji Islands in late 1990s was about 9,320 t valued at F$30 million (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). Principal exports from coastal sheries in 2003 were marine aquarium products (F$14 million annually), bche de mer (F$8.6 million), trochus (F$1.7 million), deepwater snapper (F$250,000), and live reef food sh (F$450,000), a total of about F$24.5 million per year (ADB 2005),13 which, using a semi-arbitrary value of F$20/kg, equated to 1,225 t of exported products. DOF (2008a) gives a value of inshore resources exported in 2005 of about F$31.7 million. It should be noted that the above information includes a mixture of prices paid to shers, retail market prices, and export prices. Discounting retail and FOB export prices by 30% to approximate prices paid to shers would result in a standard catch value that is more comparable. Selectively using the above information and adjusting prices, the 2007 coastal commercial catch was 9,500 t worth about F$54 million to the shers.

Annual subsistence catches in early 1990s were estimated at 16,600 t worth $45.8 million (Dalzell et al. 1996); a value of F$50 million according to
13
These are apparently free on board (FOB) values.
Fiji Islands 41
recent surveys (Anon 2001a); and about 21,600 t worth F$48.6 million in late 1990s (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). Subsistence shery harvests were 18,000 t in 2000; 18,200 t in 2001; 18,400 t in 2002; 18,600 t in 2003; and 18,800 t in 2004 (DOF 2005). The 2006 annual report (DOF 2008b) adds the comment A current measure of the eort in the subsistence sheries is not available as the Department is not monitoring this shery due to restricted available resources. However, the DOF estimates were based on a 1979 small-scale shing survey that covered only Viti Levu and used a single respondent in each village to recall landings over the previous 12 months (G. Preston, personal communication, August 2001). For the past 28 years, the estimate of smallscale production (the largest component of the domestic catch) for all the Fiji Islands has been made simply by adding 200 t of sh annually to the questionable 1979 gure. The results of a small-scale sheries survey in 1993 (Rawlinson et al. 1993) were not used to modify the 1979 estimate. Similarly, the results of a 1995 survey of the Northern District were not written up or used to modify the 1979 estimate. The Rawlinson survey suggested that the small-scale commercial catches in Viti Levu were larger than those estimated by the statistical system. In 2008, the mean annual subsistence catch ( standard error) was estimated through a substantial survey at 17,407 t ( 55 t), consisting of a mean nsh catch of 11,840 t ( 39 t), and mean invertebrate catch of 5,461 t ( 19 t). Gross value was estimated at $35.8 million 0.1 million (F$54.1 million 0.15 million) (Starkhouse 2009). These catch estimates are lower than the ocial estimate. The researcher felt that this is due to the inadequacies of the 1979 survey and that the practice of adding 200 t each year is awed, given recent temporal and spatial population growth patterns (B. Starkhouse, personal communication, August 2008).

Estimates of the quantities and values of catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) area were made by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) using data from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC). Catches by the Fiji national eet are given in Table4.1 In the table, prices are all delivered prices, the prices received at entry to the country in which they are usually sold whether for processing or consumption; for yellown and bigeye tuna, it is assumed that 80% of the catch is of export quality and 20% is nonexport quality. For export quality,
Table 4.1: Tuna Catches by the Fiji Islands National Tuna Fleet
Item Catch (ton) Delivered value ($ million) Delivered value (F$ million)
F$ = Fiji dollar. Source: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008).
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
4,071 9,651 11,312 11,558 10,856 17,298 11,966 15,372 10,749 12.69 35.45 25.13 75.51 36.81 31.71 34.61 60.89 38.47 52.35 34.46 85.77 68.18 64.03 105.34 65.40 91.61 55.14
Table 4.2: Total Catch by the Locally Based Offshore Fleet in the Fiji Islands (t)
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
t = ton. Source: Amoe (2008).
Albacore 6,881 11,290 8,901 11,802 7,145
Bigeye 889 1,254 423 771 556
Yellowfin 2,482 4,164 1,989 2,231 1,721
Total Tuna 10,252 16,708 11,313 14,804 9,422
Bycatch 2,062 5,579 4,182 5,903 2,995
Japanese fresh yellown and bigeye import prices from Oceania are used, while nonexport grade tuna is given an assumed value of $1.50/kg. Table 4.1 also excludes bycatch, although it is an important component of locally based oshore sheries. Table 4.2 gives catches of tuna and bycatch for the domestic longline eet. Because there has not been any locally based pole-and-line shing in recent years, this is equivalent to the locally based longline eet. For the locally based oshore catch of 12,205 t (tuna and bycatch) in 2003, it is estimated that 42% of catch was sold to canneries (average exvessel price of F$3,547), 37% was fresh exports (average price/t of F$6,207), and 21% was domestic sales (average price/t of F$2,200 for tuna and F$2,000 for bycatch) (ADB 2005). This gives a total value of catch of F$49.5 million ($26.6 million) for 2003 for the oshore eet. This information is useful for estimating the dockside value of the entire catch (tuna plus bycatch) for more recent years. It suggests that the delivered value of tuna in Table 4.2 should be (i) reduced by 25% to obtain dockside tuna values, and (ii) increased by 10% to account for the sale of bycatch.
Fiji Islands 43

In recent years, the amount of foreign shing activity has been quite small and has consisted exclusively of pole-and-line shing by Japanese vessels and sporadic purse seine shing by Japanese and US vessels.14 If the price for these sh in the destination markets was $1,200/t, the value in the Fiji Islands waters was around $1,070/t. The total annual value of the tuna catch in the Fiji Islands waters in recent years is therefore estimated to have ranged between F$0.15 million and F$2.91 million (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3: Estimating Tuna Catches in Fiji Islands Waters by ForeignBased Fleets
Tuna Catch Total catch of all fleets in the Fiji Islands waters (t)a Catch of Fiji Islands fleet in the Fiji Islands waters (t)a Catch of foreign fleet in Fiji Islands waters (t)a Value of foreign fleet catch in Fiji Islands waters ($)b Value of foreign fleet catch in Fiji Islands waters (F$)b 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
5,064
8,742
10,807
9,437
7,328
9,819
6,005
7,422
6,469
3,688
7,619
10,387
9,342
7,022
9,043
5,525
7,341
5,976
1,376
1,123
420
95
306
775
481
81
492
1,472,320 1,201,610
449,400
101,650
327,420
829,250
514,670
86,670
526,440
2,915,194 2,559,612 1,045,846
218,626
606,446 1,433,834
872,823
149,702
843,564
F$ = Fiji dollar, t = ton.

a b
Source: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008). Consultants estimates.
Freshwater Catches
Harvests of freshwater nsh and invertebrates in the Fiji Islands consist mainly of freshwater clams (Batissa violacea), eels, various freshwater crustaceans, and
14
In 2007, the only foreign-based oshore shing activity was by the US purse seine eet (A. Raiwalu, personal communication, November 2008).
introduced sh, such as tilapia and carps. There is no consolidated accounting of the catches of these species. The Fisheries Department sta indicate that the harvest of clams/crustaceans for nonmarket purposes is probably less than what is marketed. Annual market sales of Batissa clams were 1,0001,800 t in 19861992 (Richards 1994). Flagtails (Kulia species) and a number of goby species were important for interior villages, but their abundance decreased in recent years (Thaman 1990). Richards (1994) observed that there was not a strong local preference for freshwater eels and no organized shery for them, but later, Nandlal (2005b) reported that they were an important source of protein for the rural population. The most recent data are for 2004, when 2,526 t of Batissa15 worth about F$2.2 million and 500 t of crustaceans valued at about F$6 million were sold in municipal and nonmunicipal markets (DOF 2005).
Aquaculture Production
Annual aquaculture production in 2003, based on recent literature, was estimated to total 400 t and 28,420 pieces worth F$1.87 million (ADB 2005) (Table 4.4). Other information on recent aquaculture production in Fiji Islands includes the following: ADB (2005) stated that at the height of the Fiji Islands seaweed industry in 2000, 658 farms had been established in 47 villages/
Amount (weight/pieces) 850 kg 393,000 kg 160 kg 6,000 kg 17,000 pieces 10,420 pieces 1,000 pieces 400 tons + 28,420 pieces Value (F$) 25,380 1,572,000 626 108,000 68,000 41,680 50,000 F$1,865,686
Table 4.4: Fiji Islands Aquaculture Production, 2003

Category Brackishwater shrimp Tilapia Carps Prawns Fancy carps Goldfish Black pearls Total
Source: Asian Development Bank (2005).
15
This includes the shell weight. Raw meat recovery is approximately 20%.
Fiji Islands 45
settlements around the coast and maritime zone with an average annual production of 300 million tons (mt) valued at F$275,000. Since its inception in 1998, Government has spent over F$1.8 million in direct assistance to seaweed farmers16 with total production of 1,413.8 mt and an export value of F$1.5 million. In other words, the total value of exports was less than the subsidy. Production was 24t in 2003 and 48 t in 2004. Information on the freshwater aquaculture pond census of 2004 was given in SPC (2004). Nile tilapia (Oreochromus niloticus) and giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) were the two main commodities. Some 30 t of tilapia valued at $125,000 and 1.7 t of prawns worth $30,000 were produced. Unpublished data from the Fisheries Department (Seaweed Production Figures) showed seaweed production in 2006 of 118 t worth F$59,025 and in 2007 of 60 t worth F$30,026. Unpublished data from the Fisheries Department (Seeded Oyster Information 2007) showed 53,100 pearls harvested/sold in 2007. The operator of the largest pearl farmer in the Fiji Islands estimated a total pearl harvest of 48,100 pieces worth F$1,077,440 in 2007 (J. Hunter, personal communication, August 2008). The aquaculture section of the draft 2007 annual report (DOF 2008c) and senior sta of the Fisheries Department (M. Lagibalavu, personal communication, August 2008) indicated that in 2007, aquaculture production was 142.7 t of tilapia17 worth F$712,300, 24.04 t of freshwater prawns (F$575,380), 13 t of brackishwater prawns (F$400,000), and 67 t of seaweed (F$33,500).18
16
There are reports that much of the money allocated by the government to assist seaweed farmers was not used for developing seaweed culture, but rather for political activities.Nevertheless, public funds were allocated and used in the name of supporting seaweed culture. Fisheries Department ocials conrm that the 142.7 t of tilapia includes production for subsistence purposes. There are reports of the culture of live-rock and coral in the Fiji Islands in 2007 and 2008 (T. Pickering, SPC personal communication February 2009), but the Fisheries Departments aquaculture report for 2007 has no information on quantities produced. Subsequent discussions with a Fiji Islands coral specialist (E. Lovell, personal communication, April 2009) indicate that the culture of these two products is still in its infancy.
17
18
Summary of Harvests
A crude approximation of the Fiji Islands annual production and value19 in 2007 was made (Table 4.5) by selectively using the above information. The extremely weak factual basis for the estimate of the freshwater catch is acknowledged.
Table 4.5: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in the Fiji Islands, 2007
F$ = Fiji dollar, t = ton. Source: Tables above and authors estimate.
Quantity (t) 9,500 17,400 13,744 492 4,146 48,100 pieces plus 247 t 48,100 pieces plus 45,529 t
Value (F$) 54,000,000 54,100,000 46,870,000 844,000 6,860,000 2,799,000 165,473,000

The Fiji Islands GDP at current market prices and the contribution of shing are shown in Table 4.6 (FIBOS 2008).

The methods currently used by the Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics (FIBOS) to calculate the shing contribution to GDP are those given in A Study of the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Sector 2002 (FIBOS 2007):
19
The values in the table are dockside and/or farm-gate prices, except in the case of oshore foreign-based shing where the value in Fiji Islands waters (overseas market prices less imputed transshipment costs) is given.
Fiji Islands 47
Table 4.6: Official Contribution of Fishing to GDP (F$000)

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 GDP 3,584,753 3,777,204 4,026,442 4,382,661 4,719,513 4,969,692 5,455,711 5,263,607 (current market prices) Fishing Commercial Subsistence Public sectora Fishing contribution to GDP By value By share (%)
a
70,160 33,877 1,150
52,649 33,906 639
65,542 35,986 484
43,035 35,328 1,197
66,682 38,162 1,248
79,597 42,054 1,273
70,205 40,162 1,238
61,920 38,354 1,524
105,187 2.9
87,194 2.3
102,013 2.5
79,561 1.8
106,092 2.2
122,924 2.5
111,604 2.0
101,799 1.9
F$ = Fiji dollar, GDP = gross domestic product. Commercial fisheries activities of the Fisheries Department. Source: Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics (FIBOS) (2008); 2007 figures are provisional.
The sheries sector is divided into six subsectors: (1) shing on a commercial basis, (2) taking of marine or freshwater crustaceans and mollusks, (3) sea cucumber diving, (4) operation of sheries hatcheries and farms, (5) seaweed farming, and (6) aquarium sh and corals. For each subsector, information on the gross value of production is obtained from the Fisheries Department. From surveys conducted by FIBOS, intermediate consumption and valued added are determined. The value added is converted to a VAR. The VAR is multiplied by the gross output for each subsector to determine the value added by the shing sector. According to FIBOS sta, public sector is the commercial sheries activities of the Fisheries Department (M. Navilini, personal communication, January 2009).
Following are comments on calculating the shing contribution to GDP in the Fiji Islands. These comments are not intended to be authoritative, but rather are aimed at providing some sheries insight that may be of value to statisticians involved in national accounting and who may be unfamiliar with the shing sector.
The VARs determined by FIBOS surveys seem quite small: commercial shing (10.2%), taking of crustaceans or mollusks (28.6%), bche de mer diving (10.2%), sh farms (45.0%), seaweed farming (30.3%), and aquarium sh and corals (29.3%). Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) used much larger VARs. For example, a VAR of 90% was used for nonmotorized subsistence shing, more than three times the VAR used by FIBOS for crustaceans or mollusks. The gross output of production (supplied by the Fisheries Department) for some subsectors seems too large, or even erroneous. For example, for 2002, FIBOS uses a gross production of F$153million for oshore shing and F$12 million for aquaculture. However, for 2003, the ADB sheries sector study (ADB 2005) estimated the gross value of production of oshore shing at F$49 million and of aquaculture at F$1.9 million. The six subsectors chosen to partition the shing sector may be inappropriate. This is due to (i) lumping dissimilar sheries (e.g., combining inshore non-n with live reef food) and (ii) excluding some categories of shing (e.g., subsistence shing for nsh).

Table 4.7 is an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in the Fiji Islands. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing and aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 4.5 above. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The approach in Table 4.7 is not intended to replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly to point a need for modication. The total value added in Table 4.7 (F$89.9 million) is about 12% less than the ocial value added of F$101.8 million. The major dierence is that the contribution from the ocial shing (F$61.9 million) is greater than the combined contribution of coastal commercial and oshore locally based of the alternative estimate (F$34.9 million).
Fiji Islands 49
Table 4.7: Fishing Contribution to Fiji Islands GDP, 2007, using an Alternative Approach
Value (F$) (From Table 4.5) 54,000,000 54,100,000 46,870,000 6,860,000 2,799,000 164,629,000 Value-Added Ratio 0.55 0.80 0.20 0.90 0.50 Value Added (F$) 29,700,000 43,280,000 9,374,000 6,174,000 1,399,500 89,927,500
Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore locally based Freshwater Aquaculture Total
F$ = Fiji dollar. Source: Consultants estimates.
Table 4.8: Fishery Exports of the Fiji Islands, 19992007

Value of Fishery Exports (F$000) 57.5 70.5 91.2 78.4 79.4 81.4 82.9 97.9 101.3 Value of All Fiji Islands Exports (F$000) 947.6 996.0 990.7 847.1 958.3 950.7 847.6 834.3 828.8 Fishery Exports Share in Total Exports (%) 6.1 7.1 9.2 9.3 8.3 8.6 9.8 11.7 12.2
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
F$ = Fiji dollar.
Source: Reserve Bank of Fiji Islands (2008) citing the Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics.

The relative importance of shery exports doubled during 19992007, as shown in Table 4.8. The Fisheries Department annual reports contain detailed export data. This information is obtained by the Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics from data collected by the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority. A list of the 2007 shery exports is given in Table 4.9. Table 4.9 highlights the importance of tuna exports for the country; almost all the products at the top of the table are tuna. It also indicates the
Table 4.9: Export of Fishery Products in 2007

Product Description Total Albacore or long-finned tunas, frozen Albacore or long-finned tunas, fresh or chilled Other tunas, frozen Other tunas, fresh or chilled Others Yellowfin tunas, frozen Other fish, frozen Yellowfin tunas, fresh or chilled Other fish including fillets, smoked Other fish meat and fish fillet Bigeye tuna, frozen Octopus Other dried fish, salted or not, but not smoked Live ornamental fish Other fish, whole or in pieces prepared/preserved Fish fillet, fresh or chilled Other fish, fresh or chilled Other fish, salted in brine Flours, meals, and pellets of fish, crustaceans, mollusks; and other aquatic invertebrates Tuna, skipjack, and bonito, whole or in pieces Other crustaceans Bigeye tuna, fresh or chilled Button moulds/blanks of pearl or trochus Other mussels frozen, dried Other scallops frozen, dried Other live fish Pearls, cultured unworked Dogfish and other sharks, frozen Frozen fillets Squid Mackerel tuna, whole or in pieces prepared/ preserved Quantity (kg) 28,282,006 10,202,994 5,226,787 2,871,737 2,446,529 474,582 1,284,192 849,405 1,056,207 45,940 208,880 332,025 66,100 15,315 116,805 354,587 167,764 39,843 78,356 866,000 146,243 12,531 196,725 34,254 220,258 43,082 62,163 54 71,860 41,916 1,838 38,709 Value (F$) 94,399,383 18,087,434 14,645,891 13,490,381 7,520,291 6,582,355 5,868,099 5,675,145 4,816,845 4,604,198 1,327,059 1,036,498 1,000,602 933,933 878,246 854,277 848,393 794,842 755,838 633,124 607,483 492,089 467,466 427,424 268,590 240,629 232,717 228,796 221,559 136,949 125,583 118,420
Fiji Islands 51
Table 4.9: continuation
Product Description Dogfish and other sharks, fresh or chilled Flours, meals, and pellets of fish/crustaceans/ invertebrates Other prepared or preserved fish Cuttlefish live, fresh or chilled Fish fillets, dried salted or in brine, not smoked Products of fish or aquatic invertebrates Seaweed and other algae for human consumption Other mollusks and invertebrates, prepared/ preserved Shrimps and prawns, frozen Shrimps and prawns, prepared or preserved Sardines, whole or in pieces, prepared/preserved Skipjack or stripe-bellied bonito, frozen Mackerel, frozen Crabs, frozen Scallops live, fresh or chilled Sardines
F$ = Fiji dollar, kg = kilogram. Source: Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics (FIBOS), unpublished data.
Quantity (kg) 111,151 503,000 20,070 5,882 1,760 23,433 40,907 1,074 180 150 264 150 83 124 30 70
Value (F$) 118,270 73,663 64,240 63,738 52,800 47,690 32,405 10,740 4,638 4,213 2,896 900 830 558 513 133
importance of live ornamental sh (likely to be real) and octopus (likely to be a classication error). The dierence in the total export values for 2007 in the two tables in this section is likely to be because of doubt over whether some items (e.g., coral and similar material) are shery product. An overall appreciation of what commodities are being shipped abroad can be obscured by the use of Standard International Trade Classication categories (column one of Table 4.9) and by errors made by exporters in placing exports in those categories. ADB (2005) claried the Fiji Islands shery exports for 2003: Total sector exports are F$79 million consisting predominately of tuna exports (F$49 million). The other principal exports are marine aquarium (F$14 million), bche de mer (F$8.6 million), trochus (F$1.7 million), deepwater snapper (F$250,000), and live reef food sh (F$450,000).

In recent years, the only foreign-based vessels that have been licensed to sh in the Fiji Islands waters are those from Japan and the US. The Fiji Islands received JP1,800,000 for access by six vessels in 2006 (DOF 2008b). According to the senior licensing ocial of the Fisheries Department, for political reasons, no payments were received from Japan in 2007 (A. Raiwalui, personal communication, November 2008). The situation regarding access by US vessels is more complex. Under the terms of the US multilateral tuna treaty, the Fiji Islands and other Pacic island countries receive payments from the Government of the US and the US tuna industry that are associated with shing access by US purse seiners. For June 2005June 2006, payments to the Fiji Islands totaled $393,919 (NMFS unpublished data). For June 2006 to June 2007, due to political reasons, the Government of the US could not make access payments to the Government of the Fiji Islands, but increased US industry contributions were madeestimated to be $256,985. Table 4.10 summarizes the shing access payments. The Fiji Islands total revenue in the Revised 2007 Budget was given at almost F$1.5 billion (Ministry of Finance and National Planning 2007). The F$411,176 in access fees, therefore, represented about 0.03% of total revenue for the year.
Table 4.10: Fiji Islands Access Fees, 2006 and 2007
Country Japan United States Total
F$ = Fiji dollar. Sources: Department of Fisheries (2008c) and National Marine Fisheries Service (of the United States), unpublished data.
2006 (F$) 27,054 681,479 708,533
2007 (F$) 0 411,176 411,176

Fees paid by the locally based oshore shing eet in 2005 and 2006 are given in DOF (2008a, 2008b) (Table 4.11). Domestic license fees are divided
Fiji Islands 53
Table 4.11: Fees Paid by the Locally Based Offshore Fishing Fleet (F$)
Year 2005 2006
F$ = Fiji dollar. Sources: Department of Fisheries (2008a, 2008b).
Access Fee 515,000 525,000
Management Fee 408,000 432,000
Other License Fees 880 660
Total 923,880 957,660
Table 4.12: Fees from Coastal Commercial Fishing, 2006

Fee Type Fishing license Lautoka fishing port fees Vessel registration Issuance of CITES export permits Total
Source: Department of Fisheries (2008b).
Value (F$) 9,109 8,215 5,961 25,365 48,650
CITES = Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, F$ = Fiji dollar.
into a management fee, paid by all licensees, and an access fee, paid by all nonindigenous Fijian license-holders. The management fees largely support the Management Services Unit while the access fees go into consolidated revenue (Barclay and Cartwright 2006). The government also collects fees from coastal commercial shing activity. Table 4.12 shows the fees given in 2006 (DOF 2008b).
Employment
The Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics carried out the 20042005 Employment and Unemployment Survey (Narsey 2007). Unfortunately, the survey report provides limited insight into sheries employment due to aggregating all agriculture, forestry, and sheries occupations. It did, however, give the number of people in the Fiji Islands150,982 wage/salary earners (38% of them female) and 91,818 self-employed (25% of them female). This is useful for gauging the relative importance of sheries employment from the more specialized studies. The most comprehensive review of sheries-related employment in the Fiji Islands was in the ADB review of the sheries sector (ADB 2005). The results are summarized in Table 4.13. Some of the important details are:
There were an estimated 895 boats, mostly 5-meter skis, operating in the countrys small-scale sheries. Total number of crew in the artisanal eet was 2,137, although many artisanal shers had additional sources of income. Over 400 individuals were directly involved in tilapia farming, and an estimated 150 Fijians were employed in all other forms of aquaculture. Total employment in the sector was estimated at 550 with high levels of participation by villagers in many aspects of aquaculture. Total employment by sh processors was estimated at 1,394, including 800 permanent Pacic Fishing Company (PAFCO) employees. Based on a survey of operators conducted for this review, wages and salaries totaled an estimated F$8.9 million (including F$5.4 million in wages and salaries paid by PAFCO). The marine aquarium shery consisted of ve operators. The largest operator, Walt Smith International, exported more than 50% of the industrys total and employed 70 onshore sta and around 300 collectors and divers. Total employment of Fijians in collection/ diving was estimated to be 650, with about 150 employed by marine aquarium companies in onshore roles. An estimated 2030 commercial charter and sportshing boats operate in the Fiji Islands, and with rapid growth in tourism (at the time of survey), the sector was enjoying an expansion phase. Employment was about 60 full-time equivalents. There were 16 municipal markets in Fiji Islands, 7 in the central division, 4 in the western division, and 5 in the northern division. It is estimated that 480 people were employed at the municipal markets, and given that markets operate for about half the week, this equated to 240 full-time equivalent jobs. Additional 36 dedicated sh retail outlets employed some 100 Fijians.
Although the ADB study is the most comprehensive assessment of sheries employment in the Fiji Islands, other studies provide additional insight, as follows: There were 64,500 full-time, part-time, or occasional shers in the Fiji Islands in 1994, according to a FAO estimate (Visser 1997). Some 15.2% of all households in the Fiji Islands in 2004 sold at least some of their catch and 29.6% of those earned more than F$50 per month, according to results of the 2004 the Fiji Islands National Nutrition Survey (NFNC 2007).
Fiji Islands 55
Table 4.13: ADB Estimate of Fisheries Employment in 2004

Category Offshore fishery Inshore artisanal Subsistence Marine aquarium Aquaculture Game and charter fishing Pacific Fishing Company Other fish processors Input suppliers Fish markets Department of Fisheries Slipways, ports Total
Source: Asian Development Bank (2005).
Employment (full-time equivalents) 510 2,137 3,000 650 550 60 800 639 185 340 243 30 9,144
Table 4.14: Local Employment in the Tuna Industry

2002 893 1,496 2,389
2006 330 2,200 2,530
2008 150 1,250 1,400
In 2005, the artisanal shery consisted of 2,550 shers with 1,114 boats (DOF 2008a). There were an estimated 827 females working in the tuna industry in 2007 (longline shing companies and the tuna cannery), according to a study of gender issues in the Fiji Islands tuna industry (Sullivan and Ram-Bidesi 2008). In 2008, the Fiji Islands coral reef-based artisanal sheries employed an estimated 4,44710,152 shers, 350702 entrepreneurs, and 1,0332,067 vendors; that is, a total of 5,89712,921 individuals participating in the sheries, including about 1,250 full-time nshers (Starkhouse and Sumaila 2008). Local employment in tuna shing in recent years is shown in Table 4.14.
Combining information in the ADB study (ADB 2005) and the Fiji Islands employment study (Narsey 2007), the estimated 9,144 sheries jobs represent 3.8% of total jobs (wage, salaried, self-employed) in the Fiji Islands. Similarly, the study of gender issues in the Fiji Islands tuna industry (Sullivan and Ram-Bidesi 2008) and the Fiji Islands employment study show that the jobs held by females in the Fiji Islands tuna industry represent about 1.0% of total jobs held by females in the Fiji Islands. While there is considerable gender-specic information on employment in the Fiji Islands tuna industry, there is little in the wider sheries sector.
Fish Consumption
Seafood consumption per capita for 19951999, based on the ocial production data divided by the Fiji Islands population, is given in Table 4.15. In 1995, the apparent per capita supply of sh in the Fiji Islands was 50.7 kg per year, according to FAO production, import, and export data (Preston 2000). The 2004 Fiji Islands National Nutrition Survey (NFNC 2007) did not provide much insight on the level of seafood consumption. However, it showed that fresh sh was consumed daily by 23.4% of indigenous Fijian households, while canned sh was consumed daily by 8.3%. In IndoFijian households, only 2.4% reported eating fresh sh and 1.9% reported eating canned sh daily. In recent years, the total annual catch from locally based oshore sheries was about 15,000 t (section 4.1). About 12.5% of the production from locally based oshore sheries was not exported but was marketed domestically
Table 4.15: Seafood Consumption Per Capita, 19861999
Seafood Consumption (kg/capita/year) 58.0 62.0 44.0 47.0 56.0 Seafood from Subsistence Fishery % 39 37 53 51 46
Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

kg = kilogram.
Source: Fisheries Division (2000).
Fiji Islands 57
in the greater Suva area (R. Dunham, D. Lucas, personal communication, December 2008). Population of the greater Suva area is about 180,000 (Fiji Faqs 2008). These data suggest an annual supply of 10.4 kg per capita of sh to Suva residents from the local oshore eet. Per capita annual sh consumption (whole weight equivalent), based on the HIES in 2002 and 2003, was estimated at 15.0 kg (45% of this was fresh sh) per capita per year in urban areas and 25.3 kg (66% fresh sh) per capita per year in rural areas (Bell et al. 2009).
Kiribati
Fish Production
Annual coastal sheries production in 1991 was estimated at 3,240 t worth $4.8 million (Dalzell et al. 1996). Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) considered the Dalzell estimate, studies by the Fisheries Division and other agencies, and the opinions of sheries specialists with substantial experience in Kiribati, to estimate the coastal commercial sheries production in late 1990s at 6,000 t worth $9.8 million. Recent annual reports of the Fisheries Division (20032006) contained much valuable information, but the only attempt to consolidate overall sheries production information appeared to be in the 2003 report: The weekly sh production for all Islands in the Gilbert group is 489.5 t/week. This shows a decrease of 38% from last years gure of 791.7 t/week (Fisheries Division 2004). Fishery production data for various years in the Kiribati islands are shown in Table 5.1. Preston (2008) partitioned coastal sheries production into two components: household shery catch and export shery catch. Based on information in Table 5.1, the annual total household shery catch was 20,000 t. However, because the available export production statistics are
Kiribati 59
Table 5.1: Fishery Production Data in Kiribati, by Island

Weekly Fishing Catch per Population Households Fishing Year During During Household Surveyed Survey Year Survey Year (kg) 1999 1986 1992 1998 1995 1996 2003 2006 1999 2005 2006 1993 1996 1994 1994 1990 1999 1995 1998 1987 1992 1998 2002 2006 1998 2001 2006 2000 2000 339 1,738 3,742 2,842 6,020 6,061 5,678 5,678 29,994 40,311 40,311 2,331 3,499 957 1,095 2,801 3,579 1,404 2,190 2,823 1,839 1,233 875 875 1,284 1,256 1,256 1,733 1,409 60 61 651 361 717 544 693 693 4,019 4,529 5,245 374 153 515 158 535 482 258 295 452 455 215 214 916 225 244 275 241 167 40.1 140.0 29.1 21.3 92.8 26.7 33.1 48.4 20.3 29.5 34.5 35.7 35.1 36.9 35.5 32.8 33.0 44.0 34.0 30.0 17.0 Annual Catch by Island (t) 95 413 1,375 594 1,038 447 1,065 1,372 6,849 7,504 5,370 383 682 660 251 1,244 469 366 488 775 768 381 719 781 314 709 596 926 1,121
Island Gilbert Islands Banaba Makin Butaritari Marakei Abaiang North Tarawa North Tarawa North Tarawa South Tarawa South Tarawa South Tarawa Maiana Abemama Kuria Aranuka Nonouti North Tabiteuea South Tabiteuea Beru Nikunau Onotoa Tamana Tamana Tamana Arorae Arorae Arorae Line Islands Tabuaeran Teraina
kg = kilogram, t = ton.
Sources: Lovell et al. (2000); Preston (2008); Fisheries Division surveys; and the 2005 census.
Table 5.2: Available Information on Exports from Kiribati Coastal Fisheries

Item Value (A$) Fish Aquarium (pet) fish Shark fins Bche de mer Lobster Quantity (t) Fish Aquarium (pet) fisha Shark finsc Bche de mera Lobstera Live fisha
A$ = Austrialian dollar, t = ton.
a b c
2002 27 2,500 437 454
2003 12 311 469 254
2004 84 694,639
a
2005 426
2006 585,000 900,000

b
2007 1,244
131,000 216,000 65,000

b
220
0 111,134 pieces
189 110,098 pieces 40
663 143,967 pieces 1 58 4.6 0
2,362
20.4
58.8
Preston (2008). present study estimates. the shark fins would equate to 118152 t of live sharks.
Source: National Statistics Office unpublished data, except where indicated.
often incomplete and inconsistent, Preston (2008) did not make an overall estimate, but presented the available data. Fishery export data are shown in Table 5.2. To estimate export production, sh sent as personal consignments must be added to the tabled quantities above. In 2006, consignments totaling 13.6t (mainly reef sh, ocean sh, milksh, and lobster) were exported (Fisheries Division 2008c). A crude estimate placed export production from Kiribati coastal commercial sheries in 2006 at 1,142 t plus 144,000 aquarium shall valued at A$1.9 million. In a study commissioned by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), there was a short survey of one of the most important sheries of the country, trolling for tuna in South Tarawa (Sullivan and Ram-Bidesi, 200820). The results of that survey show:
20
The tuna trolling survey was carried out by Mike Savins, a sheries specialist and long-time resident of Tarawa.
Kiribati 61
In mid-2008, 126 active full-time commercial tuna trolling craft operated out of South Tarawa, plus 88 tuna trolling craft on a sporadic basis. An average of 6,300 kg of tuna and related pelagic species were sold per market day, or 126 t/month. To these commercial sales, some 5% should be added for domestic consumption to give a total landing of tuna of about 132 t/month, or 1,584 t/year. The market price of tuna was $2.65/kg. Tuna sales were about $334,000/month, or $4 million/year.
Nationwide in 2006, about 2,000 t of sh were purchased for A$5.9million and 3,371 t of sh valued at A$8.4 million were caught for subsistence purposes, according to unpublished data from a 2006 household income and expenditure survey (HIES), kindly supplied by the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC) Statistics and Demography Programme. Preston (2008) considers these estimates to be low. The prices used in the 2006 HIES were A$2.96/kg for purchased sh and A$2.50/kg for subsistence sh. Discussions with the Director of Fisheries indicate that about 60% 70% of coastal sheries production in Kiribati is for subsistence purposes. The commercial component has expanded in recent years due to increasing ice production in outer islands. Many islands now have cold storage (14 out of 33 islands), enabling storage for local sale and shipment to Tarawa (R. Awira, personal communication, October 2008). Of importance in estimating sh consumption is the increased population of Kiribati by 15.4% between 2001 (the period covered by the Gillett and Lightfoot estimate) and 2007. South Tarawas residents (40,311 in 2005 census) represent 44% of the total Kiribati population. The long-term trend of rural to urban (South Tarawa) migration has eased. The 2005 census data show a net ow of persons from the Gilbert Islands to the Line Islands during the inter-census period 20002005 (Anon 2007b). Giving high credibility to the Preston plus exports estimate of 21,141t, and selectively using other information in this section, it is estimated that coastal commercial production in the mid-2000s was 7,400 t valued at A$22million.

Coastal subsistence sheries production in 1991 was estimated at 9,084 t worth $13.4 million (Dalzell et al. 1996), and in late 1990s at 10,000 t worth
$12.2 million (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). With the information given above, it is estimated that the production from coastal subsistence sheries in Kiribati in the mid-2000s was 13,700 t worth A$34 million.

In recent years, no oshore shing vessels were based in Kiribati. Substantial tuna catches are made by local trolling vessels, included in the coastal commercial catch estimate above. Te Mautari, a government-owned company that began pole-and-line shing in 1979, operated oshore shing vessels, but by 2001 when it merged with other Kiribati government shing entities, no functional shing vessels remained. In recent years, the Fisheries Division periodically used a 13-meter catamaran (Tekokona II) for trial shing and training, but it never achieved a commercial production level (Barclay and Cartwright 2007). There is one Kiribati-registered purse seiner but, according to Fisheries Division sta, the vessel has not come to Tarawa in several years and is managed by an oce located overseas. (R. Awira, personal communication, October 2008). It can be stated that, in national account terms, the center of economic operations of the vessel is not in Kiribati.

In 2007, 337 foreign shing vessels were licensed to sh in the Kiribati EEZ. The eet consisted of 160 longliners, 171 purse seiners, and 6 pole-and-line vessels (Tumoa 2008). Catch estimates of the foreign-based eet in recent years are given in Table 5.3, based on FFA (2008), which used data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. Two features of the FFA/SPC data should be noted: (i) The prices are all delivered prices, those received at entry to the country in which they are usually sold whether for processing or consumption, and (ii) bycatch, an important component of longline sheries, was excluded; thus, correction factors were used as shown to construct Table 5.3. The above catches, price information in FFA (2008), and knowledge of the sheries were used to give the catch values for the three foreign-based eets (Table 5.4). The values given are in-zone values: destination market values less the cost of getting the catch from the Kiribati zone to those markets.
Kiribati 63
Table 5.3: Catch of Foreign-Based Offshore Fleets (t)

Item Foreign longline catcha Foreign purse seine catch Total
t = ton.
a
2003 13,367
b
2004 37,369 105,023 600
2005 14,016 216,567 0
2006 15,041 174,406 0
2007 6,149 156,938 128
84,827 236
Foreign pole-and-line catch
98,429 142,992 230,583 189,447 163,215
Increased by 30% for bycatch. Increased by 5% for bycatch.
Sources: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008) and consultants estimates for bycatch.
Table 5.4: Catch Values of Foreign-Based Offshore Fleets ($)a

Item Foreign longliners Foreign pole-and-line Foreign purse seiners Total ($) Total (A$) 2003 2004 2005 46,696,204 0 2006 57,090,431 0 2007 22,359,622 193,051 39,016,404 129,919,299 52,702,832 263,689 752,910
77,498,588 164,567,058 138,670,788 174,498,702
91,982,925 208,170,797 211,263,262 195,761,219 197,051,374 139,814,046 283,112,284 276,754,873 258,404,809 234,491,135
a Values are from Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) (2008) less 15% for transport costs and, in the case of longliners, bycatch.
Sources: Table 5.3, FFA (2008), and consultants estimates.
Freshwater Fisheries
There is no freshwater shery in Kiribati.
Aquaculture
Three types of aquaculturemilksh, pearls, and seaweedsare currently undertaken in Kiribati. Milksh farming began in 2004 on a research and experimental station at Ambo and in 2008 produced a few hundred kilograms per month (R. Awira, personal communication, October 2008). Old sh ponds and surrounding earthworks at Temaiku, originally intended to grow baitsh for the export tuna shery, have been resurrected by the Fisheries Division and operate as Temaiku Ecofarm, an integrated farming enterprise supplying sh, chickens, eggs, and pork to the local market on a semicommercial basis, i.e., sales revenue covers direct operating costs (ADB 2008b). The 2006 sale price of milksh was A$2.20/kg (Fisheries Division 2008c). Kiribati began investigating the culture of black pearls in 1996. After an encouraging start, the project had several dicult years and its future
appears uncertain (ADB 2008b). There were harvests in 2003 and 2008, the 2008 harvest yielding a few hundred low-quality pearls (R. Awira, personal communication, October 2008). Price information from the Fiji Islands, Cook Islands, and Marshall Islands suggests an average farm-gate value of A$25 per pearl. Seaweed farming has been undertaken with government subsidizing prices to encourage people to make a living in outer islands. A price of A$0.55/kg has been paid to seaweed farmers since the government raised the price in 2001 (R. Tumoa, personal communication, October 2008). This has propped up production and Kiribati still exports small quantities of dried seaweed, making a useful addition to household incomes (ADB 2008b). Nearly all production is from Fanning Island in the Line Group (very little is grown in the Gilbert Group because of disease) (R. Awira, personal communication, October 2008). Recent quantitative data on aquaculture production, as reported to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), were kindly made available by the Fisheries Division sta (Table 5.5). Considering the above information, annual Kiribati aquaculture production in 2007 is estimated at 143 t plus 100 pieces, with a farm-gate value of about A$90,000.
Table 5.5: Aquaculture Production as reported to FAO (t)
Item Milkfish Seaweed 2005 12 no data 2006 10 1,104 2007 4 139
FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, t = ton. Source: Fisheries Division (unpublished data).
Summary of Harvests
Based on data presented above, a crude approximation of the annual quantities and values21 of the shery and aquaculture harvests in 2007 is given in Table5.6. The weak factual basis for the estimates of coastal commercial and coastal subsistence catches should be recognized.
21
The values in the table are dockside and/or farm-gate prices, except in the case of oshore foreign-based shing where the value in local waters (overseas market prices less imputed transshipment costs) is given.
Kiribati 65
Table 5.6: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in Kiribati, 2007

A$ = Australian dollar, t = ton. Source: Consultants estimates.
Quantity (t) 7,000 13,700 0 163,215 0 100 pieces plus 143 100 pieces plus 184,058 tons
Value (A$) 22,000,000 34,000,000 0 234,491,135 0 90,000 290,581,135

Unpublished data from the National Statistics Oce gives the nominal gross domestic product (GDP) for Kiribati by industry at current market prices. The shing and seaweed contributions to GDP in recent years are given in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7: Kiribati GDP by Industry (A$000)
Item Fishing Seaweed Kiribati GDP Fishing and seaweed share of GDP (%) 2003 2,611 61 87,507 3.1 2004 2,291 199 87,920 2.8 2005 2,380 284 85,144 3.1 2006 2,440 259 84,287 3.2 2007 2,710 208 84,195 3.5
A$ = Australian dollar, GDP = gross domestic product. Source: National Statistics Office unpublished data.

The sta of the National Statistics Oce (R. Takarie, personal communication, October 2008) kindly provided summary details on the method used to calculate the shing and seaweed contributions to GDP, but stressed that
many of the details were known only to a senior statistician who recently retired. In summary, Commercial shing is partitioned into several components: Central Pacic Producers (CPP), commercial shing (Christmas Island), commercial (South Tarawa), and commercial (outer islands). CCP company accounts are used to determine the value added from that rm; for the other commercial shing, information comes from studies 199596, with the assumption that production increases each year by 5%10%. The value added for each component is given in Table 5.8. Subsistence shing is not included in the calculations. Subsistence in general was dropped from GDP calculations in 2006 (Better to remove than just guess). It is acknowledged that the HIES could be used to estimate subsistence contribution to GDP, but this has not been done yet. For seaweed, two components are considered: Atoll Seaweed Company and other producers. Company accounts are examined to get total value and value added. The value added for pet (aquarium) sh is not included because data are not available.
The most signicant comment that can be made on this methodology obviously concerns the omission of subsistence shing. This is acknowledged by the National Statistics Oce. HIES information will be used to rectify the situation in the future. Excluding pet sh for lack of data may be addressed by using information available at the Fisheries Division.
Table 5.8: Value Added from the Components of Commercial Fishing (A$000)
Fishing Component Central Pacific Producers Commercial fishing (Christmas Island) Commercial (South Tarawa) Commercial (outer islands) Commercial subtotal
A$ = Australian dollar. Source: National Statistics Office unpublished data.
2003 376 380 1,575 280 2,611
2004 36 390 1,580 285 2,290
2005 100 400 1,590 290 2,380
2006 150 400 1,600 290 2,440
2007 300 410 1,700 300 2,710
Kiribati 67

Table 5.9 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in Kiribati. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing/aquaculture activities for which production values have been determined and summarized in Table 5.6. This alternative approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The approach in Table 5.9 does not intend to replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication. The 2007 shing contribution to GDP of about A$45 million is considerably more than the ocial shing and seaweed contribution to GDP of about A$2.7 million given in Table 5.8. The ocial contribution is much lower because of the omission of subsistence shing and the low contribution from commercial shing, the latter being less than 20% of that from the alternative calculation. A shing contribution of A$45 million obtained through the alternative method is more than half of the ocial 2007 GDP of Kiribati. A valid comparison cannot be made, however, because the ocial GDP gure does not include subsistence activities of any kind.
Table 5.9: Fishing Contribution to GDP Using an Alternative Approach, 2007

Gross Value of Production (from Table 5.6) 22,000 34,000 0 0 90 ValueAdded Ratio 0.65 0.90 0 0 0.72 Value Added (A$000) 14,300.0 30,600.0 0 0 64.8 44,964.8
A$ = Australian dollar, GDP = gross domestic product. Source: Authors estimates.

The National Statistics Oce website does not show export data after 2004. Unpublished data from that oce show exports from Kiribati by commodity through 2007. Unfortunately, the data on many important shery exports are incomplete after 2004. To make an estimate of 2006 shery exports of Kiribati, data and estimates for exports of coastal sheries1,142 t (plus 144,000 pet sh) worth A$1.9 million (section 5.1)were added to the seaweed exports 155t worth A$622,000 (National Statistics Oce unpublished data)and taken to be all the shery exports of the country. Thus, a crude estimate of shery exports in 2006 is about 1,300 t worth about A$2.5 million. In the unpublished data, the total domestic exports22 of Kiribati in 2006 were given as A$2,894,000. This value does not, however, include copra exports, which are relatively important. Extrapolating recent copra exports to 2006 gives adjusted total domestic exports of about A$4.3 million in 2006. Given the limitations of the data, shery exports are the most important export of Kiribati. They were about 75% greater in value than copra in 2006, when shery exports were about 58% of all exports.

The access fees paid by foreign shing vessels for shing in Kiribati waters are extremely important to the country, as shown in Table 5.10. The governments total recurrent revenue is given in the approved budget for 2008 (Government of Kiribati 2008). The actual for 2006 was A$60,026,000 and the revised budget for 2007 was A$60,928,000. The major revenue items for the government included shing licenses (about A$25million), import duties (A$18 million), and income tax (A$11 million). Thus, the access fees received from foreign shing made up 43% of total recurrent revenue for 2006 and 42% in 2007. These fees amount to A$156/t of sh caught (given the amount of sh caught in the Kiribati exclusive economic zone (EEZ) by foreign shing [163,215 t in 2007, section 5.1]).
22
Does not include reexports.
Kiribati 69
Table 5.10: Kiribati Fishing License Revenue, from Various Sources (A$)
Fisheries Division 2006 Annual Report Fisheries Division 2003 Annual Report
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Ministry of Finance 46,404,039 41,719,107 31,281,142 Not available 24,586,751 25,825,463 25,419,845
31,461,300 26,645,812 25,673,127 26,350,934
A$ = Australian dollar. Sources: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development unpublished data; T. Kaureata (personal communication, October 2008); Fisheries Division (2004); Fisheries Division (2008c).

The other signicant sources of direct government revenue from sheries activities totaled A$62,479 in 2006 and A$97,085 in 2007, made up as follows (Government of Kiribati 2008): Sales of sh and sh posters: Pleasure shing licenses: Fees for transshipment of sh:23 A$15,960 in 2006 A$12,575 in 2007 A$23,329 in 2006 A$27,966 in 2007 A$4,017 in 2006 A$4,568 in 2007
The Fisheries Division annual report for 2006 (Fisheries Division 2008c) gave some additional (and sometimes conicting) information on this revenue. In 2006, the transshipment activity in Betio Port commenced in July and ended in December. A total of 93,026 t of tuna was transshipped in the port, giving a total revenue of $205,129 to be collected. However, only $164,512 was collected, leaving a receivable balance of $40,616.35.
23
These fees appear too low to be the entire transhipment fees.
Tourists engaged in recreational shing of bonesh and in diving are required to pay a license fee of A$35, which is valid for the duration of their stay. The permits yielded A$13,860 in 2006, lower than in peak years when more than A$20,000 was received. In 1999, an annual observer fee was initiated at A$400 per vessel, increasing to A$600 per vessel in 2006, when A$7,768 was received. The Fisheries Division licenses both local and foreign entrepreneurs for exporting coastal marine products. Four license categories are listed under the Processing and Establishment Licence, which yielded the following: (i) foreign investor (100% foreign-owned) A$5,000; (ii) semi-foreign (foreigner owns more than 50%) $3,500; (iii) semi-foreign (local owns more than 50%) $1,500; and (iv) local company (base fee) $300. Thus, total fees collected in 2006 were $11,525.
Employment
The 2005 Kiribati census provided some information on employment related to sheries. In the census, working is dened as any activity concerned with providing the necessities of life. Respondents were coded in the questionnaire into three mutually exclusive categories of cash work, village work, or no work. A person who is employed or works mainly for cash is a cash worker. Persons doing village work are those performing a variety of tasks involved in growing or gathering produce or in shing to feed their families; they are described as subsistence farmers or shers. Results of the census showed: Village work (subsistence farmers or shers), such as growing or gathering of produce or shing to feed their families, was the main activity of 39% of males and 36% of females 15 years and older. The proportion of village workers was much higher in the rural (outer islands) areas (51%), than in South Tarawa (urban), where only 20% were village workers. The great majority of employed cash workers in Kiribati are employed in the public administration sector6,953 persons or 53% of the total employed. The other three industry groups that have a signicant proportion of employed persons are transport and communication, 1,473 (11%); retail trade, 1,179 (9%), and agriculture and shing, 936 (7%).
Kiribati 71
Apart from government jobs, the other sources of employment for males are the shing vessels and especially the merchant and/or container boats and tankers.
The results of the 2000 census had more detail on sheries employment (Table 5.11). Fisheries was the main activity for 1.5% of the population.
Table 5.11: Type of Activity Done in Previous Week, by Gender
Occupation Fisheries Legislators and officials Professionals Technicians Clerks Service workers Agriculture Trade workers Plant and/or machine operators Elementary occupations Not stated Total
Source: 2000 census.
Total 204 667 2,506 1,201 1,829 2,276 635 1,039 1,462 794 520 13,133
Male 187 485 1,119 679 717 1,236 445 737 1,402 738 350 8,095
Female 17 182 1,387 522 1,112 1,040 190 302 60 56 170 5,038
The report of the 2006 Kiribati HIES (Tiroa 2007) does not disaggregate sources of income to a level where the shing contribution can be seen. It gives the source of income at the level of wages and salary, self employment, agricultural and sh sales, and others. Wages and salaries accounted for 35% of the total income of Kiribati and subsistence activity accounted for 22%. Other major sources of income included imputed rents (14%), agricultural and sh sales (11%), remittances and gifts (10%), and sales of home produce (5%). Fisheries Division (2008c) compiled the results of several years of surveying households for participation in shing activities (Table 5.12). The table shows that, even in highly urbanized South Tarawa, subsistence shing is quite important. The large dierences between the South Tarawa results of 2005 and 2006 raise some concern about survey methodology.
Table 5.12: Results of Fishing Household Surveys

Item Year surveyed Households (number) Fishing households (%) Nonfishing households (%) Full-time fishing households (%) Part-time fishing households (%) Subsistence fishing households (%) North North South South Tamana Tamana Arorae Arorae Tarawa Tarawa Tarawa Tarawa 2002 214 95.1 4.9 3.4 2006 196 93.0 7.0 6.0 2001 244 91.1 8.9 16.7 2006 275 88.0 12.0 4.0 2003 693 94.0 6.0 3.0 2006 693 96.0 4.0 5.0 2005 4,529 75.0 25.0 7.0 2006 5,245 57.0 43.0 8.0
31.1
13.0
19.4
5.0
22.0
17.0
6.0
14.0
65.5
81.0
63.9
91.0
74.0
78.0
87.0
78.0
Source: Fisheries Division (2008c).
The FFA-commissioned survey of tuna trolling in South Tarawa in 2008, described in section 5.1, showed, with regard to employment: There were on average 3 shermen and 1.5 women sh handlers/ sellers for each of 126 full-time commercial tuna troll shing craft. About 189 women were involved full-time in the sale of tuna (fulltime equivalent; two half-time is equivalent to one full-time). Some men were involved in tuna sales, primarily buying sh from several shing operations. Commercial shing was carried out by men only and 99.5% of sh sellers were women, normally the wives of the shermen. The 2008 market price of tuna, A$2.65 kg, and tuna sales of A$4million/year represented about A$21,000 in sales annually per full-time seller.
Additional information on sheries employment in the country are provided below. In the mid-1990s, 226 Kiribati men were working in 10 major foreign eets in the Pacic islands area (Gillett and McCoy 1997).
Kiribati 73
In 2005, 325 Kiribati crew were contracted to the Japanese eet, and 100200 more contracted to the Republic of Korea and Taipei,China eets (Barclay and Cartwright 2006). Central Pacic Producers (CPP), a shing and processing company fully owned by the government, employed 70 people in April 2008, including 20 womenmost of whom were clerical sta. Two or three women were employed in loining and/or processing and the processing supervisor was a woman (Gillett et al. 2008). A signicant sport shery is located on Kiritimati, where overseas anglers visit to sh for bonesh and, to a lesser extent, for large coastal pelagic species, such as trevallies, wahoo, tunas, and, occasionally, marlins. Kiritimati also attracts a small number of divers. Sport shing generates economic benets of some A$2.5 million/year for Kiritimati through sport-shing license fees, jobs for about 70 professional shing guides, and tourist expenditure in the islands hotels (Preston 2008). Employment in commercial tuna shing in recent years is shown in Table 5.13.

2002 39 47 86
2006 15 80 95
2008 15 70 85
The above information implies that the reports of the recent census and HIES are not suciently disaggregated to show much about formal employment in sheries or the importance of self-employment in the sheries sector. Results of shery-focused surveys give greater detail but they are mostly narrow in scope (i.e., one company, one island, one subsector) and there are suggestions of problems with sampling strategy. These two factors result in more diculty in quantifying the importance of sheries employment to the Kiribati economy (i.e., the ratio of sheries jobs to total jobs) than for other features, such as exports (shery exports versus total exports).
Fish Consumption
Daily per capita sh consumption for the 18 islands in the Gilbert and Line groups in the 1980s was estimated to range from 0.45 kg in South Tarawa to 2.86 kg in Arorae; of the 18 islands listed, 11 (61%) of the islands had a per capita consumption of sh greater than 1.0 kg/day, based on information from the 1985 census (Nube 1989). According to IMM (1993), the estimated catch in the Gilbert group translates into a sh annual supply of 207.0 kg per capita. For the country as a whole, the World Bank (1995), quoting FAO sources, stated that Per capita supplies [of sh] available for consumption arequite high ranging between 72 and 75 kg/year over the last decade. The World Bank (2000) also stated that in Kiribati, 67% of total animal protein was from seafood. Annual per capita supply of seafood in 1995 was 150 kg, based on FAO production, import, and export data (Preston 2000). Fish consumption surveys in 2003 (Fisheries Division 2004) estimated a daily per capita value of 253.4 grams, or 92.5 kg/year. A sh consumption survey in 2005 (Fisheries Division 2006) showed annual per capita values of 32.6 kg in Makin, 68.8 kg in Maiana, and 36.9 kg in Nonouti. The Statistics Unit of the Fisheries Division later stated that an average I-Kiribati consumes 241 g of sh per day (2000 to 2003 estimates). This equated to 87.9 kg per year. Some recent studies focused on tuna consumption. Tuna landings in South Tarawa (where data are most reliable) in late 1990s were 2633 t/week, according to data in Gillett and Lightfoot (2001). Based on an average of 30 t/week, this was equivalent to an annual per capita tuna supply of about 50 kg for the population of 30,000. Data in Sullivan and Ram-Bidesi (2008) indicate an annual tuna catch in South Tarawa of 1,584 t/year. Considering the population had then reached 40,300 in South Tarawa (Anon 2007b), the apparent annual per capita consumption was about 39 kg of tuna. Data from an HIES in 2006 (Bell et al. 2009) suggested annual per capita sh consumption in Kiribati of 62.2 kg (whole weight equivalent), of which 92% was fresh sh. For rural areas, it was 58.0 kg, and for urban areas, 67.3 kg. There is, however, at least some contention that the HIES data underestimate sh production and consumption (section 27.1). Sullivan and Ram-Bidesi (2008) considered much of the recent literature on sh consumption in Kiribati and stated: What is clear is that (a) sh and sh products remain a very signicant part of total animal
Kiribati 75
protein supply in Kiribati and (b) tuna species remain the single most common and important marine resource consumed in Kiribati. Some of the older sh consumption studies indicate that Kiribati has the highest rate of sh consumption in the world. The various studies also show large variation in annual per capita rates between studies and between islands within studies.
Marshall Islands
Fish Production
Coastal commercial sheries production in early 1990s was estimated at 369t worth $714,504 by Dalzell et al. (1996), based on information from the FFA sheries proles (Smith 1992b) and from a nutritional survey in 1990 (Anon 1991). For the late 1990s, production was estimated at 444 t valued at $973,000 by Gillett and Lightfoot (2001), based on the Dalzell et al. (1996) estimate and seven other sources of information. Additional information that could be used to update these production estimates comes from data on the purchases of sh in the outer islands by the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA), 2002 HIES, Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation (OFCF) shery surveys, and data on the exports of products from coastal commercial sheries.
Marshall Islands 77
Fish purchases by MIMRA in the outer islands give some insight on commercial sheries production in non-Majuro atolls of the country. MIMRA purchases at those locations are thought to represent somewhat more than half of all commercial sheries production (G. Joseph and D. Jack, personal communication, October 2008). The three latest MIMRA annual reports (MIMRA 2006, 2007, 2008a) give the amounts of sh purchased by the authority during the 3 scal years: FY2005: Arno: 15,743 kg for $31,983 Jaluit: 8,188 kg for $13,135 Maloelap and Aur: 5,278 kg for $7,472 Ailinglaplap, Namu, Likiep, and Ailuk: sh purchased over 3 years: $46,479.69, or $15,493/year (for an estimated 9,781 kg/year)
FY2006: Arno: 14,643 kg for $27,916 Jaluit: 8,621 kg for $16,052 Maloelap and Aur: 8,202 kg for $19,657 Fish bases on atolls supplying Kwajalein Fish Market: zero (no transport)
FY2007: Arno: 10,567 kg for $20,331 Jaluit: 7,912 kg for $13,692 Maloelap and Aur: 9,169 kg for $16,623 Fish bases on atolls supplying Kwajalein Fish Market: zero (no transport)
The above data indicate that during the 3 years, MIMRA purchased annually an average of 32.6 t of sh for $60,784. If the MIMRA purchases represented 50% of the commercial shing production in areas away from Majuro/Arno, then there was about 70 t of commercial production in the outer islands. The 2002 HIES (EPPSO 2002) indicated that sheries production was 583 t worth $2,623,930. Sta of EPPSO cautioned that, due to very limited coverage of non-urban areas, the results are likely to be applicable only to Majuro and Ebeye (C. Hacker, personal communication, October 2008).
An OFCF and MIMRA survey in 2004 estimated that the total annual coastal shery catch in Majuro was 947 t, of which 535 t were sold (OFCF and MIMRA 2004). At a price of $1.40 to the shers, the total value to them was $1,652,798. In 2004, the annual total catch was 353 t, made up of 249 t reef sh, 61 t pelagic sh, and 43 t of shellsh and other items. In 2005, the annual total catch was 463 t, made up of 350 t reef sh, 38 t pelagic sh, and 75 t shellsh and other items. Total sales were 292 t and self-consumption 171 t (OFCF 2006). Exports of products from coastal sheries in the Marshall Islands are signicant: aquarium sh (40,000 pieces in 2006), coral, and trochus were exported (MIMRA 2008a).24 Sta of EPPSO indicated that no eective monitoring of exports, including shery exports (C. Hacker, personal communication, October 2008). Coastal shery product export statistics reported to FAO (for which there is some degree of verication using importing country data) are shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Major Coastal Fishery Exports of the Marshall Islands, 2006
Product Ornamental fish Coral and the like Miscellaneous corals and shells Mollusks and other aquatic invertebrates, live, fresh, or chilled, nei Ornamental saltwater fish Other aquatic invertebrates, frozen Miscellaneous mollusks, other than live, fresh, or chilled, nei Ornamental freshwater fish Clams, shucked or not, live, fresh, or chilled Other aquatic invertebrates, live, fresh, or chilled Crabs, peeled or not, fresh, or chilled
nei = not elsewhere included, FOB prices.
a
Valuea ($000) 391 181 35 16 16 9 8 5 4 2 1
Values are free on board (FOB).
Source: Statistics reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
24
All giant clam exports from the Marshall Islands are from culture operations.
Marshall Islands 79
Fish values in the mid-2000s can be approximated by (i) assuming a MIMRA outer island buying price of $2.20/kg, (ii) assuming a Majuro buying price of $3.09/kg, and (iii) reducing FOB values on Table 6.1 to approximate prices to shers. Selectively using the above information, annual coastal commercial sheries production in the Marshall Islands in the mid-2000s is estimated to be 950 t worth $2.9 million.

A subsistence production of 2,000 t worth $3,103,213 in the early 1990s was estimated by Dalzell et al. (1996), and at 2,800 t worth $3,836,000 in the late 1990s by Gillett and Lightfoot (2001). After the latter estimate, the population of the Marshall Islands increased by 3.6% by the end of 2007, which would tend to increase demand for sh. However, there was an increasing concentration of people in Majuro, which would tend to reduce the importance of subsistence sh production. Additional information that could be used for making a new estimate includes the 2004 OFCF/MIMRA Majuro survey, which estimated subsistence production in Majuro at 412 t, representing 43% of all coastal sheries production in Majuro; and the 2005 OFCF Arno survey, which estimated subsistence production in Arno at 172 t, representing 37% of all coastal sheries production in Arno. Stanley (2005) cited two estimates of subsistence sheries production in the country: According to the Meto 2000 Report, approximately 1,500 to 1,700 t of sh per annum are harvested and consumed by households. This contrasts with estimates in the Vision 2018 Marshall Islands Fisheries Sector Master Plan, which puts yearly subsistence sheries landings in a range of 3,125 to 5,470 t. The price of subsistence sh can be approximated by taking the MIMRA outer island buying price ($2.20/kg) and using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production in the Pacic islands, i.e., discounting the MIMRA price by 30% as an allowance for getting the product to market. Using the above information, coastal subsistence sheries production in the Marshall Islands in the mid-2000s is estimated to be 2,800 t worth $4,312,000.

Estimates of catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the WCPFC area for 19972007 were made by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA 2008), using data from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. In these data, prices are all delivered prices in that they reect the price received at entry to the country in which they are usually sold, whether for processing or consumption. Also, bycatch was not included, although it is an important component. Catches by foreign longliners based in Majuro, as inferred from FFA (2008), are quite dierent from those estimated by monitoring catch ooading by MIMRA. Discussions with the Fisheries Database Supervisor at SPC suggest that this is an artifact of the relatively high coverage of operational data for the PRC eet in the Marshall Islands compared to other areas in the western Pacic, and consequently the MIMRA estimates are likely to be closer to the actual catch (P. Williams, personal communication, November 2008). Catches of locally based longliners and of the Marshallese-agged purse seiners are given in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Catch of Locally Based Offshore Fleets (t)
Item Locally based longliners (from MIMRA, increased by 30% for bycatch) Locally based seiners (from FFA, increased by 5% for bycatch) Total 2004 2,059 2005 2,743 2006 3,484 2007 3,363
48,912
58,972
43,113
60,206
50,971
61,715
46,597
63,569
FFA = Forum Fisheries Agencies, MIMRA = Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority, t = ton. Sources: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008), Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority (MIMRA) annual reports, MIMRA (2008b).
Table 6.3: Catch Value of Locally Based Offshore Fleets ($)

Item Locally based longliners Locally based seinersb Total
a
2004
a
2005 11,704,381 44,309,541
2006 13,810,576 33,310,298
2007 15,846,456 65,363,934
8,314,242 35,799,984
44,114,226 56,013,922 47,120,874 81,210,390
From Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) (2008), with destination market values (i) reduced by 25% to obtain dockside tuna values; and (ii) increased by 10% to account for the sale of bycatch.
b
From FFA (2008), with destination market values decreased by 15% for transshipment costs.
Sources: Table 6.2 and FFA (2008).
Marshall Islands 81
The above catches, price information in FFA (2008), and knowledge of the sheries were used to give dockside catch values for the two locally based eets (Table 6.3).

Catches by foreign vessels in 2007 are shown in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Catch of Foreign-Based Offshore Fleets, 2007
Fleet Foreign longlinersa Foreign pole-and-line vessels Foreign purse seinersb Total Catch (ton) 378 4,548 7,801 12,727
Note: A large difference exists between the foreign purse seine catch given in FFA (2008) and that given by MIMRA (2008b), which could not be reconciled by early January 2009. For consistency with other sections of this report, the data in FFA (2008) were used here.
a
Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) (2008) catch increased by 30% for bycatch. FFA (2008) catch increased by 5% for bycatch.
Sources: FFA (2008) and Secretariat of the Pacific Community (unpublished data, 2008b).
The above catches, price information in FFA (2008), and knowledge of the sheries were used to give the catch values for the three foreign-based eets (Table 6.5). The values given are in-zone values: destination market values less the cost of getting the catch from the Marshall Islands zone to those markets.
Table 6.5: Catch Value of Foreign-Based Offshore Fleets, 2007 ($)
Fleet Foreign longliners Foreign pole-and-line vessels Foreign purse seiners Total
a
Valuea 1,510,760 6,815,465 11,246,487 19,572,712
Values are from Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) (2008) decreased by 15% for transport.
Sources: Table 6.4 and FFA (2008).
Freshwater Catches
No freshwater sheries are conducted in the Marshall Islands.
In recent years, two types of aquaculturegiant clams and black pearlswere conducted with signicant production. Discussions with MIMRA sta and commercial clam farmers indicate that in 2007, one commercial clam farm and two farms existed that operated primarily for stock enhancement purposes, but which also made some commercial sales. Giant clam production in the Marshall Islands in recent years reached 20,00030,000 pieces of 2.5 cm each, with a farm-gate value of about $3.50 per piece. A production of 25,000 clams equates to $87,500. The most recent harvest of cultured black pearls was in early 2005 when 2,0003,000 pearls were harvested, each with a farm-gate value of $5025 (M. Nair, personal communication, October 2008). For the purpose of the present study, annual aquaculture production in the Marshall Islands in recent years is estimated to be 25,000 pieces worth $130,000.
Table 6.6: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in the Marshall Islands, 2007
t = ton.
a The values in the table are dockside and/or farm-gate prices, except in the case of offshore foreignbased fishing where the value in local waters (overseas market prices less imputed transshipment costs) is given.
Quantity (t) 950 2,800 63,569 12,727 0 25,000 pieces 25,000 pieces plus 80,046 t
Valuea ($) 2,900,000 4,312,000 81,210,390 19,572,712 0 130,000 108,125,102
Sources: Tables 6.16.5 and consultants estimates.

25
Although this price is relatively high compared to pearls from other Pacic island countries, MIMRA ocials conrm that it is indeed realistic, given the rarity value of pearls from the Marshall Islands (G. Joseph, personal communication, October 2008).
Marshall Islands 83
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of annual production and value in 2007 was made (Table 6.6). The extremely weak factual basis for the estimates of coastal commercial and coastal subsistence catches should be recognized.

The contribution of shing to the Marshall Islands gross domestic product (GDP), obtained from the national accounts, is shown in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7: Fishing Contribution to Marshall Islands GDP ($000)
Item Fishing component of GDP Total GDP Fishing share of GDP (%) FY2003 572 124,145 0.5 FY2004 590 132,475 0.4 FY2005 620 139,343 0.4 FY2006 657 145,345 0.5 FY2007 679 156,125 0.4
FY = fiscal year, GDP = gross domestic product. Source: Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office (2008a).

Sta of the Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Oce (EPPSO) provided information on the methodology for calculating the ocial shing contribution to GDP (C. Hacker, personal communication, October 2008). The income approach to calculating GDP is used because income data are readily available through social security records. The shing sector consists of only those salaried employees who contribute to social security. There is another sector called subsistence, which includes subsistence shing, but the precise proportion of shing in that category is unknown and the total amount for subsistence is only a crude estimate because the most recent HIES had poor rural coverage. The text of the national accounts (EPPSO 2008a) contained footnotes concerning shing:
It lists an Oshore shing surplus ($5.7 million in 2007), with a footnote stating that it is the Estimated surplus of RMI-based longline shing and shore-based sh processing under foreign investment (tax holiday) exemptions. Another footnote states Does not include purse seine operations, which are treated as outside the economic territory of the RMI and so are not included in GDP.
Regarding the method used to calculate the ocial shing contribution to GDP in the Marshall Islands, it appears that the shing sector does not include all that is shing (i.e., omits subsistence shing and apparently most small-scale commercial shing), but does include some items that are not shing (e.g., sh processing). Purse seine operations, regardless of place of incorporation,are managed out of Majuro and have a substantial physical base for provisioning and maintenance of vessels. According to international standards for balance of payments and national accounts statistics, the catch of these resident purse seine operators sold to nonresidents should be included in exports, and value added derived from total catch should be included in GDP (Z. Abbasi, Pacic Island Financial Technical Assistance Centre, personal communication, November 2008).

Table 6.8 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in the Marshall Islands. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing and/or aquaculture activities for which production values were determined above (summarized in Table 6.6) and determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The approach in Table 6.8 is not intended to replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication. Total value added from shing in Table 6.8 ($41.8 million for calendar year 2007) is considerably greater than the ocial estimate of shing of $679,000 for FY2007.
Marshall Islands 85

Gross Value of Production ($, from Table 6.6) 2,900,000 4,312,000 81,210,390 15,846,456 65,363,934 0 130,000 0.20 0.50 0 0.55 3,169,291 32,681,967 0 71,500 41,762,958
Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore locally based Longline Purse seine Freshwater Aquaculture Total
Source: Section 6.1.
Value-Added Ratio 0.75 0.85
Value Added ($) 2,175,000 3,665,200
Regarding the status of foreign longliners in the Marshall Islands economy for GDP purposes, the following points were made by McKinlay (2007): A shing vessel becomes resident only if the operator establishes a base in the country otherwise the residence of the vessel remains that of the operator, regardless of the area in which it is shing. Usual practice: Treat vessel as resident if it has a base in the country for longer than one year. If these two criteria are applied to the locally based foreign eets that operate out of Majuro, those eets should denitely be considered as part of the Marshall Islands economy for GDP purposes. However, for some reason, should those longliners not be considered as part of the Marshall Islands economy, the equivalent gross value of production for just the locally based and locally registered Marshallese longliners was about $30,000 in 2007.26 The value added from those local longliners would be about $6,000.

In the Marshall Islands, there is no eective monitoring of exports (C. Hacker, personal communication, October 2008). To obtain information on the
26
Four Marshallese longliners began shing in January 2008, but their catch is not covered here.
export of shery products from the country, unocial sources of information must be used. Tuna exports are the most important shery export of the country (Table 6.9). A tuna processing plant operated in Majuro for several years. It was built in 1999, reached maximum production a few years later, and ceased operation in 2004. In 2003, the plant processed 11,400 t of tuna and produced exports worth $3,350,000 (EPPSO 2006). No exports from the plant were made in 2006 or 2007; it recommenced processing in April 2008 under new management. Fishery product export statistics are reported to FAO and there is some degree of verication using importing country data. Although those statistics certainly have problems, they are at least indicative of the range of shery
Table 6.9: Exports from Locally Based Longliners (t)
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007
t= ton. Source: Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority annual reports.
Fresh Exports of Tuna and Bycatch 1,628 3,109 2,764 2,718
Frozen Exports and Local Sales 455 1,261 1,478 1,051
Table 6.10: FAO Export Statistics for Fishery Products, Marshall Islands, 2006
Product Skipjack tuna, frozen Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei Bigeye tuna, fresh, or chilled Fish fillets, fresh, or chilled, nei Bigeye tuna, frozen, nei Yellowfin tuna, fresh, or chilled Fish fillets, frozen, nei Sharks, frozen, nei Ornamental fish, nei Fish meat, whether or not minced, frozen, nei Coral and the like Value (FOB, $000) 7,899 2,618 1,931 1,815 892 716 661 527 391 208 181
Marshall Islands 87
Product Miscellaneous corals and shells Marine fish, fresh or chilled, nei Marine fish, frozen, nei Tunas nei, frozen Mollusks and other aquatic invertebrates, live, fresh, or chilled, nei Ornamental saltwater fish Other aquatic invertebrates, frozen Miscellaneous mollusks, other than live, fresh, or chilled, nei Fish waste, nei Ornamental freshwater fish Clams, shucked or not, live, fresh or chilled Other aquatic invertebrates, live, fresh, or chilled Yellowfin tuna, heads-off, etc., frozen Crabs, peeled or not, fresh, or chilled Total
FOB = free on board, nei = not elsewhere included. Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2008).
Value (FOB, $000) 35 29 28 23 16 16 9 8 5 5 4 2 2 1 18,022
exports (Table 6.10). The value of tuna exports is extremely low compared to the dockside value of the locally based longline eet given in section 6.1. From the information above, a crude estimate of the value of shery exports in 2007 is: coastal exports, $450,000; aquaculture exports, $130,000; and exports from local longliners, $14.3 million (the dockside value of the catch in Table 6.6 was reduced to allow for local sales). For purse seine sh, the large amount of tuna transshipped in Majuro lagoon should obviously not be considered as exports of the Marshall Islands. Dealing with the $65.4 million of catch by seiners based in Majuro (but who often sh and/or transship in the zones of other countries) is more complex. The total of all exports is not known with certainty, but some estimates (e.g., $16.2 million of exports in 2006 [PITIC 2008]) do not include tuna. Fishery exports of the Marshall Islands are given in Table 6.11, from the International Trade Centre export database derived from mirror data (partner countries trade data).
Table 6.11: Marshall Islands Fishery Exports ($000)

Item All industries Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, aquatic invertebrates Share of fishery exports in products from all industries (%) 2002 80,491 35.4 2003 38,223 19.3 2004 55,798 36.0 2005 61,765 7.9 2006 37,342 4.3 227,132 197,797 155,153 778,629 873,660
Source: International Trade Centre. www.intracen.org/appli1/TradeCom/TP_TP_CI.aspx?RP=584&YR=2002

Access fees in recent years are shown in Table 6.12.
Table 6.12: Access Fees Collected by MIMRA in Recent Yearsa ($)
Item Foreign-based fishing Locally based foreign fishing US treaty and FSM arrangement Total Total revenue and grants Total domestic revenue Access fees as proportion of domestic revenue (%) FY2005 2,088,921 411,000 152,063 2,651,984 85,600,000 35,500,000 7.5 FY2006 1,314,712 384,000 1,093,285.64 2,791,997.64 94,800,000 36,400,000 7.7 FY2007 1,058,139 398,000 497,505 1,953,644 98,900,000 36,000,000 5.4
FSM = Federates States of Micronesia, FY = fiscal year, MIMRA = Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, US = United States.
a The fees given in the table are for fishing access and do not include fees for carriers and tankers that service fishing vessels.
Sources: MIMRA annual reports, MIMRA unpublished data, EPPSO website: www.spc.int/prism/country/ mh/stats/Economic.
In mid-2007, the population of the Marshall Islands was 52,701. The $1,953,644 received for foreign shing access in 2007 was equivalent to $37 per person in the country.

Other types of revenue received by the government from shing activity in recent years are shown in Table 6.13.
Marshall Islands 89
Table 6.13: Other Fees (Non-Access) from Fishing Activity ($)

Fees Transshipment fees Other fees and charges Total 2004 139,800 154,105 293,905 2005 168,600 255,130 423,730 2006 140,400 214,422 354,822 2007 105,600 130,952 236,552
Sources: Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA) 2006 Annual Report, MIMRA unpublished data.
Employment
In early 2008, the Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Oce carried out an employment survey (EPPSO 2008b). The survey obtained data from Social Security records plus EPPSO non-reported estimates. The results relevant to the sheries sector are in Table 6.14.
Table 6.14: Marshall Islands Employment
FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 Number of Jobs Fishing Total jobs in country Fishing Total all jobs in country Fishing Average all jobs in country
FY = fiscal year. Source: Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Office (EPPSO) (2008b).
546 8,598
617 9,116
735 9,544
903 9,946
1,003 10,070
281 9,578
345 9,918
281 10,149
Total Earnings ($ million/year) 1,374 16,132 1,448 17,496 1,563 17,873 1,731 16,762 1,986 16,748 830 16,155 1,053 17,672 889 18,937
Average Earnings ($/year) 3,088 8,539 3,091 8,479 2,768 8,479 2,464 8,340 2,558 8,791 5,508 9,474 5,415 9,654 6,207 9,544
Based on Table 6.14, many people are likely to be employed in sheries jobs that do not make Social Security contributions. The accuracy of EPPSO non-reported estimates for these people not captured by the Social Security system is unknown, but seems low. The decline in shing employment between 2004 and 2005 suggests that shing includes nonshing jobs, such as those at the tuna loining plant (that closed in late 2004). The plant employed between 100 and 520 individuals annually between 1999 and mid2004 as well as supporting surrounding services in addition to the import,
processing and export of the tuna loins and shmeal produced (EPPSO 2008a). If estimates in the table are accurate, shing in 2007 provided 2.8% of the jobs in the country and 4.7% of the income from jobs. The income level of shing jobholders was only about 65% of the average level. Results of the 2002 HIES (which had some deciencies related to nonurban coverage, section 6.1) contain information on sheries employmentdened as participation in shing during the week before the survey, are as follows: Out of 1,099 employed people in the country, Agricultural and Fisheries workers had only 25 jobs. The only sheries category in Agricultural and Fisheries workers being deep-sea shery workers in which only seven people were employed. 101 people (including 6 females) were involved in shing for home use. 54 people (including 2 females) were involved in subsistence shing, and sold any.
Another source of information on employment in sheries is the OFCF and MIMRA survey in 1994, which indicated that 62.2% households on Majuro did at least some shing once a year. This equated to 1,916 shery households on Majuro. Still another source (Chapman 2004) indicated that in 2004, 10 full-time and 2530 part-time vessels were trolling for tuna and other pelagic species around Majuro, while an unknown number were trolling around reefs and bird patches in the outer islands. Employment in tuna shing (shing and postharvest) in recent years is shown in Table 6.15.
Table 6.15: Employment in Tuna Fisheries
2002 5 457 462
2006 0 100 100
2008 25 116 141
Marshall Islands 91
Fish Consumption
Discussions with a Majuro-based nutrition specialist indicate that there have been no general nutrition surveys in the last decade that involved sh consumption (I. DeBrum, personal communication, October 2008). However, some information on sh consumption is available from other sources, as follows. Annual consumption of sh per capita on Majuro in early 1980s was stated to be 31.7 kg, consisting of local sh 22.8 kg, canned sh 8.6 kg, and imported frozen sh 0.3 kg, according to a survey by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA 1983). Johns Hopkins (1992) gave the frequency of eating eight categories of shery foods in 75 households. Subsistence shery contribution to sh consumption in the Marshall Islands was estimated to be 59.0 kg/year, according to Oce of Planning and Statistics worksheets for calculating the shing component of GDP, which contain information from an early 1990s household expenditure survey. Burton et al. (1997) gave the average number of meals per week containing local sh and imported sh at Mili, Namu, and Laura. Apparent per capita supply of sh in the Marshall Islands in 1995 was 38.9 kg/year, based on FAO production, import, and export information (Preston 2000). Considerable dierence was observed in consumption between the population centers of Majuro and Kwajalein, where 68% of the population resided in 1999, and the outer islands, where sh was relatively plentiful. Also, leakage of sh from the transshipment operations and longline bases in Majuro probably had a substantial eect on the supply of sh on that island (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). Per capita consumption of local marine animals by the 1,915 people on Ailinlaplap Atoll in 2001 was shown to be equivalent to 42.3 kg annual per capita consumption (McCoy and Hart 2002). The OFCF and MIMRA (2004) survey estimated a sh supply equivalent to 39.9 kg/person/year for the 23,000 people on Majuro.
Nauru
Fish Production
The annual commercial shery catch in early 1990s was estimated at 279 t worth $628,605, by Dalzell et al. (1996), citing Dalzell et al. (1992); and in late 1990s at 315 t worth A$514,250 (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001).
Nauru 93
An SPC sheries survey (Pacic Regional Coastal Fisheries Development Programme [COFISH] survey) around Nauru in October and November 2005 estimated the annual catch of nsh at 589.4 t,27 with the majority caught for subsistence (55%72%), some distributed on a non-monetary basis (17%20%), and some sold (8%27%). For invertebrates, the annual catch was estimated at 27 t, with all but some lobster catch used for home consumption (COFISH 2005). A sheries specialist who is both familiar with the COFISH survey of Nauru and now a resident of Nauru (T. Adams, personal communication, November 2008) observed that the COFISH survey period was somewhat atypical. There was a fuel shortage at the time of the survey, so there were no outboard skis operating. Those boats normally caught most of the tuna and coastal pelagic sh. The average landings per month of tuna alone were about 2.5 t (31 t/year), with others (mainly pelagic landings) adding another 2 t/ month, according to 1999/2000 creel survey data (biased towards the boatbased shery) published in the sheries newsletter. This, however, would be an underestimate, because monitoring was probably not complete. In April 2005, an SPC sheries specialist visited Nauru (Chapman 2005) and conrmed that the fuel shortage aected shing at that time, with fewer than 10 of the 30-40 outboard skis operating. He also noted that reef gleaning was also on the rise, especially in the previous 12 months. People were also eating sea urchins and bche de mer, which was not done in the past. Note that the Dalzell et al. (1996) and Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) estimates indicated that commercial sheries production was about three times that of subsistence, while the COFISH (2005) estimate would mean that commercial sheries production was only about one-fth that of subsistence. The dierence may partly lie in profound changes in the Nauru economy that occurred between the periods covered by the Dalzell and CoFish surveys. There was increasing per capita consumption of seafood, directly related to the high reliance on seafood as a source of protein given the economic decline (COFISH 2005). In 2007, the fuel situation was back to normal and a number of tuna boats departed from the ramps on most days (G. Preston, personal communication, November 2008). In February 2008, the shing eet in Nauru consisted of 4050 motorized skis, with only about 20 used regularly. Around this time,
27
Communication from SPC indicates that a revised estimate of total catch is 419.96 t (M. Kronen, personal communication, March 2009).
there were also about 70 actively used shing canoes (Blanc and Templeton 2008). The population of Nauru increased about 13% between the period covered by the Dalzell estimate and 2007 (Dalzell et al. 1992; SPC 2008a). Catch rates were given by Rodwell (1998) using data collected by the Nauru Fisheries and Marine Resources Authority (NFMRA): small troll boats caught 70.0 kg/day and drop-stone boats caught 115.0 kg/day. Prices during the 2006 HIES averaged A$2.12/kg for marketed local sh and A$1.53/kg for sh caught for subsistence. According to a sheries specialist based on Nauru, sh prices at the landing place in late 2008 were in the range A$5A$8/kg. There is little factual basis for adjusting the 2005 COFISH estimate. Nevertheless, for the purpose of the present study, 2007 coastal commercial sheries production on Nauru is estimated to be 200 t worth A$1 million.

Annual subsistence sheries in early 1990s were estimated at 98 t worth $219,600 (Dalzell et al. 1996), and in late 1990s at 110 t worth A$1,732,500 (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). From information and approach used in the above section, it is estimated that production from coastal subsistence sheries in Nauru in 2007 was 450 t worth A$787,000.

No oshore shing vessel currently operates from Nauru. The two longliners owned by the Nauru Fisheries Trading Corporation did not operate in 2007 and have never been fully operational (Anon 2008b).
Foreign-based Offshore Catches

In 2007, there were 131 foreign shing vessels (all purse seiners) licensed to sh in the Nauru EEZ. The major participating entities were Japan (33 purse seiners), Taipei,China (33), and Republic of Korea (27) (Anon 2008b). Estimates of catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) area for 19972007 were made by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA 2008), using data from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. In these data, prices were all delivered prices in that they reected the price received at entry
Nauru 95
Table 7.1: Catches by Foreign-Based Offshore Vessels, Nauru Exclusive Economic Zone
Item Tuna catch (t)
a
2003 19,416
2004 67,295
2005 50,992
2006 57,307
2007 65,939
Destination value of tuna catch ($)b Total catch (t) In-zone value of total catch ($) In-zone value of total catch (A$)
a
15,139,002 60,756,520 47,830,333 56,388,594 88,890,402 20,387 70,660 53,542 60,172 69,236
13,625,102 54,680,868 43,047,300 50,749,735 80,001,361 20,710,155 74,365,980 56,391,963 66,989,650 95,201,620
A$ = Australian dollar, t = ton. The tuna catch was increased by 5% for bycatch.
to the country in which they were usually sold, whether for processing or consumption. Bycatch was not included, although it was an important component. Catches by the foreign-based eet and their value in recent years are shown in Table 7.1, modied as noted in the table.
Freshwater Catches
There are four depressions on the Nauru plateau, the most signicant one forming the 30,000 m Buada Lagoon. The other water bodies, known as ponds, are on the fringing coast or just a few meters from the base of the escarpment. They range from about 40 m to 10,000 m, either manufactured or naturally occurring. Anabar pond, at 10,000 m, is the most signicant (NFMRA 2005). The ponds have become populated by tilapia, which is not popular as a food item (Tuara 1998). In the present study, any harvesting from these brackishwater bodies is considered to be aquaculture.
The Nauru Fisheries and Marine Resources Authority (NFMRA 2005) described the fall and rise of aquaculture in Nauru. Traditionally, juvenile milksh were collected on the intertidal reef and reared in brackish ponds. The most important areas for farming were Buada Lagoon and, to a lesser
extent, the Anabar pond. Farming was divided among families, with walls and fences, and the people had an intricate social fabric intertwined with milksh culture. The Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) was introduced around 1961 with assistance from the South Pacic Commission, but it was not accepted as a food source mainly because of its small size and poor avor. Tilapia eventually infested all the milksh ponds and competed for food. The result was that milksh took longer to grow to an edible size and caused many farmers to abandon their traditional practice of raising milksh. In 2000, the Buada Lagoon Owners Association introduced 10,000 milksh fry from Kiribati into Buada Lagoon, reaping 5,000 adult sh some months later. Currently, there are several milksh grow-out ponds around Nauru; two extension ocers provide advice to farmers. These are backyard and/or subsistence operations, but there is no good estimate of production. The last estimate was in 2006 when it was thought that annual milksh production was about 8 t, providing livelihoods for 30 people (T. Adams, personal communication, November 2008). Aquaculture production in Nauru in 2007 was estimated at 8 t worth A$18,000.
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of the annual quantities and values of the shery and aquaculture harvests in 2007 was made (Table 7.2). The weak factual basis for the estimates of the coastal commercial and coastal subsistence catch should be recognized.
Table 7.2: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in Nauru, 2007
A$ = Australian dollar, t = ton.
a The values in the table are dockside and/or farm-gate prices, except for offshore foreign-based fishing, where the value in local waters (overseas market prices less imputed transshipment costs) is given.
Quantity (t) 200 450 0 69,236 0 8 69,894
Valuea (A$) 1,000,000 787,000 0 95,201,620 0 18,000 97,006,620
Nauru 97
The above suggests that the bycatch from the oshore foreign-based shing in the Nauru zone (deemed to be 5% of the purse seine tuna catch, Table 7.1) is about ve times greater than all coastal commercial and subsistence shing in Nauru.

The shing contribution to GDP in recent years is given in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3: Fishing Contribution to the Nauru GDP
FY2004 Fishing contribution to GDP ($ million) Nauru GDP (current prices) ($ million) Fishing share of GDP (%)
FY = fiscal year, GDP = gross domestic product. Source: Asian Development Bank (2007a).
FY2005 3.0 24.5 12.2
FY2006 2.9 28.5 10.2
2.7 29.7 9.1
Method Used to Calculate the Fishing Contribution to GDP

Compiling GDP estimates for Nauru was complicated by a number of special factors, according to ADB (2007a). These included pending salaries, Bank of Nauru checks, the treatment of the Refugee Processing Center, large subsidies to government-owned business enterprises, large numbers of redundancies in the public sector, and gaps in the statistical collection. In fact, apart from the budget documents for recent years, there are no economic statistics for Nauru. The only details available on the GDP calculations are the brief general explanation in ADB (2007a): GDP estimates have been compiled by industry using a mixture of the income and production approaches. Using the income approach, GDP is equal to compensation of employees plus gross operating surplus plus taxes on production and imports less subsidies. Using the production approach, GDP is equal to output less intermediate consumption.

Table 7.4 represents an alternative to the above method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in Nauru. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing and aquaculture activities for which production values were determined above (summarized in Table 7.2) and determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. Those VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The approach in Table 7.4 does not intend to replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication. Table 7.4 was constructed using the values of production from Table 7.2, which is nominally for 2007. Those values, however, are crude estimates and are likely to be equally applicable to 2006. The 2007 shing contribution to GDP in Table 7.4 (A$1,320,900) is considerably less than the shing contribution estimated by ADB (2007a) of A$2,900,000 (Table 7.3). Given the lack of details on the ADB methodology, it is dicult to explain why the dierence is so great, other than simply stating that, if the ADB estimate used the production approach to estimate the sheries sector contribution, the gross value of production from coastal sheries in the two studies must be very dierent.
Table 7.4: Fishing Contribution to Mid-2000s GDP Using an Alternative Approach
Gross Value of Production (A$, from Table 7.2) 1,000,000 787,000 0 0 18,000 ValueAdded Ratio 0.60 0.90 0 0 0.70 Value Added (A$) 600,000 708,300 0 0 12,600 1,320,900
A$ = Australian dollar, GDP = gross domestic product. Sources: From Table 7.2 and consultants estimates.
Nauru 99

There were high aspirations for shery exports from Nauru. Chapman (2004) stated that the Nauru Fishing Corporation (NFC) operated the sh market, and had freezers and storage for exporting products. NFC purchased an 18meter tuna longliner in 2000 and a 15-meter longliner in 2002 to sh for both the local and export market. Currently, Nauru has no shery products for export. The last export shipment of fresh tuna from the domestic longline operation was in 2001, and only seven shipments were ever made. Although sh was of good quality and received a good price at auction in Japan, the local longline operation was unprotable for various reasons, including frequent mechanical problems and lack of incentives in the wage-structure (Philipson 2007b).

Naurus national report to the 4th meeting of the Scientic Committee of WCPFC in 2008 gave the numbers and nationalities of vessels authorized to sh in Naurus EEZ (Table 7.5).
Table 7.5: Foreign Fishing Vessels Authorized to Fish in the Nauru Exclusive Economic Zone
Nationality of Registration Peoples Republic of China Federated States of Micronesia Japan Kiribati Korea, Republic of Marshall Islands New Zealand Taipei,China United States Vanuatu Total
Source: Anon (2008b).
Number of Vessels 10 4 33 1 27 5 3 33 9 6 131
Table 7.6: Access Fee Payments to Nauru

Period FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 estimated
A$ = Australian dollar, FY = fiscal year. Source: Nauru Fisheries and Marine Resources Authority, unpublished data.
Amount (A$) 4,582,000 not available 3,890,000 5,100,000 6,126,000 4,695,000
Table 7.7: Access Fees as a Percentage of Catch Value

Item In-zone value total catch (A$, from Table 7.1) Access fees (A$, from Table 7.6) Access fees as percentage of catch value
A$ = Australian dollar. Source: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008), with modifications by consultant.
2005 56,391,963 3,890,000 6.9
2006 66,989,650 5,100,000 7.6
2007 95,201,620 6,126,000 6.4
These foreign vessels, all purse seiners, pay access fees to Nauru. The amount of those fees in recent years is given in Table 7.6. The total government revenue was A$24,248,000 in FY2007 and A$35,518,000 in FY2008 (Keke 2008). Access fees represented 21.0% of government revenue in FY2007 and 17.2% in FY2008. Fishing access fees represented about 8% of the value of the catch taken from Nauru waters of A$50 millionA$80 million/year (ADB 2007a). Table 7.7 makes a similar comparison with data from the present study. Two features should, however, be noted: (i) the catch value is the in-zone value, whereas some studies use landed value in destination market country; and (ii) the table compares fees from scal years with catch values from calendar years.

Disaggregated information is not available on Nauru government revenue from sheries that is not associated with access by foreign shing vessels. The Fisheries Advisor to the Government indicates that transshipment of sh
Nauru 101
occurs sporadically in Nauru, but there were no such activities (and no fees paid by transshipping vessels) in FY2008 (T. Adams, personal communication, November 2008).
Employment
Following are the results of sheries-focused socioeconomic surveys carried out in 11 of the 14 districts in Nauru in October and November 2005 (COFISH 2005): Total resident population was estimated at 10,131 people and 1,230 households. Of 245 households surveyed for income and expenditure, 97% were found to be engaged in shing activities. A total of 405 nsh shers (357 men and 48 women) and 283 invertebrate shers (149 women and 134 men) were interviewed. Survey results indicated an average of 3.7 shers per household; or a total of 4,513 shers2,947 men and 1,566 women. The main source of income was government employment (86%), with some people employed in the private sector. Fisheries do not play a signicant role in income for households. For 5%, it is their rst income and for 17%, their second income.
Based on the above survey and experience on Nauru, the government Fisheries Advisor made a preliminary estimate that there were about 200 fulltime shers in the country (T. Adams, personal communication, November 2008). Due to economic crisis at the beginning of the decade, there has been a dramatic increase in reef shing, gleaning, and collecting (COFISH 2005). In addition, shing activity among Nauruans is likely to increase following the repatriation of I-Kiribati and Tuvaluan expatriate workers. Previously, following the winding down of mining operations, most shing activity was carried out by I-Kiribati and Tuvaluan nationals. Generally, Nauruans and other nationals bought sh from the I-Kiribati and Tuvalu shers and garden fresh produce from non-specied ethnic Chinese, but with the repatriation of I-Kiribati and Tuvaluan workers and with the increasing number of Chinese also leaving the island, this is changing. Nauruans can no longer depend on expatriate workers to supply sh and garden produce and are themselves going out to gather food through traditional work, such as shing (Dame 2006).
Other available information on sheries employment in Nauru is as follows: NFMRA employs a signicant number of people. According to the Fisheries Advisor, in FY2009 there were 56 lled positions and 7 vacancies, down from 80 in 2006. (T. Adams, personal communication, November 2008). The shing eet in February 2008 consisted of 4050 motorized skis, with only about 20 used regularly; and around 70 activelyused shing canoes (Blanc and Templeton 2008). Milksh farming in 2006 provided livelihoods for about 30 people (T. Adams, personal communication, November 2008). Activities carried out by women in the marine sector tend to dier depending on the ethnic background of the individual (Tuara 1998). The participation of non-Nauruans in shing and post-harvest activities has changed remarkably in recent years (Dame 2006).
Employment in tuna shing in recent years is shown in Table 7.8.

2002 5 10 10
2006 0 2 2
2008 0 0 0
Fish Consumption
Annual per capita consumption of shery products in Nauru in late 1990s was estimated at 46.7 kg (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). According to many studies, consumption of shery products in Nauru has changed considerably since then. The SPC/COFISH study in Nauru in October and November 2005 surveyed 245 households and estimated per capita consumption of fresh sh at 46.5 kg/year. Finsh were consumed at an average of 3.8 times a week, while invertebrate consumption was about twice a month. Canned sh was frequently consumed, an average of 2.4 times a week for most households and per capita consumption per year of about 16 kg, or about one-third of fresh
Nauru 103
sh consumption. For many families, canned sh was an aordable substitute and could be cooked as soup and in many other ways to feed large families. The low consumption of invertebrates could be due to overexploitation. There was very high reliance on fresh sh, with many households interviewed consuming their own catches or buying sh from or being given sh by relatives and neighbors. Annual per capita sh consumption (whole weight equivalent), according to information from HIES conducted in 2006, was 55.8 kg, of which 96% was fresh sh (Bell et al. 2009). Food security has emerged as a serious issue due to policy failure and chronic economic decline, which have resulted in total regression of development, with people resorting to basic subsistence shing and farming for survival. Men, women, and children forage on reefs and hunt birds (primarily the black noddy tern Anous minutus) daily for food. Families have resorted to extended family systems to barter wild food for imported food items. These activities are indicative of a situation completely opposite to the common trend of the shift from traditional to imported foods (COFISH 2005).
Niue
Fish Production
Existing information on Niues coastal sheries is scattered through several documents. The Niue Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) has historically used the gure of 120 tons (t) as the annual production from all Niue sheries. Others have made similar estimates, as follows:
Niue 105
100150 t, about 50% from the reef and 50% from beyond the reef (McCoy 1990); about 115 t/year, with an additional 4.9 t/year exported to New Zealand during periods of direct air connections, based on information from a Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC) nutrition survey carried out on Niue in 1978 (Dalzell et al. 1993); commercial sheries production of 12 t worth $54,720 in 1990 (Dalzell et al. 1996); and coastal commercial catch in late 1990s of 12 t worth NZ$96,000 (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001).
Based on published (Anon 2002) and unpublished data from the Statistics and Demography Programme of the SPC and from a household income and expenditure survey (HIES) conducted in 2002, NZ$269,257 was spent by Niue residents to purchase sh (some of which was imported); subsistence sh valued at NZ$535,350 were consumed by Niue residents (all from domestic consumption); and 17 households had sh income. Using the value of subsistence production in Lewington (2000) adjusted for price changes (adjusted price = NZ$6/kg), there was about 3 t of commercial sh (some of which was imported). There is, however, some evidence from the present study that data from HIES may underestimate sheries production. The population of Niue decreased by 17% between 2000 and 2007 (SPC 2008a and Statistics Niue website). A marine baseline survey was carried out in 2004 (Fisk 2004). This survey largely focused on underwater monitoring and did not make new sheries production estimates. Discussions with the Director of Niues DAFF (B. Pasisi, personal communication, December 2008) gave some insight into coastal sheries production in Niue: No attempts were made to estimate sheries production for coastal sheries in Niue since that of Gillett and Lightfoot (2001). The DAFF still uses 120 t as the production gure from all coastal sheries in Niue. The coastal sheries production situation has not changed remarkably in the last decade, but there is one factor that may have had some temporary inuence. Local sales from the oshore longliners in 20052007 resulted in some reduction in commercial shing from skis. Prices paid to shers in 2007 averaged NZ$7NZ$9/kg of sh.
Selectively using the above information, the coastal commercial sheries production in Niue in 2007 is estimated to be 10 t valued at NZ$80,000.

Annual production in 1990 from subsistence sheries was estimated at 103t worth $471,504 (or about NZ$7.64/kg) (Dalzell et al. 1996). A survey in June 2000 during work to compile the national accounts indicated that the annual subsistence catch was about 194 t worth NZ$315,640 (Lewington 2000). The latter estimate was used by Gillett and Lightfoot (2001). However, using the more recent information in the section above, coastal subsistence sh catch in Niue in 2007 is estimated to be 140 t. Lewington (2000) followed national accounting conventions and valued subsistence production based on the local market price, which was subsequently discounted by 20%30%, being an allowance for getting the product to market. The adjusted prices used in Lewington (2000) were NZ$5NZ$7/kg for most species sold. These prices were thought to be valid for 2007. Accordingly, the 140 t of subsistence sheries production in 2007 was worth NZ$840,000.

At the beginning of 2005, Niue began licensing longline vessels to sh under a charter arrangement (Tafatu 2006). The vessels, 1029 meters in length, supplied the new government joint-venture sh processing facility, Niue Fish Processors Ltd. In 2006, 13 longliners were based in Niue. The Director of Niues DAFF indicated that production from the boats reached a maximum in 2006 and early 2007. Fishing operations stopped in December 2007. Estimates of catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) area during 19972007 were made by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. The chartering arrangements used for Niues locally based oshore eet (i.e., use of vessels registered in French Polynesia and Cook Islands) precluded identifying the catches of the vessels based in Niue. Tafatu (2006) gave the catches for Niues eet of 12 longliners in 2006 at 320 t. Close inspection of the data reveals that the 320 t is for only six of
Niue 107
the vessels in the eet. For lack of better data, it will be assumed that the total longline catch for the 12 vessels in 2006 is twice that given in Tafatu (2006), 640 t. This estimate is supported by unpublished data from Customs Niue that showed 602.2 t of shery exports in 2007, assuming that exports plus local consumption would be close to 640 t. The value per kg assigned to this oshore catch is that given in FFA (2008) for destination markets, less 15% for transportation to those markets. For the purpose of the present study, it is estimated that the 2006 and 2007 catches by Niue-based oshore shing vessels were about 640 t annually worth NZ$2,508,000.

Since 2003, there has been no authorized foreign shing in Niues EEZ. US purse seiners are authorized under a multilateral treaty to sh in the Niue, but shing in Niue waters by those vessels has not occurred in many years.
Freshwater Catches
There are no freshwater sheries in Niue. The Director of Niues DAFF (B. Pasisi, personal communication, December 2008) indicates that neither tilapia nor Macrobrachium are caught in Niue.
There is no aquaculture activity in Niue. Although there has been past enthusiasm for culturing a number of species (trochus, giant clams, pearl oysters, freshwater prawns), this has not been realized.
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of annual production and dockside and/or farm-gate value in 2007 was made (Table 8.1). The weak factual basis for all the estimates in the table should be recognized.
Table 8.1: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in Niue, 2007

NZ$ = New Zealand dollar, t = ton. Source: From production data and consultants estimates.
Quantity (t) 10 140 640 0 0 0 790
Value (NZ$) 80,000 840,000 2,508,000 0 0 0 3,428,000

Lewington (2004a) presented gross domestic product (GDP) estimates for Niue for the years ending in June 1999 to 2003 (FY1999FY2003). The estimates were in the form of measures of current price contributions by ownership and by industry group. On shing, the report was only disaggregated to the level of agriculture, hunting, shing, and forestry. Unpublished Statistics Niue data provided the shing contributions (Table 8.2).
Table 8.2: Fishing Contribution to Niues GDP (current prices, NZ$000)

Item Fishing contribution GDP current prices Fishing share of GDP (%) FY2000 679.3 16,800.0 4.0 FY2001 719.3 16,606.0 4.3 FY2002 723.0 16,163.0 4.5 FY2003 736.6 17,341.0 4.2
FY = fiscal year, GDP = gross domestic product, NZ$ = New Zealand dollar. Sources: Lewington (2004a) and Statistics Niue, unpublished data.
Method Used to Calculate Official Fishing Contribution to GDP

For the subsistence estimates of contribution to GDP by agriculture, shing, and hunting and gathering, the information came from an informal survey of
Niue 109
25 households in 2002 (Lewington 2004a). This has been supplemented by the September 2002 household survey and an informal enquiry of those in the statistics and customs oces on changes in recent years. For estimating the contribution of shing to GDP, a worksheet for calculating the value added from productions for own use and local sale of crops, shing and hunting partitions the shing sector into six components: wahoo, skipjack tuna, bonita, other ocean sh, reef sh, and coconut crabs. For each of these, the following is determined: amount consumed per Niuean and Palangi household per week, price per unit, gross value of consumption per week, cost of production excluding labor per week, and contribution to value added per year. The methodology seems logical and was devised by an individual with substantial experience in national accounts in several Pacic island countries. The precision of the estimate is obviously highly dependent on the accuracy of the HIES and the informal survey, something that is dicult to determine without intimate knowledge of the details of those studies. On the lack of inclusion of harvests from reef gleaning, many studies of Niue sheries (e.g., Dalzell et al. 1990; Dalzell et al. 1993; Tuara 2000) stressed the importance of this type of shing. A minor point is having both skipjack and bonita categories.

Table 8.3 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating the contribution of shing to GDP. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing and/or aquaculture activities for which production values are summarized in Table 8.1. The alternative approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The approach in Table 8.3 does not intend to replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication. The estimates of annual gross values of production in the categories of coastal commercial and coastal subsistence in the table are crude, and are likely to be similar for 2003. In 2003, no oshore locally based shing was conducted in Niue. Fishing contribution to GDP in 2003 is therefore estimated to be NZ$766,000 (NZ$52,000 plus NZ$714,000). This is about 4% greater than the ocial shing contribution for 2003 (Table 8.2).
Table 8.3: Fishing Contribution to Niues GDP in 2007 Using an Alternative Approach
Gross Value of Production (NZ$, from Table 8.1) 80,000 840,000 2,508,000 0 0
Value-Added Ratio 0.65 0.85 0.20 0 0
Value Added (NZ$) 52,000 714,000 501,600 0 0 1,267,600
GDP = gross domestic product, NZ$ = New Zealand dollar. Sources: Table 8.1 and consultants estimates.

Frozen albacore was exported to the two canneries in Pago Pago, American Samoa, with small quantities of fresh bigeye and yellown tuna being exported to New Zealand, US, and Japan. The export sh is mostly whole sashimi with loins (Tafatu 2006). Unpublished data from Customs Niue indicated that sh exports were 88.5 t in 2005, 403.6 t in 2006, and 602.2 t in 2007. The provisional 2007 export data suggested that shery exports made up over 90% of the value of all exports (J. Tamate, personal communication, October 2008).

Since 2002, Niue has not received access fees from foreign longline shing operations (Tafatu 2006). The locally based longline shing is a 50/50 joint venture between the Government of Niue and a foreign partner, and no access fees are paid (B. Pasisi, personal communication, December 2008). Under the terms of the US multilateral tuna treaty, Niue and other Pacic island countries receive payments from the Government of the United States and the US tuna industry that are associated with shing access by US purse seiners. Table 8.4 gives the funds received by Niue from the treaty for the past ve years.
Niue 111
Table 8.4: Payments to Niue from the US Multilateral Treaty ($)

Licensing Period 20th Period 15 June 2007 to 14 June 2008 19th Period 15 June 2006 to 14 June 2007 18th Period 15 June 2005 to 14 June 2006 17th Period 15 June 2004 to 14 June 2005 16th Period 15 June 2003 to 14 June 2004
PAF = Project Development Fund.
a The 15% shares ($ 2,042,050.92 in 2008) are shared equally between all countries that are parties to the treaty. b The 85% shares ($14,273,117.87 in 2008) are apportioned to countries based on where the catch by US vessels was made. These amounts in the table are zero because US seiners have not attempted to fish in Niue in over 20 years. c The PDF shares ($1,555,750.00 in 2008) are shared equally between all countries that are parties to the treaty for project development work.
15% Sharesa 145,860.78 145,860.78 147,209.70 147,310.43 147,357.28
85% Sharesb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PDF Sharesc 111,125.00 111,125.00 111,125.00 111,125.00 111,125.00
Source: Unpublished National Marine Fisheries Service (of the United States) public domain data.
Some Pacic island countries consider that all payments under the US treaty are for shing access, while others treat some components (e.g., the PDF shares) as aid. The Treasury Department (2007) indicated that NZ$382,775 was received in FY2007 for shing rights.

Apart from foreign access fees, the governments of other Pacic island countries receive various types of revenue from the sheries sector, including sh transshipment charges, fees on domestic shing vessels, and export levies on shery products. No information is available on the amount of such revenue in Niue, if any.
Employment
The report of the 2002 HIES (Anon 2002) contained information relevant to sheries employment. The annual sh income was estimated to be NZ$28,720, or 0.9% of all income in Niue for the year (NZ$3,281,143). Twelve percent of all households had sh income. The HIES also stated that 5 people were working for pay in shing, sh farms, service activities to shing, and that all those workers were in the income bracket of NZ$15,000 NZ$19,999.
Table 8.5: Number of Fishing Vessels by Village

Village Makefu Tuapa Namukulu Hikutavake Toi Mutalau Lakepa Liku Hakupu Vaiea Avatele Tamakautonga Alofi South Alofi North Total
Source: Anon (2007c).
Canoe 11 12 1 6 0 9 3 3 1 3 24 11 29 9 122
Aluminum Inflatable Dinghy Dinghy 0 6 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 4 10 4 28 9 66 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 5
Boat 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 12 2 23
Outboard Motor 0 6 1 0 0 1 3 2 0 7 9 6 30 12 77
Total 15 25 3 6 0 11 8 7 2 15 45 23 100 33 293
According to the 2006 census, there were 293 shing vessels, shown by village in Table 8.5. Other available information on sheries employment in Niue follows. In late 2008, there were 5 or 6 people who could be considered fulltime commercial shers, according to the Director of Niues DAFF (B. Pasisi, personal communication, December 2008). The total labor force of Niue was 1,127 in 2006 (Anon 2006). Thus, the ve commercial shers represented 0.4% of Niues labor force. The joint-venture sh processing, packing, and export plant ceased operating in December 2007. When it was fully operational (late 2006 to late 2007) it employed 56 factory oor workers, 1 manager, 3 oce sta, and 2 handy men (A. Hamilton, personal communication, December 2008). There is no available information on the activities of women involved in sheries in Niue (Tuara 2000).
Niue 113
Fish Consumption
Estimated annual per capita sh consumption in 1987 was 40.8 kg food weight, or about 49.0 kg whole sh weight, based on a 1987 SPC nutrition study (Dalzell et al. 1993). Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) considered (i) the Niue population of 1,900 people in 2000, (ii) a subsistence sheries production of 194 t, (iii) a commercial sheries production of 12 t, and (iv) shery imports of 20 t, to estimate annual per capita consumption of shery products on Niue in 2000 at 118.9 kg. COFISH conducted eldwork around Niue in May and June 2005. The survey interviewed about half the households and made estimates of sh consumption (Table 8.6). Annual per capita sh consumption in 2002 (whole weight equivalent) was estimated to be 79.3 kg, some of which was imported, based on information from the 2002 HIES (Bell et al. 2009).
Table 8.6: Seafood Consumption on Niue
Item Quantity, fresh fish consumed (kg/capita/year) Frequency, fresh fish consumed (times/week) Quantity, fresh invertebrates consumed (kg/capita/year) Frequency, fresh invertebrates consumed (times/week) Quantity, canned fish consumed (kg/capita/year) Frequency, canned fish consumed (times/week)
Source: M. Kronen (personal communication, March 2009).
Consumption/ Frequency 31.03 (2.04) 1.98 (0.09) 2.53 (0.33) 0.54 (0.05) 17.17 (1.26) 2.04 (0.11)
Palau
Fish Production
Early estimates of coastal sheries production in Palau were: Total inshore catch (including subsistence) of 1,700 tons (t) (Preston 1990). Somewhere between 500 and 1,100 t/year (Kitalong and Dalzell 1994), based on several estimates of subsistence production in Palau.
Palau 115
Coastal commercial sheries production of 736 t worth $2.4 million (Dalzell et al. 1996), based on the 1992 annual report of the Division of Marine Resources. Annual average catch for 19891998 of 2,115 t (PCS 2000), based on available information on the amount of inshore catch in Palau for 19891998 and from individuals familiar with the shery sector.
Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) concluded that Palau Conservation Society (PCS) (2000) was the most accurate production estimate and partitioned it into coastal commercial and subsistence components of 865 t worth $2,595,000 and 1,250 t valued at $2,500,000, respectively. A household income and expenditure survey (HIES) was conducted in Palau in MayNovember 2006 (Alonz 2007). Unpublished HIES data, kindly provided by the Secretariat of the Pacic Communitys Statistics and Demography Programme, were used to estimate sh production (Table 9.1), indicating a total annual production of 477 t. On the above production estimates, a signicant proportion of the tuna category (and perhaps also the other fresh and frozen sh) comes not from coastal sheries but from oshore shing by the industrial longliners based in Palau. Even if all the tuna and other categories in Table 9.1 are considered to be from coastal sheries, the total amount (477 t) is less than one-quarter of the highly regarded estimate made by PCS (2000) for the previous decade (2,115 t). Thus, information from the 2006 HIES may greatly underestimate production of both commercial and subsistence sheries.
Table 9.1: Fish Production Estimated by the 2006 HIES (kg)
Item Tuna Flyingfish Frozen fish Other fresh and frozen fish Paua Mussels Octopus, squids Seaweed (rimu) Other shellfish Total
Note: Canned fish amounts were deleted. Source: From unpublished data, courtesy of the Secretariat of the Pacific Communitys Statistics and Demography Programme.
Purchased 38,271 113 921 117,179 510 2,939 3,258 1,939 23,824 188,954
Caught 21,588 0 0 230,315 0 0 128 0 35,893 287,924
Total 59,859 113 921 347,494 510 2,939 3,386 1,939 59,717 476,878
HIES = household income and expenditure survey, kg = kilogram.
Interestingly, the ratio between purchased and caught on the HIES table above is almost identical to the ratio of coastal commercial and subsistence of the Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) estimate. The Palau International Coral Reef Center carried out a survey of subsistence shing in Palau in 2003. There were, however, problems with coding the data and the results have not been analyzed (E. Matthews, personal communication, October 2008). The Palau Conservation Society conducted a study of subsistence shing activities in the Rock Islands in 2003 (Matthews 2004). The objective of the study was to gather information on subsistence shing and marine resource collection activities in Palaus southern lagoon. The estimates of subsistence production were only on quantity per trip. Respondents were asked to estimate the size of typical, bad, and good catches for a trip. The average estimated catches were 95 pounds (43 kg) for typical catch, 65 pounds (31 kg) for bad catch, and 165 pounds (75 kg) for good catch. Palaus Bureau of Marine Resources (BMR) collects data from local sheries markets. Over the decades the quality of data has varied and the proportion of market information captured has varied from 30% to 85% (Marino 2008). The larger local markets that are monitored handle only a fraction of the total catch (Anon 2005). Although BMR data do not represent total production, they can provide some insight into changes in production in recent years. These data show that during 20022006, the monitored annual catch of sh and other marine products remained relatively constant (except for 2005), ranging between 199 t and 217 t (Bureau of Budget and Planning 2008). Knowledgeable individuals with long involvements in Palaus sheries provided the following additional information on sheries production: Annual, coastal commercial sheries production is about 400t. Visits by shing operations to the Southwest Islands and to the north result in signicant production increases, but these are temporary. Subsistence sheries production is about three times the coastal commercial amount. With fuel cost increases in recent years, there appear to be more shers on each motorized shing boat and a noticeable increase in nonmotorized shing canoes (A. Kitalong, personal communication, October 2008). Changes have been made that would aect coastal sheries production since the PCS (2000) survey: more tourists from Taipei,China (more large sh for restaurants); construction of the road around Babeldaob Island (changes in distribution of shing
Palau 117
eort, marketing arrangements); an increase in formal employment (less subsistence shing); and an increase in fuel cost (less fuelintensive shing). Catches for the aquarium sh trade have been variable (E. Matthews, personal communication, October 2008). The population of Palau increased by about 4% between 1999 and 2007. Recently, a signicant number of people moved from the Koror urban area to the more rural Babeldaob after the opening of the new road. The above information on coastal sheries production in Palau is equivocal. There is general consensus on the validity of the PCS survey. Since that survey, there have been factors that tend to both increase and decrease sheries production. For the purpose of the present study, annual coastal sheries production was assumed to be the same as in PCS (2002), as partitioned by Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) between coastal commercial and subsistence. Coastal commercial production in the mid-2000s is taken to remain at 865 t. At a price to the sher of $2.87/kg28, this is worth $2,843,000.

A subsistence production in 1992 of 750 t worth $1.8 million was estimated by Dalzell et al. (1996). From this and the later information above, the coastal subsistence sh catch in Palau in the mid-2000s was estimated to be 1,250 t. Using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production (discounting prices for commercial sh by 30%), this was worth $2,511,000 to the producer.

The number of foreign longliners licensed to sh in the Palau zone was 156 in 2005, 266 in 2006, and 66 in 2007 (Anon 2008c). Catch estimates used here for the Palau-based vessels using available data assumed that all fresh sh longliners (non-freezer longliners) operating in the Palau exclusive economic zone (EEZ) were based in Palau, and that the catch by the single pole-andline vessel based in Palau was negligible in recent years. Individuals familiar with oshore shing in the Palau zone believed that these assumptions were
28
The PCS study used retail prices: Prices for each product group are presented as local retail prices unless otherwise noted. Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) followed that convention for Palau, hence the relatively high value of their estimated catches.
reasonable (K. Sisior and M. McCoy, personal communication, October 2008). Estimates of the catches and values of the four main commercial species of tuna in the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) area for 19972007 were made by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC). In these data, prices were all delivered prices in that they reected the price received at entry to the country in which they were usually sold whether for processing or consumption. Also, bycatch, which is an important component of locally based oshore longline sheries, was not included. The FFA data, modied for bycatch and transshipment costs, are given in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2: Catches by the Palau-Based Offshore Fleeta
Item Tuna catch (t) Destination value of tuna catch ($) Total catch (t) Dockside value of total catch ($)
t = ton.
a In the table, the tuna catch is increased by 30% for bycatch. The destination market values are reduced by 25% for transport to those markets and increased by 10% for the sale of bycatch.
2003 1,453
2004 1,551
2005 3,159
2006 4,565
2007 2,331
9,333,647 10,453,371 22,802,184 32,569,040 16,211,360 1,889 7,933,600 2,016 4,107 5,935 3,030
8,885,365 19,381,857 27,683,684 13,779,656
Source: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008), modified by the consultant.

Catches of the foreign-based eet in recent years, modied for bycatch, are shown in Table 9.3, and their values, modied for transshipment costs, are shown in Table 9.4.
Freshwater Catches
No major freshwater sheries are conducted, but the larger islands of Palau (especially Babeldaob) have freshwater bodies that support edible freshwater sh and invertebrates. Jenkins (1999) reported 47 freshwater sh species, including 4 endemic and 5 introduced. Lake Ngardok in Melekeok State on the island of Babeldaob is the largest lake in Micronesia, with an area of approximately 0.18 km2. The longest river in Palau, the Ngerdorch River,
Palau 119
Table 9.3: Catches by the Foreign-Based Fleet in the Palau Zone (t)a
Item Purse seine tuna catch Longline tuna catch Total purse seine catch Total longline catch Total catch of foreignbased offshore fleet
t = ton.
a In the table, the purse seine tuna catch is increased by 5% for bycatch. The longline tuna catch is increased by 30% for bycatch.
2003 3,364 46 3,532 60 3,592
2004 4,358 40 4,576 52 4,628
2005 1,959 69 2,057 90 2,147
2006 3,969 831 4,167 1,080 5,247
2007 387 814 406 1,058 1,464
Table 9.4: Catch Value for the Foreign-Based Fleet in the Palau Zone ($)a
Item Destination value purse seine tuna catch Destination value longline tuna catch Local value total purse seine catch Local value total longline catch Total local value foreign-based offshore fleet 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 611,729 3,156,284 4,107,490 2,357,793 4,794,239
227,389
200,159
338,753 4,867,925 4,660,554 519,970
2,682,841 3,491,366 2,004,124 4,075,103 216,020 190,151
321,815 4,624,529 4,427,526
2,898,861 3,681,517 2,325,939 8,699,632 4,947,496
a In the table, the local value of the purse seine catch is the destination market value, less 15% for sea transport to get to those markets. The local value of the longline catch (all frozen) is the destination value less 15% for sea transport to get to those markets, plus 10% for bycatch sale.
drains from Lake Ngardok and ows 10 km to its mouth in Ngchesar State on the east coast of Babeldaob (Anon 2005). Bureau of Marine Resources sta indicate that eels and shrimp are the most important edible freshwater animals. The capture of eels is not large due to cultural attitudes. Small amounts of freshwater shrimp are consumed (K. Sisior, personal communication, October 2008). For the purpose of the present study, annual freshwater sheries production in recent years is estimated to be 1 t worth $8,000.
The Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center (later renamed the Palau Mariculture Demonstration Center, PMDC) was established in 1972. For nearly four decades, the culture in Palau of a large number of organisms has been attempted, both at the PMDC and through independent eorts. Signicant aquaculture production in Palau is presently conned to giant clams and milksh. Giant clams are raised at the PMDC and provided at no cost to grow-out farmers. BMR unpublished data indicated that PMDC gave 245,945 small clams to farmers in 2006, and 109,650 in 2007. About 85% of the clams were exported and 15% were sold to restaurants in Palau (L. Demei, BMR, personal communication, October 2008). CITES (2008) showed that 2,705 giant clams were exported from Palau in 2006 and 2,625 in 2007. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2008) indicated that $17,000 worth of mollusks and other aquatic invertebrates were exported in 2006. Milksh are cultured for sale at the Ngatpang state government farm. Production was about 1 t in 2007 (T. Taro, PCC, personal communication, October 2007). These were sold in Koror for $4.40/kg. Peleliu has subsistence milksh production. In 2007, 1,096 sh were harvested and given to the community (L. Demei, BMR, personal communication, October 2008). Palaus aquaculture harvest in 2007 is estimated to be 3,100 clams and 2 t of milksh, with a combined value of $50,000. It is interesting to note that after 36 years of institutional and nancial support from the Palau Mariculture Demonstration Center and assistance from other agencies, there is only a small amount of aquaculture production, mostly (if not entirely) dependent on government subsidies.
Table 9.5: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in Palau, 2007a
t = ton.
Quantity (t) 865 1,250 3,030 1,464 1 3,100 pieces plus 2 3,100 pieces plus 6,612 t
Value ($) 2,843,000 2,511,000 13,779,656 4,947,496 8,000 50,000 $24,139,152
Source: Consultants estimates.
Palau 121
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of annual production and value in 2007 was made (Table 9.5). The estimates are judged to be fairly accurate, relative to those in this study from other Pacic island countries.

The ocial contribution of sheries to GDP, from the national accounts, is given in Table 9.6.
Table 9.6: Nominal GDP of Palau ($000)
Item Fisheries component of GDP Palau GDP Fisheries as a percentage of Palau GDP
GDP = gross domestic product. Source: Bureau of Budget and Planning (2008); GDP is for the calendar year (not fiscal year).
2003 2,630 122,728 2.1
2004 2,788 133,560 2.1
2005 3,124 145,428 2.1
2006 3,383 156,614 2.2

Sta of the Oce of Planning and Statistics kindly provided some information on calculating the sheries contribution to GDPbut stressed that they were not intimately familiar with the details (M. Hangaripaii, personal communication, October 2008). They stated that the present method is a hybrid between the income and the expenditure approach to GDP calculation. The 2005 census provided information on the number of smallscale commercial shers; the 2006 HIES provided information on subsistence activities; the Social Security System provided information on income; and a corporate survey provided information on company production. Some uncertainty exists among the Planning and Statistics sta on how much, if any, nonshing activity is included in the sheries category (i.e., shing versus sheries). Given the level of detail available, little comment can be made on the methodology.

Table 9.7 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in Palau. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing/aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 9.5 above. The approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The approach in Table 9.7 does not intend to replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication. Table 9.7 uses the specic value of production of the locally based oshore eet in 2006 (Table 9.4). The other values of production are the general mid-2000s values determined in the sections above.
Gross Value of Production ($, from Table 9.5) 2,843,000 2,511,000 27,683,684 8,000 50,000
GDP = gross domestic product.
Value-Added Ratio 0.70 0.80 0.20 0.95 0.60
Value Added ($) 1,990,100 2,008,800 5,536,737 7,600 30,000 9,573,237
Sources: Table 9.6 and consultants estimates.
The total value added from shing in Table 9.7 ($9.6 million for 2006) is considerably greater than the 2006 ocial estimate for sheries of $3,383,000. Without more details on the methodology or more disaggregation of the sheries sector, it is not possible to identify where the major dierence lies. One possibility is the use of the HIES in the ocial methodology to estimate subsistence sheries production. As noted above, the 2006 Palau HIES may have signicantly underestimated coastal sheries production.
Palau 123

Tuna make up most of the exports of shery products from Palau. All fresh, chilled sashimi-grade tuna, once ooaded and packed, is air-freighted within 24 hours to sashimi markets, with 95% going to Japan and the remainder to the US mainland and Taipei,China (Anon 2008c). Table 9.8 gives recent annual exports of tuna from Palau. Information on the value of the exported tuna is unavailable. From information in FFA (2008), it is estimated that in 2007 the total free-on-board (FOB) export value of tuna was about $19million. Non-tuna shery exports for 2005 and 2006 are shown in Table 9.9. Information on the total exports of Palau is not readily available.29 The International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2006) stated that 100% of the exports of Palau in recent years were sh.
Table 9.8: Annual Export of Tuna from Palau (kg)
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
kg = kilogram. Source: Bureau of Marine Resources, unpublished data.
Total Cannery Tuna 234,343 135,303 155,251 627,351 429,332 844,671 652,977
Total Sashimi Tuna 1,810,295 1,214,177 1,650,553 2,122,688 3,257,465 4,823,594 3,346,257
Total Tuna Exports 2,044,638 1,349,480 1,805,804 2,750,039 3,686,797 5,668,265 3,999,234
Table 9.9: Non-Tuna Exports of Palau ($000)

Item Ornamental fish nei Miscellaneous corals and shells Mollusks and other aquatic invertebrates, live, fresh, or chilled, not elsewhere included Coral and the like Total
nei = not elsewhere included (in the FAO export database). Source: FAO (2008).
29
2005 62 0 17 241 320
2006 65 19 17 8 109
An international trade section is not included in the latest statistical yearbook (2006) and the merchandise trade page of the Oce of Planning and Statistics website is not functional.

Access Fees from Foreign Fishing
Currently, there are four arrangements by which Palau receives payment for foreign shing in its waters: Locally Based Foreign Fleet. There are three locally based shing companies which have been operating for some years: Palau International Traders Inc., Palau Marine Industries Corp., and Kuniyoshi Fishing Co. Normally more than 100 longline vessels are licensed each year (DevFish 2006). Japanese agreement. This agreement covers three types of tuna shing by vessels based in Japan: longline, pole-and-line, and purse seine. In its present form, the agreement has been in eect since 1992, with minor changes. However, there has been no Japanese pole-and-line shing in Palau waters since 1994 and no purse seine shing since 1999 (M. McCoy, personal communication, November 2008). FSM Arrangement. This treaty between participating Pacic island countries allows access on favorable conditions to shing zones by purse seiners registered in those participating countries. US Treaty. Under the terms of the US multilateral tuna treaty, Palau and other Pacic island countries receive payments from the Government of the United States and the US tuna industry that are associated with shing access by US purse seine vessels. Some Pacic island countries consider that all payments under the US treaty are for shing access, while others treat some components as aid.30
Recent annual payments received by Palau under these four arrangements are given in Table 9.10. The $1.1 million received for foreign shing access in 2007 represented about 3% of the total domestic revenue of $35.5 million of the Government of Palau for FY2007, or about $55 for each of the 20,162 residents of Palau.
30
In Table 9.10, the amounts listed treat all fees as access fees.
Palau 125
Table 9.10: Summary of Foreign Fishing Access Fees ($)

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 Locally Based Foreign Fleet 297,500 428,000 694,500 495,000 Japan 273,340 225,924 261,525 369,296 FSM Arrangement US Treaty31 65,454 0 0 0 492,878 258,435 258,335 256,986 Total 1,129,171 912,360 1,214,360 1,121,281
FSM = Fedrated States of Micronesia, US = United States. Source: Bureau of Marine Resources unpublished data, Bureau of Budget and Planning (2008), National Marine Fisheries Service (of the United States) unpublished public domain data.

The other signicant source of direct government revenue from sheries activities is the sh export tax. During 19992007, the government imposed a tax of $0.25/kg of sh landed by longliners in Palau, irrespective of quality or marketing destination (i.e., sashimi grade for air export, bycatch species and reject tuna, for local sale or export). In 2008, the tax rate was increased to $0.35/kg.31 Unpublished data from the Bureau of Budget and Planning shows the total amounts collected from the sh export tax: FY2005, $882,000; FY2006, $1,471,000; and FY2007, $1,002,000. A shing company estimated that a eet of 120 longliners based in Koror would produce $6.6 million in direct government revenue, including $2.5 million from sh export taxes and $1.7million from fuel taxes (J. Rui, personal communication, March 2009).
Employment
The 2005 census contains some information on employment in sheries (Oce of Planning and Statistics 2005). Unfortunately, much of the employment-relevant data are aggregated with jobs from other sectors. For example, 559 people in 2005 had the occupation of farming, forestry, and shing. However, the census noted that of the 13,800 people reporting income in 2004, 305 people (2.2%) reported income from selling sh; and of 14,154 people over 18 years old in 2004, 933 people (6.6%)of whom 186 (19.9%) were femalereported some subsistence shing activity (dened in the census as mainly producing goods for his/her own or familys use and needs).
31
The licensing periods for the US treaty are from July to June. In the table, the treaty fees are treated as though they were received in the second part of the year (e.g., the 2006/07 treaty payments are listed under 2007).
Results of the 2003 study of subsistence shing activities in the Rock Islands by the Palau Conservation Society (Matthews 2004) indicated that 82% of the subsistence shers interviewed were male. The age of shers was 1586 years, with 44.4 years as the average. Most of the respondents (97%) indicated that they sh and collect for their families; more than half (58%) collect for customs; and just over half (53%56%) sell a portion of their catch. For coastal commercial shing, PCS (2000) reported that there were 200 commercial and 1,100 noncommercial shers in Palau in late 1990s. With a gradual movement of people out of shing and into tourism, the number of commercial shers has decreased since then (A. Kitalong, personal communication, October 2008).
Table 9.11: Employment in the Tuna Fisheries of Palau
2002 1 11 12
2006 0 5 5
2008 0 20 20
The number of people employed in the larger-scale oshore tuna sheries (shing and postharvest) in recent years is shown in Table 9.11.
Fish Consumption
Annual per capita sh consumption in Palau in 1995 was estimated at 85.0 kg by Preston (2000), using FAO production, import, and export data. Average annual per capita sh consumption in 2006 was estimated at 33.4 kg (whole weight equivalent), of which 78% was fresh sh. Using information from the 2006 HIES, Bell et al. (2009) estimated the per capita consumption of sh at 43.3 kg for rural areas and 27.8 kg for urban areas. Reservations about the accuracy of the 2006 Palau HIES were noted above. For the 1990s, annual local coastal production was estimated at 2,115t, shery product imports at 610 t, and shery product exports of 400 t. During this period, the mean resident population in Palau was 16,600 with annual visitors to Palau (full-time resident equivalents) of 500 (PCS 2000). This equated to annual per capita shery product consumption of 135.0 kg. The mid-2007 population of Palau was 20,162 (SPC 2008a); in 2007, local sales and donations of tuna and billsh from the locally based longline eet were 216,789 kg (BMR unpublished data). Thus, annual per capita shery product consumption in 2007 (whole sh equivalent) was 123 kg.
Papua New Guinea
Fish Production
Annual production from coastal commercial sheries32 in Papua New Guinea (PNG) was estimated at 4,966 t worth $22,096,908, by Dalzell et al. (1996), using information from late 1980s and early 1990s. Annual production in the mid-1990s was estimated at about 4,800 t worth K16.4 million (Preston 1996a). For 1989 to 1991, annual commercial production was estimated at 5,500 t worth K55 million (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). There has been no recent research geared at assessing the total production of PNGs coastal commercial sheries. Consequently, the method used here was to extrapolate previous estimates considering recent changes in production of some of the important coastal commercial sheries. Information from NFA (2008), GPA (2006), Diey (2005), FAO (2008), sta of the National
32
Prawn (shrimp) and lobster sheries are considered coastal commercial sheries in this section.
Fisheries Authority (NFA), and discussions with knowledgeable individuals suggests that over the decade to 2008, production of bche de mer gradually decreased but showed a net increase in value, although it did reach a historical high of 679 t in 2006 (worth K37 million); the lobster shery showed little net change in catch but a gradual increase in price; prawn or shrimp, annual sheries production was typically 400 1,300 t. About 600 t of prawns worth about $4 million were exported in 2004, but catches have since declined signicantly; sheries for trochus and pearl shell have been relatively stable in quantity but increasing in value; shing for coastal reef sh and deep water snapper as an artisanal activity has declined, at least partially due to the inecient petroldriven boats used in the shery, fuel cost increases, and markets; coastal sheries projects funded by international organizations and those by the government all collapsed when the subsidies stopped; and artisanal shark shing for ns became very signicant, but dicult to dierentiate in statistics from those caught by the oshore eet.
It should be noted that the prices and values above were a mixture of prices paid to shers, retail market prices, and export prices. By discounting retail and FOB export prices by 30%40%, prices paid to shers were approximated to provide more comparable standard prices in this study. Using the above information, it was estimated that the coastal commercial production in the mid-2000s was 5,700 t worth K80 million to the producer.

The three recent estimates of annual, coastal subsistence catches in PNG that are often cited are 20,588 t worth $41,176,000 in late 1980s and early 1990s (Dalzell et al. 1996); 26,000 t (Preston 1996a); and 26,000 t worth K52 million in late 1990s (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001).
Additional information has since become available. The population of PNG increased 16% between the latest estimate above and mid-2006. In
Papua New Guinea 129
addition, a new study has given more insight. PNGs annual household sh production in 1996 was estimated by Gibson (2000), using a 1996 PNG household survey, to be 50,000t (12,000t) worth K60 million (K17 million). This apparently includes the subsistence sh catch in freshwater (covered in a later section). Coastal subsistence production (coastal plus freshwater) in 2006 was estimated here by updating the Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) estimate to account for the 16% population increase and by expanding the mid-1990s estimates of freshwater subsistence production (13,500 t [Preston 1996a]) by 30% for population increase and for the eects of stocking (Coates 1996), giving a total of 47,500 t, which is within the range of the Gibson (2000) study. Assuming an average sh price in nonurban markets of K5/kg in 2006 and using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production in the Pacic islands (Bain 1996)which discounts the average sh price in the market by 30% as an allowance for getting the product to marketthis coastal subsistence production of 30,000 t was worth K105 million.

Estimates of the catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the WCPFC area were made by the FFA (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. The prices were all delivered prices in that they reected the price received at entry to the country in which they were usually sold whether for processing or consumption. Also, bycatch, which is an important component of locally based oshore longline sheries, was not included. For longline-caught yellown and bigeye tuna, FFA (2008) assumed that 80% of the catch was of export quality and 20% was of nonexport quality. To estimate total value, Japanese fresh yellown and bigeye import prices from Oceania were used for export quality tuna, and a value of $1.50/kg was assumed for nonexport grade tuna. Table 10.1 gives local dockside catches and values for tuna eets based in PNG, based on the FFA (2008) estimate adjusted for bycatch as noted in the table.

The tuna catches in PNG waters by foreign shing vessels consist entirely of sh caught by purse seiners (Kumoru 2008). These are shown for recent years in Table 10.2, adjusted for bycatch and transshipment costs as noted in the table.
Table 10.1: Tuna Catches by the Papua New Guinea-Based Tuna Fleet
2002 128,600 2,857 131,457 168,063 213,748 235,035 222,799 3,895 5,939 4,354 4,135 164,168 207,809 230,681 218,664 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 251,638 4,759 256,397
Gear
2001
Purse Seine
95,202
Catch (t)a
Longline
2,830
Total
98,032
Purse seine 10,198,339 135,479,423 481,105,906 640,258,106 198,544,039 12,668,605 18,256,525 11,514,005 223,603,159 693,558,186
75,291,905
100,222,963
122,810,818
180,287,514
212,089,155
213,083,697 13,257,921 226,341,619 691,753,113
332,266,645 13,363,607 345,630,252 1,024,089,635
Longline
10,436,125
Value ($)b
Total
85,728,031
110,421,302
Total (K)
288,064,619
429,153,914
K = kina, t = ton.
The catch has been increased for bycatch: 30% for longline and 5% for purse seine.
Catch value has been adjusted: (i) for longlinereduced by 25% to obtain dockside tuna values (rather than destination market values), and increased by 10% to account for the sale of bycatch; and (ii) for purse seine, it is assumed that almost no catch is transshipped and, therefore, the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) figures are not adjusted for transport costs.
Sources: FFA (2008) and consultants estimate.
Table 10.2: Estimating Tuna Catches in Papua New Guinea Waters by Foreign-Based Fleetsa
2002 170,836 76,877 93,958 98,656 276,436 218,584 184,304 263,273 208,175 175,528 133,609 128,950 131,921 167,565 265,199 278,459 396,882 337,126 307,448 432,764 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 491,774 179,897 311,877 327,471
2001
Tuna catch
Total catch by all fleets in PNG waters (t)
160,285
Catch by PNG fleet (t)
60,304
Catch by foreign fleet (t)
99,981
Catch by foreign fleet adjusted for bycatch (t) 151,833,948 74,665,336 77,168,612 65,593,321 176,939,409 161,255,364 208,164,010 189,712,193 118,815,884 135,203,807 326,979,894 324,916,000 308,604,485 141,727,188 166,877,298 141,845,703
104,980
Catch value 448,502,411 182,494,169 266,008,242 226,107,005 715,698,397 261,609,476 454,088,920 385,975,582
Value of total catch ($)
144,599,888
Value of PNG catch ($)
61,075,673
Value of foreign fleet catch ($)
83,524,215
Value of foreign fleet catch adjusted for transshipment ($) 254,929,345 628,335,969
70,995,583
Value of foreign fleet catch adjusted for transshipment (K)
238,560,427
520,010,850
439,968,061
691,036,080
1,143,631,355
K = kina, PNG = Papua New Guinea, t = ton.
a In the table, the values given by Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) (destination market prices) were reduced by 15% for transshipment costs to the destination markets. The quantities were increased by 5% to account for bycatch.
Sources: FFA (2008) and consultants estimates.
Freshwater Catches
Commercial freshwater sheries in PNG are limited. South-owing rivers support a small barramundi (Lates calcarifer) shery, although this has recently declined; and there have been seasonal freshwater prawn harvests totaling no more than 10 t/year (Coates 1996). More than 87% of the population of PNG lives inland without direct access to marine resources. Nevertheless, even in highland areas, where (freshwater) sh stocks are very poor, over 50% of the population engages in shing activities, traditionally for eels but more recently including exotic species (Coates 1996)for example, most of the sh sold in the Madang town market are tilapia from the Ramu River system (M. Brownjohn, personal communication, November 2008). As for the coastal subsistence catches above, a crude estimate of freshwater production was made by updating the mid-1990s freshwater estimate of 13,500 t (Preston 1996a) by 30% for population increase and for the eects of stocking. Assuming an average sh price in inland markets of K4/kg in 2006, the farm-gate price would have been K2.80/kg. On this basis, freshwater production in PNG in the mid-2000s is estimated to be 17,500 t worth K49 million.
Discussion with the sta of the Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Section of the NFA and knowledgeable individuals enabled a compilation of information on recent aquaculture production in PNG (Table 10.3). From the table, aquaculture production of PNG in the mid-2000s is estimated to be 200 t worth K2 million.
Table 10.3: Recent Annual Aquaculture Production, Papua New Guinea
Current FarmEstimated Gate Annual Price Production (K/kg) 3040 t 710 Annual Production Value (K) 297,500
Commodity Tilapia
Production Type Subsistence and small-scale commercial Subsistence
Comment Production appears to have fallen remarkably in recent years. Production appears to have fallen remarkably in recent years.
Carp
2030 t
710
212,500
Commodity Trout
Production Type Production for restaurants and supermarkets Production for restaurants and supermarkets Export
Current FarmEstimated Gate Annual Price Production (K/kg) 510 t 25
Annual Production Value (K) 187,500
Comment Started production in late 2007.
Prawns
35
175,000
Pearls
Farm started production in 2007; harvests to date likely have been quite small. 0 Currently no production 100 1,000,000 A few large and many small farms. Source of information: D. Wilken, Manager, Mainland Holdings Crocodile Farm.
Barramundi Crocodiles Large and small operations for export
10,000 skins
K = kina, kg = kilogram, t = ton. Sources: M. Brownjohn, H. Walton, J. Wani, and D. Wilken (personal communication, September 2008).
Summary of Harvests
From the above, a crude approximation of annual production and value in 2007 was made (Table 10.4). The extremely weak factual basis for the estimates of coastal commercial, coastal subsistence, and freshwater catches is acknowledged. The estimated total value of PNG sheries to the producer in 2007, in excess of K2.4 billion, is considerably larger than that estimated in the 2008 2012 NFA Corporate Plan and other NFA documents of K350 millionK400 million (NFA 2004; NFA 2008). The relative contributions of the various sheries categories by quantity and value are given in Figures 10.1 and 10.2. Note that the values of local and foreign-based oshore shing are nearly identical.
Table 10.4: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest, Papua New Guinea, 2007a
K = kina, t = ton.
Quantity (t) 5,700 30,000 256,397 327,471 17,500 200 637,268
Value (K) 80,000,000 105,000,000 1,024,089,635 1,143,631,355 49,000,000 2,000,000 2,403,720,990
Sources: Figure 10.110.3 and consultants estimates.
Figures 10.1: PNG Fisheries Production by Fishery Category

Freshwater Coastal Commercial Coastal Subsistence
Offshore Foreign-based
Offshore Locally based
PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Table 10.4.
Figures 10.2: Value of PNG Fisheries Production by Fishery Category

PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Table 10.4.

Sta of the National Statistics Oce (NSO) provided information on gross domestic product (GDP) calculations (K. Geberi, personal communication, September 2008). Several years ago, the NSO experienced diculties in producing GDP estimates. In early 2000, the responsibility was transferred to the Bank of Papua New Guinea. Methodology dierences between the bank and NSO were reconciled recently and the 2006 GDP estimates from NSO are now considered the ocial estimates. Fisheries contributions since 2000 are given in Table 10.5.
Table 10.5: Official Fishing Contribution to GDP (K million, at current prices)
Item Fishing, market component Fishing, nonmarket component Total fishing Total GDP Fishing share of GDP (%) 2000 153.0 45.6 2001 222.8 49.1 2002 204.7 55.5 2003 226.4 60.8 2004 245.2 63.2 2005 292.4 65.8 2006 388.4 68.4
198.6 2.0
272.0 2.5
260.2 2.2
287.2 2.2
308.4 2.3
358.1 2.4
456.8 2.7
9,735.8 10,996.3 11,872.0 13,241.5 13,459.4 15,094.7 16,896.6
GDP = gross domestic product, K = kina. Source: National Statistics Office, unpublished data.

The general method used by NSO in most economic sectors to calculate GDP contribution is to take the gross output of production and reduce that value by intermediate consumption to determine the value added.33 The shing sector is partitioned into market and nonmarket components. For the market subsector, the results of business surveys done in 1991, 1998, and 2004
33
More detailed information on GDP methodology was not available during the consultants visit to Port Moresby.
were used and extrapolated for future years on the basis of export data. For the nonmarket sector, a 1996 study (Allen et al. 1996) provided the basic information, along with the results of the most recent HIES. Only limited comment can be made on the above methodology. Fishing carried out by businesses that are too small to be covered by business surveys mentioned above can be omitted in the coverage of market shing.

Table 10.6 below presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in PNG. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of the six types of shing and aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 10.4 above. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). It is not intended that the approach in Table 10.6 replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication.

Gross Value of Production (K, from Table 10.4) 80,000,000 105,000,000 40,517,000 651,233,000 49,000,000 2,000,000 927,750,000
Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore locally based Longline Purse seine Freshwater Aquaculture Total
Value-Added Ratio 0.65 0.90 0.20 0.50 0.95 0.65
Value Added (K) 52,000,000 94,000,000 8,103,400 325,616,500 46,550,000 1,300,000 527,569,900
GDP = gross domestic product, K = kina. Sources: Table 10.5 and authors estimates.
The total value added in Table 10.6 (K527.6 million) is about 15% greater than the ocial value added of K456.8 million. The ocial contribution from market shing is close to the combined total of coastal commercial and oshore locally based in Table 10.4. However, the ocial contribution from nonmarket shing is very small compared to the combined total of coastal subsistence and freshwater in Table 10.6.

PNG exports a wide variety of shery products. Marine products exported and marketing channels used by the industry in early 2000 (Diey 2005) included frozen lobster tails and barramundi llets to Australia (airfreighted on chartered aircraft from Daru via the Torres Islands); sashimi grade tuna (chilled airfreight) to Japan, US, Australia, and Southeast Asia; canned tuna to Europe, Philippines, and USA; canned sh (using imported mackerel) to the Solomon Islands; fresh (chilled) sh to the US; frozen snapper llets, mud crabs, lobster tails, and Spanish mackerel by sea freight to Australia; frozen tuna loins to Europe (this trade has terminated); live food sh, crabs, and lobsters to Australia and Southeast Asia; processed and unprocessed bivalve shellsh and their meat, primarily to Southeast Asia and Australia; and shmeal to Southeast Asia.
Exports, including marine exports, tracked by the Bank of Papua New Guinea are shown in Table 10.7. Exports of shery products are shown in Table 10.8 and details of recent tuna exports are shown in Table 10.9.
Table 10.9: Exports of Tuna Products, Papua New Guinea

Canned Tuna Loins Tuna Fishmeal Shark meat Shark fins Total $ 86 135 0.5 0.7 0.7 179 143 112 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 56 65 83 84 88
Chilled Tuna
Frozen Tuna
Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value (t) ($ million) (t) ($ million) (t) ($ million) (t) ($ million) (t) ($ million) (t) ($ million) (t) ($ million) 28 37.3 40.9 42.3 40.7 11,436 12.3 5,347 2.7 11,499 8.9 6,110 3.0 1,868 1,593 14,657 8.3 3,944 1.5 1,418 1,749 1 3,174 1.5 1,317 0.5 0 0 1,791 0.7 1,312 0.5
2003
2,092
9.3
31,294
16.5
13,753
2004
2,309
13.1
15,754
10.6
16,052
2005
954
3.9
31,551
27.4
15,495
2006
1,596
7.2
22,430
21.0
16,380
2007
0.844
3.9
20,266
27.1
14,574
t = ton.
Source: Kumoru (2008).
Table 10.7: Total Exports and Marine Exports, Papua New Guinea
Item Marine exports (t000) Marine exports value (K million) Marine exports value ($ million) Total value all PNG exports (K million) Marine exports share of all exports (%)
K = kina, PNG = Papua New Guinea, t = ton. Source: Quarterly Economic Bulletin, Bank of Papua New Guinea. www.bankpng.gov.pg (accessed December 2008).
2003 17.8 125.3 35.3 1,631.9 7.7
2004 43.0 262.1 81.4 1,652.2 15.9
2005 54.5 115.6 37.3 2,283.1 5.1
2006 45.5 154.8 50.6 2,988.5 5.2
2007 49.3 37.7 12.7 2,983.6 1.3
Table 10.8: Seafood Exports, Papua New Guinea

Item Seafood exports (t000) Value of seafood exports ($ million) Value of seafood exports (K million)
K = kina, t = ton. Source: National Fisheries Authority (2006).
2003 53.3 70.0 273.8
2004 52.2 67.9 231.5
2005 46.3 53.3 145.9
The three tables above have conicting total shery export values. Table 10.10 compares the data for 2005. To further confuse the issue, PNG shery export value reported to FAO in 2005 was $113 million, including $97million for tuna products (FAO 2008). Possible reasons for the discrepancies include dierences in accounting for reexports (tuna and mackerel imported for canning and later exported) and diering eectiveness in monitoring large volumes of export documentation.
Table 10.10: Estimates of Fishery Product Exports, Papua New Guinea, 2005
Estimate Source Bank of Papua New Guinea (2008) National Fisheries Authority (2005) Kumoru (2008)
Source: Estimate source.
Product Marine exports Seafood exports Tuna exports
Value ($ million) 37.3 53.3 83.0
A crude estimate of the value of shery exports in 2007 was obtained by adding the value of tuna products ($88 million [Kumoru 2008]) to the value of other sh, lobsters, shellsh, and shrimp (about $13 million [NFA 2008]) for a total export value of $101 million (K299 million), or about 10% of all exports from the country.

Negotiated access to PNGs productive waters has long been the primary source of tuna-related revenue for the government. With better organized and more transparent procedures for access agreements in place since 1999, annual access revenue has steadily increased to around K30K40 million in recent years, involving bilateral arrangements with the Peoples Republic of China; Republic of Korea; Taipei,China; several Philippine companies, US multilateral treaty, FSM Arrangement, and concessionary arrangements for locally based foreign vessels. In 2003, with record tuna catches in the PNG shing zone of about 370,000 t, access revenue exceeded $15 million (K50million) for the rst time (Lewis 2004). Access revenue in recent years is shown in Table 10.11. As fees are normally paid in foreign currency, much of the annual uctuation is due to currency exchange rates (T. Ward, personal communication, August 2008). The revised total revenue and grants of the Government of PNG in 2007 was estimated to be K7,200 million (PWC 2007). The K44.3 million
Table 10.11: Access Fees for Foreign Fishing in the Papua New Guinea Fishing Zone
Item Access fees received by NFA (K million) Source 2004 36.9 2005 35.3 2006 40.3 2007 44.3
NFA (2006)
NFA (2006)
NFA unpublished data
NFA unpublished data
K = kina, NFA = National Fisheries Authority. Note: Fees stated are exclusive of value-added tax (VAT).
Table 10.12: Other Government Revenue Received by the National Fisheries Authority
Item Domestic license fees (K million) Other fees (K million) Source 2004 1.8 9.4 NFA (2006) 2005 1.9 8.0 NFA (2006) 2006 2.2 (not available) NFA unpublished data 2007 1.4 (not available) NFA unpublished data
K = kina, NFA = National Fisheries Authority. Note: Fees stated are exclusive of value-added tax (VAT).
in access fees received34 represented about 0.6% of total revenue and grants for the year.

Apart from foreign access fees, the government through NFA receives other shery revenue (Table 10.12).
Employment
Participation in subsistence sheries is provided in three reports, summarized below. Although the reports use data from the 1990s, it is unlikely that the circumstances have changed signicantly. The coastal shing population (those involved in some shing activity at least once a week) is about 120,000. People involved in freshwater shing (those who do some shing at least once a week) number less than 125,000 (UNDP 1994). Despite the widespread nature of subsistence shing, in many instances it is sporadic, as most food production continues to be derived from agriculture. Nevertheless, a large number of people, estimated at somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000, participate
34
According to the Secretariat of the Pacic Community, the National Fisheries Authority has not been receiving revenue from the US tuna treaty for the last two years due to nonratication of an amendment to the treaty. Although the money is in a holding account, strictly speaking, it has not yet been received by PNG (M. Batty, personal communication, April 2009).
in the coastal subsistence shery. The 1990 census estimated that 130,963 households, which is 23% of all rural households in the country, were engaged in catching sh (both marine and fresh water shing). Of these households, 60% said they caught sh for home consumption only, while 40% caught sh both for food and for sale. A signicant proportion of households were involved in shing in all provinces except those in the highlands. The highest proportion of shing households occurred in Milne Bay (14.3% of households), East Sepik (11.3%), and Madang (10.0%) (Preston 2001b). On gender aspects of subsistence sheries: Womens role in shing is much larger than is generally acknowledged. According to the Womens Sector Review, studies have shown that women catch at least 25% of the subsistence catch, or more if the crab catch is added. Furthermore, they are dominant in the processing stage of small-scale sheries and contribute to the marketing of sh where the husband is involved in catching (Avalos 1995).
For employment in commercial sheries, it is important to place the number of jobs in perspective. Results of the 2000 census showed the total number of people employed in the country in 2000 at 2,344,734, of which 1,141,501 (48.7%) were females (NSO 2003). Of the total jobs, 584,682 (25%) were considered monetary and 1,760,052 (75%) non-monetary. Using the Bank of Papua New Guinea index of employment,35 it is estimated that there were about 774,000 people with monetary jobs in 2008. The number of people employed in small-scale commercial shing in PNG has never been adequately surveyed. Many of the current estimates are at least partially based on a UNDP sheries sector study in late 1980s. Diey (2005), using several sources, summarized the state of knowledge: In 1989 UNDP estimated that PNG had about 2,000 coastal village communities with a population of about 500,000 people. Of these it was estimated that 120,000 were involved in regular shing activity at least once a week and that there were between 2,000 and 4,000 part-time artisanal shers. These data are conrmed by the 1990 population census where NSO estimated that, of 131,000 coastal rural households, 23% (30,000) were engaged in catching sh with 60% shing purely for subsistence consumption and 40% for both food and for sale. Quantifying the number of people engaged in aquaculture in PNG remains elusive. There is a general consensus that many people in the country
35
Bank of Papua New Guinea: www.bankpng.gov.pg
are involved in small-scale culture of sh, but the various studies give dierent results. An unpublished report of an Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) study in 2003 showed 10,000 sh farmers to be involved in inland and highland sh farming (Ponia 2003). SPC (2008b) mentioned an estimated10 to 15,000shfarmers in Papua New Guinea. An ACIAR study on the status of freshwater sh farming in PNG during 20012006 (Smith 2007) estimated the number of farms in 2001 in the 19 provinces of PNG to be 5,418. On the degree of involvement of people in these farms, approximately 5,000 families in the highlands who each had one or two sh ponds that grew 50 sh to 500 g (Smith [2007], quoting Mufuape [2000]). The tuna industry provides many of the formal shing jobs in the country. Employment in the tuna industry greatly increased during 2002 2008 (Table 10.13). Considering the monetary employment of 774,000 in PNG in 2008, the 8,990 tuna jobs represented about 1.2% of all monetary jobs that year.
Table 10.13: Locals Employed in the Papua New Guinea Tuna Industry
2002 460 2,707 3,167
2006 110 4,000 4,110
2008 440 8,550 8,990
A recent study on gender in the tuna industry (Sullivan and Ram-Bidesi 2008) indicated that about 7,000 women worked in the PNG tuna industry, including onshore handling and loining or canning, and technical and administrative positions. The study concluded that the tuna industry employs 3.3% of all formally employed women.
Fish Consumption
Recent information on sh36 consumption in PNG is summarized below (Preston 2001b).
36
Preston (2001) used the term sh to describe freshwater and marine nsh, shellsh, and other aquatic food products.
Most documents and reports on nutrition in PNG focus on agriculture and animal husbandry and pay little attention to sh. Nevertheless, sh play an important role in food security. On average, Papua New Guineans were estimated (Gibson 2000) to have consumed 10 kg of fresh, frozen or dried sh per capita, with a total value of K60 million, in 1996. Urban dwellers had higher per capita consumption rates than rural dwellers (21 kg as opposed to 8 kg) but consumed less total value of sh (K26 million versus K34 million) due to their smaller numbers. In addition to fresh sh and seafood, tinned sh is an important source of dietary protein for many people. On average, Papua New Guineans consumed 3 kg per capita of tinned sh valued at K63 million in 1996. Again, urban dwellers had a higher per capita consumption than rural people (7kg as against 2 kg), but consumed a lower total value (Gibson 2000). Most sh and seafood consumed in PNG is domestically produced, including tinned sh. Accounting for seafood imports and exports, the apparent per capita seafood consumption37 was estimated at 18.224.9 kg/year (Preston 2000). Together fresh and tinned sh provide a small but important source of high-quality protein in the Papua New Guinean diet. Fresh sh provides about 1.1% of average caloric intake to the average Papua New Guinean (0.9% in rural areas and 2.3% in urban areas), while tinned sh provides an average of 0.6% (0.5% in rural areas, 1.4% in urban areas) (Gibson 2000).
On a national basis, per capita sh consumption in 20022003 (whole weight equivalent) was 28.1 kg per capita per year in urban areas (fresh sh made up 76% of this amount) and 10.2 kg per capita per year in rural areas (77% fresh sh) (Bell et al. 2009), based on information in Gibson (2000).
37
Apparent consumption is the composite of domestic production (subsistence and commercial) plus imports, less exports.
Samoa
Fish Production
The widespread use of alia catamaran shing craft is unique to Samoa. Categorizing their shing activity requires some special attention. While it is recognized that those vessels are not industrial scale, due to the type of gear used and the diculty and logic of separating the catch of those vessels from larger catamaran and monohull vessels, the catch from alia longliners in this report is considered to be a component of the oshore locally based catch. Samoa has devoted more attention to estimating the production from its small-scale sheries than any other Pacic island country. A brief summary of these eorts follows (Mulipola et al. 2007).
The rst assessment of Samoas sheries was completed by the Department of Statistics in 1978. About 48 villages on both Upolu and Savaii were surveyed for one week each quarter over the course of the year to determine total landings and seafood consumption. Oshore landings for the year were estimated at 424 t, while inshore landings were estimated at 666 t. In 1991, the Fisheries Division and FAO conducted the Inshore Resource Assessment Project. Originally intended to be nationwide, the study focused on Upolu due to damage sustained on Savaii during cyclones in 1990 and 1991. It was estimated that total inshore sheries production in Samoa was 4,800 t/year. In a 1997 study of the subsistence and artisanal sheries of Savaii, additional analysis of data from the 1991 study was also included. The study estimated total inshore production in all of Samoa to be 4,200 t/year. A nationwide household sheries survey was undertaken in October and November 2000. The total coastal catch for 2000 was estimated at 7,169 t worth ST45 million. A total of 2,876 t was sold or given away, leaving 4,293 t for home consumption.
Coastal commercial production in 2000 was estimated at 3,086 t worth ST19.9 million (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). Data from the 2002 HIES were analyzed in the present study to estimate the coastal commercial catch in 2002 at 4,076 t worth ST30 million, and the coastal subsistence catch at 4,437 t worth ST22.8 million. In 2003, there were 11,700 shers in Samoa with total landings of 12,270 t, according to the results of two one-week creel surveys in 112 villages nationwide (Mulipola 2003). The most recent estimate of coastal sheries production was 13,686 t worth ST84 million, based on a survey of 939 households on sh consumption and related matters, validated through a creel census (Mulipola et al. 2007). After correcting for sh price changes between 2000 and 2002, the 2000 HIES can be compared to the 2000 sheries survey of sh production. For the coastal commercial component, the HIES gave 50% more value and 32% more catch. For coastal subsistence sheries, the data sets were very close (3% value dierence and 5% catch dierence). Discussion with the HIES specialist at SPC (C. Ryan, personal communication, November 2008) indicated that the major dierence between the two studies was the method of obtaining information from respondents. The HIES used individual diaries lled out by respondents over a two-week period (the HIES sta were able to stay in the
Samoa 147
selected villages during the entire two-week diary-keeping period), while the 2000 sheries survey used general recall (e.g., What is the usual amount of seafood caught by people in your household in one week?). For the present study, the HIES catch estimates were increased to account for population increase during 20022007 and the 2007 market and roadside sh price of ST12.41/kg was used (Fisheries Division 2008d). On this basis, the 2007 production from Samoas coastal commercial sheries is estimated to be 4,129 t worth ST51,240,890.

Coastal subsistence production in 2000 was estimated at 4,293 t worth ST21.6 million (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). The 2000 sheries survey and the 2002 HIES gave similar results on subsistence sheries production. Updating the HIES information as above, it is estimated that production from coastal subsistence sheries in Samoa in 2007 was 4,495 t. Assuming a price 70% of the above 2007 commercial sh price, the value of this catch was ST39,048,065.

The numbers of boats in the locally based oshore eet in recent years, all longliners, are given in Table 11.1. Estimates of the catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the WCPFC area were made by the FFA (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. The prices used were all delivered prices in that they reected the price received at entry to the country
Table 11.1: Offshore Fishing Fleet, Samoa
Class Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Total
m = meter. Source: Fisheries Division (2008d).
Vessel Length 11 m >11 m 12.5 m >12.5 m 15 m >15 m 20.5 m >15 m
Number of Vessels 2006 37 2 2 2 13 54
Number of Vessels 2007 43 2 2 13 13 60
in which they were usually sold whether for processing or consumption. Also, bycatch, which is an important component of locally based oshore longline sheries, was not included. For longline yellown and bigeye tuna, FFA (2008) assumed that 80% of the catch was of export quality and 20% was of nonexport quality. For export quality, Japanese fresh yellown and bigeye tuna import prices from Oceania were used, while the price of nonexport grade tuna was assumed to be $1.50/ kg. The catch composition during FY2008 was 82.6% albacore, 1.5% bigeye tuna, 10.7% yellown tuna, and 5.2% bycatch (Fisheries Division 2008d). Table 11.2 gives catches and local dockside values for the tuna eets based in Samoa, adjusted for bycatch and value as noted in the table.

There is only a very small catch by foreign shing vesselsan average of 13 t/year, all from longliners for 20032007 (FFA 2008). There was also a small catch by US purse seiners9 t in FY2005 and 27 t in FY2006but none in FY2004, according to unpublished NMFS public domain data. For 20032007, it is assumed here that the purse seine catch in the waters of Samoa was 12 t/year. With regard to annual catch value during 20032007, it is assumed that 13 t of foreign longline catch was worth $32,500 and the 12 t of purse seine catch was worth $16,800. The annual foreign catch in the period was, therefore, 25 t worth $49,300 (ST129,166 in 2007).
Table 11.2: Tuna Catches by the Samoa-Based Tuna Fleeta
Item Tuna catch (t)a Bycatch (t)
b
2003 2,663 253 2,916 6,782,964 6,443,816
2004 1,820 162 1,982 6,311,711 5,996,125
2005 1,542 139 1,681 4,880,538 4,636,511
2006 2,503 210 2,713 8,311,447 7,895,875
2007 3,519 236 3,755 8,818,637 8,377,705
Total catch (t) Catch value ($)a Adjusted catch value ($) Adjusted catch value (ST)
ST = tala, t = ton.
19,313,563 16,666,320 12,565,343 21,940,603 21,910,631
a In the table, the amount of bycatch is the figure given in Fisheries Division (2008d). The catch value is (i) reduced by 15% to obtain dockside tuna values and to allow for reduced exports of fresh tuna relative to other Pacific island countries, and (ii) increased by 10% to account for sales of bycatch.
Sources: a Forum Fisheries Agency (2008), b Fisheries Division (2008d), and consultants estimate.
Samoa 149
Freshwater Catches
In Samoa, 2% of all households do at least some shing on inland rivers and lakes (ADB 2008c). The main freshwater shery species are tilapia (there are occasionally roadside sales near lakes), eels, and freshwater shrimp. The total annual harvest is unknown, but likely to be about 10 t/year (A. Mulipola, Assistant Chief Executive Ocer of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, personal communication, September 2008). This 10 t annual harvest was valued, using the approach above, for coastal subsistence catches, at ST87,000.
Aquaculture
Aquaculture in Samoa at present is at village level, mainly using tilapia in local waterways and grow out of giant clams. Commercial aquaculture has not developed, despite attempts using a range of species (Rimmer et al. 2001). Twelve villages were nursing giant clams in their lagoon reserves in FY2008 under the Community-Based Fisheries Management Programme. Declining trends have been noticed in the number of live clams due to natural mortality and poaching (Fisheries Division 2008d). The nurseries are oriented to enhancing the wild giant clam stock. In FY2008, 5,000 sh ngerlings were produced and distributed to community, group, and individual farmers. A total of six old and ve new farms were stocked with tilapia (Fisheries Division 2008d). The tilapia ponds are mostly small with poor productivity. The total annual harvest is likely to be about 10 t (A. Mulipola, personal communication, September 2008). The harvest value is estimated, using the approach for coastal catches, at about ST87,000.
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of annual production and value in 2007 was made (Table 11.3). The factual basis for the estimates of coastal commercial and coastal subsistence catches appears stronger in Samoa than in any other Pacic island country. The accuracy of the assessment of the total catch and value of Samoas 2007 production appears relatively good.
Table 11.3: Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in Samoa, 2007a

ST = tala, t = ton.
a
Quantity (t) 4,129 4,495 3,755 25 10 10 12,424
Value (ST) 51,240,890 39,048,065 21,910,631 129,166 87,000 87,000 112,502,752
Values in the table are dockside/farm-gate prices.

The shing contribution to GDP in recent years is shown in Table 11.4.

As shown in Table 11.4, value added from shing comprises that from monetary shing and non-monetary shing. Monetary shing categories are inshore landings, crustaceans, oshore tuna plus other purchased and consumed, export tuna for canning, exports by airfreight chilled, and all other exports. For this study, the total value of the above six categories was multiplied by a VAR of 0.85 to obtain the value added for monetary shing.
Table 11.4: Official Fishing Contribution to Samoa GDP (ST)
Item Fishing, monetary Fishing, non-monetary Fishing, total Total Samoa GDP Fishing share of Samoa GDP (%)
GDP = gross domestic product, ST = tala. Source: Bureau of Statistics, unpublished data (A. Salani, personal communication, September 2008).
2004 20,360,733 40,748,354 61,109,087 5.8
2005 16,699,109 42,915,756 59,614,865 5.2
2006 17,822,536 46,074,083 63,896,619 5.1
2007 27,810,917 46,729,629 74,540,546 5.4
1,049,408,000 1,151,251,000 1,249,841,000 1,372,394,000
Samoa 151
For subsistence shing, the value of subsistence catch was multiplied by a VAR of 0.95, using the year 2000 as a benchmark. The price for a particular year was the 2000 price, modied by the consumer price index (CPI). The quantity assumed was the 2000 quantity, modied by a factor that is inversely proportional to the longline landings, assuming that the more longline landings, the less demand for subsistence catch. MOF (2008) stated that recent GDP estimates for Agriculture and Fishing have been revised to incorporate the1999 Agriculture Census and the 2000 Fishing Survey. The major comments that can be made on this methodology are: The price used for subsistence sh (e.g., ST4.74 in December 2007) appears quite low. Average 2007 market and roadside sh prices38 were estimated at ST12.41/kg (Fisheries Division 2008d). Using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production which discounts the average sh price in the market by 30% as an allowance for getting the product to marketgives a subsistence price of ST8.69/kg. The VARs in the ocial method for monetary shing appear quite high. Appendix 3 examines the economics of various types of shing in the Pacic islands and concludes, for example, that a VAR of 0.47 should be used for alia tuna longlining, 0.20 for locally based conventional tuna longlining, and 0.600.80 for shing in a small outboard powered boat.

Table 11.5 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in Samoa. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing/aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 11.3 above. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). It is not intended that the approach in Table 11.5 replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain
38
The outlets examined in Fisheries Division (2008, page 2) were the Apia sh market, Fugalei agro-produce market, ApiaFaleolo roadsides, and the Salelologa market. The total of about 145 t of inshore shery products was worth ST1.8 million, or ST12.41/kg.

Gross Value of Production (ST, from Table 11.3) 51,240,890 39,048,065 21,910,631 87,000 87,000
Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore locally baseda Freshwater Aquaculture Total
Value-Added Ratio 0.80 0.90 0.40 0.90 0.74
Value Added (ST) 40,992,712 35,143,259 8,764,252 78,300 64,380 85,042,903
GDP = gross domestic product, ST = tala.

a An economic study of local longlining in Samoa determined that the value-added ratio for alia tuna longlining in Samoa was 0.46 and that for conventional tuna longlining was 0.38 (Hamilton 2007).
additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication. Total value added from shing in Table 11.5 (ST85,042,903) is 14% greater than the ocial estimate of ST74,540,546. In the alternative approach, the subsistence value added is considerably less than the ocial gure. On the other hand, in the alternative approach, the commercial value added (coastal commercial + oshore locally based) is almost 80% greater than the ocial estimate of monetary shing.

Fish exports are about half of all Samoan exports, as shown in Table 11.6. Additional information is given in Table 11.7.
Table 11.6: Fish and Total Exports, Samoa
Item Fish exports (ST million) Total value of exports (ST million) Fish exports share of all exports (%)
ST = tala. Note: Time periods are calendar years. Sources: SBS (2008) and MOF (2008).
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
29,034 15,760 13,523 11,583 15,452 20,000 46,283 44,271 33,127 32,488 28,746 36,190 62.7 35.6 40.8 35.7 53.8 55.3
Samoa 153
Table 11.7: Quantity and Value of Fish Exports, Samoa

2003 Frozen Fish Fresh Chilled Total Quantity (t) Value (ST) Quantity (t) Value (ST) Quantity (t) Value (ST) 2,259.0 2004 1,345.3 2005 1,477.7 2006 1,042.1 2007 1,819.3 2008 2,567.7
16,257,543 9,376,849 10,825,626 7,626,230 13,405,456 18,169,894 567.2 430.3 481.0 144.6 429.8 157.9
7,480,845 5,457,612 6,246,017 1,775,155 4,008,088 2,215,038 2,826.2 1,775.6 1,958.7 1,186.7 2,249.1 2,725.5
23,738,388 14,834,461 17,071,643 9,401,385 17,413,544 20,384,932
ST = tala, t = ton. Source: Fisheries Division (2008d).
Table 11.8: Fishery Products Exported for Faaoso, FY2008

Year JulyDecember 2007 JanuaryJune 2008 Total
FY = fiscal year, kg = kilogram. Source: Fisheries Division (2008d).
Pelagic species (kg) 1,131 409 1,540
Inshore species (kg) 5,160 4,635 9,795
The Customs Department, Central Bank of Samoa, and Fisheries Division all record the shery exports of Samoa. Because the information for each of the three agencies comes from the same documents, the amounts recorded by each agency should be identical. In practice, they are all slightly dierent, probably because of the diculties associated with compiling summaries from a large number of export documents. Further, information on shery exports reported to FAO (FAO 2008) contains items that are not produced in Samoa, such as Salmonoids, frozen and Herrings prepared or preserved. Since 1997, export bans on several types of shery products (coral, aquarium sh, and bche de mer) have resulted in almost all commercial shery exports in recent years being tuna products, according to Fisheries Division sta (A. Mulipola, personal communication, September 2008). Finally, a signicant amount of noncommercial shery exports occur, as gifts for family and friends living overseas (faaoso) (Table 11.8).

With the exception of purse seiners from the US that are covered by the multilateral tuna treaty (to which Samoa is a party), no foreign-based vessels have been authorized to sh in Samoan waters since the 1990s (U. Faasili Jr., personal communication, September 2008). Under the terms of the US multilateral tuna treaty, Samoa and other Pacic island countries receive payments from the Government of the United States and the US tuna industry that are associated with shing access by US purse seiners. Table 11.9 gives the funds received by Samoa from the treaty for recent years.
Table 11.9: Payments to Samoa from the US Multilateral Treaty ($)
Licensing Period 16th Period, 15 June 200314 June 2004 17th Period, 15 June 200414 June 2005 18th Period, 15 June 200514 June 2006 19th Period, 15 June 200614 June 2007 20th Period, 15 June 200714 June 2008
US = United States.
a The 15% shares ($2,042,050.92 in 2008) are shared equally between all countries that are parties to the treaty. b The 85% shares ($14,273,117.87 in 2008) are apportioned to countries based on where the catch by US vessels was made. These amounts in the table are zero because US seiners have not attempted to fish in Samoa in over 20 years. c
15% Sharesa 147,357.28 147,310.43 147,209.70 (145,860.78) (145,860.78)
85% Sharesb 0 2,380.84 7,399.46 no information no information
PDF Sharesc 111,125.00 111,125.00 111,125.00 (111,125.00) (111,125.00)
The PDF shares ($1,555,750.00 in 2008) are shared equally between all countries that are parties to the treaty for project development work. Source: Unpublished United States National Marine Fisheries Service public domain data.
Payments during the 19th and 20th periods require extra explanation. For political reasons, since mid-2006, the Government of the United States has not been able to formally transfer funds of this type directly to the Government of Samoa. An equivalent amount is, however, transferred to Samoa from treaty funds deposited with the administrator of the US treaty, which is the FFA.
Samoa 155
Some Pacic island countries consider that all payments under the US treaty are for shing access, while others treat some components (e.g., the PDF shares) as aid. The total revenue and grants collected by the Government of Samoa in FY2008 was ST441.10 million (MOF 2008). If all the money received by Samoa from the US treaty is considered as payment for access, shing access fees amount to about 0.15% of all government revenue and grants.

License fees collected from local shing vessels during FY2008 are shown in Table 11.10. Total revenue collected for Fisheries Management, Planning, and Research Services in FY2008 was ST180,300, with a projection for ST194,900 to be collected in FY2009 (Government of Samoa 2008). According to the sta of the Ministry of Finance, these amounts are likely to be all money (vessel license fees [Table11.10] plus other fees) collected by the Fisheries Division (L. Sefo-Leau, personal communication, September 2008).
Table 11.10: Fishing Vessels License Fees in Samoa, FY2008
Class A B C D and E Total
FY = fiscal year, ST = tala. Source: Fisheries Division (2008d).
Number of Fishing Vessels 38 1 2 13 54
License Fee ST200 ST500 ST3,000 ST7,000
Revenue Generated ST7,600 ST500 ST6,000 ST91,000 ST105,000
Employment
Formal registered employment (dened as those people who make national provident fund contributions) data (Table 11.11) show that, overall, shing provides only 0.9% of the formal registered employment in Samoa, but the growth trend in formal registered employment in shing is considerably greater than that for all industries. Of those formally employed in shing, 88.3% are males.
Table 11.11: Formal Registered Employment

Item Employed males Fishing All industries Employed females Fishing All industries Employed persons Fishing All industries
a
2003 63 11,942
2004 65 12,161
2005 62 12,819
2006 148 12,964
2007 173 13,114
Growth Trenda 6.8 0.5
12 8,737
12 8,618
14 8,789
15 8,837
23 9,086
4.1 0.3
75 20,679
77 20,779
76 21,608
163 21,802
196 22,150
6.4 0.4
The growth trend is the log linear quarterly trend in growth.
Source: Samoa Bureau of Statistics, unpublished data.
Table 11.12: Employment in Tuna Fisheries, Samoa

2002 674 108 782
2006 110 90 200
2008 255 40 295
Interestingly, alia-type tuna longlining generates more jobs per catch than conventional longliners: 16 and 5 employees per 100 t, respectively (Hamilton 2007). Employment in tuna shing in recent years is shown in Table 11.12. A survey conducted to assess the socioeconomic status of rural villages with regard to shing practices (Mulipola et al. 2007) contained the following information on employment in small-scale shing: Although only 7.3% of the population are shers, 41.7% of households have at least one sher. When raised to the population of Samoa, there are approximately 12,844 shers. Over 60% of households regularly receive remittances from relatives overseas. Over 50% of households have a member earning income from a wage paying or salaried job. About 23% of households reported an income from shing.
Samoa 157
In households with shing incomes, shing contributed to an average of 41% of the total household income. Traditionally, a womans shing role is gleaning shellsh or bche de mer in shallow areas along the shore. However, there seems to have been a sharp decline in the number of female shers, from 18% in 1991 and 1997 to 13.5% in 2007. Respondents suggested that it is more dicult to nd organisms nowadays than in the past.
About 18% of all village shers are female. They contribute around 23% of the total weight of seafood (Lambeth 2001). Because women collect the majority of marine bivalves and other invertebrates in Samoa, it is estimated that they provide 20% of the seafood consumed. A sher creel census undertaken in 2003 (Mulipola 2003) indicated that there were 8,377 shing households in Samoa (36% of all households), with an average number of shers of 1.4 per shing householda total of 11,700 subsistence and small-scale commercial shers of whom 9,600 (82%) were male and 2,100 female. Similar proportions were found in the household survey in 2000 (82% male shers) and an agriculture census in 2002 (86% male shers). Of the total, 37% were considered full-time (shing about 5 days/week) and the remainder part-time. Fishers aged 2029 years, 3039 years, and 4049 years accounted for 18%, 38%, and 29%, respectively, of the total shers. The 2002 Samoa HIES gives information on main daily activity, but the results are not disaggregated down to the shing level.
Fish Consumption
Table 11.13 summarizes recent estimates of sh consumption in Samoa. It can be seen that there is some inconsistency, or at least lack of clarity, in what is being measured (fresh sh only, fresh plus canned) and how it is measured (sh actually consumed versus whole sh equivalent).
Table 11.13: Estimates of Fisheries Consumption in Samoa, Various Years

Year for Estimate 1995
Source Preston (2000) Lambeth (2001)
Fish Consumption Estimate 46.3 kilograms (kg) of fish per capita per year Women contribute around 23% of total weight of seafood. Because women collect most of the marine bivalves and other invertebrates in Samoa, it is estimated that they provide 20% of the per capita seafood consumption of 71 kg/year, consisting of 44 kg of fresh fish, 13 kg of invertebrates and seaweed, and 14 kg of canned fish. Average per capita consumption of (local) seafood is 57.0 kg per annum, made up of 44.0 kg of fish and 13.0 kg of invertebrates and seaweed. In addition, canned fish consumption per capita is 14.0 kg per annum; total (local plus imports) is 71.0 kg per capita per year. Fresh fish average frequency of consumption of finfish = 2.8 times/week, invertebrates = 0.8 day/ week average per capita consumption per year = 59.4 kg (163 grams/day) total consumption per year = 10,508 tons (7,900 tons for Upolu, 2,608 tons for Savaii) Tinned fish average frequency of consumption = 4.5 days/ per week
Comments Based on FAO production, import, and export statistics. Gender-oriented survey applied to earlier consumption data.
1990s
Passfield (2001)
2000
Survey was based on respondents recall of their fishing activities and seafood consumption patterns. Used whole fish equivalent.
Mulipola et al. (2007)
2006
Based on response of people asked to estimate their usual catch. The study appears to use food actually consumed.
Samoa 159
Source
Year for Estimate
Fish Consumption Estimate average per capita consumption = 73 kg/year (206 grams/person/day) 8,120 tons of tinned fish consumed per year in Samoa (Upolu, 2,608 tons for Savaii)
Comments
Bell et al. (2009)
2002
Average annual per capita fish consumption (whole weight equivalent) is 45.6 kg in urban areas and 98.3 kg in rural areas.
Based on 2002 HIES information.
FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, HIES = household income and expenditure survey, kg = kilogram.
Solomon Islands
Fish Production
The structure of coastal commercial sheries in the Solomon Islands was summarized by Green et al. (2006) as follows: The small-scale commercial sheries are mainly located near the main urban area of Honiara, and to a much lesser extent, around the towns of Auki on Malaita Island and Gizo in the west. These sheries are oriented to providing primarily nsh to wage-earning residents. The other common form of small-scale commercial shing is that for nonperishable shery products for export. The most important of these items are trochus shells, bche de mer, and shark ns. These commodities are an important source of cash for Solomon Islanders, especially in the isolated villages since the demise of the copra industry.
Solomon Islands 161
In addition to the above types of coastal commercial shing, an inshore shery exists for baitsh for Soltai pole-and-line tuna vessels. Coastal commercial sheries production in the Solomon Islands in early 1990s was estimated at 1,150 t worth $4,343,811 (Dalzell et al. 1996). Production during 19882000 was estimated at 3,200 t worth SI$9,200,000 (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). For a more recent and accurate assessment of coastal sheries production, three components need to be considered: sales for domestic consumption, exports, and the Soltai tuna bait shery. With respect to production for domestic sales, there seem to be few original new estimates; most recent citations appear to be a recycling of previous estimates, especially that made by Crossland and Philipson (1993). The recent HIES oers little insight because shery products of coastal origin (as opposed to tuna products) cannot be determined from the category sh and shellsh used in the survey. Recent annual reports of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources do not contain information on the production of coastal sheries. An analysis of seafood marketing in the Solomon Islands in 2001 (Russell and Buga 2001) does not contain information useful for estimating the production of coastal commercial sheries, or even the amount of sh sold in Honiara. A shery statistics paper that year (Anon 2001) contains information on exported coastal sheries products only. The available fragmented information on sales for domestic consumption includes a projection for sh demand in Honiara of 1,390 t for 2002 (Crossland and Philipson 1993), an estimated 1,115 t of reef and lagoon sh taken for commercial sale (GPA 2000), and an estimated 245 t of sh coming from rural areas to the Honiara main market (Lindley 2007). The marketing ocer of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources indicates a buying price of SI$8/kg for most nsh at the rural sheries centers since 2004 (B. Buga, personal communication, August 2008). For the tuna bait shery, the annual catch for 2002 was 828 t (Barclay 2008). The numbers of pole-and-line vessels operating in recent years were: 2002, 12 vessels; 2006, 11 vessels; 2008, 1 vessel (Gillett 2008a). This suggests that baitsh catches for a eet of 10 vessels are about 800 t worth SI$800,000 (at SI$1/kg). Exports of non-tuna sheries products in 2007 were valued at SI$5.2million, according to the Central Bank of the Solomon Islands (CBSI 2008). The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR 2008a) gave a very dierent value, SI$18.5 million (Table 12.1). Exports were also reported to FAO (Table 12.2). The table lists the six major non-tuna exports, the total of which, in local currency, amounts to about SI$17.5 million in
Table 12.1: Non-Tuna Fishery Exports, according to Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Export Quantity (t) 304 453 not available 543 921 Export Value SI$ million 0.4 1.5 not available 7.6 18.5
SI$ = Solomon Islands dollar, t = ton. Source: Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (2008a).
Table 12.2: Major Non-Tuna Fishery Exports as Reported to FAO

Product Sea cucumber, dried, salted, or in brine Shark fins, dried, salted, etc. Rock lobsters Ornamental fish Miscellaneous corals and shells Coral and the like
Source: FAO (2008).
2005 ($000) 766 70 69 229 267 925
2006 ($000) 33 90 113 226 431 876
FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
2005 and SI$13.5 million in 2006. These values (CBSI, MFMR, FAO) all appear to be free on board (FOB) values. Trade data for shery products are collected by the Ministry of Finance and by the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources through its License, Surveillance and Enforcement Division (Infosh 2008). As shown above, there is a wide range of estimates for production from coastal commercial sheries in the Solomon Islands. What can be stated with some degree of certainty is that in the previous decade demand has been aected by an increase in the urban population (increased demand), and by increased tuna transshipment with its associated supply of reject sh (decreased demand); depreciation of the local currency created a greater incentive to harvest; and total value of coastal commercial production is greatly aected by the value of the bche de mer harvest. Historical records for bche
Solomon Islands 163
de mer show that exports were worth SI$4.79 million in 2001, SI$2.02million in 2002, and SI$2.26 million in 2003 (Lindley 2007). A ban on export of bche de mer was imposed in 2006 and, according to MFMR (2008a), exports were SI$9,900 in that year, but increased greatly to SI$10,445,248 in 2007 after the ban was rescinded. A selective use of the above information enables crude estimates of production from the three components of coastal commercial sheries in recent years, as follows: Local sales for domestic consumption: about 1,500 t at about SI$12million annually to the shers for 20052007. Baitsh: about 800 t valued at SI$0.8 million annually to the recipient communities for 20052007. Exports: about 950 t worth SI$12.5 million annually to the shers for 20052007; about 750 t valued at SI$9.5 million for 2006.

There has been little, if any, recent original research on subsistence sheries production in the Solomon Islands. Many of the estimates of coastal subsistence sheries production in the country can be traced back to one of two statements: Virtually no data have been collected on the artisanal and subsistence sheries in the past, apart from the irregular reports of sh purchases and sales through the sheries centers and substations. Current estimates of the artisanal and subsistence production are based on a 1983 estimate of 40.0 kg per capita consumption, giving a national production of 6,000 to 12,000 tonnes (Cook 1988). A survey conducted by the National Statistics Oce in 1983 indicated an average per capita sh consumption of 25.7 kg/year. A subsequent survey in 1988 (unpublished) indicated total seafood consumption of 34.4 kg/person/year, comprising 22.4 kg of marine sh and 12 kg of shellsh. Shellsh consumption appeared to be concentrated in the Western Provinces. Using these gures, the national total subsistence catch is probably of the order of 10,000 tonnes/year in 1990 (Skewes 1990).
Subsistence production in late 1990s was estimated at 8,817 t of nsh and 4,747 t of shellsh, for a combined total of 13,564 t (World Bank 2000; sources and methods not specied), and at 13,000 t worth SI$39 million (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). The population of Solomon Islands increased by about 20% between the 2001 estimate and 2007 (SPC 2008a). If the subsistence harvest increased by 15% during the same period, production would have been about 15,000 t in 2006. Using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production (Bain 1996)which discounts the average sh price in the market by 30% as an allowance for getting the product to marketproduction of 15,000 t in 2007, using the average rural buying price of SI$8/kg given above, would be valued at SI$84 million.

Estimates of catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Corporation (WCPFC) area were made by Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC) (FFA 2008). In these data, prices are all delivered prices in that they reect the price received at entry to the country in which they are usually sold whether for processing or consumption. Also, bycatch, which is an important component of locally based oshore longline sheries, is not included. For longline yellown and bigeye tuna, FFA (2008) assumed that 80% of the catch is of export quality and 20% is of nonexport quality. For export quality, Japanese fresh yellown and bigeye tuna import prices from Oceania were used, while it was simply assumed that nonexport grade tuna attracted $1.50/kg. Table 12.3 gives catch and local dockside values for the Solomon Islands tuna eets. It consists of the FFA estimate adjusted for bycatch and transshipment as noted in the table.

Recent tuna catches in Solomon Islands waters by foreign shing vessels consisted of 95.5% sh caught by purse seine and 4.5% sh caught by longline (Anon 2008d). Estimated tuna catches and values by foreign-based eets in Solomon Islands waters are given in Table 12.4, adjusted for bycatch and marketing costs as indicated in the table.
Table 12.3: Tuna Catches by the Solomon Islands National Tuna Fleet
2002 1,212 8,489 9,695 19,396 4,308,386 5,862,011 7,415,451 17,585,848 118,682,842 198,377,172 26,429,358 25,217,704 188,747,955 7,810,053 6,166,656 10,914,759 13,378,930 7,704,545 5,672,119 5,867,781 14,546,856 2,560,796 22,975,433 173,002,024 28,618 25,291 21,268 10,795 6,882 2,842 15,937 16,899 16,916 1,886 1,511 1,511 1,511 23,439 6,958 31,908 5,835,867 21,203,550 6,724,563 33,763,981 256,925,661 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1,511 18,171 3,937 23,619 5,685,347 21,640,324 5,327,869 32,653,540 249,864,889
Gear
2000
2001
Catcha
Longline
1,488
520
Purse seine
9,462
13,402
Pole line
2,773
4,074
Total (t)
13,723
17,996
Catch valueb
Longline
5,860,197
1,981,586
Purse seine
4,799,935
9,101,617
Pole line
1,531,320
3,236,313
Total $
12,191,452
14,319,516
Total SI$
62,041,446
75,578,121
SI$ = Solomon Islands dollar, t = ton.
The catch has been increased for bycatch: 30% for longline and 5% for purse seine.
Catch value has been adjusted: (i) for longline reduced by 25% to obtain dockside tuna values; and increased by 10% to account for the sale of bycatch, and (ii) for purse seine reduced by 15% to allow for transshipping.
Solomon Islands 165
Sources: FFA (2008), consultants estimates.
Table 12.4: Tuna Catches in Solomon Islands Waters by Foreign-Based Fleets, 2007a
Tuna Catch Catch Total catch of all fleets (t) Catch of Solomon Islands fleet (t) Catch of foreign fleet (t) Catch of foreign fleet, adjusted for bycatch (t) Catch value Catch value of foreign fleet ($) Catch value of foreign fleet ($), adjusted for transshipment Catch value of foreign fleet, adjusted for transshipment (SI$)
a Catches were increased by 5% to account for bycatch. The values given by Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) (destination market prices) were reduced by 15% for transshipment, costs to destination markets, and others.
Quantity or Value 114,840 21,484 93,356 98,023 180,645,727 153,548,868 1,174,648,841
Sources: FFA (2008) and SPC (unpublished information).
Freshwater Catches
The many large islands in the country result in a relatively large inland population with no direct access to marine food resources, which is why the Solomon Islands have a signicant subsistence freshwater shery (Coates 1996). The catch includes agtails, gobies, and freshwater mullets on Choiseul Island (Boseto et al. 2007); and impressive harvests of tilapia, at times in excess of 16 t/year, from Lake Tenaggano on the island of Rennell (Nelson and Eldredge 1991). Apart from occasional sales of wild-caught freshwater prawns (Macrobrachium lar) and eels (Anguilla sp.) (Gillett 2002), freshwater sheries production is used for subsistence purposes. Without much factual basis, the production of freshwater sheries is deemed to be 2,000 t with a farm-gate value of SI$11,200,000.
Aquaculture
The aquaculture situation in the Solomons Islands was summarized as follows (Lindsay 2007). There has been a wide range of species cultured within the Solomon Islands, including giant clams, penaeid shrimps, freshwater prawns,
Solomon Islands 167
pearl oysters, sea weed, bche de mer, hard and soft coral, milksh, sponges and the capture/culture of post larval animals. To date, the aquaculture industry has had limited contribution to the livelihoods of the rural sector. Since the political unrest within the nation the commercial aquaculture operations have been closed with little private sector interest in restarting operations. Coral culture (hard and soft) has provided small scale sustained economic benets through the successful development of community based farms that service the private sector aquarium companies. Similarly, seaweed, although still in its development stage, has provided positive indications that the industry may become viable in the long term. Recent annual aquaculture production in the Solomon Islands is given in Table 12.5.
Summary of Harvests
Table 12.5: Aquaculture Production, Solomon Islands, 2005 and 2006
2005 Item Post-larvae capture and/or culture Coral Seaweed Total Quantity 1,386 pieces Value (SI$) 8,854 2006 Quantity 1,202 pieces Value (SI$) 7,554
1,800 pieces 320 t 3,186 pieces 320 t
14,400 640,000 663,254
7,000 pieces 165 t 8,202 pieces 165 t
56,000 247,000 310,554
SI$ = Solomon Islands dollar, t = ton. Note: Values are farm gate or producer price. Sources: Lal and Kinch (2005), Lindsay (2007), SPC (2007b), and Cospi (2008).
A crude approximation of annual production and value in 2006 is given in Table 12.6. The extremely weak factual basis for the estimates of coastal commercial, coastal subsistence, and freshwater catches is acknowledged.
Table 12.6: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest, Solomon Islands, 2007
Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore locally based Offshore foreign-based Freshwater Aquacultureb Total
a The values in the table are dockside and/or farm-gate prices, except in the case of offshore foreignbased fishing where the value in local waters (overseas market prices less imputed transshipment costs) is given. b
Quantity (t) 3,250 15,000 23,619 98,023 2,000 8,202 pieces plus 165 8,202 pieces plus 142,057 t
Value (SI$)a 25,300,000 84,000,000 249,864,889 1,174,648,841 11,200,000 311,000 1,545,324,730
Aquaculture data are for 2006, the latest available.
Source: Production tables above and consultants estimates.

Table 12.7 shows the contribution of shing to national GDP.
Table 12.7: Fish Contribution to Solomon Islands GDP, Current Prices
Item Fishing contribution (SI$ million) Solomons GDP (SI$ million) Fishing share of GDP (%)
Note: 2005 and 2006 figures are provisional. Source: Statistical Office (2008).
2003 177.8 2,497.5 7.1
2004 206.0 2,807.6 7.3
2005 171.5 3,129.8 5.5
2006 208.4 3,497.7 5.9
GDP = gross domestic product, SI$ = solomon Islands dollar.

According to the Central Bank of the Solomon Islands (CBSI), during the period of ethnic tension, the Statistics Oce of the Ministry of Finance lost its computer les. Subsequently, responsibility for GDP calculations was passed on to the CBSI. Presently, the responsibility is reverting back to the Statistics Oce, but this process has not been fully completed (W. Baron, personal communication, August 2008).
Solomon Islands 169
The method currently used by the Statistics Oce is to partition the shing sector into formal and informal sectors. The informal sector is divided into monetary and subsistence shing; the monetary subsector is further divided into outboard motor (OBM) shing and other marine products. Table 12.8 shows how the value added for each component is determined.
Table 12.8: Components of the Solomon Islands Fishing Sector and Associated Value Added
2006 Gross Output and Component (SI$ million) GO: n/a IC: n/a VA: 74,498 GO: 88,638 IC: 33,134 VA: 55,504 GO: 3,659 IC: 2,337 VA: 1,323 GO: 115,305 IC: 38,229 VA: 77,076
Subsector Formal sector
Data Source Business survey conducted periodically by the Statistics Office. GO is from the recent HIES and the IC is determined by an informal survey. GO is from the recent HIES and the IC is determined by an informal survey. Village Resources Survey of 1995/96, which apparently used data on number of canoes, average daily catch per canoe, number of canoe fishing days per year, and an assumed value of $7/kg to determine total value of subsistence catch.
OBM fishing
Other marine products Subsistence fishing
Total Value Added (GDP Contribution)
VA: 208.4 million
GDP = gross domestic product, GO = gross output, HIES = household income and expenditure survey, IC = intermediate consumption, kg = kilogram, n/a = not available, OBM = outboard motor, SI$ = Solomon Islands dollar, VA = value added. Sources: J. Gaiafuna (personal communication, August 2008) and unpublished Statistics Office data.
In the above table, accuracy of monetary shing estimate is highly dependent on the accuracy of the informal survey for which no details are available; the VAR for other marine products of 0.36 appears very low for this mainly low-technology type of shing; if the gross output of subsistence shing of SI$115.3 million is combined with the average price used in the Village Resources Survey of 1995/96, the result is a total subsistence catch of 16,472t, reasonably close to the estimate of 15,000 t made in section 12.1above.

Table 12.9 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in the Solomon Islands. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing and/or aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 12.6. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix3). It is not intended that the approach in Table 12.9 replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication.
Value (SI$) (From Table 12.6) 22,300,000 84,000,000 256,926,000 11,200,000 311,000 ValueAdded Ratio 0.75 0.90 0.52 0.92 0.70 Value Added (SI$) 16,725,000 75,600,000 133,601,520 10,304,000 217,700 236,448,220
GDP = gross domestic product, SI$ = Solomon Islands dollar. Sources: From Table12.6 and consultants estimates.
The total value added in Table 12.9 (SI$236.4 million) is about 13% greater than the ocial value added of SI$208.4 million. Bearing in mind that the years being compared are dierent (2006 versus 2007), the major dierences are that (i) the ocial contribution from the formal sector is very small relative to that made by the oshore locally based of the present study, and (ii) the ocial contribution from the categories of OBM and other marine products are very large compared to the coastal commercial category of the present study.

Table 12.10 shows exports of shery products and other commodities in recent years.
Solomon Islands 171
Table 12.10: Solomon Islands Exports (SI$000)

Item Fish Logs Cocoa Palm oil and kernels Copra Minerals Other Total 1999 159,045 2000 41,174 2001 37,336 2002 70,752 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 151,392 838,693 70,838 105,281 36,768 6,696 75,981 92,869 132,052 86,921 145,855
250,658 224,422 190,457 254,149 371,394 468,175 510,162 643,574 24,394 65,144 39,290 43,986 24,850 9,277 6,565 34,740 1,315 13,809 4,536 237 432 354 15,334 27,728 0 2,218 192 34,970 53,186 0 7,821 581 31,163 40,419 0 25,549 2,857 55,075 64,329 0 16,418 1,335 92,473 31,444 30,719 14,066 6,235 45,415
607,367 331,302 248,685 390,008 557,013 724,127 771,638 971,308 1,285,651
SI$ = Solomon Islands dollar. Source: Central Bank of Solomon Islands (2008).
Table 12.11: Export Sales of Soltai (SI$)

Item From fishing operations Canned Loin Smoked Fishmeal Total 2002 8,318,986 2,798,994 52,725,098 1,653,291 65,496,369 2003 13,361,215 2,714,887 35,054,534 336,157 51,466,793 2004 20,731,011 3,972,493 43,014,653 18,178,425 468,805 86,365,387 2005 7,734,912 7,054,143 30,633,250 17,378,257 220,756 63,021,318 2006 9,194,467 7,150,880 41,750,181 28,928,209 573,354 87,597,091
= not available, SI$ = Solomon Islands dollar. Source: Soltai (unpublished company data).
The category sh was responsible for 15% of all exports in 2006 and 12% in 2007. The vast majority of exports were tuna products. CBSI (2008) stated that of the total sh export earnings, canned tuna accounted for $43.4million compared to $15.1 million in 2006, frozen tuna $102.1million, frozen tuna for sashimi $7.4 million, and other sh products $5.2 million. Any processing of tuna prior to export is undertaken by Soltai. Table12.11 gives the export sales of frozen tuna and various types of processed products. Section 12.1 discussed the non-tuna shery exports of the Solomon Islands. The major commodities are bche de mer, trochus, items for the aquarium trade, seaweed, and shark ns. Gold-lip pearl shell, turtle shell, and crocodiles are under a long-term export ban (Lindley 2007). In 2008, the Solomon Islands Marine Mammals Education Centre and Marine Exporters Ltd. airfreighted 28 dolphins to Dubai at a reported value of $200,000 per dolphin (Barclay 2008).

Annual reports of the Central Bank provide information on access fees actually paid by foreign eets. For 2006, Revenue from shing licenses collected in 2006 rose from $26 million in 2005 to $32 million, owing to the increase in the number of boats as well as an upward revision of license fees at the beginning of the year (CSBI 2007). For 2007, the largest contributor [to non-tax government revenue] was the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, which generated $93.8 million in non-tax revenue, 43.0% of which was from overseas sources (CBSI 2008). From these two statements, the amount of the fees paid by foreign shing vessels for access to the waters of the Solomon Islands is not entirely clear. Barclay (2008) provided some clarication: 2004, SI$29 million; 2005, SI$26 million; 2006, SI$32 million; and 2007, SI$90 million. The estimated total revenue and grants received by the government in 2007 was SI$2,049.2 million (IMF 2008). The SI$90 million in license fees for 2007, therefore, represented 4.4% of the governments total revenue and grants for that year.

In addition to access fees, the government also receives substantial revenue from licensing of domestic vessels, sh export taxes, transshipment fees, and various taxes on shing companies. Domestic vessel license fees in 2008 paid by the National Fisheries Development Ltd. and Soltai were SI$100,000 and SI$8,000, respectively (MFMR 2008b). Data on sheries export taxes collected are not readily available, but the International Monetary Fund (IMF 2005) provided the Solomon Islands export tax rates: Nature of tax: Levied only on various land and marine fauna shells, gold, metal scrap, logs and lumber, sh, and various agricultural products. The valuation base is the free on board (FOB) price or value of the export, except in the case of timber and some sh where the value for duty is a determined value adjustable from time to time. Exemptions and deductions: spices, coconut, palm trochus, greensnail, and black-lip shells, 30% fresh, chilled, or frozen sh (some) 5%, dried, salted, smoked or cooked sh 20%. A 5% tax on SI$150 million of sh exports amounts to SI$7.5 million.
Tonga 173
With respect to transshipment fees, A total of 121 transshipments by foreign purse seine occurred at the Honiara Port during 2005 and 65,616 t of skipjack and 13,012 t of yellown tunas were transshipped. Substantive revenue amounting to millions of Solomon Islands dollars were collected by the Department from these transshipments (DFMR 2006). As an example of taxes of a shing company, in 2006, Soltai paid SI$1.25million to the government in duties and taxes39 (Wilson [2007], quoted in Barclay [2008]).
Employment
The IMF made an estimate of formal employment in the Solomon Islands, including the sheries component (Table 12.12). The tuna industry provides many of the formal shing jobs in the country. Employment in tuna shing in recent years is shown in Table 12.13. Nonformal employment in the sheries sector is extremely important in the Solomon Islands but the available data are fragmented: Of the households involved in self-employed commercial activity, 16% are engaged in the sale of sh and other seafood, according to a recent HIES (Statistics Oce 2006).
Table 12.12: Formal Employment, Solomon Islands

Item Formal fishing jobs Total formal jobs Fishing jobs share of all formal jobs (%)
Source: IMF (2005).
2001 5,179 42,631 12.1
2002 5,030 41,067 12.2
2003 5,015 41,723 12.0
2004 5,114 42,297 12.1
Table 12.13: Local Employment in the Tuna Industry, Solomon Islands

2002 464 422 2,888
2006 66 330 2,402
2008 107 827 2,942
39
It is unclear if this is inclusive or exclusive of sh export taxes.
In addition to subsistence harvesting, semicommercial or artisanal sheries activities are practiced by an estimated 30,000 people, mainly in nearshore areas, according to an ADB study (Berdach and Llegu 2005). Half of all females and 90% of males participate in shing activities, according to a 2006 SPC Solomon Islands poverty assessment (Llegu 2007). Some 83% of households engage in some form of shing activity (Oreihaka 1997). Of the 111,905 people involved in unpaid work in 1999, 5,056 people (93% male) had some involvement with shing and related activities, according to the1999 national census. There were about 100,000 full-time, part-time, or occasional shers in the Solomon Islands in early 1990s, according to an FAO estimate (Visser 1997).
Fish Consumption
Various estimates of annual per capita sh consumption in the Solomon Islands have been made, as shown in Table 12.14. In some of the studies, the system of measurement (i.e., whole sh equivalent versus food consumed) is not clear.
Table 12.14: Annual Fish Consumption Per Capita in the Solomon Islands
Estimated Annual Per Capita Fish Consumption (kg) 25.7 Comments and Source Ranging from less than 10 kg in rural Guadalcanal and San Cristobal, to 54 kg in the Western Province (Skewes 1990). Based on a 1983 estimate (Cook 1988). Based on a survey in Honiara in 1992, which found that 31% of households consumed fresh fish each day and that 82.4% of meals containing animal protein were based on fish. According to a Japan-sponsored study in 1994. For 1995 (Preston 2000). According to the FAO Food Balance sheet for 1999. Based on HIES 2006; fresh fish were 80% in urban areas and 90% in rural areas (Bell et al. 2009).
40.0 45.5
47.9 (Honiara); 65 (provinces) 32.7 32.2 45.5 (urban); 31.2 (rural)
FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, HIES = household income and expenditure survey, kg = kilogram.
Tonga
Fish Production
The Fisheries Division does not record total coastal sheries production, but estimates the quantities and values of the throughput of certain sh markets and of exports. However, estimates of coastal sheries production in recent years have been made, as follows.
A total of 1,429 t worth $2,806,641 was estimated for the early 1990s (Dalzell et al. 1996). Value added for local market sheries in late 1990s was T$9,090,000 and for nonmarket sheries was T$5,108,000, which equated to 2,863 t for nonmarket sheries and 3,561 t for local market sheries, according to the Statistics Department, using household income and expenditure survey (HIES) data. A total of 4,173 t worth T$17,362,500 was estimated for the late 1990s (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001).
An HIES was carried out during 2000 and 2001 (Tonga Statistics Department [TSD] 2002). Data were collected on income from sales of sh and the imputed noncash income from subsistence shing: Sales of own sh produce were estimated at T$29 per capita; consumption of own sh produce was imputed to be T$20 per capita. Based on population of Tonga in 2001 of 100,672, total income from sale of own sh produce was T$2,901,929 and total imputed income from consumption of own sh was T$2,013,444. With selling price for a string of mixed sh of T$4.25/kg (TSD 2007) and farm-gate price for subsistence sh taken at T$2.98/kg, this equated to 683 t for commercial shing and 676 t for subsistence shing.
Discussions with the HIES specialist in the SPC Statistics and Demography Programme suggest that Tonga HIES seriously underestimated subsistence shing (G. Keeble, personal communication, September 2008). For example, the Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) estimates of quantity and value of coastal sheries production were over ve times larger than that estimated by the HIES. For some years, the FOB values of exports from Tongas coastal sheries were much greater than the HIES estimates for all commercial coastal sheries. In view of these observations, the results of the 2000/2001 Tonga HIES were not used in this study to estimate coastal sheries production in 2007. Instead, the Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) estimate was updated to account for the following. The population of Tonga increased by 3.5%; the price of 1 kg string of sh about doubled; and there was a steady increase in the import of animal foodstus (TSD 2007).
Tonga 177
The HIES showed that the four most important single items of cash expenditure on food were mutton aps, chicken pieces, white bread, and corned beef. This suggests a decrease in cash expenditure on local sh. Fishery product export statistics reported to FAO (for which there is some degree of verication using importing country data) show considerable interannual variation, but for coastal shery products (i.e., non-tuna) there is very little net change in quantity between 2000 and 2006 (the latest year for which such data are available), but there is a 50% increase in value (FAO 2008).
Using the above information, a crude estimate of the production from Tongas coastal commercial sheries is 3,700 t (of which about 700 t was exported) worth about T$22.8 million to producers (of which about T$4.8million were for products that were exported).

Available subsistence production estimates are 933 t worth $1,901,208 (Dalzell et al. 1996) for the early 1990s and 2,863 t worth T$6,385,000 for the late 1990s (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). Following the above approach, estimate for production from coastal subsistence sheries in 2007 was 2,800 t worth T$12,488,000.

Following the development of domestic longlining in Tonga and the opening of shery for chartered vessels in late 1990s, the Tonga tuna eet increased to a peak in 2002 and 2003, but subsequently declined due to poor catch rate and high operations costs. At the end of 2004, all the locally based foreign shing vessels relocated to other countries (Halahi and Faanunu 2008). Table 13.1 shows the number of licensed shing vessels registered to sh in Tongan waters during the past 8 years. Estimates of the volumes and values of the catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the WCPFC area were made by FFA (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. In these data, prices are all delivered prices in that they reect the price received at entry to the country in which they are usually sold whether for processing or consumption. Also, bycatch, which is an important component of locally based oshore longline sheries, is not included.
Table 13.1: Evolution of the Tonga-Based Longline Offshore Fleet

Vessels Tongan vessels Locally based foreign fishing vessels Total vessels 2000 14 2 2001 17 2 2002 18 2 2003 13 1 2004 14 16 2005 15 14 2006 12 0 2007 12 0
17
19
19
29
28
15
12
12
Source: Halafihi and Faanunu (2008).
Table 13.2: Tuna Catches by the Tonga-Based Tuna Fleet

Item Tuna catch Total catch (t)
a
2002 1,672 2,174
2003 971 1,262
2004 388 504
2005 629 818
2006 760 988
2007 861 1,119
Adjusted catch valueb ($) Adjusted catchb value (T$)

t = ton, T$ = paanga.
a b
4,241,452 2,884,456 1,473,014 2,617,727 2,938,100 3,364,662 9,288,781 5,884,291 2,842,917 5,261,631 5,934,961 6,224,625
Catch was increased by 30% for longline bycatch.
For longline catch, the value was reduced by 25% to obtain dockside tuna values (rather than destination market values) and increased by 10% to account for the sale of bycatch. Sources: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008) and consultants estimates.
For longline yellown and bigeye tuna, FFA (2008) assumed that 80% of the catch was of export quality and 20% was of nonexport quality. For export quality, Japanese fresh yellown and bigeye tuna import prices from Oceania were used, while a value of $1.50/kg was assumed for nonexport grade tuna. Table 13.2 gives local dockside catches and values for the catch of tuna eets based in Tonga. It consists of the FFA estimate, adjusted for bycatch and transshipment costs as noted in the table.

With the exception of US purse seine vessels shing under the multilateral treaty, no foreign-based shing vessels are authorized to sh in Tongan waters. US seiners have not attempted to sh in Tonga in over 20 years.
Tonga 179
Freshwater Catches
Catches of sh in freshwater appear limited to tiny amounts of tilapia in small lakes in the three northern island groups of the country. It is reported that a small stream on Eua Island has freshwater shrimp (J. Faanunu, personal communication, November 2008) and tilapia were introduced into some of the wells on Haano Island in Haapai (Thaman et al. 1995).
Recent annual reports of the government sheries agency give information on aquaculture production: Fisheries Department (2007) stated that in 2006 Aquaculture production for the year was largely carried out by the Ministry of Fisheries. Main projects included enhancement of giant clams, trochus, and green snails. Research trials were aimed at reviving and enhancing over-exploited resources. Fisheries Division (2008a) stated that in 2007 aquaculture development in recent years has been relatively slow and limited to stock enhancement largely at community level with little signicant commercial productionAt the end of the year about 12,134 clams equivalent of $33,297 were sold.
Discussion with the aquaculture sta of the Fisheries Division indicates that pearls are being produced by 3 or 4 people in Vavau. About 200 pearls are produced each year, with an average value per pearl of T$20 (P. Ngaluafe, personal communication, September 2008).
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of annual production and value in 2007 was made (Table 13.3). Note that the factual basis for the estimates of coastal commercial and coastal subsistence catches is extremely weak; and although the harvests are nominally for 2007, given the lack of precision of the estimates of production from coastal commercial and coastal subsistence sheries, the estimates could easily qualify for the label of annual harvests, mid-2000s as used for GDP calculations elsewhere in this report.
Table 13.3: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in Tonga, 2007

t = ton, T$ = paanga. Note: The values in the table are dockside and/or farm-gate prices. Source: Consultants estimates.
Quantity 3,700 t 2,800 t 1,119 t 0t 1t 12,334 pieces 12,334 pieces plus 7,620 t
Value (T$) 22,800,000 12,488,000 6,224,625 0 4,000 37,000 41,553,625

Official Contribution
The shing contribution to GDP was determined from unpublished data kindly provided by the Tonga Statistics Department (Table 13.4). For FY2007, it was projected that shing would contribute T$23,757,000 to a total GDP of T$505,679,000, with local market component being T$13,203,000; nonmarket T$5,030,000; and export T$5,524,000.
Table 13.4: Official Fishing Contribution to Tonga GDP (T$000)
Item Local market component Nonmarket component Export component Total fishing Total Tonga GDP Fishing share of Tonga GDP (%)
Note: GDP at current prices. Source: Tonga Statistics Department (A. Finau, personal communication, September 2008).
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 6,615 2,520 5,243 14,378 5.0 7,874 3,000 6,675 17,548 5.4 9,120 3,474 7,488 20,082 5.5 8,842 3,368 6,174 18,384 4.7 10,575 4,029 6,827 21,430 5.1 11,645 4,436 4,067 20,148 4.2
288,395 327,036 366,549 391,388 418,696 478,226
FY = fiscal year, GDP = gross domestic product, T$ = paanga.
Tonga 181

According to the sta of the Statistics Department, the same general method for calculating sector contributions to GDP, including that from shing, has been used for many years. Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) provided the details on the specic approach to calculating shing contribution to GDP in Tonga in early 2000. The shing sector is subdivided into three components: Locally Marketed. This category covers the sh caught for sale as food. The Statistics Department indicated that a production approach is used to estimate the value added by the locally marketed subsector. Initial data were obtained by surveying some private businesses. The value is updated by extrapolation based on population, consumer price index (CPI), and disaster index. Some 20% of the gross value is subtracted to cover intermediate costs. Nonmarketed. This category covers the sh and aquatic products harvested for household use. The value added is imputed from information obtained in the HIES. In the years since the HIES, the estimated GDP contributions have been derived by extrapolation based on population, CPI, and disaster index. As with the locally marketed sh, 20% is deducted from the gross output to cover intermediate costs. Export. The export contribution to estimated GDP comes from the Reserve Bank exports statistics. According to the Statistics Department, the total value of shery exports is reduced by 35% to account for costs of intermediate inputs.
The general methodology appears sound, but the quality of the estimate depends to a large extent on the accuracy of the HIES and of the survey of some private businesses. The earlier comment by Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) remains valid: The accuracy of the factors used to adjust for the cost of intermediate inputs could be improved with some input from the shing sector. The gures used for market shing (20 percent) and export (35 percent) appear low, while the non-market factor (20 percent) appears high.

Table 13.5 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in Tonga. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing and/or aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 13.3. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). Although information on sheries production is available through 2007, the latest year for which the Tonga GDP is available is FY2006. As mentioned above, due to lack of precision for the estimates of production from coastal commercial and coastal subsistence sheries, those estimates are almost equally applicable for FY2006 and are used in Table 13.5. By contrast, the production estimates for the locally based oshore shing are relatively accurate. To calculate GDP in FY2006, the value of T$5,600,000 (average of the value of catch for 2005 and 2006) is used in Table 13.5. The annual reports of the government sheries agencies indicate that aquaculture production has not varied much in recent years. The total value added from shing in Table 13.5 (T$24,188,300) is 20% greater than the ocial estimate of T$20,148,000. The low value added by nonmarket shing in the ocial estimate is responsible for most of the dierence. The approach in Table 13.5 does not intend to replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain
Table 13.5: Fishing Contribution to GDP Using an Alternative Approach, FY2006

Gross Value of Production (T$, from Table 13.3) 22,800,000 12,488,000 5,600,000 4,000 37,000 ValueAdded Ratio 0.60 0.75 0.20 0.95 0.50 Value Added (T$) 13,680,000 9,366,000 1,120,000 3,800 18,500 24,188,300
Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore locally based Freshwater Aquaculture Total (T$)
FY = ficsal year, GDP = gross domestic product, T$ = paanga. Sources: Table 13.3 and consultants estimates.
Tonga 183
additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication.

Table 13.6 gives exports of shery products by nancial year (JulyJune) and shows the importance of shery exports relative to all exports of the country. The Fisheries Division (2008a) provided information on the commodities that make up Tongas shery exports. In 2007, the major exports by value were tuna (29%), live rock (21%), soft coral (12%), snapper (11%), and live sh (10%). Additional details of the commodities exported are given in Table 13.7 constructed from FAO trade data (FAO 2008), for which there is some degree of verication using importing country information.
Table 13.6: Exports of Fishery Products, Tonga
Exports Fishery exports (t) Value of fishery exports (FOB, T$ million) Value of total national exports (T$ million) Fishery exports share of total exports (%)
FOB = free on board, t = ton, T$ = paanga. Source: Reserve Bank (2008).
FY2003 2,945 12.2 32.8 37.2
FY2004 2,427 18.7 38.5 48.6
FY2005 3,082 11.0 27.1 40.6
FY2006 1,952 6.5 18.5 35.1
FY2007 2,433 9.8 20.9 46.9
Table 13.7: Tonga Fishery Exports as Reported to FAO ($)

Commodity Miscellaneous corals and shells Snapper, fresh, or chilled Other seaweeds and aquatic plants and products thereof Yellowfin tuna, fresh, or chilled Bigeye tuna, fresh, or chilled Ornamental fish nei Shark fins, dried, salted, etc. Marine fish, fresh, or chilled, nei Albacore, fresh, or chilled Fish fillets, frozen, nei 2004 1,349 1,149 2,247 214 118 4 212 274 77 2005 907 747 1,118 252 322 58 83 100 56 158 2006 1,028 849 776 555 287 283 281 277 156 118
Commodity Mollusks, live, fresh, or chilled, nei Swordfish, fresh, or chilled Rock lobsters (Jasus species), nei, frozen Seabass, frozen Marine fish, frozen, nei Grouper, fresh, or chilled Other aquatic invertebrates, frozen Sea cucumber, dried, salted, or in brine Mollusks and other aquatic invertebrates, live, fresh, chilled, nei Mackerels, nei, fresh, or chilled Yellowfin tuna, frozen, nei American/European lobsters (Homarus species), nei, frozen Fish waste, nei Ornamental saltwater fish Total ($ million) Total (T$ million)
2004 18 178
2005 44 87
2006 50 22 20 15
13 11 46 79 3 1 18 . 5 2 7
9 7 6 5 3 2 2 1 1
6 5,986 12,211
0 3,977 7,676
1 4,754 9,556
FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, nei = not elsewhere included, T$ = paanga. Source: FAO (2008).
Table 13.8: Tuna Exports, Tonga (kg)

Species Albacore Bigeye Yellowfin Moonfish Swordfish Others Total
kg = kilogram. Source: Halafihi and Faanunu (2008).
2002 459,133 93,423 138,247 15,445 7,022 62,816
2003 647,524 44,037 120,862 4,278 3,413 65,443
2004 127,093 25,376 43,543 434 4,961 36,416 257,823
2005 42,616 62,351 60,968 22,909 10,646 39,214 239,704
2006 90,281 74,574 130,149 19,416 6,522 49,324 370,266
2007 87,675 73,994 125,302 2,389 11,765 70,094 371,219
776,086 776,086
Details of Tongas tuna exports are shown in Table 13.8. The total annual value of exports of aquarium productssh, invertebrates, live rock, and live hard/soft coralincreased from about
Tonga 185
T$0.9million in 2001 to a peak of about T$2.8 million in 2005 and then decreased to about T$2.4 million in 2006, mainly due to decrease in total export of live rock and invertebrates (Faanunu 2007). Of the Pacic island countries, Tonga is the largest exporter of snapper and other deepwater bottom sh (Gillett 2008b). Exports average about 150 t annually (Wilson 2007). There are considerable discrepancies in the Tonga shery export data. Information in the Fisheries Division annual reports is often inconsistent with other documents produced by the Division and with those of the Reserve Bank. Even the Reserve Bank has internal inconsistencies in a single document for shery export values (e.g., June 2008 Quarterly Report). The values of some exports are signicantly less than those given by an external veriable source. As an example, giant clam exports, given in the 2006 annual report for 2005 and 2006 (Fisheries Department 2007), are far less than those given by CITES (2008).

With the exception of US purse seiners covered by the multilateral tuna treaty (to which Tonga is a party), no foreign-based vessels are authorized to sh in Tongan waters. Under the terms of the US multilateral tuna treaty, Tonga and other Pacic island countries receive payments from the Government of the United States and the US tuna industry that are associated with shing access by US purse seiners. Table 13.9 shows the funds received by Tonga from the treaty for the past 5 years. Some Pacic island countries consider that all payments under the US treaty are for shing access, while others treat some components (e.g., the PDF shares in Table 13.9) as aid. The 2007 annual report of the Fisheries Division indicates receipt of T$267,057.86 from the treaty during 2007, which equated to $132,206. The governments FY2008 revenue was T$153 million (Fonua 2008), of which the T$267,057 received in access fees in 2007 is 0.17%.

The recent annual reports of the Fisheries Division/Department have a section titled Revenue Performance. Those sections are used to construct
Table 13.9: Payments to Tonga from the US Multilateral Treaty ($)

Licensing Period 20th Period 15 June 2007 to 14 June 2008 19th Period 15 June 2006 to 14 June 2007 18th Period 15 June 2005 to 14 June 2006 17th Period 15 June 2004 to 14 June 2005 16th Period 15 June 2003 to 14 June 2004
US = United States.
a
15% Sharesa 85% Sharesb 145,860.78 145,860.78 147,209.70 147,310.43 147,357.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PDF Sharesc 111,125.00 111,125.00 111,125.00 111,125.00 111,125.00
The 15% shares ($2,042,050.92 in 2008) are shared equally between all countries that are parties to the treaty.
b The 85% shares ($14,273,117.87 in 2008) are apportioned to countries based on where the catch by US vessels was made. These amounts in the table are zero because US seiners have not attempted to fish in Tonga in over 20 years. c
The PDF shares ($1,555,750.00 in 2008) are shared equally between all countries that are parties to the treaty for project development work. Source: Unpublished National Marine Fisheries Service (of the United States) public domain data.
Table 13.10, which gives all non-US treaty revenue received by the Division and/or Department during 2007 and 2008.
Table 13.10: Other Government Revenues from Fisheries
Sources, 2007 Consumption tax Sundry revenue, Vavau Sundry revenue, Haapai Sundry revenue, Niua Toputapu Market fees Sundry revenue Sales of products and producesa Sundry revenue Miscellaneous licenses Total collected 2007 Sources, 2006 Consumption tax Sundry revenue, Vavau Sundry revenue, Haapai Sundry revenue, Niua Toputapu Market fees Sundry revenue Amount Collected, 2007 (T$) 31,574.31 2,230.48 388.00 0 12,000.00 51,437.58 1,294.91 65,842.46 15,306.34 180,074.00 Amount Collected, 2006 (T$) 32,914.45 2,190.50 4,789.30 1,262.79 11,000.00 40,179.48
Tonga 187
Sources, 2006 Sales of produce and productsa Sundry revenue Miscellaneous licenses Total collected 2006
T$ = paanga.
a
Amount Collected, 2006 (T$) 5,425.85 69,120.56 31,343.42 198,226.35
Aquarium items and posters.
Sources: Fisheries Department (2007), Fisheries Division (2008a).
Employment
The 2001 Agriculture Census had a major sheries component. Table 13.11 gives the numbers and distribution of shing householdsa term that is not dened in the document. Other results of the 2001 Agriculture Census (MAF 2002) relevant to sheries employment were: Some three-fourths (3,943) of the shing households caught and/ or gathered sh mainly for home consumption. Another one-fth (1,073) reported that, aside from consuming what they had shed, they sold some of the caught and/or gathered aquatic products occasionally. Only 2.2% (114) of the shing households were engaged in this activity mainly for sale. A total of 7,704 persons, 79% of whom were males and 21% were females, were engaged in shing activities during the week prior to the census.
Table 13.11: Number and Distribution of Fishing Households, Tonga

Location of Households All Tonga Tongatapu Vavau Haapai Eua Niuas Number of Households 15,738 10,583 2,625 1,298 863 369 Number of fishing Households 5,130 2,393 1,337 937 211 252 Proportion of Fishing Households (%) 32.6 22.6 50.9 72.2 24.4 68.3
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (2002).
On average, two persons per household were engaged in shing; 92.2% of these persons were household members and the rest were hired workers.
A 2003 survey of employment showed that 34,561 people were employed in Tonga, of whom 1,050 were employed40 in the category of shing. Fishing employment, therefore, represented 3% of total employment in 2003. Of those employed in shing, 180 (17%) were females (TSD 2004). The 2005 Tongan Seafood Socio Economic Survey estimated the numbers of people engaged in shing activities: Tongatapu, 6,470; Haapai, 2,053; Vavau, 4,375. The survey gave the proportions of self-employed who were shers: Tongatapu, 5%; Haapai, 18%; Vavau, 7%. Of the households surveyed, about 64% in Tongatapu shed for their own supply of seafood and gifts to others. The corresponding gures for Vavau and Haapai were 80% and 82%, respectively (Tonga Fisheries Project 2005). For 2007, employment in the commercial sheries sector was estimated at more than 300 people at any given time, and more than 1,500 shers were involved in the artisanal shery sector (Fisheries Department 2007). Employment in tuna sheries (shing and postharvest) in recent years is given in Table 13.12.
Table 13.12: Employment in Tuna Fisheries, Tonga
2002 161 85 246
2006 75 35 110
2008 45 35 80
Fish Consumption
The state of information on sh consumption in 1998 was summarized as follows: It is dicult to make an accurate assessment of the present level of sh intake in Tonga. Although there was a national nutrition survey in 1986, there have been no national food consumption surveys
40
Employment in an industry is dened by the study as working at least 1 hour during the week in the industry.
Tonga 189
from which average sh consumption could be derived. The gures published for per capita consumption of sh range from a low of 14.0 kg/year to a high of 102.0 kg/year (implying a production of 10,000t). Assuming that all the production from inshore sheries is eaten domestically, and that the best estimate of this in 1995 was 2,362 t,41 then this would provide a supply of 24.2kg/year for the 1996 population of 97,500. Integrating the 575 t of imported canned sh gives an overall availability of 30.0 kg/year (Gillett et al. 1998). Since then, a locally based oshore shing eet has developed in Nukualofa and considerable amounts of tuna and bycatch are being consumed in Tonga. Per capita availability of sh from this eet is shown in Table 13.13, which indicates that the non-exported catch from Tongas locally based oshore eet has had a large impact on sh consumption in Tonga. Annual per capita sh consumption (whole weight equivalent) during 20002001 was estimated at 20.3 kg,42 of which fresh sh made up 80%, based on results of the FY2001 HIES (Bell et al. 2009).
Table 13.13: Per Capita Availability of Catch from Tongas Locally Based Offshore Fleet
Item Offshore fleet catch (kg) Offshore fleet exports (kg) Offshore fleet catch for local consumption (kg) Source of Data Table 13.3 Table 13.6 Difference between catch and exports above. Assumes all catch is offloaded in Tongaa Annual per capita availability of Tonga offshore fleet catch (kg) kg = kilogram.
a Currently, there is no direct offloading of longline fish at ports outside Tonga (B. Holden, personal communication, November 2008).
2004 504,000 257,823 246,177
2005 818,000 238,704 579,296
2006 988,000 370,266 617,734
2007 1,119,000 371,219 747,781
Local consumption above divided by Tonga population
2.4
5.7
6.1
7.3
41
This is the Dalzell et al. (1996) estimate for the early 1990s, which Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) considered to be too low. As mentioned above, there are reservations on the accuracy of the Tonga HIES for estimating sheries production.
42
An unpublished seafood socioeconomic survey carried out in FY2005 in Tongatapu, Vavau, and Haapai covering 6,423 households revealed that Tongatapu households averaged 2.6 seafood meals per week, while Vavau and Haapai households averaged 2.9 and 3.2 seafood meals per week, respectively (Fisheries Department 2007). The amount of subsistence and locally marketed coastal shery production estimated in section 13.1 (about 5,800 t/year) divided by the Tongan population suggests that annual consumption is about 58 kg per capitasubstantially more than most recent estimates.
Tuvalu
Fish Production
Coastal commercial sheries production was estimated at 120 tons (t) worth A$97,811, based on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC), and unpublished sources from late 1980s and early 1990s (Dalzell et al. 1996). A total national catch in the order of 1,000 t was estimated in a dried sh marketing study in 1997. The study reported that Little information is available on the landings of sh in Tuvalu. A statistical program was initiated with assistance from SPC in about 1986, but has not been developed. Some surveys have been undertaken on Funafuti, but overall estimates for the
country are probably most reliably derived from the 1994 household survey. This indicates consumption in Funafuti in the order of 60.0 kg per capita and on the islands of around 120.0 kg on average, though there is substantial variation between islands (SCP 1997). Coastal commercial catch in 1999 was estimated at 222 t worth A$440,000 by Gillett and Lightfoot (2001), who used the SCP estimate, added 100 t for population growth in 5 years, and assumed that 20% of the total catch was commercial. Since then, the 2004/2005 HIES produced both documentation (CSD 2006) and unpublished results relevant to estimating coastal sheries production in Tuvalu. Table 14.1, constructed from unpublished HIES information, indicates a coastal commercial catch of 212 t worth A$497,796. Although the ratio of commercial shing to subsistence shing from the HIES is similar to that from Gillett and Lightfoot (2001), the HIES study gave only 89% of the production of the Gillett and Lightfoot study for a period a half-decade later. Discussions with the HIES specialists in the SPC Statistics and Demography Programme suggest a tendency of HIES to underestimate sh production (G. Keeble, C. Ryan, personal communication, September 2008). Much of the recent sh consumption information in Tuvalu (section 14.6) comes from HIES studies, so the consumption results do not oer much new insight into judging the accuracy of annual production estimates based on HIES. For this study, therefore, the estimate of Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) was increased by 2% for population growth over 6 years (SPC 2008a); average sh prices of the HIES43 were used. Annual coastal commercial production in the mid-2000s is estimated on this basis to be 226 t worth A$733,666.

Annual coastal subsistence catches in late 1980s and early 1990s were estimated at 807 t worth A$657,781 by Dalzell et al. (1996); in 1999 at 880 t worth A$1,443,200 by Gillett and Lightfoot (2001); and in 2004/2005 as equivalent to 776 t worth A$1,841,375 by the HIES (Table 14.1). From the above discussion, annual coastal subsistence sheries production in the mid-2000s is estimated to be 989 t worth A$2,656,896.
43
A$3.24/kg for purchased sh and A$2.96/kg for caught sh.
Table 14.1: Information on Fish Production in Tuvalu from the 2004/2005 HIES
Annual Expenditure (A$) Rural Total
Urban
Bought
352,988 259,501 33,995 19,812 5,824 672,120 Quantity (kg) Rural Total 205,798 1,461,253 1,611,150 18,927 10,296 29,223 18,876 37,024 31,980 20,123 497,796 3,493 28,781 32,275 22,629 16,216 418,059 434,274 79,044 148,286 967,093 1,115,379 344,020 1,124,347 614,731 43,641 43,732 14,924 1,841,375
Caught
Urban Total
Bought
Caught
Rural Total
Bought
Caught
Tuvalu Total
1,468,367 693,775 66,270 19,812 35,047 2,283,270
Fresh tuna
195,734
157,254
Reef fish
62,829
196,672
Other fish
19,135
14,860
Dried/salt fish
13,104
6,708
Shellfish, etc.
1,196
4,628
Total
291,998
380,122
Urban
Bought
150,208 110,426 14,466 1,321 5,824 282,244 18,927 91,672 1,258 1,487 6,900 63,100 411,529 177,897 12,247 2,468 10,296 614,438
Caught
Urban Total
Bought
Caught
Rural Total
474,629 184,797 13,734 0 29,223 702,384
Bought
146,391 33,636 9,629 2,132 20,123 211,911
Caught
478,446 261,587 18,571 2,915 14,924 776,443
Tuvalu Total
624,837 295,223 28,200 1,321 35,047 984,628
Fresh tuna
83,291
66,917
Reef fish
26,736
83,690
Other fish
8,143
6,323
Dried/salt fish
874
447
Shellfish, etc.
1,196
4,628
Total
120,239
162,006
A$ = Australian dollar, HIES = household income and expenditure survey, kg = kilogram.
Tuvalu 193
Note: Canned fish quantities and values have been deleted.
Source: unpublished data, courtesy of SPC Statistics and Demography Programme.

There is presently no locally based oshore shing in Tuvalu. In May 2004, two former Republic of Korea longliners arrived in Tuvalu. In November 2004, those vessels began shing but soon experienced mechanical problems. During their short shing career in Tuvalu, the almost negligible catch of the vessels did not come close to covering vessel expenses (Gillett and Reid 2005). No catch by those two longline vessels was reported to SPC.

The foreign oshore eet licensed to sh in Tuvalu waters in 2007 consisted of 96 longliners, 6 pole-and-line vessels, and 155 purse seiners (Tupulaga 2008). The report states the purse seine eet alone contributed 98% to the total reported catch. Estimates of catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the WCPFC area were made by FFA (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. The prices are all delivered prices in that they reect the price received at entry to the country in which they are usually sold whether for processing or consumption. Tuna catches and values by foreign-based eets are shown in Table 14.2, in which catches were increased to account for bycatch and values were reduced to account for transshipment costs as noted in the table.
Freshwater Catches
There are no freshwater sheries in Tuvalu.
According to MNR (2008), the Fisheries Department and island communities have undertaken a number of projects and culture trials, but none of these have resulted in a single working aquaculture project in Tuvaluthere are no functional aquaculture activities. A new milksh culture operation on Vaitupu consisting of two small ponds had not produced any harvests as of September 2008 (S. Finikaso, personal communication, September 2008).
Tuvalu 195
Table 14.2: Estimating Tuna Catches in Tuvalu Waters by ForeignBased Fleetsa

Item Catch of foreign fleet (t) Catch of foreign fleet adjusted for bycatch (t) Value of foreign fleet tuna catch at destination market ($ million) Value of foreign fleet catch adjusted for transshipment ($ million) Value of foreign fleet catch adjusted for transshipment (A$ million)
A$ = Australian dollar, t = ton.
a In the table, Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) values were reduced by 15% for transshipment costs to the destination markets. Catches were increased by 5% to account for bycatch.
2001 22,281 23,395
2002 28,332 29,749
2003 3,499 3,674
2004 19,282 20,246
2005 14,572 15,300
2006 14,873 15,616
2007 33,848 35,541
21.1
26.6
4.1
23.3
23.2
15.2
48.2
17.9
22.6
3.5
19.8
19.7
12.9
40.9
34.9
41.3
5.3
27.0
25.8
17.0
48.7
Sources: FFA (2008) and consultants estimates.
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of annual production and value in 2007 was made (Table 14.3). The extremely weak factual basis for the estimates of coastal commercial and coastal subsistence catches should be recognized.
Table 14.3: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Production, Tuvalu, 2007a
A$ = Australian dollar.
Quantity (ton) 226 989 0 35,541 0 0 36,756
Value (A$) 733,666 2,656,896 0 48,700,000 0 0 52,090,562
Although the harvests are nominal for 2007, given the lack of precision of the estimates of production from coastal commercial and coastal subsistence sheries, the estimates could also represent annual harvests, mid-2000s as used for GDP calculations elsewhere in this report.

The current ocial contribution of shing to the Tuvalu GDP, given in Table14.4, is that of 2002, the latest year for which GDP has been calculated (S. Malona, personal Communication, September 2008).
Table 14.4: Official Fishing Contribution to Tuvalu GDP (A$000)
1997 Market component Nonmarket component Total fishing Total GDP Fishing share of GDP (%) 63.0 1,423.0 1,486.0 8.2 1998 56.3 1,466.3 1,522.6 7.4 1999 64.2 1,514.0 1,578.2 7.4 2000 73.1 1,505.9 1,579.0 7.5 2001 56.3 1,937.3 1,993.6 8.0 2002 80.6 2,139.4 2,220 26,944.4 8.2
18,051.6 20,664.1 21,361.8 21,151.3 24,823.1
A$ = Australian dollar, GDP = gross domestic product. Sources: Central Statistics Division; GDP at current market prices.

The current sta of the Central Statistics Division indicated that they were not familiar with the methodology for compiling national accounts. They were awaiting assistance from the Pacic Financial Technical Assistance Centre and expected to have Tuvalus GDP up to 2006 in 2009. More detailed information on the GDP methodology was not available during the consultants visit to Funafuti. Lewington (2004b) indicated that a revision of the Tuvalu national accounts was carried out in late 2003. That work updated the national accounts last compiled in 1999 and provided estimates of GDP by industry and sector groups in current and constant prices for 19962002. On shing, the 2003 revision slightly increased the contribution of subsistence shing to GDP in 19961998, as follows:
Tuvalu 197
The [shing] value added in 1998 has changed by 1.3% with slightly larger changes in earlier years estimates. This is the result of a combination of changes brought about by a reappraisal of consumption per household on the outer Islands following the household survey and discussions with local sta, the re-estimation of the number of households shing by the 2002 Population Census, and linking the unit value of sh to the CPI price change.

Table 14.5 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in Tuvalu. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing and/or aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 14.3. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). Although information on sheries production is available through 2007 (Table 14.3), the latest year for which the Tuvalu GDP is available is 2002. Due to lack of precision for the estimates of production from coastal commercial and coastal subsistence sheries, those estimates are almost equally applicable for 2002, and are used in Table 14.5. The approach in Table 14.5 is not intended to replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication.
Table 14.5: Fishing Contribution to Tuvalu GDP, 2002, Using an Alternative Approach
Gross Value of Production (A$, from Table 14.3) 733,666 2,656,896 0 0 0 ValueAdded Ratio 0.70 .85 Value Added (A$) 513,566 2,258,362 0 0 0 2,771,928
A$ = Australian dollar, GDP = gross domestic product.
The total value added from shing in Table 14.5 (A$2,771,928) is 25% greater than the ocial estimate of A$2,220,000. The low value added by market shing in the ocial estimate is responsible for most of the dierence.

The published export statistics of Tuvalu are not detailed. They are only disaggregated to the level of Consignment, Other, or Sold. Sta of the Central Statistics Division, Customs Department, indicate that virtually all of the Sold category consists of marine products such as bche de mer. The sta of the Customs Department indicate that the only signicant exports in recent years have been bche de mer and aluminum scraps (crushed cans), with the latter actually being a reexport. The latest Biannual Statistical Report (CSD 2008) gives the values for sold exports for recent years: 2002, A$76,943; 2003, A$8,759; 2004, A$6,920; 2005, A$2,600; 2006, not available; 2007, A$5,000.

The foreign shing access situation in Tuvalu was recently summarized as follows: Typically, licenses are issued to between 50 and 60 longliners each year, and a similar number of purse seiners. Over the period 2001 05, access fees received have varied widely from A$11.9 million in 2001 to a low of A$1.4million in 2003, with an average of around A$4.5 million/year. Overall, this is a high rate of access fees relative to catch value, but both the high fees and the large year by year variation are mainly due to the revenues received under the US tuna treaty (MNR 2008). Table14.6 shows licensed foreign shing activity in recent years. The relative importance of foreign shing access fees to the government budget is shown in Table 14.7, calculated using data from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.
Tuvalu 199
Table 14.6: Licensed Foreign Fishing Vessels in the Tuvalu Zone

Item Types and numbers of licensed vessels Participating countries 2005 93 longliners, 7 pole-and-line vessels 140 purse seiners FSM, Fiji Islands, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Taipei,China, and US 2006 34 longliners 3 pole-and-line vessels 52 purse seiners Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Taipei,China, and US 2007 81 longliners 3 pole-and-line vessels 57 purse seiners Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Taipei,China, and US 2008 42 longliners 3 pole-and-line vessels 126 purse seiners Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Spain, Taipei,China, and US
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, US = United States. Source: Fisheries Department, unpublished data.
Table 14.7: Tuvalu Foreign Fishing Access Fees and the National Budget
Fish licenses (A$) 9,691,000 9,480,000 11,795,000 8,694,000 1,449,000 4,216,000 3,145,000 5,232,000 4,100,000 4,100,000 Total Government Revenue and Grants (A$) 25,656,976 51,236,376 32,141,096 45,101,682 26,839,671 21,734,932 22,692,097 28,571,645 36,309,173 37,676,188 Fish Licenses Share of Total Revenue and Grants (%) 37.8 18.5 36.7 19.3 5.4 19.4 13.9 18.3 11.3 10.9 Status of Amounts Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revised Framework
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
A$ = Australian dollar.
Source: Unpublished data, Ministry of Finance.
From the above table and previous report sections, some observations on foreign shing in the Tuvalu zone can be made. During 20032007, the following were observed: access fees averaged A$3.63 million/year and supplied 13.3% of the governments total revenue and grants; the revenue from foreign shing vessels averaged A$201/t of sh caught, or 14.6% of the value of the sh; and the average annual payment by the foreign shing eets represented A$376 per person in Tuvalu per year.

Apart from foreign access fees, the governments of other Pacic island countries receive various types of revenue from the sheries sector, including sh transshipment charges, fees on domestic shing vessels, and export levies on shery products. No information is available on the amount of such revenue in Tuvalu, if any. Vessels rarely transship in Funafuti; no domestic shing vessel licensing is required, and no export levies. In some respect, the nes obtained from prosecution of illegal shing activity could be perceived as a benet. For example, in 2008, Tuvalu received A$200,000 in settlement of a case of shing by a purse seiner that breached its license conditions (S. Finikaso, personal communication, September 2008).
Employment
In much of the recent documentation on employment in Tuvalu, shing is not reported individually but is given under shing, agriculture, handicrafts, as in the following summary (ADB 2007b). In 2002, 15% of the population over 15 years of age had shing, agriculture, handicrafts on a subsistence basis as its usual/main economic activity. In 2002, 2% of the population over 15 years of age had shing, agriculture, handicrafts on a commercial basis as its usual/main economic activity. Involvement in subsistence shing, agriculture, handicrafts increased 4% during 19912002, while that on a commercial basis remained constant.
As to shing employment, the 2002 Population and Housing Census (SPC 2005) reported that 67% of all households in Tuvalu were involved in shing activities, although mainly for their own consumption; the highest percentage of households participating in shing was on Nanumea (95%) and the lowest was on Funafuti (52%); commercial shing was slightly more common in the outer Islands than in Funafuti (10% and 8%, respectively);
Tuvalu 201
of those households engaged in shing, most shed only on the reef, especially in Funafuti; however, a large minority (42.5%) of all households shed both inside and outside the reef, while 6% of all households shed only outside the reef; and of the 528 people whose main economic activity was shing, 68 (12.9%) were females.
The 2002 census also contained information on shing activities performed in the week prior to the census. Unpublished data, kindly provided by the SPC Statistics and Demography Programme, show that of 1,226 Tuvaluan interviewed, 532 participated in shing during the week before the census (Table 14.8).
Table14.8: Participation in Fishing during the Week Prior to the Census
Total Total number of people interviewed Participated in fishing for own/family use only for sale only for own use and for sale Did not participate in fishing 424 12 96 734 369 7 87 138 55 5 9 596 1,266 Male 601 Female 665
Source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community Statistics and Demography Programme, unpublished data.
Gender aspects of participation in shing activities have been summarized as follows: Fishing activities of women and children are more concentrated in the inshore area employing simple methods, while mens activities are more concentrated on deeper areas and the open ocean, employing more sophisticated methods and gear. Although men also extend their activities to include those of women and children, women and children normally cannot perform mens tasks. This is simply because deep sea shing in Tuvalu tradition is entirely a male activity. To let females carry out shing while males stay at home is a disgrace to the entire family (Finikaso 2004). Employment in tuna sheries (shing and postharvest) in recent years is shown in Table 14.9.
Table 14.9: Employment in Tuna Fisheries, Tuvalu

2002 59 36 95
2006 20 10 30
2008 65 10 75
Fish Consumption
Per capita sh consumption is reported to vary from island to island in the range of 100200 kg/year (MNR 2008). More detailed estimates of annual sh consumption in Tuvalu include 60.0 kg per capita in Funafuti and around 120.0 kg per capita on the outer islands on average, though there was substantial variation between islands (SCP 1997); 85.0 kg per capita in 1995, based on FAO production, import, and export statistics (Preston 2000); 85.0146.0 kg in late 1990s, based on credible estimates by various studies (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001); and 68.8 kg per capita in urban areas (fresh sh were 97% of this amount) and 147.4 kg per capita in rural areas (99% fresh sh) during 2004 and 2005, based on information from HIES conducted in that period (Bell et al. 2009).
Vanuatu
Fish Production
Coastal commercial sheries production in Vanuatu was estimated at 467 t worth $1,514,364 in late 1980s and early 1990s (Dalzell et al. 1996). Deepwater snapper provided 80 t/year and shallow water reef sh and coastal pelagic sh 40 t/year, probably worth more than Vt48 million annually. Annual trochus harvests averaging 100 t of shell, with an assumed value of Vt250/kg for the raw shell, were worth a further Vt25 million annually. It was
estimated that other smaller sheries, principally bche de mer, and to a lesser extent aquarium items, green snail, and crustacean sheries, contribute at least an additional Vt15 million to local economies annually (Wright 2000). Based on the above studies, coastal commercial sheries production in late 1990s was estimated at 230 t worth Vt88 million (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). Fish production estimated from the 2006 HIES indicated that 336 t of shery products were purchased in Vanuatu in 2006 (Table 15.1). Other data from the HIES indicated that Vt75.4 million was paid for those purchased shery products (NSO 2007b). Coastal commercial production also includes export production and sheries production for domestic consumption not covered by the HIES. Table 15.2 gives the shery exports of Vanuatu in 2004. Table 15.3 shows that in 20042007, the value of annual exports of the three major commodities averaged $1.2 million (Vt130.4 million). The quantity averaged 52 t and 152,000 pieces. It is assumed (but not explicitly stated in the source documentation) that the values are FOB. Reducing the prices by 30% (i.e., Vt91 million) approximates the prices paid to shers. Agriculture censuses were carried out in 2006 and 2007. Those surveys had restricted coverage of shing activity, limited to household participation in
Table 15.1: Fish Production as Estimated from the 2006 HIES (kg)
Item Tuna/bonito Flyingfish Reef fish Other fish Crayfish (lobster) Octopus, squids Crabs Other shellfish Crabs Turtle Salt fish Total
Source: SPC unpublished HIES data.
Purchased 2,507 3,078 102,439 138,116 1,545 1,339 2,772 10,446 73,090 404 0 335,736
Caught 4,988 4,706 421,932 806,525 17,409 28,581 74,569 124,431 627,575 5,704 71 2,116,491
Total 7,495 7,784 524,371 944,641 18,954 29,920 77,341 134,877 700,664 6,108 71 2,452,226
HIES = household income and expenditure survey, kg = kilogram.
Vanuatu 205
Table 15.2: Fishery Product Exports from Vanuatu, 2004

Item Aquarium fish Bche de mer Coral Fish Giant clams Green snail Invertebrates Live rock Shark fins Soft coral Trochus Total
kg = kilogram, Vt = vatu. Source: Fisheries Department (2005).
Quantity 129,793 14,049 30 500 595 227 3,791 56,400 48 40 35,630
Unit Pieces kg Pieces kg Pieces kg Pieces kg kg Pieces kg
Value (Vt) 24,214,932 13,934,243 0 350,000 687,880 131,660 188,790 4,550,100 161,472 18,560 35,146,144 79,383,781
Table 15.3: Major Fishery Product Exports from Vanuatu, 20042007

Trochus Quantity (t) 2004 2005 2006 2007
t = ton. Note: Some of the 2007 exports of aquarium products was not from coastal fishing but rather cultured giant clams. Source: Raubani (2008).
Bche de mer Quantity (t) 13 9 8 15.4 Value ($) 127,451 166,666 180,000 135,810
Aquarium products Quantity (pieces) 130,421 153,266 205,117 216,466 Value ($) 543,139 892,158 218,894 200,403
Value ($) 343,137 509,803 700,000 781,050
35 36 36 55.2
shing and frequency of shing. In the analysis of the data, no new estimates of production from shing were made. Fisheries production that may have escaped the 2006 HIES includes sh marketed in Port Vila, where relatively auent local consumers and tourists were unlikely to have been included in the HIES. Catches in early 2000 included 132 t/year of deepwater sh averaging Vt450500/kg, and 112 t/ year of pelagic sh (Hickey and Firiam 2003). For the purpose of the present study, it is assumed that part of the catch of deepwater and pelagic sh was not covered by the HIES: 150 t worth Vt60 million.
The above sources and estimates lead to a total annual production from coastal commercial sheries of 538 t plus 152,000 pieces worth Vt226.4 million. This estimate is somewhat larger than earlier estimates of coastal commercial sheries production in Vanuatu, but such shing activity has expanded in recent years, most noticeably for aquarium products. It also should be noted that factual basis of the current estimate is both independent and stronger than that of previous estimates.

An estimate of 2,000 t of subsistence sheries production by Preston (1996b) appears to have become institutionalized (F. Hickey, personal communication, September 2008) and is still quoted in recent documents (e.g., the 2007 annual report of the Fisheries Department). The Preston study credited the estimate to Dalzell et al. (1996), which was based largely on an agriculture survey in 1984. A 2008 Vanuatu trade study (Gay 2008) placed a value on subsistence production of $1,953,360, which is precisely that given by Dalzell et al. (1996). The reality is that no original eld research focused on estimating subsistence sheries production in Vanuatu has been carried out in almost a quarter of a century. A subsistence sheries production in 2006 of 2,116 t worth Vt446 million (Vt211/kg) was suggested by the 2006 HIES. However, this appears quite low intuitively as well as in the light of a sheries study in 1983 (David and Cillaurren 1992), which gave an annual production by village sheries from near-shore habitats of 2,849 t (F. Hickey, personal communication, September 2008). Discussions with HIES specialists in the SPC Statistics and Demography Programme suggested a tendency for such surveys to underestimate subsistence shing (G. Keeble and C. Ryan, personal communication, September 2008). This contention is supported by observations and results from other countries in the present study (e.g., Palau and Tonga). Some considerations for making a new estimate are Subsistence sheries production in the country was at least four times greater than commercial production (Preston 1996b). The population of the country expanded 83% between the period covered by the Dalzell estimate and 2007 (SPC 2008a). Any expansion of subsistence shing production due to population increase is likely to be at least partially moderated by increasing urbanization.
Vanuatu 207
The use of modern shing gear (e.g., spear-guns, cast and gill nets, and powerboats) has also increased signicantly since the Dalzell estimate (F. Hickey, personal communication, December 2008). In this study, with little factual justication, the Dalzell production estimate was increased by half of the population increase since the estimate was made to 2,830 t, about a third larger than the HIES estimate. Taking the value of subsistence sh derived from the HIES (Vt211/kg), a subsistence sheries production of 2,830 t was valued at Vt597 million.

There have not been any locally based oshore shing vessels in Vanuatu for several years. The two local commercial vessels mentioned in the 2007 annual report of the Fisheries Department (Raubani 2008) target snappers and groupers and are included in the coastal commercial category above.

Information on catches in the Vanuatu EEZ by foreign-based oshore shing vessels was given in Fisheries Department (2008). The eet from the Peoples Republic of China was dominant, both in terms of vessel numbers and capacity, followed by vessels from Taipei,China, then Fiji Islands. Estimates of catches and values of the four main commercial species of tuna in the WCPFC area for 19972007 were made by FFA (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. The prices used were all delivered prices in that they reected the price received at entry to the country in which they were usually sold whether for processing or consumption. Also, bycatch, which is an important component of longline sheries, was not included. Oshore catches are estimated in Table 15.4, adjusted for transshipment costs and bycatch44 as noted in the table.
Freshwater Catches
The Vanuatu Fishery Resource Proles (Amos 2007) contain extensive information on the countrys freshwater sh and invertebrate resources.
44
In 2004 and 2006, there was a very small amount of purse seine catch, 250 t and 186 t, respectively. As the vast majority of catch was by longline gear, bycatch rates appropriate for that gear have been applied.
Table 15.4: Catches of the Foreign-based Offshore Fleet in the Vanuatu Zone a
Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Tuna catch (t) Destination value of tuna catch ($) Total catch (t) In-zone value of total catch ($) In-zone value of total catch (Vt)
t = ton, Vt = vatu.
6,424 22,135,210
6,847 21,179,736
8,884 30,110,237
14,071 51,553,024
9,891 30,592,537
8,351 18,814,929
8,901 18,002,775
11,550 25,593,701
18,292 43,820,071
12,858 26,003,657
2,299,184,324 2,014,510,569 2,789,713,457 4,820,207,768 2,704,380,286
a In the table, catch is increased by 30% for bycatch; destination values were reduced by 20% for transport to markets and increased by 5% for sale of bycatch.
Source: FFA (2008) with modifications by consultant.
Distribution of freshwater ecosystems is patchy throughout the Vanuatu archipelago, covering only 1.0% of the total land area of approximately 14,763 km2. The proles cover 18 families of local freshwater sh, 3 families of introduced sh, and several species of shrimps and crab. According to the proles, the most important local species are 5 genera of nsh (Khulia, Lutjanus, Gerres, Monodactylus, Scatophagus), 4 species of mullets, several species of freshwater eels, several species of Macrobrachium, and introduced carp and tilapia. Recent annual production from freshwater sheries was estimated at about 80 t/year by an individual with a long historical involvement in Vanuatu sheries. This individual examined the available freshwater sheries data and discussed the issue of freshwater shing with other local sheries specialists (F. Hickey, personal communication, September 2008). The price for subsistence sh of Vt211/kg (see subsistence section above) can be applied to 95% of freshwater production. Macrobrachium prawns are currently sold in Santo for Vt500/kg. The recent annual production from freshwater shing of 80 t is estimated to be worth Vt18 million.
Recent aquaculture production in Vanuatu is shown in Table15.5. A private company is culturing the giant clams and has exported over 300 live cultured specimens since 2006. The marine shrimps are being sold
Vanuatu 209
Table 15.5: Recent Aquaculture Production in Vanuatu

Item Cultured giant clams (pieces) Cultured coral (pieces) Red tilapia (t) GIFTa tilapia (t) Freshwater prawns (t) Marine shrimps b (t)
t = ton.
a b
2005 0 815 0 0 0 0
2006 1,310 1,205 0 2.0 10.0 16.0
2007 2,186 403 12.8 not available not available 18.0
Declared Value ($) 17,811 8,313 32,000 14,000 200 720,000
Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia. Litopenaeus stylirostris.
Note: it is unclear what period is covered by the declared value. Source: Fisheries Department (2008).
for Vt2,000Vt2,200/kg by a local large-scale company established in 2005. Farming trials of Macrobrachium by the Department of Fisheries began in mid-2005. The prawns are being sold at Vt1,000Vt1,500/kg (Hickey and Jimmy 2008). From the above, a crude approximation of the 2007 harvest is 34 t and 2,500 pieces worth Vt31.6 million ($303,846).
Summary of Harvests
An estimate of the annual quantities and values of the shery and aquaculture harvests in 2007 are given in Table 15.6. The very weak factual basis for the estimate of the coastal subsistence catch should be recognized.

In the national accounts of Vanuatu, the contribution of commercial shing to GDP is listed as a subcategory under other commercial agriculture, and that of subsistence shing under subsistence agriculture. The nominal and relative contributions of shing are given in Table 15.7.
Table 15.6: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in Vanuatu, 2007

t = ton, Vt = vatu.
a The values in the table are dockside/farm-gate prices, except in the case of offshore foreign-based fishing where the value in local waters (overseas market prices less imputed transshipment costs) is given.
Quantity 538 t 2,830 t 0t 12,858 t 80 t 2,500 pieces plus 34 t 2,500 pieces plus 16,340 t
Valuea (Vt) 226,400,000 597,000,000 0 2,704,380,286 18,000,000 31,600,000 3,577,380,286
Table 15.7: Fishing Contribution to the Vanuatu GDP (Vt000)

Item Commercial fishing Subsistence fishing Commercial and subsistence fishing Vanuatu GDP Fishing share of GDP (%) 2002 42,891 285,595 2003 43,207 291,879 2004 37,930 301,058 2005 52,731 304,581 2006 69,773 312,926 2007 79,933 323,934
328,486
335,085
338,987
357,312
382,699
403,867
31,957,255 34,185,474 36,862,712 40,387,256 45,944,314 51,979,579 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8
GDP = gross domestic product, Vt = vatu. Source: National Statistics Office unpublished data.

Sta of the National Statistics Oce kindly prepared a memorandum titled Fish Methodology for GDP Estimates to explain the methods used to calculate the shing contribution to GDP. The memo states: The VARs used for commercial shing and subsistence shing are 0.679 and 0.744, respectively. For commercial shing, the producers price of the output (sh + crustaceans + shells) is multiplied by the VAR of 0.679 to obtain the value added.
Vanuatu 211
For subsistence shing, the output in the base year is multiplied by a rural population index and a seafood index. The value of this output is multiplied by the VAR of 0.744 to obtain the value added. The calculations for commercial shing in 2007 are: The outputs, which are based on Fisheries Department and exports data, are: sh (Vt60.858 million), crustaceans (Vt0.984 million), and shells (Vt55.724 million). Gross output: Vt117.566 million. The value added is the gross output (Vt117.566 million) multiplied by the VAR of .679 = Vt79.933 million.
The calculations for subsistence shing in 2007 are: The value of the subsistence catch from a base year is multiplied by a population index (1.72) and a seafood index (1.97). The gross output is determined to be Vt435.571 million. This output is multiplied by the VAR of 0.7437 to obtain a value added of 323.934 million.
Some features of the methodology are not clear: (a) the origin of the subsistence output for the base year, and (b) the origin and function of the seafood index. Also, the gross output of commercial shing used in the calculations (which are sourced from Fisheries Department and exports data) is about half of the gross output of commercial shing determined above using Fisheries Department information, export data, and knowledge of Vanuatu sheries. A VAR of 0.744 seems low for the mainly low-technology subsistence shing in Vanuatu. In Appendix 3 of this report, it is determined that nonmotorized shing in the Pacic often has a VAR of 0.900.92.

Table 15.8 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in Vanuatu. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing/aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 15.6 above. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3).
It is not intended that the approach in Table 15.8 replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication. The total value added from shing in Table 15.8 (Vt696 million) is considerably greater than the 2007 ocial estimate of Vt404 million. Dierences in gross value of shing (both commercial and subsistence) account for most of the disparity. A shing contribution of Vt696 million would be 1.3% of Vanuatus GDP of Vt51,979 million.
Table 15.8: Fishing Contribution to Vanuatu GDP in 2007 Using an Alternative Approach
Gross Value of Production (Vt, from Table 15.6) 226,400,000 597,000,000 0 18,000,000 31,600,000 ValueAdded Ratio 0.70 0.85 0 0.90 0.45 Value Added (Vt) 158,480,000 507,450,000 0 16,200,000 14,220,000 696,350,000
Vt = vatu.

In section 15.1, it was shown that during 20042007, the FOB value of annual exports from coastal commercial sheries, averaging 52 t and 152,000 pieces, was $1.2 million (Vt130.4 million). These gures included the small amount of aquaculture production that was exported (about Vt1 million of clams and coral in 2007). There were no exports from other shery categories (i.e., oshore locally based shing); thus, Vt130.4 million was taken as the average annual export of all shery products from Vanuatu in recent years. During 20042007, the average annual FOB value of all Vanuatu exports was Vt3,853 million (National Statistics Oce website). Fishery exports were therefore responsible for about 3.4% of all exports of the country.
Vanuatu 213

Vanuatu receives payments for two types of foreign shing in its zone: Longline Fishing. Foreign longline eets from the Peoples Republic of China, Fiji Islands, Republic of Korea, and Taipei,China sh in Vanuatu waters for tuna and tuna-like species under bilateral access agreements. Most of these vessels operate out of American Samoa and Fiji Islands and primarily target albacore tuna for the canneries in American Samoa and Fiji Islands. In 2007, Vanuatu licensed 119 longline shing vessels (Fisheries Department 2008a). Purse Seine Fishing. Under the terms of the US multilateral tuna treaty, Vanuatu and other Pacic island countries receive payments from the Government of the United States and the US tuna industry that are associated with shing access by US purse seiners. Some Pacic island countries consider that all payments under the US treaty are for shing access, while others treat some components as aid. Fishing by US seiners has not occurred in Vanuatu waters since the 2003/04 licensing period when 217 t of tuna were caught (NMFS unpublished public domain data).
Table 15.9 gives the payments received by Vanuatu in recent years for the foreign shing activity in its zone. The government had total revenue and grants of Vt9,193.3 million in 2005 and Vt8,668.3 million in 2006 (Gay 2008). Fishing license fees were, therefore, responsible for 1.2% and 1.7% of government revenue in 2005 and 2006, respectively.

Information on other government revenue from sheries is not readily available. The Fisheries Department annual report of 2007 (Fisheries Department 2008a) lists various sources of revenue. Apart from the shing license fees given above, the other sources are other disposal (Vt220,404 collected in 2007), total repair fees (Vt1,118,855), total permits recoveries (Vt1,707,905), and other items revenue (Vt1,360). The total of this nonaccess revenue was Vt3,048,524 in 2007.
Table 15.9: Revenue from Foreign Fishing Licenses

Longline Fishing Licenses (Vt) 105,556,760 70,790,968 81,230,022 121,299,188 US Tuna Treaty ($) 317,047 258,435 258,334 256,985 Total (Vt) 144,236,494 99,735,688 109,388,428 149,567,538
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006

Vt = vatu.
a
The amounts listed are as though all fees are for access. Payments by the US fleet are made for a June/June licensing period. For the purpose of the table, it is assumed that all US payments are received during the first six months of the year in the table. Source: Hickey and Jimmy (2008), NMFS unpublished public domain data.
Revenue generated from foreign-based Vanuatu-agged shing vessels could be considered government revenue from sheries. The Vanuatu International Shipping Registry is operated on behalf of the government under contract to Vanuatu Maritime Services (VMS). The VMS accounts are not available in the public domain (F. Hickey, personal communication, September 2008). An FFA study was undertaken of the shing vessels on the registry and associated issues (Preston 2001a) but the results of that study remain condential to the Government of Vanuatu.
Employment
According to the 2007 agriculture census (NSO 2008b), 72% of the 15,758 rural households in Vanuatu possessed shing gear and engaged in shing activities during the previous 12 months. Of the shing households, 11,577 (73%) shed mainly for home consumption, 4,127 (26%) for home consumption with occasional selling, and 74 (less than 1%) mainly for sale. The earlier, 2006, census had slightly dierent ndings: 78% of all Vanuatu households (urban and rural) engaged in shing, with 48% in urban areas and 86% in rural areas. The report of the 2006 HIES (NSO 2007b) is not very informative with respect to shing activities. Source of income is only disaggregated to the level of agriculture, sh, and handicrafts.
Vanuatu 215
The Vanuatu National Marine Aquarium Trade Management Plan contains some mention of income from the marine aquarium trade. It stated that about $19,000/year is paid to resource owners around the western coast of Efate. Employment in tuna shing and processing in recent years is shown in Table 15.10.
Table 15.10: Employment in the Tuna Industry
2002 54 30 84
2006 20 30 50
2008 30 30 60
The above information gives the impression that in Vanuatu there is good recent information on involvement with village-level shing. Much less is known about employment in commercial shing/aquaculture and in commercial postharvest activities. The gender aspect of sheries employment has apparently not received much attention.
Fish Consumption
Estimates of annual per capita sh consumption are 15.9 kg (sh supply) from coastal sheries (Preston 1996a); 21.0 kg in 1995, based on FAO data and considering production, imports, and exports (Preston 2000); 25.7 kg in 2000, considering shery production, imports, exports, and population (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001); and 20.3 kg, of which 60% was fresh sh20.6 kg for rural areas and 19.3 kg for urban areas, using data from the 2006 HIES (Bell et al. 2009)although the HIES data may underestimate sh production and consumption (see section 15.1).
PART C
Fishery Benets in Pacic Island Territories
American Samoa
Fish Production
Annual commercial sheries production in American Samoa was estimated at 52 t worth $178,762, based on recent literature, including a 1994 Western Pacic Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN) report (Dalzell et al. 1996). WPacFIN provides access to best available sheries data from the Western Pacic region.45 The network monitors the commercial landings in American Samoa, and quantities and values for 19822007 are available on the website. Table 16.1 gives these catches in recent years.
45
According to website information (www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacn).
220
Table 16.1: American Samoan Commercial Landings

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
t = ton. Source: Western Pacific Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN), 2008.
Weight (millions of pounds) 0.079 0.105 0.132 0.089 0.317 0.414 0.449 1.035 1.309 1.145 1.839 7.994 15.423 10.968 8.935 8.704 11.659 13.952
Weight (t) 35.8 47.6 59.9 40.4 143.8 187.7 203.6 469.4 593.6 519.3 834.0 3,625.3 6,994.3 4,974.0 4,052.0 3,947.3 5,287.4 6,327.2
Value ($ million) 0.098 0.167 0.219 0.166 0.562 0.534 0.629 1.366 1.595 1.350 1.962 8.547 13.823 10.377 8.887 8.546 11.409 13.811
There is diculty in using the tabled data for the present study because some of the landings are made by large tuna vessels that are in the oshore locally based category used in this report. In 2006, 24 of the commercial vessels in the American Samoa pelagic eet were over 16 meters in length (Hamm et al. 2008). In this study, it is assumed that the coastal commercial catch of American Samoa has three components, as follows: Pelagic Fishery. The landings of American Samoan pelagic shery can be partitioned into longline catch (mainly larger boats, considered locally based oshore) and troll and other catch (mainly small boats, considered coastal commercial). For the latter, the 2006 landings were 25,135 pounds (11.5 t) worth $40,946 (dockside) and the 2007 landings were 24,664 pounds (11.2 t) worth $41,384 (WPacFIN unpublished data).
Ameriican Samoa 221
Bottom Fish Fishery. The commercial landings of the bottom sh shery in 2006 were 6,647 pounds (3.0 t) worth $16,542 and in 2007 were 36,568 pounds (16.6 t) worth $87,025 (WPacFIN unpublished data). Coral Reef Fishery. Estimating the commercial component of reef shing is more complex due to diculty in monitoring and distinguishing the commercial and subsistence components. A recent estimate of the artisanal reef shery catch was 8.4 t/year, with retail market prices for locally caught sh products of $5.51/kg (Spurgeon et al. 2004). Catches in the commercial coral reef shery of Tutuila were about 10,000 pounds (4.5 t) in 2004 and 19,000 pounds (8.6 t) in 2005 (Fenner et al. 2008).
Selectively using the above information, production from the coastal commercial shery of American Samoa in 2007 (including the pelagic, bottom sh, and reef components) was estimated to be 34.6 t worth $166,000 to the shers.

Production estimates from subsistence shing in American Samoa are as follows: 215 t worth $814,238 for the early 1990s (Dalzell et al. 1996). 103 t (Spurgeon et al. 2004). 121 t in 2002 (Tutuila 39 t, outer islands 82 t) by Zeller et al. (2006), using a reconstruction approach to show a remarkably large decline in subsistence catch rates on the main island of Tutuila over several decades, attributed to overexploitation of the coral reef sh. But this explanation was disputed by several shery specialists with considerable local knowledge (M. Sabater and D. Hamm, personal communication, September 2008; Sabater and Carroll 2009). However, the Zeller et al. (2006) estimate appears well substantiated.
The average retail price for fresh sh in American Samoa in 2006 was $2.46/pound (about $5.40/kg) (Statistics Division 2008d). Allowing for a price increase over a one-year period and using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production (discounting by 30%), it was estimated that a subsistence production of 120 t in 2007 would be worth $478,000 to the shers.
222

As stated above, for the purpose of the present study, all longline catches made in American Samoa are considered to be made by the oshore eet. Unpublished data from WPacFIN shows that the longline catches in 2006 were 5,389 t valued at $11,542,457, and in 2007 were 6,632 t valued at $14,135,083. Purse seiners and longliners that ooad to the cannery are not considered to be locally based. This assertion is mainly based on the fact that the center of their economic activity does not lie in American Samoa; they come to Pago Pago primarily to discharge their catch at a cannery.

There is no foreign shing in the American Samoa EEZ. US vessels are considered to be domestic vessels. All the longline catch in the zone is considered to be from locally based vessels and is included in the locally based oshore catches above. No purse seine catches have been made in the waters of American Samoa in the last ve years (FFA 2008).
Freshwater Catches
Tutuila has about 141 streams that support about a dozen important native species of freshwater sh and invertebrates. The principal groups are eels, gobies, mountain bass, shrimp, and snails (Craig 2005). No catch estimates of the production from freshwater shing have been made. For the purpose of this study, it is estimated that the annual catch is 1 t worth $4,000.
The 2003 agriculture census (USDA 2005) indicated that the 44 tilapia farms in American Samoa sold 6,900 pounds (3.1 t) of sh (worth $14,555) and used 33,670 pounds (15.3 t) of sh (worth $70,716) for family consumption. In 2006, actual commercial landings of 3,359 pounds (1.5 t) of tilapia worth $3,984 were reported (Hamm et al. 2008). There is no marine aquaculture. A facility in Tutuila is in disrepair. Although there is a stock of clams available for spawning, these clams are not being used at present, and their number is declining due to theft (Spurgeon et al. 2004).
Ameriican Samoa 223
It is estimated that in 2007, the total aquaculture production of American Samoa was 9 t, with a farm-gate value of $10,000.
Summary of Harvests
From the above information, crude estimates of shery and aquaculture harvests in 2007 were made (Table 16.2). These estimates are judged to be accurate, relative to those in this study from other Pacic island countries and territories.

The national accounts of American Samoa are at a rudimentary stage of development. In 2005, the US Department of Interior, Oce of Insular Aairs renewed its contract with the US Census Bureau to produce estimates of GDP in American Samoa. The primary source of information for making the estimates was the 2002 Economic Census (Rubin 2005), which did not cover the shing sector (Department of Commerce 2005). The partial 2002 GDP for sectors covered was between $262.6 million and $422.4 million. When the $166.4 million in value added originating in the excluded sectors of agriculture [and shing] and government is accounted for, total GDP rises to an estimated $427.0 million$586.9 million (Rubin 2005).
Table16.2: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in American Samoa, 2007
t = ton.
a
Quantity (t) 35 120 6,632 0 1 9 6,797
Valuea ($) 166,000 478,000 14,135,083 0 4,000 10,000 14,793,083
The values in the table are dockside or farm-gate prices.
224

As indicated above, shing was not considered when making the GDP estimate for 2002.
Estimate of Fishing Contribution to GDP

Table 16.3 shows a way of estimating shing contribution to GDP in American Samoa. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing or aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 16.2. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The contribution of shing to GDP in 2007 estimated in the table ($3.4million) represents about 0.66% of the $506 million GDP estimate46 for 2002. The Zeller et al. (2005) estimation of the contribution of American Samoas domestic coastal and coral reef sheries ($585,000 for 2002) can be compared to that of the present study. The present study gives a contribution of $520,840 for coastal commercial and coastal subsistence shing in 2008 but this includes the contribution from small-scale shing for pelagic sh
Table 16.3: Fishing Contribution to American Samoa GDP, 2007
Gross Value of Production ($, from Table 16.2) 166,000 478,000 14,135,083 4,000 10,000 Value-Added Ratio 0.69 0.85 0.20 0.90 0.74 Value Added ($) 114,540 406,300 2,827,017 3,600 7,400 3,358,857
GDP = gross domestic product. Sources: Table 16.2 and consultants estimates.
46
Midpoint of the $427.0 million$586.9 million range in Rubin (2005).
Ameriican Samoa 225
($24,830). By removing the pelagic element, a comparable contribution from the present study can be obtained: $496,010. The Zeller estimate is 18%larger.

Table 16.4 gives the most recent compilation of exports from American Samoa. Fishery products represent virtually all exports from the territory. Canned tuna is by far the most important export commodity. Table 16.5 gives the exports of tuna in recent years. Small amounts of fresh sh are occasionally shipped to Hawaii, but the amounts are insignicant compared to the export of tuna products from the canneries.
Table 16.4: Exports of American Samoa ($)

Item Aluminum Fishmeal Fish oil Pet food Canned tuna Total exports Fishery exports share of total exports (%)
Source: Statistics Division (2008d).
2003 3,000 3,933,893 52,418 7,732,855 447,818,527 459,540,693 99.99
2004 0 1,977,646 0 42,035,303 401,576,515 445,589,464 100
2005 3,000 195,480 0 21,904,190 351,708,914 373,811,584 99.99
2006 0 0 0 7,050,488 431,478,872 438,529,360 100
Table 16.5: Exports of Canned Tuna (cases)

2001 Number tuna cases Value ($000) 33,900 273,652 2002 22,573 370,359 2003 28,855 477,819 2004 21,547 401,577 2005 21,241 354,708 2006 20,656 431,479
226

There is currently no foreign shing in the American Samoa zone. United States vessels are considered to be domestic vessels.

Fishing licensing fees paid by vessels based in American Samoa go to US government agencies, not to the Government of American Samoa (R. Tulafono, personal communication, September 2008). Information on other forms of government revenue from the sheries sector in American Samoa, if any, is not readily available.
Employment
Employment in American Samoa directly related to sheries has two very distinct main components: jobs at tuna canneries and involvement in activities related to domestic shing and aquaculture. Cannery employment in 2006 was estimated at 17,395, a slight increase over the 2005 gure of 17,344. The 2006 estimate includes 5,894 government workers, 4,757 cannery workers, and 6,744 employees in the rest of the private sector (Statistics Division 2008d). The canneries provided 27% of all employment in 2006. Employment in local vessels of commercial domestic shing is shown in Table 16.6. Data on involvement in subsistence shing is not readily available. There is a declining proportion of people involved in general subsistence activities (down to 7% in 2000) (Census Bureau 2000). Discussions with sheries specialists with substantial local experience (M. Sabater and D. Hamm, personal communication, September 2008) also indicate a general downtrend in subsistence shing in American Samoa in the last few decades. Data on employment in aquaculture is readily available only to the extent that there are 44 farms producing sh (USDA 2005).
Ameriican Samoa 227
Table 16.6: Numbers of Vessels and Fishers in American Samoa

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Number of Vessels 47 33 27 43 44 44 45 54 52 49 53 73 47 74 56 53 51
Number of Fishers 94 99 86 146 138 132 135 162 156 147 159 237 141 222 168 159 153
Fish Consumption
Production from coastal sheries (commercial and subsistence) in American Samoa in early 1990s equated to an annual per capita sh supply of 5.7 kg (Gillett and Preston 1997). The HIES in 2005 determined that annual per capita sh consumption (whole sh equivalent) was 13.6 kg (SPC unpublished data), but this did not include sh taken for subsistence purposes. If the subsistence catch in 2005 was 120 t, as estimated here, and the population was 63,000 (SPC 2008a), this would add 1.9 kg, to make the total (purchased and subsistence) annual sh consumption of 15.5 kg per capita. The per capita catch in the outer islands in 2002 was 71 kg, of which 63 kg were consumed and the remainder sent to family members on the main island of Tutuila. The annual subsistence harvest of 37.5 t consisted of the coastal pelagic bigeye scad (Selar crumenophthalmus) (31%), reef-associated sh (57%), and invertebrates (12%) (Craig et al. 2008).
French Polynesia
Fish Production
The government sheries agency in French Polynesia, the Service de la Pche, groups sheries into three categories: lagoon, coastal, and oshore. The lagoon and coastal categories together represent the combined coastal commercial and coastal subsistence categories used in the present study. Coastal commercial sheries production for 1992 was estimated at 2,352 t worth $14,371,469 (Dalzell et al. 1996). Production from lagoon
French Polynesia 229
sheries in 2007 was estimated to be 4,300 t, made up of 3,400 t of lagoon sh, 700 t of small pelagic sh, and 200 t of other products (mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms, etc.) worth CFP2 billion to the shers (Stein 2008). Partitioning the production into commercial and subsistence categories requires an intimate knowledge of the sheries involved. It is complicated by (a) commercial shing being carried out by both registered and nonregistered shers, and (b) the large amount of recreational shing, especially near Tahiti and Moorea. It is estimated that the 4,300 t catch from lagoon sheries can be divided into 1,670 t commercial and 2,630 t noncommercial (A. Stein, personal communication, November 2008). By using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production (discounting by 30%), the 1,670 t commercial lagoon catch is estimated to be worth CFP952 million. The 2,630 t noncommercial lagoon catch is estimated to be worth CFP1,050 million. To obtain the total coastal commercial catch, the above lagoon catch must be added to the catch of both bonitier and poti marara. This category of shing (coastal shery eet in the ocial statistics) requires some clarication because of possible confusion with the coastal commercial category of the present study. The Fisheries Department (2008) states: The coastal shery comprises two types of boat: the poti marara (literally ying-sh boats), which are small boats 6-8 m in length, made from wood or FRP and suitable for many dierent shing techniques (trolling, vertical longlining or harpooning, operating in the coastal area in the vicinity of 15 nm [nautical miles]), and the bonitiers (skipjack boats), which are 10- to 12-m long boats made from wood or FRP, targeting skipjack using pole-and-line. In 2007, the coastal eet (50 bonitier and 280 poti marara) caught 2,332 t of sh, made up of 667 t from bonitiers, and 1,665 t from poti marara (Service de la Pche 2008a, 2008b). Sta of the Statistics Unit of the Service de la Pche gave the value of the 1,665 t poti marara catch at the point of rst sale as CFP1,049,400,000 (C. Ponsonnet, personal communication, November 2008). The quantities and values of production from coastal commercial shing in French Polynesia in 2007 are summarized in Table17.1.

The coastal subsistence catch in 1992 was estimated at 3,691 t worth $14,468,720 (Dalzell et al. 1996). As stated above, the 4,300 t catch from
230
lagoon sheries in 2007 was estimated to consist of 1,670 t commercial and 2,630 t noncommercial. Not included above is the recreational and semi-commercial catch of some several hundred tons made outside the reef but not covered by the statistical system (A. Stein, personal communication, December 2008). For the purpose of the present study, the catches from recreational shing are considered as production for home consumption and, therefore, as a component of subsistence sheries. By using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production (discounting by 30%), the estimated coastal subsistence catch of 2,880 t would be worth CFP1,149,120,000.

There are two components of the locally based oshore eet (Fisheries Department 2008b): fresh sh longliners, 1120 meters in length made of aluminum or FRP, that make day trips; and freezer longliners, 2126 meter long steel vessels that can remain at sea for up to three months. The catches of the locally based oshore eet are given in Table 17.2.
Table 17.1: Coastal Commercial Fishing in French Polynesia, 2007
Type of Fishing Lagoon fisheries Coastal fishery (bonitier and poti marara) Total
CFP = Pacific franc, t = ton. Source: Service de la Pche (2008a, 2008b), Stein (2008), and Service de la Pche, unpublished data.
Quantity (t) 1,670 2,332 4,002
Value (CFP) 952,000,000 1,049,400,000 2,001,400,000
Table 17.2: Catches of the Locally Based Offshore Fleet (t)

Item Albacore Yellowfin Bigeye Blue marlin Wahoo Other sharks 2003 3,846 621 439 303 195 280 2004 2,218 1,066 502 243 196 317 2005 2,426 793 606 251 243 217 2006 2,918 690 498 266 201 123 2007 3,957 527 478 327 267 148
Item Opah Dolphin fish Striped marlin Swordfish Miscellaneous Oilfish Mako shark Skipjack Pomfret Spearfish Sailfish Black marlin Total
t = ton.
2003 188 172 117 117 10 30 49 55 16 15 11 1 6,468
2004 150 129 109 86 75 37 37 72 25 12 5 1 5,278
2005 118 90 91 79 64 26 25 24 21 10 4 0 5,087
2006 108 113 122 83 31 27 26 28 15 9 2 0 5,258
2007 122 109 138 67 65 28 18 30 14 10 2 1 6,308
Source: Fisheries Department (2008).
Estimates of values for these oshore catches have been made in terms of ranges (C. Ponsonnet, personal communication, November 2008). These are shown in Table 17.3, along with the mid-point values.

In December 2000, all access agreements with foreign shing eets ceased (Ponsonnet et al. 2007).
Freshwater Catches
There are 37 species of freshwater sh and 18 species of decapod crustaceans in the territory (Keith et al. 2002). The most important of these for shery purposes are juvenile gobies (Sicyopterus lagocephalus and S. pugnans), Macrobrachium, tilapia, Kuhlia species, and eels. No ocial estimate has been made of the production from freshwater shing in French Polynesia, but sta of the Service de la Pche familiar with the situation indicate that, although catches uctuate considerably, 100 t/year could be considered an average (A. Stein, personal communication, November 2008) and the value, based on the approach above for subsistence sheries, would be CFP42.5 million.
232
Table 17.3: Value of the Catch of the Locally Based Offshore Fleet (CFP 000)
Item Upper estimate of value Lower estimate of value 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 3,027,979 3,372,986 3,040,184 2,768,398 2,401,708 2,297,255 2,351,095 2,706,880
2,412,015 2,810,504 2,588,266 2,285,618 1,847,377 1,780,510 1,811,529 2,208,150
Midpoint 2,719,997 3,091,745 2,814,225 2,527,008 2,124,543 2,038,883 2,081,312 2,457,515 of value range
CFP = Pacific franc. Source: Service de la Pche unpublished data, courtesy of C. Ponsonnet.
Aquaculture in French Polynesia consists largely of pearl farming, with a much smaller amount of crustacean and nsh culture. There were 792 pearl farms in 2006, down from about three times that number in 2000 (Lo 2007). Production from these farms is not well known due to lack of reporting (C. Lo, personal communication, October 2008). However, data on ocial exports of pearls and pearl products are available (Table 17.4). Virtually all exports are raw pearls. It is estimated that 20% of exported pearls are fraudulently exported (IEOM 2008). Undeclared exports are up to 50% of the declared amount (C. Lo, personal communication, October 2008). Reducing the FOB prices by 30% to approximate farm-gate prices, and adding 30% to the quantity to account for pearl exports not declared, the farm-gate value of pearl production in 2007 of 10,160 kg is estimated to be CFP10.681 million. In 2007, there was also an aquaculture production of 44.5 t of penaeid shrimp and 1.5 t of nsh (Service de la Pche 2008a). It is estimated that the farm-gate value of this production was CFP81.6 million. Total aquaculture production in French Polynesia is estimated to be 56t worth CFP10,762.6 million.
Summary of Harvests
An approximation of annual production and value in 2007 is given in Table17.5, from which it is apparent that pearl aquaculture is responsible
for 65% of the value of all sheries and aquaculture production in French Polynesia. As in New Caledonia, the value of production of coastal commercial shing is similar to that of oshore locally based shing.

The current ocial contribution of shing to the GDP of French Polynesia in 2005 is given in Table 17.6.
Table 17.4: Export of Pearls from French Polynesia
Item Export of pearls and pearl products (kg) Price per gram, FOB (CFP) Value (CFP million)
Source: IEOM (2008).
2003 10,115 1,016 10,226
2004 9,145 1,238 11,169
2005 8,426 1,500 12,359
2006 7,690 1,465 11,098
2007 7,816 1,393 10,681
CFP = Pacific franc, FOB = free on board, kg = kilogram.
Table 17.5: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in French Polynesia, 2007
CFP = Pacific franc, t = ton.
a
Quantity (t) 4,002 2,880 6,308 0 100 56 13,346
Valuea (CFP) 2,001,400,000 1,149,120,000 2,457,515,000 0 42,500,000 10,762,600,000 16,413,135,000
Values are farm-gate prices.
234
Table 17.6: Contribution of Fishing and Aquaculture to the GDP of French Polynesia, 2005
Item Total fishing and pearl culture value added Fishing and shrimp culture valued added Pearl culture value added French Polynesia GDP Share of fishing and pearl culture in GDP (%)
CFP = Pacific franc, GDP = gross domestic product. Source: Unpublished data from the Institut de la Statistique de la Polynesie Francaise, courtesy of A. Ailloud.
Value (CFP million) 5,820 1,521 4,299 525,934 1.1

According to sta of the Institut de la Statistique de la Polynesie Francaise (ISPF), the contribution of pearl culture to GDP is calculated separately from that of lagoon/coastal/oshore shing and shrimp aquaculture (A. Ailloud, personal communication, October 2008). For pearl culture, the FOB export value of pearls and pearl products are multiplied by a VAR to get the value added. This is shown in Table 17.7. Fishing (lagoon/coastal/oshore) and shrimp aquaculture are considered separate sectors and their contributions to GDP are calculated dierently (Table 17.8). The VAR of 0.3361 applies to all the agriculture sector (includes shing and pearl culture). It was determined by examining the records of 154companies in the agriculture sector for the year 2005. Multiplying the total amount paid to shers (CFP4,525 million) by the VAR gives a total value added (i.e., contribution to GDP) by the shing and shrimp culture sector in 2005 of CFP1,521 million, the value given in Table17.6 above. Some comments on the above methodology are For pearl culture, using the FOB price (rather than the farm-gate price) results in an overestimation of the contribution. However, this may compensate to some degree for the pearl exports that are not declared. For the shing and shrimp culture sector, estimates of value added are dependent on accurate amounts of production. The 6,987 t of
Table 17.7: Pearl Culture Contribution to GDP in 2005

Product Raw cultured pearls Raw Keshi pearls Raw tinted pearls Raw Mabe pearls Worked Keshi Worked tinted pearls Worked Mabe pearls Worked other pearls Pearl shells: worked, raw, or worked Total FOB value Value Added of Pearl Culture * (Total FOB value x VAR [0.3361]) FOB Value (CFP)
12,155,889,996 187,877,202 31,102 2,065,291 1,087,681 35,799 884,050 46,844,802 394,788,403 12,789,504,326 4,298,552,404
CFP = Pacific franc, FOB = free on board, GDP = gross domestic product, VAR = valueadded ratio. Source: Unpublished data from the Institut de la Statistique de la Polynesie Francaise, courtesy A. Ailloud.
Table 17.8: Fishing Contribution to GDP, 2005

Price paid to fishers a (CFP/kg)
792 363 1231 579 912 2,000 963 579
Type of fishing Tuna Skipjack Small pelagic Other Total fish Shrimp culture Total commercial Noncommercial Grand total
a b
Production (kg)
326,763 171,007 557,979 132,976 1,188,725 58,500 1,247,225 5,740,000
Retail price (CFP/kg)

1,069 489 1,662 782 1,232 2,700 1,300
Total amount to paid to fishers (CFP million)

259 62 687 77 1,084 117 1,201 3,324
6,987,225
1,300
4,525
CFP = Pacific franc, GDP = gross domestic product, kg = kilogram. Price paid to fisher is the retail price divided by 1.35. Production from noncommercial fishing was determined by a survey in 1987.
Source: Unpublished data from the Institut de la Statistique de la Polynesie Francaise, courtesy A. Ailloud.
236
production used by ISPF for 2005 (Table 17.8) is only about half of the sheries production of 13,000 t for 2007 estimated in Table 17.5 above. Using a single VAR for all types of shing, aquaculture, and agriculture appears inappropriate. Rening VARs to specic subsectors could give much better estimates of value added.

Table 17.9 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing/aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 17.5. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The VAR for pearl culture was determined by examining company accounts of pearl culture operations in the Cook Islands and in Fiji Islands. It is not intended that the approach in Table 17.9 replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication. From the table, a total contribution from shing/aquaculture of CFP7,206 million is estimated for 2007. In the section above on the ocial

Gross Value of Production (CFP, from Table 17.5)
2,001,400,000 1,149,120,000 2,457,515,000 42,500,000 10,762,600,000
Value-Added Ratio
0.55 0.70 0.20 0.85 0.45
Value Added (CFP)

1,100,770,000 735,000,000 491,503,000 36,125,000 4,843,170,000 7,206,568,000
CFP = Pacific franc, GDP = gross domestic product. Sources: Table 17.5 and consultants estimates.
contribution, an ocial contribution of CFP5,820 million was estimated for 2005, made up of CFP1,521 million for shing/shrimp and CFP4,299 million for pearl culture. Bearing in mind that these two estimates are for dierent years, most of the dierence between the estimates originates from the production of coastal/oshore shing and the VARs applied. It should be noted that reasonably good estimates of sheries production are available at Service de la Pche in Papeete.

Exports of the territory in recent years are given in Table 17.10, from which it can be seen that pearl exports are by far the most signicant export of French Polynesia. Undeclared pearl exports (see section 17.1) add further to the importance. Detailed information on the export of pelagic sh is given in Table17.11, which shows that pelagic sh make up slightly more than half of the nonpearl shery exports of the territory.
Table 17.10: Fishery Exports of French Polynesia
2005 Quantity (t) Pearl culture products Fish, crustaceans Total fishery exports Total local exports Fishery share of total exports (%) Value (CFP million) Pearl culture products Fish, crustaceans Total fishery exports Total local exports Fishery share of total exports (%)
CFP = Pacific franc, t = ton. Source: IEOM (2008).
2006 7.7 635 642.7 21,239 3.0 11,098 416 11,514 15,789 72.9
2007 7.8 857 864.8 18,959 4.6 10,681 488 11,169 15,612 71.5
8.4 588 596.4 21,488 2.8 12,359 358 12,717 17,204 73.9
238
Table 17.11: Pelagic Fish Exports of French Polynesia, 2007

Whole weight (t) 169.5 222.8 660.8 191.0 1.6 0.1 1,245.7 Net weight (t) 84.7 222.8 331.0 191 0.8 0.0 830.3 FOB value (CFP million) 93.3 124.0 221.2 35.2 1.2 0.1 474.9
Product form Chilled Frozen Processed Total
Type Loins Whole Loins Whole Smoked Dried
CFP = Pacific franc, FOB = free on board, t = ton. Source: Service de la Pche (2008a, 2008b).

No access fees for foreign shing have been received since December 2000, when all access agreements with foreign shing eets ceased (Ponsonnet et al. 2007).

In general, in French Polynesia, the sheries sector is not revenue generating, but rather subsidy absorbing. Professional shers are registered and have a license (carte). All oshore shers must be registered, whereas registration for coastal shers is optional. There is no charge for the license, but those with a license are eligible for substantial nancial assistance.
Employment
In 2007, there were about 7,000 people employed in pearl culture (IEOM 2008). Table 17.12 gives the number of people involved in shing activities and nonpearl aquaculture. For 2007, these include 13 people involved in nonpearl aquaculture, 1,800 people in coastal shing, 1,025 in oshore shing, and 200 people in freshwater shing. About 17,500 people were involved with shing activities in 2007, a signicant proportion of the 68,849
Table 17.12: Employment in Fishing in French Polynesia

Male/Female Full-time Part-time Occasional Status not specified Total M F M F M F M F M F 2006 2,049 144 1,589 391 4,270 1,830 200 8,108 2,365 2007 2,127 86 1,658 408 4,270 1,830 200 8,255 2,324
Source: Unpublished data, Service de la Pche.
declared jobs in the economy (IEOM 2008) with a total population in 2007 of 259,800 (ISPF 2008).
Fish Consumption
Annual per capita sh consumption in 2003 was estimated at 31.4 kg (Service de la Pche, unpublished data) based on an estimated domestic sh production of 9,102 t, net weight, sh imports of 790 t,47 and sh exports of 1,731 t. Domestic sheries production (live weight) was reduced by 30% presumably to obtain the actual food weight. Annual per capita sh consumption in early 2000 was estimated at 70.3kg, of which 82% was fresh sh. For rural areas the per capita consumption of sh was 90.1 kg, and for urban areas, 52.2 kg. The study used Information from HIES conducted by 15 Pacic countries and territories, mainly between 2001 and 2006, to estimate patterns of sh consumption throughout much of the Pacic. HIES were designed to enumerate sh consumption based on both subsistence and cash acquisitions (Bell et al. 2009). Even considering that the two studies above are measuring dierent types of consumption (actual food weight, whole weight equivalent), the results are remarkably dierent. If the Service de la Pche results are modied to give whole sh equivalent, the per capita consumption is 46.5 kg/year, compared to 70.3 kg/year in the Bell et al. study.
47
Another source reports that in 2003, total imports of aquatic edible products reached 1,682 t (A. Stein, personal communication, December 2008).
Guam
Fish Production
Annual coastal commercial shery production in Guam in early 1990s was estimated at 118 t by Dalzell et al. (1996), using information from the Western Pacic Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN). WPacFIN provides access to best available sheries data from the Western Pacic region.48 The network monitors the commercial landings in Guam, and quantities and values for 19822007 are available on the website. Table 18.1 gives these catches in recent years.
48
According to website information (www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacn)
Guam 241
Table 18.1: Commercial Landings of Guam Year

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
t = ton. Source: WPacFIN (2008).
Weight (million pound)

0.313 0.314 0.325 0.374 0.397 0.409 0.292 0.357 0.549 0.494 0.609 0.617 0.486 0.359 0.397 0.358 0.335 0.097
Weight (t)
141.9 142.4 147.4 169.6 180.0 185.5 132.4 161.9 249.0 224.0 276.2 279.8 220.4 162.8 180.0 162.4 151.9 44.0
Value ($ million)
0.562 0.542 0.571 0.613 0.740 0.597 0.506 0.678 1.171 1.208 1.332 1.305 0.945 0.649 0.754 0.748 0.726 0.195
The table above shows a large drop in commercial production in 2007. According to sta of the Division of Aquatics and Wildlife Resources, there was a denite reduction in commercial shing activity in 2007. Higher fuel costs are thought to be at least partially responsible (J. Gutierrez, personal communication, October 2008). Allen and Bartram (2008) state that, historically, pelagic species dominated Guams commercial landings, although reef sh became an increasing proportion beginning in 1998. Discussions with the president of the Guam Fishermens Cooperative Association indicate that all of the catches in the table for 2007 should be considered nonindustrial in scale. Although the cooperative operates a longline training vessel (the only one in the Guam shing eet in recent years), that longliner was not active in 2007 (M. Dueas, personal communication, October 2008).
242
It is estimated that the 2007 production from coastal commercial shing in Guam was 44 t worth $195,000 to the shers. In 2006, production was more than three times greater152 t worth $726,000.

The degree of economic development on Guam is very high relative to most Pacic island countries and territories. This partially explains why partitioning coastal shing activity into commercial and subsistence components is more dicult in Guam than elsewhere in the region. Because there are few fulltime commercial shers, there is little distinction between commercial, subsistence, and recreational shing, and many shing trips contribute to all three segments (Zeller et al. 2007). Annual subsistence catch for Guam in early 1990s was estimated at 472 t (Dalzell et al. 1996). According to sta of the Division of Aquatics and Wildlife Resources, production by noncommercial shing is about 40% of that from commercial shing (J. Gutierrez, personal communication, October 2008). If the commercial catch in 20032006 averaged 164 t, this statement implies an annual subsistence catch of 66 t. A recent household survey of 400 local residents showed that about 40% of the sh and other seafood consumed by the respondents came from noncommercial shers (VanBeukering 2007). If the commercial catch in 20032006 averaged 164 t, this statement implies an annual subsistence catch of 109 t. Using the above information, subsistence sheries production in Guam in the mid-2000s is estimated to be around 70 t. Based on the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production (discounting commercial prices by 30%), it is estimated that a subsistence production of 70 t would be worth $217,000 to the shers.

As mentioned above, the Guam Fishermens Cooperative Association operates a longline training vessel, but that longliner was not active in 2007. (M. Dueas, personal communication, October 2008) Several Asian longline vessels unload their catch in Guam. Longliners from Indonesia, Japan, and Taipei,China make port calls in Guam: 96 vessels in 2006 and 97 in 2007 (unpublished data, Bureau of Statistics and Plans).
Guam 243
However, these longliners do not sh in the Guam zone; many use the port of Guam as one of several ooading ports. Also, the center of operations of these longliners is obviously not Guam. Guam government agencies that monitor the longliner activities refer to their port activities as transshipping. Thus, for the purpose of the present study, it is assumed that in 2007 there was no locally based oshore shing in Guam.

There is no authorized foreign shing in Guam zone.
Freshwater Catches
According to the sta of the Division of Aquatics and Wildlife Resources, small amounts of eels and Macrobrachium are captured in Guams streams, plus a somewhat larger amount of tilapia in ponds and in Masso Reservoir (J. Gutierrez, personal communication, October 2008). Statistics are not collected on production from freshwater shing activities. For the purpose of the present study, it is assumed that in 2007, production from freshwater shing was 3 t worth $10,000.
Aquaculture harvests in 2007 came from 20 hectares of sh ponds and 8hectares of shrimp ponds, which produced 100 t of tilapia valued at $7/kg, 40 t of milksh at $7/kg, 10 t of catsh at $6.60/kg, and 12 t of shrimp at $28.75/kg (from data sent to FAO from Bureau of Statistics and Plans). The total was 162 t worth $1,391,000. The price information on the FAO form was for nal consumption. The farm-gate price of cultured shrimp in Guam was $16.50/kg in 2007 (J. Brown, personal communication, October 2008). A semi-arbitrary farm-gate price for nsh of $5/kg was assumed. From the above information, Guams 2007 aquaculture harvest was 162 t worth $948,000 at the farm gate.
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, the annual quantities and values of the shery and aquaculture harvests in 2007 were estimated (Table 18.2). These estimates (except that for subsistence) were judged to be quite accurate, relative to those in this study from other Pacic island countries and territories.
244
Table 18.2: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in Guam, 2007

Harvest Sector Coastal commercial Coastal subsistence Offshore locally based Offshore foreignbased Freshwater Aquaculture Total
t = ton.
a
Quantity (t) 44 70 0 0 3 162 279
Valuea ($) 195,000 217,000 0 0 10,000 948,000 1,370,000
The values in the table are dockside/farm-gate prices.

In 2004, the Oce of Insular Aairs of the US Department of Interior awarded a contract to the US Census Bureau to produce estimates of GDP in Guam. The primary source of information for making the estimates was the 2002 Economic Census (Rubin and Sawaya 2005a), which did not cover shing (Department of Commerce 2003). The partial 2002 GDP for the sectors covered was between $1.927billion and $2.712 billion, with a best estimate of $2.069 billion. When the $1.359billion in value added originating from the excluded sectors of agriculture [and shing], government, airlines, and private education is accounted for, total GDP rises to an estimated $3.286$4.071 billion (Rubin and Sawaya 2005a). According to ocials of the Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans, these GDP gures are considered ocial by Guam authorities because the gures appear on the US Department of the Interior website (C. Saruwatari, personal communication, October 2008).
Guam 245


Table 18.3 presents one option for estimating shing contribution to GDP in Guam. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing/aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 18.2. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The contribution of shing to GDP in 2007 in Table 18.3 ($0.9 million) represents about 0.02% of the $3,679 million GDP49 of Guam for 2002.

With a large amount of tourism and military activity and a small sheries sector, the shery exports of Guam have limited economic importance.
Table 18.3: Fishing Contribution to Guam GDP, 2007
Gross Value of Production ($, from Table 18.2) 195,000 217,000 0 10,000 948,000 Value-Added Ratio 0.60 0.75 0.00 0.85 0.65 Value Added ($) 117,000 162,750 0 8,500 616,200 904,450
GDP = gross domestic product.
49
Midpoint of the $3.286 billion to $4.071 billion range in Rubin and Sawaya (2005a).
246
Determining the precise quantity is dicult, because any bona de exports are aggregated in the statistics with the transshipped catch of foreign longliners that make port calls in Guam. The Bureau of Statistics and Plans (2008) gives the export of Fish, chilled, fresh, frozen, dried and salted as $11.8 million in 2007, and $4.8 million in 2006. Almost all shery exports, if not the entire amount, are likely to be from the transshipping longliners. Most exports of Guam listed in the ocial statistics appear to actually be reexports. For example, in 2006, the three main exports were motorcars, sh, and iron bars/rods (Bureau of Statistics and Plans 2008). A signicant shery export that appears to have not been captured in the ocial statistics is shrimp broodstock. An aquaculture specialist at the University of Guam indicates that in 2007, $140,000 worth of shrimp broodstock was exported (J. Brown, personal communication, October 2008).

There is currently no authorized foreign shing in the Guam zone and no access fees are paid. US vessels are considered to be domestic vessels.

Any shing licensing fees paid by vessels based in Guam go to US government agencies, not to the Government of Guam.
Employment
Guams 2000 census is of limited use in determining the importance of sheries employment. The most detailed disaggregation is the category Agriculture, forestry, shing and hunting, and mining, in which 212 people were employed in 2000 (Bureau of Statistics and Plans 2005). Fishery employment in 2007 was given as 1,565 full-time shers, 60 part-time shers, and 170 occasional shers. All these jobs were lled by men (from data sent to FAO from the Bureau of Statistics and Plans).
Guam 247
The number of full-time shers stated above seems very large compared to the results of other surveys. For example, the Guam Fishermens Cooperative membership includes 164 full-time and part-time shers and it processes and markets an estimated 80% of the local commercial catch; nearly all Guam domestic shers hold jobs outside the shery; and domestic shing in Guam supplements family subsistence, which is gained by a combination of smallscale gardening, ranching, and wage work (Allen and Bartram 2008). The household survey mentioned earlier (VanBeukering 2007) found that approximately 40% of local residents shed on a regular basis, which was identied to be more important as a social activity rather than an incomegenerating activity.
Fish Consumption
Production from coastal sheries (commercial and subsistence) in Guam in early 1990s equated to an annual per capita sh supply of 4.4 kg (Gillett and Preston 1997). In early 2000, annual consumption was estimated at 60 lbs (27.2 kg) per capita (Allen and Bartram [2008] citing Amesbury [2006]). The household survey (VanBeukering 2007) showed that most households consumed sh approximately twice a week. This had not changed a great deal in the last decade. However, presently, more than half of all consumed sh comes from stores or restaurants, while around 40% comes from immediate or extended family or friends. Some of this is imported sh. Annual seafood imports in 2002 were estimated at 20.9 kg/person (Zeller et al. 2007).
New Caledonia
Fish Production
Coastal commercial sheries production in 1992 and 1993 averaged 981 t worth $3,968,650, according to Dalzell et al. (1996) using the ocial New Caledonia catch statistics. Declared commercial production in recent years (SMMPM 2008a, SMMPM 2008b) was 531 t in 2005 worth CFP268 million (at the point of rst sale), 679 t in 2006 (worth CFP373 million), and 679 t in 2007.
New Caledonia 249
Discussions with sheries ocials of the South Province indicate that the declared catch is substantially less than actual catches. Dupont et al. (2004), a report that synthesizes many aspects of sheries data, is likely to be the most informative source for the overall production from New Caledonia sheries (B. Fao, personal communication, August 2008). Dupont et al. (2004) estimated annual production for 2002 and 2003 at 1,200 t from 492 shers with 238 shing vessels. The average price at rst sale for production from coastal commercial sheries in 2006 was CFP549/kg (SMMPM 2007). Selectively using the above information, it is estimated that in 2007 the coastal commercial sheries production in New Caledonia was 1,350 t worth CFP756 million at the point of rst sale.

In 1992 and 1993, average annual coastal subsistence catch was estimated at 2,500 t worth $9,000,000 (Dalzell et al. 1996). In 2002 and 2003, the annual average subsistence plus recreational production was given at 3,500 t by Dupont et al. (2004). In this study, catches from recreational shing are considered production for home consumption and, therefore, a component of subsistence sheries. Although the population of the territory has increased about 7% between 2003 and 2008, individuals intimately familiar with the shing situation in New Caledonia feel that there has been no increase in subsistence shing (R. Etaix-Bonnin, personal communication, August 2008). Thus, it is estimated that in 2007 the subsistence sheries production was 3,500 t worth CFP1,372 million, using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production (discounting by 30%) to impute the average price for subsistence sh in 2007 at CFP392/kg.

There were 247 domestic tuna longliners licensed to sh in 2005 and 27 in 2007, of which, 23 vessels were active (Anon 2008e). Oshore production of longline tuna and associated species in 2005 was estimated (SMMPM 2008a, 2008b) at 2,473 t worth CFP870 million at point of rst sale, 2,109 t worth CFP740 million at point of rst sale in 2006, and 2,122 t in 2007. FFAs estimate for 2007 was 1,770 t of tuna worth $5,566,067 (CFP445 million in destination markets) (FFA 2008).
250
From the above, it is estimated that the locally based oshore sheries production in New Caledonia in 2006 was 2,109 t worth CFP740 million, and in 2007 was 2,122 t worth CFP745 million, both at the point of rst sale.
Foreign-based Offshore Catches

No licenses to sh have been issued to foreign vessels since early 2001 (Anon 2008e).
Freshwater Catches
Little information is available on freshwater shing in New Caledonia. An ocial of Service de la Marine Marchande et des Peches Maritime indicates that all such catches are for subsistence purposes and consist mainly of eels, Macrobrachium, and some small species of nsh (R. Etaix-Bonnin, personal communication, August 2008). A crude estimate of the annual harvest would be about 10 t. Valuing this production similar to the method for coastal subsistence sheries production above, the 10 t would be worth CFP3,992,000.
Aquaculture in New Caledonia is mainly farming shrimp and oysters, with the shrimp representing over 95% of the value. Ocial harvest statistics for 2006 were total aquaculture production (shrimp and oyster) of 2,365 t worth CFP1,666 million at the point of rst sale (SMMPM 2008a). The corresponding gures for 2007 were total aquaculture production (shrimp, oyster, freshwater crustaceans) of 1,931 t worth CFP1,443.7 million (Anon 2008e).
Summary of Harvests
A crude approximation of the annual harvests and values of the aquaculture harvest in 2007 is given in Table 19.1. It is interesting to note that in the table above, the total value of the aquaculture harvest is close to that of coastal subsistence, and that the total value of coastal commercial shing is also close to that of oshore locally based.
New Caledonia 251
Table 19.1: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in New Caledonia, 2007
CFP = Pacific franc, t = ton. Source: Consultants estimates.
Quantity (t) 1,350 3,500 2,122 0 10 1,931 8,913
Value (CFP) 756,000,000 1,372,000,000 745,000,000 0 3,992,000 1,443,700,000 4,399,092,000

It is not possible to determine the ocial contribution of shing to New Caledonias GDP from the information available in the public domain. The value added from shing is aggregated with that from agriculture, hunting, forestry, and livestock. The 2007 GDP of New Caledonia was estimated50 at CFP768.1 billion.

According to sta of the Institut de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (ISEE), a study in 1993 determined that the intermediate consumption of shing activities in New Caledonia is 73% of the total value of production and that of aquaculture is 71% (A. Durand, personal communication, September 2008). The VARs used by the ISEE for shing and aquaculture are, therefore, 0.27 and 0.29, respectively. The method used for calculating the contribution to GDP is presumably gross value of production from shing multiplied by 0.27 and gross value of production from aquaculture multiplied by 0.29 to obtain their respective contributions. The gross values of sheries/aquaculture production used by ISEE for the calculations are not available in the public domain.
50
By the Institut de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques. Available: www.isee.nc
252

Table 19.3 presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP in New Caledonia. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of ve types of shing/aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 19.1. This approach determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). Some work on VARs for New Caledonia has been done by Dupont et al. (2004) and those for small boats appear in Table 19.2.
Table 19.2: Value-Added Ratios for Small Boat Fishing in New Caledonia
Activity/Location Outboard-engine vessels 3.44.5 meters in length Outboard-engine vessels 5.55.5 meters in length Inboard-engine vessels 78 meters in length Inboard-engine vessels 8.411.96 meters in length
Source: Derived from Dupont et al. (2004).
Value-Added Ratio 0.65 0.80 0.65 0.60

Gross Value of Production (CFP, from Table 19.1) 756,000,000 1,372,000,000 745,000,000 3,992,000 1,443,700,000 Value-Added Ratio 0.65 0.80 0.20 0.90 0.45 Value Added (CFP) 491,400,000 1,097,600,000 149,000,000 3,592,800 649,665,000 2,391,257,800
CFP = Pacific franc, GDP = gross domestic product. Source: Table 19.1 above and consultants estimates.
New Caledonia 253
Using this VAR information and the value of production from the various types of shing and aquaculture in New Caledonia (from Table 19.1.), the contributions to GDP were determined (Table 19.3). The approach in Table 19.3 is not intended to replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results obtained can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication. The contribution to GDP in 2007 from shing/aquaculture of CFP2.4billion represents 0.3% of the New Caledonia GDP (CFP768.1billion).

Values of shery exports and total exports are shown in Table 19.4.

No licenses to sh have been issued to foreign vessels since early 2001 (Anon 2008e).
Table 19.4: Exports of Fishery Products and Total Exports (CFP million)
Item Total fishery exports Tuna Shrimp Bche de mer Trochus Total New Caledonia exports Fishery exports share of total exports (%)
CFP = Pacific franc. Source: Institut de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (www.isee.nc).
2006 18,892 1,231 15,583 1,156 727 788,371 2.4
2007 13,651 1,046 9,287 2,535 616 1,248,425 1.1
254

There are both subsidies and taxes applied to commercial shing activity, but this information is not readily available (B. Fao, Personal communication, August 2008).
Employment
Employment gures for New Caledonia sheries during 2002/2003 were: lagoon and coastal commercial sheries, 238 boats and 492 shers; and industrial sheries, 29 boats and 288 salaried people including 156 onboard. No estimates were made for subsistence and recreational sheries (Dupont 2004). In 2007, ocial statistics show that 509 registered commercial shers made trips for lagoon and reef shing and 170 made trips for oshore shing (SMMPM 2008b). The number of nonregistered commercial shers is about equal to those that are registered, according to an individual familiar with New Caledonia sheries. Unpublished data from the SPC indicate that 500 people have jobs directly related to aquaculture in New Caledonia (A. Teitelbaum, personal communication, August 2008). The approximately 1,000 people employed in commercial shing and aquaculture represent about 1.2% of the 80,685 economically active people in the territory.51 Economically active is dened as being those over 14 years of age working during the week prior to the survey. A survey in three provinces showed that 50% of respondents shed on a subsistence basis 13 times per week (Virly 2000).
Fish Consumption
An estimated 4,632 t of sh and crustaceans from both domestic sheries and imports were consumed by households in 2003 (Dupont et al. 2004). Annual per capita consumption of sh and crustaceans was 21.6 kg. Annual per capita consumption in early 2000 was estimated at 25.6kg, 54.8 kg in rural areas and 10.7 kg in urban areas, based on Information from the HIES conducted in 1991, supplemented by independent analysis (Bell et al. 2009).
51
Institut de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques. Available: www.isee.nc
Northern Mariana Islands
256
Fish Production
Annual coastal commercial shery production in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) in 1994 was estimated at 141 t worth $613,804 by Dalzell et al. (1996), using information from the Western Pacic Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN). WPacFIN provides access to best available sheries data from the Western Pacic region.52 The network monitors the commercial landings in CNMI. Quantities and values for 19822007 are available on the website. Table 20.1 gives these catches in recent years.
Table 20.1: Commercial Landings of CNMI
Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Source: WPacFIN (2008).
Weight (million pound) 0.440 0.331 0.382 0.373 0.398 0.420 0.518 0.475 0.523 0.426 0.434 0.434 0.490 0.381 0.367 0.551 0.537 0.510
Weight (ton) 199.5 150.1 173.2 169.2 180.5 190.5 234.9 215.4 237.2 193.2 196.8 196.8 222.2 172.8 166.4 249.9 243.5 231.3
Value ($ million) 0.735 0.616 0.753 0.778 0.878 0.910 1.132 1.117 1.264 1.052 1.003 1.083 1.132 0.855 0.821 1.160 1.059 0.950
CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
52
According to website information (www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacn)
Northern Mariana Islands 257
Discussions with sheries specialists in the CNMI indicate that all the 2007 catches should be considered nonindustrial in scale. Although two longliners began operating in 2007, they participated in several types of shing, including bottom shing, and their 2007 longline production was not very signicant (R. Roberto, personal communication, October 2008). It is estimated that the 2007 production from coastal commercial shing in CNMI was 231 t worth $950,000 to the shers.

Subsistence production in early 1990s was estimated at 2,825 t worth $12.3million (Dalzell et al. 1996). Subsistence production in 1950 was estimated at 456 t by Zeller et al. (2007), based on a 1947 statement that The native population of Saipan is somewhat in excess of 4,600 persons, and since they traditionally consume nearly a pound of sh per day, there is a steady market for shery products (Smith 1947). This statement of unknown accuracy and the associated estimate of 456 t in subsistence catches are keys in the Zeller et al. (2007) data anchor point. This and other points were used to reconstruct coastal catch data for 19822002. Their catch estimate for noncommercial sheries in 2002 was 106 t. Many recent estimates of subsistence sheries production53 in the CNMI use the production of well-monitored commercial sheries as basis for determining the noncommercial component: Commercial catches were multiplied by 1.7 to get total catches, by Radtke and Davis (1995). A commercial to subsistence ratio of 1:1 for 19932002 was used by Zeller et al. (2007). Commercial catches were multiplied by 1.3 to get total catches, by VanBeukering (2006). Commercial catches should be multiplied by a factor of 1.3 to get the total (commercial and subsistence) catches, according to sta of CNMIs Division of Fish and Wildlife (R. Roberto and M. Tenorio, personal communication, October 2008).
Based on 2007 production from coastal commercial shing of 231 t, subsistence sheries production is estimated to be 70 t.
53
For the purpose of the present study, the catches from recreational shing are considered as production for home consumption and, therefore, as a component of subsistence sheries.
258
An alternative approach is to consider the various types of sheries monitoring (none of which specically focus on subsistence sheries production) and adjust for subsistence components that are not covered and are aggregated with the commercial catch. A sheries data expert with long historical involvement in monitoring CNMI sheries adjusted the Saipan creel data, estimated the Saipan subsistence component in the total boat catch, and expanded these estimates to cover all the CNMI. This resulted in an estimate of 220 t for subsistence shing in all of CNMI (D. Hamm, personal communication, December 2008). A subsistence catch of 220 t is small compared to the Dalzell et al. (1996) estimate of 2,825 t. However, according to P. Dalzell (P. Dalzell, personal communication, December 2008), leakage of sh from the Zuanich tuna facility in CNMI could have been the source of the inated subsistence shery estimate. Using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production (discounting commercial prices by 30%), it is estimated that a subsistence production of 220 t would be worth $631,700 to the shers.

Although two longliners began operating in 2007, they participated in several types of shing, including bottom shing, and their 2007 longline production was not very signicant (R. Roberto, personal communication, October 2008). For the purpose of the present study, it is assumed that in 2007, there was virtually no locally based oshore shing in CNMI.

There is no authorized foreign shing in CNMI zone.
Freshwater Catches
There are no freshwater sheries in CNMI.
The aquaculture specialist at the Cooperative Research Extension and Education Service of Northern Marianas College (M. Ogo, personal communication, October 2008) kindly provided the following information on recent aquaculture production in CNMI.
Shrimp culture (Penaeus vannamei) started in 2005. In 2007, production was about 24,000 pounds (10.9 t), with a farm-gate price of $8/pound ($17.60/kg)a premium price for live/fresh shrimp to the large local tourist industry. Tilapia are also farmed, with production of about 500 pounds (227kg)/month, which it is sold mainly at a farmers market. The farm-gate price is about $2.20/pound ($4.84/kg). Using the above information, 2007 aquaculture production in CNMI is taken to be 14 t, with a farm-gate price of $205,000.
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of the annual quantities and values of the shery and aquaculture harvests in 2007 was made (Table20.2). The coastal commercial estimate above is judged to be accurate, relative to those in this study from other Pacic island countries and territories.

The national accounts of CNMI are at a rudimentary stage of development. In 2004, the Oce of Insular Aairs of the US Department of Interior awarded a contract to the US Census Bureau to produce estimates of GDP in CNMI.
Table 20.2:Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest in CNMI, 2007
a
Quantity (t) 231 220 0 0 0 14 465
Valuea ($) 950,000 631,700 0 0 0 205,000 1,786,700
CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, t = ton. The values in the table are dockside/farm-gate prices. Source: Consultants estimates.
260
The primary source of information for making the estimates was the 2002 Economic Census (Rubin and Sawaya 2005b), which did not cover shing (Census Bureau 2008). The partial GDP for the industries covered in the 2002 census was $752.6 million$966.9 million, and $895.0 million$1,109.3 million when the value added from excluded sectors of agriculture [and shing] and government was included (Rubin and Sawaya 2005b).


Table 20.3 below presents an option for estimating shing contribution to GDP in CNMI. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of the ve types of shing/aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 20.2. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The contribution of shing to GDP in 2007 estimated in Table 20.3 ($1.2 million) represented about 0.1% of the $1,002 million GDP estimate54 for CNMI for 2002. Zeller et al. (2007) estimated a shing contribution (not including aquaculture) in 2002 of $1,022,000. Compared to the present study (which covered a period 5 years later), the Zeller estimate of the contribution from coastal commercial ($391,000) appears to be less and that from noncommercial ($631,000) to be greater.

There are no signicant commercial exports of shery products from CNMI.55 Any sh sent overseas is largely for family and friends in Hawaii and mainlandUS.
54 55
Midpoint of the $895.0 million to $1,109.3 million range in Rubin and Sawaya (2005b). A minor point is that there is trochus in CNMI and at least some is exported, e.g., 15 t in 1989 (Gillett 1995).
Table 20.3: Fishing Contribution to CNMI GDP in 2007

Gross Value of Production ($, from Table 20.2) 950,000 631,700 0 0 205,000
Source: Authors estimates.
Value-Added Ratio 0.60 0.80 0 0 0.45
Value Added ($) 570,000 505,360 0 0 92,250 1,167,610
CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, GDP = gross domestic product.
The large tourism industry induces substantial imports of seafood. In addition to canned sh, CNMI imports fresh sh from Palau, FSM, and Marshall Islands. Imports of reef sh into Saipan have been rapidly increasing, particularly since 1998 (VanBeukering 2006).

There is currently no authorized foreign shing in the CNMI zone and no access fees are paid. US vessels are considered domestic vessels.

Any shing licensing fees paid by vessels based in CNMI go to US government agencies, not to the CNMI.
Employment
According to the 2000 census, there were 44,471 people in the labor force, of whom 42,753 were employed, with 614 of them in farming, shing, and forestry (CNMI Department of Commerce website: www.commerce.gov.mp).
262
The 2005 HIES showed that 27,545 people were then in the labor force, of whom 24,449 were employed, with 894 of them in farming, shing, and forestry. In sheries, the number of full-time, part-time, and charter boats increased each year in the 1990s. In 1999, there were over 700 registered vessels, of which 25% were engaged in full or part-time commercial shing (Masga 2002). There were an estimated 68 participants in pelagic shing in CNMI in 2004 (WPRFMC 2006). Fishing is an important cultural activity in Saipan, more for pleasure than for consumption or sales. Of all the people surveyed in 2006, 20% were active shers who went shing once every week or two. For some people, giving sh to family and friends is a way of showing that they care; for others, it is a tradition (VanBeukering 2006). The 2005 HIES showed that $888,776 was spent on production from domestic commercial sheries. The imputed amount spent on domestic subsistence sheries was not available from the HIES.
Fish Consumption
Annual per capita consumption was approximately 166 kg in late 1940s, according to Zeller et al. (2007) citing Smith (1947). In early 1990s, production from coastal sheries (commercial and subsistence) equated to an annual per capita sh supply of 66.5 kg (Gillett and Preston 1997). This gure was partially based on the Dalzell et al. (2006) estimate of 2,825 t per year from CNMIs subsistence sheries, an amount that appears unreasonably large. Unpublished HIES data (kindly provided by SPCs Statistics and Demography Programme) show that the amount of sh from domestic commercial shing and canned imports equated to 4.7 kg per capita per year. This amount does not include the production from domestic subsistence sheries nor non-canned imported sh. It can be said that estimating the per capita shery consumption for CNMI is complicated by the large amount of canned and non-canned seafood imports, the presence of a large tourist population, and a subsistence shery that was not covered by the 2005 HIES or explicitly by current shery monitoring programs.
Pitcairn Islands
Fish Production
Pitcairn Islands annual commercial sheries production was zero in early 1990s (Dalzell et al. 1996). However, the islanders do occasionally trade with passing ships (E. Dunn, personal communication, December 2008). Sharples (1994) described the commercial transactions: Trading in sh has thus become very important to the Islanders who actively seek opportunity to do so. Radios are monitored constantly for indication of ships in the vicinity and if heard a vessel is called and encouraged to stop to trade goodssh, fruit, vegetables and, if a cruise vessel, carvings and other souvenir crafts. Goods are usually sold to cruise ships with sh generally fetching
264
US$5.00/kilo regardless of species. Lobsters, when available, fetch closer to US$10.00. With the freighters that stop sh is usually bartered and the value received diers considerably from vessel to vessel. American vessels are popular because they will often swap kilo for kilo, sh for high quality meat. Asian vessels tend to swap dry goods. Pitcairners usually go aboard and bargain individually but may at times (particularly with cruise ships) have to lump their sh together then share out the proceeds (in their own special fashion) later. No statistics are kept on these commercial sh transactions, but the implication in the statement by the Oce of the Commissioner above is that the quantity is less than that from shing for subsistence. Coastal commercial production may best be estimated by rst focusing on subsistence shing, for which there is at least some basis for making an estimate.

Pitcairns annual subsistence sheries production was 8 tons (t) in early 1990s (Dalzell et al. 1996). Sporadic information on sh catches is available from the islands newspaper, the Pitcairn Miscellany. The December 2005 issue included a December 2005 Fishing Report by Lea which stated56 O rocks 99; From boats 189; Tuna 52; Cuta 2; Shark 0. Reports are not always available; the April 2006 issue of the Pitcairn Miscellany states no report this month, sorry. Fishing is conducted on the narrow fringing reefs and reef slope around Pitcairn Islands, either from dinghies or from the rocky shore. Almost all shing is conducted with hand-lines. There are several imported dieselpowered long boats and several small outboard-powered skis. Long boats and skis are occasionally used for trolling tuna and other coastal pelagic sh (Adams and Langley 2005). Approximately 50 people have been resident on Pitcairn Islands in recent years. Fish is very important in the diet. Domestic shing produces virtually all the sh consumed. Consumption is estimated at 140 kg per capita per year (whole sh equivalent), which is quite high and approximates that estimated for Kiribati and Tuvalu (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). This consumption would equate to a subsistence catch of 7 t/year.
56
These numbers are presumed to be sh numbers.
Pitcairn Island 265
The catch taken for commercial purposes is less than this, but being very important to the islanders may be about 5 t. The price for sh sold to ships and yachts reported by Sharples (1994) was $5/kg, regardless of species. No new price information is available, so a semi-arbitrary price of $7.50 (NZ$10.20)/kg was assigned. This price was discounted by 30% to value subsistence production. On this basis, in 2007, the commercial catch of 5 t was worth NZ$51,000 and the subsistence catch of 7 t was worth NZ$50,000.

There is no locally based oshore shing in Pitcairn Islands.

Adams and Langley (2005) indicate that since 1990, longline shing activity in the vicinity of the Pitcairn Islands zone has been dominated by the Taipei,China distant-water eet. There has also been limited shing activity by French Polynesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, and most recently, the Peoples Republic of China. Information is only readily available on the rst agreement allowing foreign-based oshore vessels and the latest agreement. The rst agreement allowed up to 20 Japanese tuna longline vessels to sh in Pitcairn Islands waters in return for goods and services to the islanders and license fees based on a formula linking catches, species composition, and weighted species prices (Anon 1987). The latest agreement was in December 2006: a longliner of unspecied nationality was licensed to sh for a at fee of $1,000 (D. Evans, personal communication, December 2008). Apparently there were just a few days of shing. Estimates of the quantities and values of catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the WCPFC area for 19972007 were made by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC. The only catch report in this data set for the Pitcairn Islands zone was 5 t of albacore worth NZ$16,086 in 2005 by a longline vessel. The information suggests that in 2007, there was no foreign-based oshore catch in the Pitcairn Islands zone.
Freshwater Catches
There are no freshwater sheries in Pitcairn.
266
There are no aquaculture activities in Pitcairn.
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of the annual quantities and values of the shery harvests in 2007 was made (Table 21.1).
Table 21.1: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest, Pitcairn, 2007
NZ$ = New Zealand dollar, t = ton. Source: Consultants estimates.
Quantity (t) 5 7 0 0 0 0 12
Value (NZ$) 51,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 101,000

Macroeconomic indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP) or gross national income (GNI) are not produced for the Pitcairn Islands.

Table 21.2 below presents an option for estimating the shing contribution to GDP in Pitcairn Islands. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of the shing activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 21.1. This approach also determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3).
Pitcairn Island 267
Table 21.2: Fishing Contribution to the Pitcairn GDP, 2007

Gross Value of Production (NZ$, from Table 21.1) 51,000 50,000 0 0 0 Value-Added Ratio 0.65 0.95 0 0 0 Value Added (NZ$) 33,150 47,500 0 0 0 80,650
GDP = gross domestic product, NZ$ = New Zealand dollar. Source: Consultants estimates.

The main exports of Pitcairn Islands are fruits, vegetables, curios, and stamps (CIA 2008). The sh sold to ships and yachts could also be considered export. They are sold to foreigners, usually purchased in foreign currency, and mostly consumed away from Pitcairn Islands. The value of these shery exports equated to the value of the commercial catch, NZ$51,000.

There is currently no authorized foreign shing in the Pitcairn Islands zone. The annual budget for Pitcairn is around NZ$9 million (Green 2008). If the December 2006 access fees were received in 2007, that money would have been 0.015% of the annual budget.

Apart from fees for foreign shing access, no information is available on government revenue from the sheries sector.
268
Employment
Sharples (1994) provided details of shing activities in the 1990s. There were 8 or 9 hard-core shers on the island with another 3 or 4 who also shed fairly regularly. On any ne day that is not booked for some public duty or communal activity, 6 to 9 skis were out shing, often with 1 or 2 shers per ski. Women and men shed regularly from the rocks, mainly for a sh locally called nanwi, for the evening meal. If a large vessel was expected (in particular, a cruise vessel), shing eort increased. The hard-core would be out shing from dawn to dusk. Any excuse to launch the long-boats (passing vessels being the best) was used to assemble a shing crowd, which included some who did not sh much (Sharples 1994). The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA 2008) reported on a matter that had implications for the involvement in shing activities. In October 2004, more than one-quarter of Pitcairn Islands small labor force was arrested, putting the economy in a bind.
Fish Consumption
An annual per capita sh supply in early 1990s of 80 kg was estimated by Gillett and Preston (1997). That estimate, however, was erroneously based on a population of 100 people. The 1992 population of Pitcairn Islands was 54 (Pitcairn Islands Study Center 2008). Using the revised population, annual per capita sh supply would have been 148 kg.
Tokelau
Fish Production
Various reports (Dalzell et al. 1996; Passeld 1998; and the 2001 census [Anon 2003]) indicate that there is no commercial sheries production in Tokelau. In view of this information, all coastal shing in Tokelau is considered to be subsistence shing.

Annual Tokelau subsistence shery production in early 1990s was estimated at 191 tons (t) worth $104,509, by Dalzell et al. (1996) based
270
on Hooper (1984). Several estimates of coastal sheries production have been made for Fakaofo Atoll. Some of these are shown below, with extrapolations to cover all three atolls, assuming that Fakaofo has onethird of the population. An annual total of 28 t of sh was required to satisfy the nutritional requirements of the 665 residents of Tokelau (Gulbrandsen 1977). Thus, 84 t would be needed for all of Tokelau. The weekly catch was about 1.5 t in 1981, according to a 5-week survey on Fakaofo by Hooper (1984). This would mean a total of 234 t annually for all of Tokelau. Gillett and Toloa (1987) monitored all shery catches on Fakaofo for a 12-week period from June to September 1986 and estimated that 23 t of sh was landed (299 t for all of Tokelau). Total annual Fakaofo shery production of 150 t, and 450 t for all of Tokelau, was estimated by Passeld (1998).
Due to increasing frequency of ship transport to Samoa (almost once every two weeks), sh are being sent more often from Tokelau to Samoa in recent years, mainly for family and friends, and for onward shipment to New Zealand (F. Toloa, personal communication, December 2008). Fish is rarely sold in Tokelau. Consequently, placing a price on subsistence shery production is dicult. Frozen chicken cannot be compared because it comes from New Zealand, a location that is two ocean voyages away and requires expensive freezing in Tokelau. Some shery products from Tokelau are sold in Samoa, which is the nearest market. In 2007, market and roadside sh prices in Samoa were ST12.41/kg (NZ$6.44/kg) (Fisheries Division 2008d). Taking the 2007 Samoa commercial sh prices and discounting by 60% for sh preservation and transport from Tokelau to Samoa would indicate a price of NZ$2.58 for subsistence sh in Tokelau. Passelds estimate of 450 t catch for 1998, together with the probable level of recent exports (described below) and the recent decrease in Tokelaus population, suggests an annual per capita consumption for 2007 that appears improbably large. It is estimated that the 2007 subsistence shery production in Tokelau was 375 t worth NZ$967,500.
Tokelau 271

There is no locally based oshore shing in Tokelau.

Fishing eort in Tokelau by foreign licensed vessels and licensing revenues has uctuated substantially (Anon 2007d). No facilities exist in Tokelau for transshipping or processing large-scale commercial tuna catches. All catches are ooaded outside Tokelau. Estimates of quantities and values of catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the WCPFC area for 19972007 were made by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC). In these data, prices are all delivered prices in that they reect the price received at entry to the country in which they are usually sold whether for processing or consumption. Also, bycatch, which is an important component of oshore sheries, is not included. Catches by foreign vessels in the Tokelau zone are shown in Table 22.1. The total oshore catch consists of the longline tuna catch (plus 30% bycatch) and the purse seine tuna catch (plus 5% bycatch). Table 22.2 gives the value of the tuna catch in Table 22.1, adjusted for transport costs as noted in the table. The annual average catch for 20022006 was 2,630 t worth NZ$3,922,000. The 2007 catch does not appear to be typical for foreignbased oshore shing.
Table 22.1: Foreign-Based Offshore Catches in the Tokelau Zone (t)
Item Longline tuna catches Purse seine tuna catches Total offshore catch (longline and purse seine; tuna and bycatch)
t = ton. Source: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008) and consultants estimates.
2002 234 6,722 7,362
2003 143 25 212
2004 202 983 1,295
2005 57 5,088 5,417
2006 0 121 1,177
2007 2 300 318
272
Table 22.2: Value of Foreign-Based Offshore Catches in the Tokelau Zone

Item Value of longline catch ($) Value of purse seine catch ($) 2002 2003 2004 730,301 2005 225,756 2006 1,931 2007 14,708 547,811 431,118 5,292,359 25,079
917,987 4,475,199 1,098,586 403,623
Value of total tuna 5,840,170 456,197 1,648,288 4,700,955 1,100,517 418,331 catch ($) Adjusted value of tuna catch ($)a 5,548,161 433,388 1,565,873 4,465,907 1,045,492 397,415
Adjusted value of 11,928,546 745,427 2,364,469 6,341,588 1,610,057 540,484 tuna catch (NZ$)a
NZ$ = New Zealand dollar.
a
Values have been reduced by 5% for transport to the major market, Pago Pago.
Source: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008) and consultants estimates.
Freshwater Catches
There is no freshwater shery in Tokelau.
There is no aquaculture activity in Tokelau.
Summary of Harvests
From the above sections, a crude approximation of the annual quantities and values of the shery harvests in 2007 was made (Table 22.3).

Macroeconomic indicators, such as gross domestic product (GDP) or gross national income (GNI), are not produced, according to the nancial adviser to the Government of Tokelau (A. Shaw, personal communication, October 2008).
Tokelau 273
Table 22.3: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest, Tokelau, 2007

NZ$ = New Zealand dollar, t = ton. Source: Tables 22.1 and 22.2.
Quantity (t) 0 375 0 318 0 0 693
Value (NZ$) 0 967,500 0 540,484 0 0 1,701,484

Table 22.4 presents an option for estimating shing contribution to GDP in Tokelau. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of the shing/aquaculture activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 22.3. This approach determines the value added by using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3).
Table 22.4: Fishing Contribution to Tokelau GDP, 2007
Gross Value of Production (NZ$, from Table 22.3) 0 967,500 0 0 0
NZ$ = New Zealand dollar. Source: Consultants estimates.
Value-Added Ratio 0 0.75 0 0 0
Value Added (NZ$) 0 725,625 0 0 0 725,625
274

Tokelau exports are not monitored (A. Shaw, personal communication, October 2008). Most people have freezers and send seafood to friends and relatives abroad. A 1998 survey showed that some people send seafood out on every boat (i.e., approximately monthly), while others send seafood only once or twice per year. Exports on the trip leaving Fakaofo on 5 August 1998 were approximately 450 kg, which can be extrapolated to 5.4 t for Fakaofo for the year (Passeld 1998). The major exports were yingsh and giant clams (frozen and dried). Dried sh are also exported. Recently, transport between Samoa and Tokelau has improved considerably. In 2008, there was a trip nearly every 23 weeks. The on-board freezer, with a capacity of about 6 t of sh, is often full with shery products (F. Toloa, personal communication, December 2008). This could equate to around 125 t of shery exports from Tokelau annually.

Oshore shing in Tokelau waters is undertaken by foreign shing vessels of distant-water shing nations and neighboring Pacic island states (Anon 2007d). Vessels licensed in recent years include New Zealand and US purse seiners, and a few Vanuatu longliners. The amount of money received for this shing (referred to by the Government of Tokelau as EEZ fees) is given in Table 22.5. For the 2007/08 nancial year, the Tokelau recurrent budget was about NZ$17 million (MFAT 2008). Besides EEZ fees, the only source of local revenue for the government is local licensing and stamps and coins, which together amounted to NZ$54,000 in 2006 and NZ$98,000 in 2007 (Government of Tokelau, unpublished data). Fishing access fees amounted to 85% of the governments local revenue in 2006 and 95% in 2007. Average annual catch of the foreign-based oshore vessels in Tokelau waters for 20022006 was 2,630 t worth NZ$3,922,000 (see section 22.1). Average annual amount for licensing fees for the same period from Table 22.5 above was NZ$1,102,833. Access fees, therefore, represented 28% of the value of catch. This is very high compared to other countries in the region.
Tokelau 275
Table 22.5: Fishing Access Fees Received by Tokelau

Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
NZ$ = New Zealand dollar. Source: Tokelau Government, unpublished data.
Amount (NZ$000) 1,597 1,545 1,900 289 569 303 2,011 1,181
Total revenue from the EEZ seems low. In Tuvalu, the purse seine shing conditions are somewhat better and the zone is larger, but Tokelaus zone is located closer to the canneries in Pago Pago (for eets that so dispose of their catch). Tuvalus total shing access fees were about NZ$26 million in 20022006, over ve times those of Tokelau. Appendix 4, on the eects of climate change on sheries, suggests that expected changes could have a positive eect on skipjack purse seine shing and associated access fees in the Tokelau EEZ.

Apart from fees for foreign shing access, no information is available on other forms of government revenue from the sheries sector, such as sh export taxes or shing registration fees. There is no mention of such revenue in any of the documents on Tokelau sheries.
Employment
An SPC-FFA survey to gather information for drafting a national tuna shery development and management plan was carried out in August and September 2003 (Chapman et al. 2003). Data on household participation in shing are given in Table 22.6.
276
Table 22.6: Tokelau Household Participation in Fishing, 2003

Fishing Households Share of Total (%) 100.0 98.3 100.0 99.3
Atoll Atafu Fakaofo Nukunonu Total
Number of Households Surveyed 46 58 49 153
Number of People Covered 299 320 280 899
People per Household 6.5 5.5 5.7 5.9
Households that Fish 46 57 49 152
Source: Chapman et al. (2003).
Table 22.6 shows that virtually all Tokelauans depended on harvesting marine products. Males were the main household members involved in shing activities. Few females took part in shing outside the reef. Women at Nukunonu were not involved in shing outside the reef at all. Females accounted for just over half the reef gleaning eort, and around 40% of diving eort, with most of the diving eort directed at harvesting clams (Chapman et al. 2003). Time spent on shing is considerable. In 1998, the average household spent 14 person hours/week shing, with women spending an average of 2 hours, and men 12 hours. In 90% of households interviewed, men spent some time shing every week. In 60% of households, women also spent some time shing (Passeld 1998).
Fish Consumption
Production from coastal sheries in Tokelau in early 1990s equated to an annual per capita sh supply of 119.4 kg (Gillett and Preston 1997). In 1998, estimated consumption on Fakaofo equated to 248 kg per capita per year, whole sh equivalent, or a total consumption of around 140 t/year. An average of 380 grams of seafood was eaten on average 12.6 times per week, or at 73% of all meals consisting of some animal protein content (Passeld 1998). The information in the present study375 t coastal production, 125 t annual exports, and a population in 2007 of 1,170indicates a consumption of 214 kg per person per year, which is quite large.
Wallis and Futuna
Fish Production
Coastal commercial production was estimated at 296 tons (t) worth $2,316,729, by Dalzell et al. (1996), based on 1994 data and discussions with a sheries ocer. This estimate became institutionalized. From 1998 to 2005, the entire marine sh catch of Wallis and Futuna in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) statistics was 296 t. In 2006, the marine sh catch in the FAO statistics jumped to 596 t (FAO 2008). A detailed inventory of the shers, shing gear, and shing practices of Wallis and Futuna was undertaken in 2001 (Fourmy 2002), but no catch estimates were made.
278
A household income and expenditure survey (HIES) carried out between June 2005 and May 2006 (Buere 2006) showed that 104 t of shery products were purchased, and 734 t of fresh sh and an unknown amount of other seafood were caught during the year. The prices/kg used in the HIES were CFP900 for fresh sh and CFP1,200 for other seafood. To use the above information to make an estimate of the sheries production of Wallis and Futuna, certain considerations and assumptions were required, some of which had a weak factual basis. It was assumed that for estimating sh production, the recent HIES was more accurate and relevant than data derived from a discussion with a sheries ocer 14 years ago and a review of the economy covering an annual period 15 years ago. It was also assumed that the amount of other seafood for subsistence purposes was ve times that of other seafood that is sold. Finally, subsistence production was valued using the farm-gate system of valuing subsistence production, discounting commercial prices by 30%. Using the above information, it is estimated that the annual coastal commercial catch for domestic consumption in the mid-2000s was 104 t valued at CFP100 million. To the above coastal commercial sheries production for domestic consumption, shery exports must be added. The exports are exclusively trochus and bche de mer, although no bche de mer have been exported since 2005. Trochus exports were 29.2 t in 2006, with a free on board (FOB) value of CFP11.4 million; and 17.0 t in 2007, with an FOB value of CFP6.8million (unpublished data from Service Territorial de la Statistique et des Etudes Economique, courtesy E. Valefakaaga). Reducing the FOB export values to approximate prices paid to shers, the 17 t of shery exports in 2007 is estimated to be worth CFP4.8 million. It is estimated that in 2007, total production from coastal commercial sheries was 121 t valued at CFP105 million.

Coastal subsistence production in 1994 was estimated at 621 t worth $3,105,360 (Dalzell et al. 1996). Based on the above approach, however, the annual coastal subsistence catch in the mid-2000s is estimated to be 840 t worth CFP551 million. Total coastal shery production (commercial and subsistence) is, therefore, 961 t, about 5% greater than the Dalzell et al. (1996) estimate. This does not seem inconsistent, considering that the population of Wallis
Wallis and Futuna 279
and Futuna increased 8% between the period covered by the Dalzell estimate and 2007 (SPC 2008a).

Although there is some trolling outside the reef for tuna and other pelagic sh, this is considered to be coastal shing for the purpose of the present study. There is no locally based oshore shing eet.

There is currently no authorized foreign shing in the Wallis and Futuna zone. The last foreign shing activity occurred in 1999 (Service de la Pche et de lAquaculture 2007).
Freshwater Catches
There is no freshwater shery in Wallis and Futuna. Tilapia have been introduced into freshwater bodies on Wallis (Hinds 1969), but it is not considered a food sh.
Although there have been some recent aquaculture trials on Wallis of the freshwater shrimp Macrobrachium (Nandlal 2005a), there is currently no aquaculture production in the territory.
Summary of Harvests
A crude approximation of the annual volumes and values57 of sheries production in 2007 is given in Table 23.1.
57
Values at rst sale or at the farm gate.
280
Table 23.1: Annual Fisheries and Aquaculture Harvest, Wallis and Futuna, 2007
CFP = Pacific franc, t = ton.
a
Quantity (t) 121 840 0 0 0 0 961
Value (CFP)a 105,000,000 551,000,000 0 0 0 0 656,000,000
These are values at first sale or at the farm gate.

Information on the national accounts of Wallis and Futuna is not readily available. Sta of the Service Territorial de la Statistique et des tudes conomique are not involved in national accounts work (E. Valefakaaga, personal communication, November 2008). The GDP was CFP18 billion in 2005. No information is available on the contribution of shing to GDP (Simon 2008).

Information on the method used to calculate the contribution of shing to GDP (if there is such a method) is not available.

Table 23.2 below presents an option for estimating shing contribution to GDP in Wallis and Futuna. It is a simple production approach that takes the values of shing activities for which production values were determined and summarized in Table 23.1. This approach also determines the value added by
Wallis and Futuna 281
using VARs characteristic of the type of shing concerned. The VARs were determined by knowledge of the sheries sector and by use of specialized studies (Appendix 3). The contribution of shing (CFP509 million) to GDP in 2007 represents 2.8% of the GDP of Wallis and Futuna for 2005 given by Simon (2008).

Unpublished export data from Service Territorial de la Statistique et des Etudes Economique was used to construct Table 23.3. Sta of the Service Territorial de la Statistique et des tudes conomique conrmed that the only ocially documented export of Wallis and Futuna in 2007 was trochus (E. Valefakaaga, personal communication, November 2008).
Table 23.2: Fishing Contribution to Wallis and Futuna GDP, 2007
Gross Value of Production (CFP, from Table 23.1) 105,000,000 551,000,000 0 0 0 Value-Added Value Added Ratio (CFP) 0.65 0.80 0 0 0 68,250,000 440,800,000 0 0 0 509,050,000
CFP = Pacific franc. Source: Consultants estimates.
Table 23.3: Fishery Exports, Wallis and Futuna

Item che de Weight B mer (kg) Value (CFP) Trochus Weight (kg) Value (CFP) 2001 396 838,800 102,000 2002 0 0 154,000 2003 261.5 794,500 59,100 2004 312 624,000 15,200 2005 497 1,545,900 29,750 2006 0 0 29,200 2007 0 0 17,000
31,005,500 45,470,000 19,590,000 4,560,000 11,839,000 11,370,280 6,800,000
CFP = Pacific franc, kg = kilogram. Source: Unpublished data from Service Territorial de la Statistique et des Etudes Economique.
282

Since 1999, there have not been any access agreements with foreign shing eets (Service de la Pche et de lAquaculture 2007). Consequently, no access fees for foreign shing have been received since that time.

Information is not readily available on other forms of government revenue from the sheries sector.
Employment
A survey in 2001 of shersdened as persons who sh at least once a week identied 333 shers on Wallis, 26% of whom shed only once a week, 54% twice a week, and 20% three or more times a week; and 46 shers on Futuna, only 10 of whom shed often enough to be considered an artisanal sher (Fourmy 2002). On Futuna, men go shing, but it is mainly the women who provide the daily seafood. The island of Wallis is relatively at compared to Futuna and gardens do not have to be made in dicult terrain so far away from the villages. The women of Wallis are not involved in shing in the same way as the Futunan women (SPC 1999). To put the number of shers in perspective, of the 9,400 people 15 60 years of age in Wallis and Futuna (SPC 2008a), only 3,104 (33%) are formally employed (www.wallis.co.nc/stats). Unemployment is the territorys most pressing economic and social problem (Anon 2007e).
Fish Consumption
Annual per capita sh supply in early 1990s was estimated at 66.9 kg (Gillett and Preston 1997), and in 2005 and 2006 an average of 74.6 kg, of which 98% was fresh sh (Bell et al. 2009, based on 2005/2006 HIES data).
International Waters
Fish Production in International Waters

Seven bodies of international water are recognized in the SPC/FFA statistics (P. Williams, personal communication, December 2008), as follows: 1. Doughnut hole between Papua New Guinea and Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). 2. Doughnut hole between FSM, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu. 3. International waters east of the Philippines to Guam, above FSM, around the Marshall Islands, up to 20N, and west of 175E (not including areas 1 and 2 above). 4. International waters between Tuvalu, Phoenix, and Tokelau, up to 20N, and east of 175E to 170W. 5. International waters between Phoenix and Line Groups, up to 20N, east of 170W to 130W (includes waters between the Cook Islands and French Polynesia).
284
6. Remainder of international waters not covered above in the northern hemisphere of the area of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 7. Remainder of international waters not covered above in the southern hemisphere of the area of the WCPFC. Estimates of the quantities and values of catches of the four main commercial species of tuna in the WCPFC area for 19972007 were made by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA 2008), using data sourced from the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacic Community. In these data, prices are all delivered prices in that they reect the price received at entry to the country in which they are usually sold whether for processing or consumption. Also, bycatch, which is an important component of oshore longline sheries, is not included. Estimates of the catches in international waters and their values are given in Table 24.1. The gures presented have been modied from FFA (2008) to reect bycatch and the in-zone value as noted in the table. Over the 6 years covered in Table 24.1, catches in the seven bodies of international water were equal to about half (range 38%59%) of all in-zone catches of the 22 countries and territories of the Pacic islands.
Table 24.1: Catches in International Waters, 20022007
2002 Quantity (t) Longlinea Purse seineb Pole-and-line Troll Other gear Total Value ($)c Longline Purse seine Pole-and-line Troll Other gear Total t = ton. Longline tuna catches have been increased by 30% to reflect bycatch. Purse seine tuna catches have been increased by 5% to reflect bycatch. c All values were decreased by 10% to cover the cost of transport to markets.
a b
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
162,165 302,499 84,362 1,916 332 551,273
135,036 271,736 113,441 2,787 126 523,126
137,940 314,028 100,492 1,827 61 554,348
122,438 322,626 121,255 1,071 154 567,544
97,739 243,106 115,910 1,070 221 458,045
90,133 325,542 122,201 599 221 538,696
446,462,620 218,096,283 105,929,967 3,086,420 534,808 774,110,098
373,439,812 180,210,040 134,457,442 4,725,095 213,621 693,046,011
434,233,089 251,634,242 132,915,253 3,572,489 119,279 822,474,351
370,694,325 259,650,679 137,025,281 2,349,828 337,884 770,057,996
334,879,887 209,807,524 196,145,020 2,574,651 531,774 743,938,856
326,290,730 371,684,271 194,311,012 1,050,167 387,457 893,723,637
Source: Forum Fisheries Agency (2008) and consultants estimates.
International Waters 285
The total 2007 catch taken in international waters equated to about 21% of the catch taken in the entire Western and Central Pacic Ocean (WCPO) (including the WCPO catch of Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, and Taipei,China). In 2007, 17% of the total catch in international waters and 37% of the total value were made by longliners; 60% and 42%, by purse seiners, respectively; and 23% and 22% by pole-and-line vessels, respectively. In the same year, longliners caught only 10% of the entire WCPFC area catch; purse seiners caught 71%; and pole-and-line vessels, 9%. This suggests that longliners and pole-and-line vessels sh proportionally more in international waters than in-zone, while longliners and purse seiners sh proportionally less. The last statement refers to the average of all international waters in the region, and combines areas in the northern and southern parts of the region (where there is little or no purse seining) with the two doughnut holes of international waters, where there is substantial purse seining. Only about 10% of tuna catch in international waters was made by vessels registered in Pacic island countries in 2007. The major participating Pacic island countries were PNG (23,035 t), Vanuatu (19,020 t), and the Marshall Islands (9,948 t) (unpublished data from SPC; P. Williams, personal communication, January 2009).
PART D
Regional Fisheries Production, Benets, and Factors Inuencing Benets
Fisheries and Aquaculture Production Across the Region
Summary Information
Information on the quantities and values of sheries production for each country is given in the country chapters of this report. Summary information is given in Tables 25.1 and 25.2 below. The values in Table 25.2 reect prices paid to the producereither dockside prices, prices at rst sale, or (for aquaculture and subsistence shing) farm-gate prices. For oshore shing, an analogous system is used in which the readily available world market prices for the concerned shery commodities are discounted by an amount to cover transport of the commodities to those markets.
Table 25.1: Pacific Islands Fisheries Production, 2007

Aquaculture Freshwater 17,500 0 1 2,000 0 0 4,146 0 80 100 10 1 10 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 23,858 141,892 80,046 69,886 45,282 36,756 16,306 13,290 12,414 7,620 6,982 6,788 6,610 4,344 961 790 693 451 117 12 (see Table 25.3) 165 0 8 247 0 34 56 10 0 1,931 9 2 3 0 0 0 14 162 0 2,984 637,068 183,915 172,138 200 143 0 Total t Pieces 0 100 16,000 8,202 25,000 0 48,100 0 2,500 0 0 12,334 0 0 3,100 190,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 305,336
290
Country 30,000 13,700 9,800 15,000 2,800 450 17,400 989 2,830 2,880 4,495 2,800 3,500 120 1,250 267 840 140 375 220 70 7 109,933 23,619 63,569 0 13,744 0 0 6,308 3,755 1,119 2,122 6,632 3,030 3,939 0 640 0 0 0 0 401,096 98,023 12,727 69,236 492 35,541 12,858 0 25 0 0 0 1,464 0 0 0 318 0 0 0 864,685 256,397 0 16,222 327,471 163,215 143,315
Coastal Commercial
Coastal Subsistence
Offshore Locally Based
Offshore ForeignBased
Papua New Guinea Kiribati Federated States of Micronesia Solomon Islands Marshall Islands Nauru Fiji Islands Tuvalu Vanuatu French Polynesia Samoa Tonga New Caledonia American Samoa Palau Cook Islands Wallis and Futuna Niue Tokelau Northern Mariana Islands Guam Pitcairn Islands Total
5,700 7,000 2,800
3,250 950 200 9,500 226 538 4,002 4,129 3,700 1,350 35 865 133 121 10 0 231 44 5 44,789
t = ton.
Source: Country chapters of this report.
Table 25.2: Value of Pacific Islands Fisheries and Aquaculture Production, 2007 ($)
Offshore Locally Based Freshwater 16,554,054 0 8,000 1,464,052 488,506 0 4,287,500 0 45,885 0 33,206 173,077 8,000 1,980 4,000 36,765 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 23,115,025 40,654 123,708,046 130,000 1,749,375 15,126 16,594,253 0 33,206 303,846 50,000 18,317 10,000 2,235,294 0 0 205,000 948,000 0 0 146,872,423 675,676 75,630 80,000 Aquaculture Total 812,067,902 244,185,828 224,483,967 202,003,233 188,656,724 108,125,102 103,420,625 81,518,168 49,663,126 43,773,582 42,939,982 34,397,887 24,139,152 20,571,101 14,793,083 10,323,529 7,540,230 2,520,588 1,786,700 1,370,000 1,108,812 74,265 (see Table 25.4) 345,976,228 0 23,908,377 32,662,077 28,247,299 81,210,390 29,293,750 0 8,563,218 0 8,362,836 0 13,779,656 3,081,498 14,135,083 5,772,059 0 1,844,118 0 0 0 0 596,836,589 0 397,415 0 1,086,581,587 153,548,868 0 19,572,712 527,500 80,001,361 0 40,924,370 49,300 26,003,657 4,947,496 0 0 0 0 0 0 386,361,944 197,051,374 177,195,590 Offshore Foreign-Based
Country
Coastal Commercial
Coastal Subsistence
27,027,027 18,487,395 7,560,000
35,472,973 28,571,429 15,732,000
Papua New Guinea Kiribati Federated States of Micronesia Solomon Islands French Polynesia Marshall Islands Fiji Islands Nauru New Caledonia Tuvalu Samoa Vanuatu Palau Tonga American Samoa Cook Islands Wallis and Futuna Niue Northern Mariana Islands Guam Tokelau Pitcairn Islands Total
3,307,190 23,004,598 2,900,000 33,750,000 840,336 8,689,655 616,526 19,557,592 2,176,923 2,843,000 11,287,129 166,000 1,029,412 1,206,897 58,824 950,000
10,980,392 13,208,276 4,312,000 33,812,500 661,345 15,770,115 2,232,686 14,903,842 5,740,385 2,511,000 6,182,178 478,000 1,250,000 6,333,333 617,647 631,700
195,000 0 37,500 165,691,002
217,000 711,397 36,765 200,366,961
Fisheries and Aquacultue Production Across the Region 291
Table 25.3: Total Regional Fishery Production, 2007 (t)

Offshore Coastal Subsistence Freshwater 23,858 23,858 1,327,361 109,933 109,933 1,148,781 401,096 864,685 Offshore Locally Based Offshore Foreign-Based Regional Total
292
Item
Coastal Commercial
Fishery category totals
44,789
Totals adjusted for duplicate offshore fishing
44,789
t = ton.
Note: Table does not include aquaculture due to difference in units (weights and pieces).
Source: Table 25.1 and Secretariat of the Pacific Community unpublished data.
Table 25.4: Value of Total Regional Fishery and Aquaculture Production, 2007 ($)
Offshore Coastal Subsistence 200,366,961 200,366,961 1,513,418,176 596,836,589 Offshore Locally Based Offshore Foreign-Based 1,086,581,587 Freshwater 23,115,025 23,115,025 Aquaculture 146,872,423 146,872,423 2,049,463,587 Regional Total
Item
Coastal Commercial
Fishery category totals
165,691,002
Totals adjusted for duplicate offshore fishing
165,691,002
Note: Table includes aquaculture.
Source: Table 25.2 and Secretariat of the Pacific Community unpublished data.
To compile the regional total of the ve categories, some adjustments had to be made. Oshore foreign-based is by geographic zone, while oshore locally based is by eet. Double counting can occur because the catch of a Pacic island eet in the zone of another Pacic island country is counted both as oshore locally based in the home country of the eet and as oshore foreign-based in the country where the catch is made. Unpublished data from the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC) (P. Williams, personal communication, January 2009) show that in 2007, eets from Pacic island countries made tuna catches of 117,000 t (94% by purse seine gear) worth about $170 million, in the zones of other Pacic island countries. These amounts are subtracted in Tables 25.3 and 25.4 from totals when combining the categories of oshore locally based and oshore foreign-based across the region. Composition of the aggregate national sheries production in each country is quite dierent across the region. Figures 25.1 and 25.2 show the relative catches and values by component for each country, except for Papua New Guinea (PNG). The total production of PNG (637,068 t) overshadows that of all the other countries of the region. Including PNG in the gures would obscure the composition details of most other countries. The relative composition of PNGs shery production is shown by pie chart in the PNG country chapter (Chapter 10).
Figure: 25.1: Fishery Production, 2007 (t)
200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 Metric tons 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Tuvalu French Polynesia New Caledonia Palau Tokelau Northern Mariana Islands Guam Vanuatu Samoa American Samoa Tonga Solomon Islands Marshall Islands Wallis & Futuna Kiribati Cook Islands FSM Nauru Pitcairn Islands Fiji Islands 0 Niue
Offshore Locally Based Coastal Commercial Coastal Subsistence Offshore Foreign-Based Freshwater
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, t = ton. Note: PNG excluded. Figure does not include aquaculture due to difference in units (weights and pieces). Source: Table 25.3.
294
Figure 25.2: Values of Fisheries and Aquaculture Production, 2007 ($)

300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 US$ 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 Tuvalu Samoa New Caledonia Tonga Niue Northern Mariana Islands Guam French Polynesia Nauru Marshall Islands Fiji Islands Vanuatu American Samoa Wallis & Futuna Cook Islands Tokelau Palau FSM Solomon Islands Pitcairn Islands Kiribati 0
Coastal Commercial Coastal Subsistence Offshore Foreign-Based Freshwater

FSM = Federated States of Micronesia. Note: PNG excluded. Figure includes aquaculture. Source: Table 25.4.
Offshore Locally Based Aquaculture
The share of each shery category in the value of overall regional production (including PNG) from sheries and aquaculture is given in Figure 25.3. Oshore foreign-based shing is responsible for about half the total value of sheries in the region; oshore locally based for about a quarter; and coastal commercial, coastal subsistence, and aquaculture for the remaining quarter, in about equal shares.
Figure 25.3: Regional Fisheries and Aquaculture Value by Fishery Category
Aquaculture
Source: Table 25.2.
General Observations
From a tuna shery perspective, 2007, the focus year of this study, was not an unusual yeari.e., neutral to moderate La Nia oceanographic conditions, according to the manager of SPCs Oceanic Fisheries Programme (J. Hampton, personal communication, January 2009). Total sheries production in the region in 2007 is estimated to be 1,327,361 t, plus aquaculture production of 2,984 t and 305,336 pieces. The total value of sheries and aquaculture production is estimated to be $2,049,463,587. Thus, the unit values across the region were coastal commercial coastal subsistence oshore locally based oshore foreign-based freshwater : $3.70/kg : $1.82/kg : $1.49/kg : $1.26/kg : $0.97/kg
The higher unit value of oshore locally based production relative to oshore foreign-based production reects a higher proportion of locally based longlining and its high-value fresh tuna production. The lower value of freshwater production relative to coastal subsistence reects the low imputed value of production in PNGs inland sheries. Comparing coastal sheries production (commercial and subsistence) from independent countries (Tables 25.1 and 25.2) to the tuna production in those countries zones from Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) (2008), it can been seen that the tuna sheries are almost eight times as large and almost six times as valuable as coastal sheries. Certain features are evident in the regional data. The most pronounced is that the ranking of countries by total sheries production is strongly inuenced by the level of tuna catches. Also, a general pattern of decreasing total national catches is seen from west to east across the region, and from equatorial to higher latitudes. Other signicant features are relatively large contribution, in both catch and value, of oshore foreign-based production in Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu; relatively large contribution of oshore locally based production in the Marshall Islands and (to a lesser extent) Fiji Islands;
296
relatively large contribution of aquaculture production in French Polynesia and (to a lesser extent) New Caledonia; and relatively large contribution of non-tuna production in Fiji Islands.
Measuring the Production of Small-Scale Fisheries

In each of the country chapters, there are comments on the accuracy of the national production data. For most of the countries, there is a statement indicating the lack of good information for making estimates of small-scale sheries production. From the experience gained during the present study, it seems that few, if any, of the long-established sheries statistical systems supported by national governments (or more frequently, the remnants of old systems) provide good estimates of small-scale sheries production. In Fiji Islands, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, and PNG, old surveys have come up with a number for small-scale sheries production that has been institutionalized and used for years or decades with or without annual corrections. Pacic island countries, in which there are relatively good estimates of national small-scale sheries production, fall into three groups: countries that have a dedicated, ongoing, national sheries statistical system supported for many years by an overseas agency; e.g., Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa; countries that have carried out an intensive, well-planned survey of sheries to obtain an accurate snapshot. This has occurred recently in Fiji Islands, Palau, and Samoa in early 2000; and in Tokelau in late 1980s; and countries that use a household income and expenditure survey (HIES) for small-scale sheries production purposes. The 2002 HIES in Samoa is the best example of using such a survey to obtain good estimates of coastal commercial and coastal subsistence catches.
The system in the rst group above is not relevant to most Pacic island countriesa donor will unlikely come to the rescue of a sheries statistical system and support it for many years/decades. However, in recent years, most Pacic island countries have had an HIES and all the independent Pacic island countries and several of the territories are planning for an HIES in the
near future. Thus, using an HIES to estimate small-scale sheries production deserves more attention. This is discussed in section 27.1.
Changes in Fishery Production during 19992007

Between the Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) report and the present study, several signicant changes have occurred in the sheries sector of the Pacic islands. These concern the shery resources, shing practices, and policies at the national, regional, and international levels. They include emergence of a consensus that stocks of yellown and bigeye tuna are threatened by overshing; increasing shing pressure in many coastal areas, mostly caused by urbanization and population increases; and special and unprecedented prominence accorded to sheries in the form of the Vavau Declaration on Pacic Fisheries Resources at the 37th meeting of the heads of state and government of the Pacic island countries, October 2007.
Comparisons between the Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) report and the present study by value of production are also aected by varying levels of national ination and exchange rates among countries. In addition, for the present study, a consistent system of valuing production was used (Chapter1) whereas there was less uniformity in the method used by Gillett and Lightfoot (2001). Comparisons of production levels, however, are relatively straightforward. Figure 25.4 compares national shery production estimates for the focus years. The gure shows a remarkable increase in production by PNG and a moderate increase by most other countries. Tuvalu suered a decline, which can be attributed to inter-year uctuations that are characteristic of oshore tuna shing. Figure 25.5 shows the changes between 1999 and 2007 by shery category. The gure shows substantial production increases for oshore sheries, while the coastal shery production levels showed little change. A limitation of the comparison is that the 2007 estimates of oshore production consistently include bycatch in the estimates, whereas the 1999 estimate is less consistent in its bycatch treatment. Overall, this bycatch eect on relative production in 1999 versus 2007 is minorand would certainly not produce the dierences in oshore production visible in the gure.
298
Figure 25.4: National Fishery Production, 1999 and 2007 (t)

700,000 600,000 500,000 Metric tons 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 Kiribati 0
Solomon Islands
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Fiji Islands
Tonga
Cook Islands
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
Samoa
Present Study
Gillett and Lightfoot Study
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PNG = Papua New Guinea, t = ton. Source: Table 25.1 and Gillett and Lightfoot (2001).
Figure 25.5: Fishery Production by Category, 1999 and 2007 (t)

1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 Metric tons 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Subsistence Coastal commercial Present Study
t = ton Source: Table 25.2 and Gillett and Lightfoot (2001).
Offshore local
Gillett and Lightfoot Study
Palau
Offshore foreign
Niue
PNG
FSM
An important conclusion that can be drawn from the above information is that for the region as a whole, oshore sheries expanded substantially while there was no overall production increase from coastal sheries.
General
Production from aquaculture deserves additional attention for several reasons. Aquaculture was not covered as a category in the 1999 study and could not be included in the above historical comparisons. Because of the mixture of units involved in measuring aquaculture production (quantities and pieces), it was not included in comparisons of production among countries. In the formulation of the present study, SPC (a major provider to the region of assistance in aquaculture) specically requested that an evaluation of the benets from aquaculture be included. Further, although there have been
Table 25.5: Value of Aquaculture Production, 2007
Country French Polynesia New Caledonia Cook Islands Fiji Islands Guam Papua New Guinea Vanuatu Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands Federated States of Micronesia Kiribati Palau Solomon Islands Samoa Tonga Nauru American Samoa Tuvalu Wallis and Futuna Niue Tokelau Pitcairn Islands Total
Source: Country chapters of this report as given in Table 25.2.
Farm-Gate Value of Production ($) 123,708,046 16,594,253 2,235,294 1,749,375 948,000 675,676 303,846 205,000 130,000 80,000 75,630 50,000 40,654 33,206 18,317 15,126 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 146,872,423
300
substantial eorts to promote aquaculture in the region, there has been little analysis of the benets from aquaculture that is independent of those promotion eorts. As mentioned above, there is diculty in measuring the quantity of total aquaculture production in the region due to the use of both tonnage and pieces to measure production. It is not meaningful to combine pieces of coral or giant clams with pearl pieces. An assessment by value is, however, straightforward. Information from the country chapters is used in Table 25.5 to estimate the total regional value of aquaculture. All values in this section are farm-gate values. The overwhelming dominance of French Polynesia and, to a lesser extent, New Caledonia, is obvious in the table. In fact, 95.5% of the estimated $146.9million value of aquaculture in the 22 Pacic island countries and territories is from these two French territories. SPC (2008b) gave a 50% greater value to regional aquaculture production$216 million (between $160 and $265 million). However, the two gures may not be strictly comparable because the type of price (farmgate, free on board [FOB], or world market) and the year (or range of years) are not specied in the SPC paper. The value of regional production from sheries and aquaculture (Figure 25.2) shows that the value of aquaculture production in the region is about equal to that of coastal commercial shing or coastal subsistence shing. However, most of that value is from the two French territories. Table 25.6 shows that for 16 countries in the region, aquaculture production represents less than 1% of the value of all sheries and aquaculture. For nine countries, it is zero.
Stripping Away the Atypical

To examine aquaculture production in typical Pacic island countries, some insight can be obtained by eliminating from consideration French Polynesia and New Caledonia, which have a high degree of economic support from France and large subsidies for aquaculture (Mathieu 1998). For this exercise, PNG is also eliminated due to its relatively huge population (over twice that in all the other 21 countries of the region combined) and because over 87%

Subsequent discussions with SPC aquaculture ocers indicate that at least part of the dierence in the estimates is due to SPCs contention that, for several aquaculture commodities, export prices are the same as farm-gate prices. This is not the view taken by the present study. On further reection, there appears to be considerable justication for assuming that export prices for the aquaculture commodities covered in this report are greater than farm-gate prices.
Table 25.6: Share of Aquaculture Production in Value of All Fisheries and Aquaculture (%)
Country Guam French Polynesia New Caledonia Cook Islands Northern Mariana Islands Fiji Islands Vanuatu Palau Papua New Guinea Marshall Islands Samoa Tonga American Samoa Kiribati Federated States of Micronesia Solomon Islands Nauru Tuvalu Wallis and Futuna Niue Tokelau Pitcairn Islands
Source: Table 25.4.
Relative Value 69.2 65.6 33.4 21.7 11.5 1.7 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
of the population live inland and have no direct access to marine resources (Coates 1996). Clearly, these economies have aquaculture conditions that are very dierent from the rest of the region. The general aquaculture production situation in the typical countries is summarized in Table 25.7. Minor and promising activities are not considered. In general, nearly all the value of aquaculture production in the countries above came from private sector pearl culture operations in three countries, shrimp culture in three countries, tilapia and/or milksh culture in several countries, giant clam culture in several countries, and seaweed culture in three countries.
302
Table 25.7: Aquaculture Production in Typical Pacific Island Countries

Main Types of Aquaculture Production in 2007 Cook Islands A total of 3,058 live giant clams were produced by the hatchery in 2007. Around 1,858 live juvenile clams were supplied for export to the aquarium trade, up from 320 juvenile clams in 2006. An additional 1,200 clams were transferred to Rarotonga for the coral gardens for tourists. Tilapia fry were imported by the government for a trial with a fish farmer in Rarotonga. Despite the long-term commitment from government and educational agencies, no economically sustainable aquaculture programs have been established to date. Presently, the only significant aquaculture operations are the culture of giant clams from the government aquaculture facility on Kosrae and of black pearls on Nukuoro Atoll. Several pearl farms are operating. Other aquaculture production in 2007 consisted of 142.7 t of tilapia (worth F$712,300), 24.0t of freshwater prawns (F$575,380), 13.0 t of brackishwater prawns (F$400,000), and 67.0 t of seaweed (F$33,500). Aquaculture operations in 2007 included milkfish at Amboa few hundred kilos per month; seaweedvery little is grown in the Gilbert Group because of disease, with almost all Kiribati production from Fanning Island in the Line Group; and pearls harvests in 2003 and 2008, with the latest harvest yielding a few hundred low-quality pearls. In recent years, there have been two types of aquaculture with significant production: giant clams and black pearls. Some 20,000 to 30,000 baby clams have been produced, with a farmgate price of about $3.50 apiece. The latest harvest of cultured black pearls was in early 2005, with about 2,0003,000 pieces. The last estimate was in 2006; annual milkfish production was estimated at about 8 t. In 2007, the aquaculture harvest was about 3,100 clams and 2 t of milkfish. Village giant clam nurseries are oriented toward enhancing the wild stock. Aquaculture harvesting is largely limited to tilapia. Annual harvest of cultured tilapia is unknown, but likely about 10 t/year. Seaweed farming produces about 320 t annually, some coral is grown, and captured postlarval fish are reared. Aquaculture development in recent years has been slow and limited to stock enhancement largely at community level with little significant commercial production. By end 2007, about 12,134 clams worth $33,297 had been sold. Mabe pearls are produced by 3 or 4 people in Vavau. About 200 pearls are produced each year. Aquaculture production is mainly shrimp91% of the total value. Next most important is tilapia. Production of tilapia in 2007 was 9 t.
Fiji Islands
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Nauru Palau Samoa
Solomon Islands Tonga
Vanuatu American Samoa
Main Types of Aquaculture Production in 2007 Guam Production in 2007 was: tilapia, 100 t (valued at $7/kg); milkfish, 40 t ($7/kg); catfish, 10 t ($6.60/kg); shrimp, 12 t ($28.75/kg). This equated to 162 t worth $1,391,000. Northern Mariana In 2007, production from shrimp culture was about 10.9 t, with Islands a farm-gate price of $17.60/kg, a premium price for live/fresh shrimp to the large local tourist industry. Tilapia production was about 227 kg/month, sold mainly at a farmers market. Niue Zero Pitcairn Islands Zero Tokelau Zero Tuvalu Zero Wallis and Futuna Zero
F$ = Fiji dollar, kg = kilogram, t = ton. Source: Country chapters of this report.
Many of the large-scale private sector pearl culture operations in Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, and Marshall Islands appear to be successful (consistent production in the absence of subsidies). They appear to oer a positive model for emulation in the region. Substantial tilapia and/or milksh culture exists in American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, Guam, Kiribati, Nauru, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Samoa, and Vanuatu, with a total combined production in 2007 of 346 t. Section 26.5 deals with aquaculture for production of local food and concludes that in most Pacic island countries, the food actually produced from tilapia and milksh farms is quite small. In addition, many, if not most, of the tilapia and milksh operations are government-subsidized. Signicant shrimp culture is carried out in Fiji Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Vanuatu. It appears to be highly dependent on demand from tourists and auent residents. Exports are severely restrained by the economics (low volume, high production cost) of the international shrimp market. A substantial amount of giant clam culture exists in the region. Nearly all the production is from government aquaculture facilities. Limited cost benet analyses have been carried out, with results only readily available for the Federated State of Micronesia (Preston 1999) and Tonga (Preston 1998). Those studies, which also consider the value of clam restocking, do not show very favorable costbenet ratios. Seaweed is cultured in Fiji Islands, Kiribati, and Solomon Islands and is associated with signicant donor support and government subsidies. There has been a marked production decline in recent years, specically due to issues
304
of disease and subsidy in Kiribati, and generally to competition with low-cost Asian producers. Value of total production in all three countries in 2007 was quite small, about $130,000. In general, if aquaculture production from the atypical French territories and PNG is eliminated from consideration, signicant aquaculture production comes from a limited range of activities: large-scale private sector pearl culture and shrimp culture where there is a signicant tourist trade. There is signicant tilapia/milksh and giant clam culture, but whether net benets are produced depends on the degree of subsidization, a situation that is often not clear. With regard to shrimp, success (dened as consistent production in the absence of subsidies) is strongly related to tourism. It is doubtful if many of the shrimp aquaculture operations would be viable without tourists or a signicant number of auent local residents who can pay high prices for local produce. Not many Vanuatu citizens could aord to pay $30/kg for shrimp. To some degree, tourism also helps pearl culture. About 5%10% of local production of the largest pearl producer in Fiji Islands (and a disproportionate amount of prots) is from local sales. (J. Hunter, personal communication, January 2009). Sale of pearls to visitors to Marshall Islands is largely responsible for the very high farm-gate price ($50 each) for pearls in that country (M. Nair, personal communication, October 2008). Success in aquaculture is also strongly associated with private sector operations. This has implications for the model used for aquaculture development and the distribution of aquaculture assistance. Information in this section suggests that there is an important relationship between aquaculture production and subsidies. This subject is not prominent in the aquaculture literature of the region, but subsidies have a large eect on the net benets from aquaculture. Other sheries subsectors also receive subsidies and, therefore, the matter deserves attention. This is covered in section 29.2 of this report. It is likely that aquaculture has produced benets other than those that can be measured in terms of production (which is the subject of this chapter). Less tangible benets include the creation of a conservation consciousness: that action must be taken to conserve clams.
Fishery Benets Across the Region
Contribution of Fishing to GDP in the Pacific Island Countries

General
The ocial GDP and the ocial contribution of shing to GDP in the countries and territories of the region are summarized in Table 26.1. The methods used in the ocial calculation of the shing contribution to GDP are also presented. Some comments are made on the suitability of these methods. In some countries, the methods are well documented. In others, the information on methods was obtained verbally. More likely, some of this verbal information was inaccurate for various reasons, including the providers unfamiliarity with the subject. This should be taken into account when considering the comments on any weakness in the methodology used in a particular country. Certain features and patterns have emerged from investigating the methodology. One of the most common features concerns the individuals who work on national accounts. In many Pacic island countries, the individuals responsible for calculating the contribution of shing to GDP (sometimes these individuals are responsible for all other sectors) appear to be unfamiliar with the technical basis of the methods they used for determining the shing contribution. According to discussions with several such individuals, the methods presently used were developed by a colleague who had since departed.
Table 26.1: Official Estimates of GDP and Fishing Contribution to GDP
306
Country or Territory 18,113 n/a 101,799 2,918 679 2,900 736.6 3,383 456,800 74,541 208,400 20,148 2,220 403,867 n/a 5,820,000 243,993 14,723 499,804 507 4,825,083 459,619 523,815 5,521,765 156,614 3,383 149,281 28,451 27,385 10,280 1,213 3,883 n/a 53,394 10,082 428 21,591 2,197 156,125 679 70,752 2,452 3.5 0.4 10.2 4.2 2.2 2.7 5.4 6.0 4.2 8.2 0.8 n/a 1.1 3,289,754 63,624 1.9 236,900 n/a n/a 210,817 13,318 6.3
GDP in Local Currency (000, current market prices) GDP ($000, current market prices) Fishing Contribution as % of GDP GDP Estimate Period 2007 FY2006 2007 2007 2007 FY2006 FY2003 2006 2006 2007 2006 FY2006 2002 2007 2002 2005
Fishing Contribution to GDP in Local Currency (000) Fishing Contribution to GDP ($000)
Cook Islands
286,711
236,900
Fiji Islands
5,263,607
Kiribati
84,195
Marshall Islands b
156,125
Nauru
28,500
Niue
17,341
Palau
156,614
Papua New Guinea
16,896,600
Samoa
1,372,394
Solomon Islands
3,497,700
Tonga
478,226
Tuvalu
26,944
Vanuatu
51,979,579
American Samoa
507,000
French Polynesia
525,934,000
Country or Territory n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 165,138 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,002,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7,045,872 n/a n/a 3,678,500 n/a n/a
GDP in Local Currency (000, current market prices) GDP ($000, current market prices) Fishing Contribution as % of GDP
Fishing Contribution to GDP in Local Currency (000) Fishing Contribution to GDP ($000) 2002 2007 2002
GDP Estimate Period
Guam
3,678,500
New Caledonia n/a n/a
768,000,000
1,002,000
Pitcairn Islands
Tokelau
Wallis and Futuna
18,000,000
2007
FY = fiscal year, GDP = gross domestic product, n/a = not available.
Subsistence in general is not included in the GDP and subsistence fishing is not included in the fishing contribution.
Subsistence fishing not included in fishing value added. There is another sector called subsistence which includes subsistence fishing, but the precise proportion of fishing in that category is not clear.
Fishery Benets Across the Region 307
308
A recipe is now being followed, but the rationale for many components is apparently not well understood by these individuals. Other important issues that have emerged are: Almost without exception, there is a great deal of enthusiasm among the sta of the various national statistics agencies to learn more about the shing sector and to improve the estimation of its contribution to GDP. In the process of making shing contribution estimates, there has been very limited or no involvement of people with expertise in sheries in most countries. In two countries where there was involvement of sheries department sta, the involvement was taken as proof of the validity of results, irrespective of the skills and experience of the sheries person. Some surveys that gave the best estimates of small-scale sheries in the region (e.g., those from Palau and Samoa) were unknown to the sta of the statistics units in those countries. Many countries have recently had, or are expecting to have in the near future, outside technical assistance for their national accounts from the Pacic Financial Technical Assistance Centre. A surprising number of GDP calculations dealing with shing are done using input from a specialized survey or informal survey, almost none of which are available for examination. The results of some of these surveys appear incorrect to the point that one wonders whether a reasonable survey has indeed been undertaken (e.g., an extremely small VAR for a type of shing that uses low technology). Many countries use the results of business surveys or tax records or provident fund (social security) records to determine the value added of commercial shing. While this may be appropriate for large enterprises, small-scale commercial shing activity may not be captured by the methodology. Most countries divide the shing sector into smaller components, which have similar characteristics with respect to value added. Problems seem to occur when very dissimilar sheries are aggregated into a single component (e.g., bche de mer diving and reef gleaning) or when important sheries are overlooked. Almost all countries use the results of HIES in the process of estimating production from small-scale sheries for GDP purposes.
The accuracy of the HIES for sheries purposes has a major impact on the shing contribution to GDP across the region. This subject is covered in section 27.1 of this report. Some important national issues on the accuracy of estimating the shing contribution to GDP should be noted: In American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, the agriculture sector (which in those places includes shing) is not included in the estimation of GDP. In Kiribati, subsistence activities (including subsistence shing) are not included in the estimation of GDP. Subsistence in general was dropped from GDP calculations in the mid-2000s because there were no reliable data on which to base the estimates. In the Marshall Islands, at least some of the locally based foreign shing activities should be considered part of the countrys economy, according to international standards for national accounts statistics. This has a very large eect on the shing contribution to GDP in that country.
Reestimating the Fishing Contribution to Gross Domestic Product

The shing sector is complex. It can include thousands of producers operating in many locations and using a wide variety of techniques. Crews are often paid in kind or receive a share of the catch rather than wages; and even when they receive wages, collecting information on those wages can be dicult. Compared with other sectors in Pacic island economies (such as government, manufacturing, or tourism), calculating the contribution of shing to an economy is a particularly dicult task. As part of the present study, a reeestimate was made of the shing contribution to GDP in each country. This presents an alternative to the ocial method of estimating shing contribution to GDP. The reestimate does not intend to replace the ocial methodology, but rather the results can serve as a comparator to gain additional information on the appropriateness and accuracy of the ocial methodologyand possibly a need for modication. The reestimate for each country and the associated methodology are given in the country chapters of this report. The results are summarized and compared to the ocial estimate (where available) in Table 26.2. This is shown graphically in Figure 26.1.
Table 26.2: Official Estimates and Reestimates of Fishing Contribution to GDP

Period for Estimates (Calendar year unless noted)
310
Country Official 2007 FY2006 2007 2007 2007 FY2006 FY2003 2006 2006 6.2 6.8 5.1 10.3 1.3 2007 2006 FY2006 2002 2007 6.3 n/a 1.9 3.5 0.4 10.2 4.2 2.2 2.7 5.4 6.0 4.2 8.2 0.8 696,350 1,258,622 24,188 236,448 85,043 153,910 9,573 6.1 3.1 766 4.4 1,321 4.6 41,763 26.7 44,965 53.4 27,761 1.7 23,750 10.0 4,011 1.4
Official Fishing Contribution to GDP in Local Currency (000) Consultants Reestimate of Fishing Contribution to GDP in Local Currency (000) Consultants Reestimate of Official Fishing Contribution Share of GDP (%) Reestimate 2007 2006 2007 2007 2007 mid-2000s 2003 2006 2006 2007 2007 FY2006 2002 2007
Official Fishing Contribution Share of GDP (%)
Cook Islands
18,113
n/a
Fiji Islands
101,799
Kiribatia
2,918
Marshall Islands
679
Nauru
2,900
Niue
736.6
Palau
3,383
Papua New Guinea
456,800
Samoa
74,541
Solomon Islands
208,400
Tonga
20,148
Tuvalu
2,220
Vanuatu
403,867
Period for Estimates (Calendar year unless noted)
Country Official 2002 2005 2002 2007 2002 --------2005 n/a 1.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 509,050 2.8 726 n/a 81 n/a 12,815,683 0.1 2,391,258 0.3 904 0.0 7,206,568 1.4 3,359 0.7
Official Fishing Contribution to GDP in Local Currency (000) Consultants Reestimate of Fishing Contribution to GDP in Local Currency (000) Consultants Reestimate of Official Fishing Contribution Share of GDP (%) 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007
Official Fishing Contribution Share of GDP (%)
Reestimate
American Samoa
n/a
French Polynesia
5,820,000
Guam
n/a
New Caledonia
n/a
n/a
Pitcairn Islands
n/a
Tokelau
n/a
Wallis and Futuna
n/a
FY = fiscal year, GDP = gross domestic product, n/a = not available.
Subsistence in general is not included in the GDP and subsistence fishing is not included in the fishing contribution.
Subsistence fishing not included in fishing value added. There is another sector called subsistence which includes subsistence fishing, but the precise proportion of fishing in that category is not clear.
312
Figure 26.1: Official versus Reestimate of Fishing Contribution to GDP

12 10 Percent 8 6 4 2 Tonga Solomon Islands Wallis & Futuna French Polynesia American Samoa New Caledonia Samoa Nauru Fiji Islands Cook Islands Vanuatu Tuvalu Northern Mariana Islands Guam 0 Palau FSM Niue PNG
Official
Source: Table 26.2.
Re-Estimate
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, GDP = gross domestic product, PNG = Papua New Guinea.
Some explanations and caveats are required for the table and gure, as follows: The reestimate percentage contribution of shing is simply the new shing contribution divided by the GDP. No attempt is made (unless otherwise stated in the country chapter) to adjust national GDP to account for any signicant increase/decrease in GDP due to a reestimated shing contribution. Kiribati is not shown in Figure 26.1 because it is not appropriate to compare the reestimated shing contribution to GDP (which includes subsistence shing) with the national GDP (which does not include any subsistence activities of any type). The reestimated shing contribution method is more than half of the entire ocial 2007 GDP of Kiribati. For the Marshall Islands, the recalculated shing contribution to GDP is many times greater than the ocial contribution, but a comparison is not appropriate because the ocial contribution of subsistence shing is both not readily apparent and placed in a category with all subsistence activities.
Note that in the above table and gure, for most locations the reestimate was larger than the ocial gure, and in two locations (Nauru and Cook
Islands) the reestimate was substantially smaller. On the basis of good knowledge of the sheries sector, the results in those two countries are likely to be erroneous. Some of the reasons for the dierence between the ocial estimate and the reestimate are including or excluding the activities of locally based foreign shing vessels; ocial estimate omitting certain important sheries; value added from oshore sheries being determined in the ocial method from a survey of businesses, rather than using reliable production gures; value added from small-scale shing (coastal commercial and subsistence shing) diering between the ocial and reestimate, in some cases because estimates of production dier, in others because the VAR is dierent; and production estimates from the informal and specialized studies of the shing sector in the ocial method often diering greatly from those obtained from the present study.
The main lesson learned is that, in countries where the estimates are markedly dierent from the reestimate, the process of preparing the national accounts tends to rely on outdated surveys, inappropriate indicators, and/or poorly understood methods. In most of these cases, the compilers of national accounts do not appear to have consulted the relevant sheries agencies or the industry when preparing their estimates.
Contribution by Fishery Category

In this study, reestimates of shing contribution to GDP for each country were done by uniform shery categories across the region. They are compiled and compared in Table 26.3. The regional contributions of each shery category are shown graphically in Figure 26.2. Some interesting features emerge: Coastal subsistence shing (because of its high VAR) assumes a greater relative importance in GDP contribution than in catch value contribution.
314
Table 26.3: Value Added by Fishery Category ($)

Coastal Country Cook Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Islands Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu American Samoa French Polynesia Guam New Caledonia Northern Mariana Islands Pitcairn Islands Tokelau Wallis and Futuna Total 24,375 0 784,483 105,139,048 34,926 533,547,794 5,066,667 166,501,472 0 0 0 197,852,407 0 0 0 21,122,605 0 0 0 66,567,033 18,562,500 12,016,807 2,175,000 504,202 30,233 1,990,100 16,993,464 15,646,073 2,186,275 6,979,592 280,637 1,523,846 114,540 12,652,529 117,000 5,648,276 570,000 27,050,000 25,714,286 3,665,200 595,210 415,116 2,008,800 30,718,954 13,413,458 9,882,353 4,778,571 1,234,078 4,879,327 406,300 8,448,276 162,750 12,616,092 505,360 5,858,750 0 35,851,258 0 291,628 5,536,737 109,058,791 3,345,134 17,464,251 571,429 0 0 2,827,017 5,649,460 0 1,712,644 0 3,858,750 0 0 0 0 7,600 15,212,418 29,885 1,346,928 1,939 0 155,769 3,600 415,230 8,500 41,297 0 874,688 54,454 71,500 10,588 0 30,000 424,837 24,573 28,458 9,439 0 136,731 7,400 55,668,621 616,200 7,467,414 92,250 Commercial 669,118 5,670,000 Coastal Subsistence 1,000,000 13,372,200 Offshore Locally Based 241,176 9,444,132 Freshwater 33,088 7,600 Aquaculture 1,005,882 44,000
Figure 26.2: Contribution to GDP by Fishery Category

Aquaculture 12% Freshwater 4% Coastal Commercial 19%
Offshore Locally based 35%
Coastal Subsistence 30%
GDP = gross domestic product. Source: Table 26.3.
Oshore locally based shing (because of its low VAR) assumes a lesser relative importance in GDP contribution than in catch value contribution. Coastal subsistence shing and oshore locally based shing are each responsible for about a third of all shing contribution to GDP, with the other three categories combined responsible for the other third.
To a certain degree, the shery categories above could represent ecological zones. This subject is explored in section 26.6.
Changes in Fisheries Contribution

Another aspect of the shing contributions to GDP is their change over time. Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) gave the shing contributions to GDP of the independent Pacic island countries for about a decade earlier. Those values are compared with the values of the present study in Table 26.4 and Figure26.3.
Table 26.4: Fishing Contribution to GDP, from Gillett and Lightfoot and Present Study
Contribution Estimated by Gillett and Lightfoot Country Cook Islands Fiji Islands Federated States of Micronesia Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu 20,232 3,605 1,696 266 11,027 125,391 46,246 173,174 18,808 1,556 663,924 44,965 41,763 1,321 766 9,573 527,570 85,043 236,448 24,188 2,772 696,350 2000 1999 1999 2000 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999/2000 1998 1999 2007 2007 mid-2000s 2003 2006 2006 2007 2007 FY2006 2002 2002 (Local currency, 000) 17,343 84,616 21,950 Contribution Estimated by Present Study (Local currency, 000) 4,011 89,928 23,750 Period for Estimates (Calendar year unless noted) Gillett and Lightfoot 2000 1999 1998 Present Study 2007 2006 2007
GDP = gross domestic product. Source: Table 26.2 and Gillett and Lightfoot (2001).
316
Figure 26.3: Percentage Change in Fishing Contribution to GDP between Gillett and Lightfoot and Present Study
1,200 1,000 800 Percent 600 400 200 0 -200 Tonga Solomon Islands Marshall Islands Cook Islands Samoa Fiji Islands Kiribati Tuvalu Vanuatu Nauru Palau Niue PNG FSM
FSM = Federal States of Micronesia, GDP = gross domestic product, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Table 26.4.
Changes in shing contributions to GDP over the time intervals in Table 26.4 were greatest in the Marshall Islands (with the establishment of a locally based oshore eet) and PNG (with increased activity of the locally based oshore eet). Fishing contributions to GDP decreased the most in Cook Islands (due to decrease in production from pearl farming) and Nauru (due to termination of locally based oshore shing and decrease in coastal commercial shing). At least some of the observed changes (or real changes that were masked) were due to improved estimates of various categories of shing. For example, in Fiji Islands, a 2008 survey resulted in a substantial change in subsistence sheries production estimate from that used in the Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) survey.
Improving the Official Estimate of Fishing Contribution to GDP

General improvements in estimating GDP are far beyond the scope of the present project. However, there are some simple ways that can help improve the accuracy of estimating the shing contribution to GDP, as follows: Expertise. Statistics sta should obtain technical sheries expertise when devising methodology, collecting data, making the estimate, and
reviewing the results. In addition to government sheries agencies, there is sheries expertise in the private sector and Pacic island countries have access to relevant expertise from the regional agencies. Evaluate Reestimates. Compare the reestimated shing value added in the country chapters of this report to the ocial estimate and evaluate the dierences and any need for modication to the methodology. When using the production approach for estimating shing contribution to GDP, the following may be useful: i) Categories. Formulate logical sheries categories that group similar sheries with similar VARs. The present study uses the categories of coastal commercial, coastal subsistence, oshore locally based, oshore foreign-based, freshwater, and aquaculture. Other categories may be more appropriate in some countries, while the smaller countries may have fewer categories. ii) VARs. In the absence of specialized economic studies for the concerned country, use the suggested VARs of Appendix 3 of this report. iii) Oshore Production Estimates. For estimates of oshore sheries production, use the WCPFC national sheries reports. All Pacic island countries prepare these for the annual meeting of the Scientic Committee of the WCPFC (available at www.wcpfc.int). The sta of government sheries agency or the FFA can place values on the tonnage of sheries production in the document.
Exports of Fishery Products

National Data and Comparisons
The readily available information on the export of shery products is presented in the country chapters in this report and summarized in Table 26.5 below. Data presented are for 2007, unless otherwise stated. Aquaculture products are included in the term shery products. Some of the diculties encountered when using and comparing export data mainly involved the treatment of exports of domestic vessels when those vessels unloaded in a foreign port, and reexports, both at the shery level
Table 26.5: Value of Exports of Fishery Products from the Pacific Islands
Share of All Exports (%) Details 79.4 Aquarium fish are worth NZ$62,000. Fresh fish are 1/3 more than pearls. 76 Exports from offshore fishing account for 91% of exports. 12.2 58 4.3
318
Country Cook Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Islands
Nominal Value (local currency) NZ$5,598,000 $12,301,318
Nominal Value ($) 4,120,828 12,301,318
F$101,300,000
63,217,953
Kiribati
A$2,500,000
1,893,375
Marshall Islands
$37,342,000
37,342,000
Nauru n/a 100 1.3 55.3 90
Niue
n/a
Palau
$19,000,000
19,000,000
Papua New Guinea Samoa
K299,000,000
101,000,000
ST20,000,000
7,634,000
Solomon Islands
SI$151,392,000
19,784,631
12
Tuna exports dominate, with other important commodities being marine aquarium items, bche de mer, trochus, and deepwater snapper. Data are for 2006. Aquarium fish are the largest component. Seaweed exports have fallen markedly in recent years. Data are for 2006. Tuna exports are the most important fishery export. Aquarium fish are the largest component of the coastal exports. Export data in 2005 and 2006 are distorted by sales of ships. Fishery exports averaged 30% of all exports in 20022004. Currently, there is no export of fishery products. The last export of fresh tuna from the domestic longline operation was in 2001. Unpublished data from Customs Niue indicate that fish exports were 88.5 tons in 2005, 403.6 tons in 2006, and 602.2 tons in 2007. Tuna exports dominate, with other important commodities being marine aquarium items, trochus, and coral. Major exports are tuna products ($88 million) and other fish, lobster, shellfish, and shrimp (about $13 million combined). Since 1997, export bans on several types of fishery products (coral, aquarium fish, and bche de mer) have resulted in almost all commercial fishery exports in recent years being tuna products. The major commodities are tuna (by far the largest), bche de mer, trochus, aquarium products, seaweed, and shark fins.
Country Tonga
Nominal Value Nominal Value (local currency) ($) T$9,800,000 4,861,780
Tuvalu
A$5,000
4,216
Vanuatu 100
Vt130,400,000
1,230,189
Share of All Exports (%) Details 46.9 Data are for FY2007. The major exports by percentage of value were tuna (29%), live rock (21%), soft coral (12%), snapper (11%), and aquarium fish (10%). 100 The only significant exports in recent years were bche de mer and aluminum scraps (crushed cans), with the latter actually being a reexport. 3.4 Data are the average for 20042007. Trochus, bche de mer, and aquarium products dominated exports.
American Samoa
438,529,360
438,529,360
French Polynesia n/a n/a
CFP11,169,000,000
128,379,310
71.5
Guam
n/a
New Caledonia 0 0
CFP13,651,000,000
156,908,046
1.1
Northern Mariana Islands 37,542 n/a
Pitcairn Islands
NZ$51,000
Tokelau Wallis and Futuna
n/a CFP6,800,000
n/a 78,161
n/a 100
Data are for 2006. Small amounts of fresh fish were occasionally shipped to Hawaii, but this trade was insignificant compared to the export of tuna products from canneries. Pearl products made up 96% of all fishery exports. Pelagic fish made up slightly more than half of the non-pearl fishery exports. Exports of fish, chilled, fresh, frozen, dried, and salted were $11.8 million in 2007, but almost all were likely from the transshipping longliners and were not bona fide exports. Cultured shrimp made up 68% of fishery exports. Bche de mer, tuna, and trochus were also important. There was no significant commercial export of fishery products. Any fish sent overseas was largely for family and friends in Hawaii and mainland United States. The fish sold to ships and yachts could be considered export. They were sold to foreigners, usually paid in a foreign currency, and mostly consumed away from the country. There was no monitoring of Tokelau exports. The only officially documented export in 2007 was trochus.
A$ = Australian dollar, CFP = Pacific franc, F$ = Fiji dollar, FY = fiscal year, K = kina, n/a = not available, SI$ = Solomon Islands dollar, ST = tala, T$ = paanga, Vt = vatu.
Data are for 2007, unless otherwise noted; prices are free on board (FOB); official data are used where available.
320
(e.g., what transshipped sh to include) and at the national levelperiodic exports of cars and ships tended to deate the relative importance of exports from other sectors. Figures 26.4 and 26.5 show the nominal value of the shery exports and the value of shery exports relative to total national exports. The most important feature is that shery exports are very important to the countries of the region. In about half of the countries, shery exports represent over half of all exports. Where they represent less than half the value of national exports, they are mostly quite large in nominal terms: New Caledonia ($157 million), PNG ($101 million), Fiji Islands ($63 million), and Marshall Islands ($37million). The three entities that have the largest value of exports are American Samoa, New Caledonia, and French Polynesiaironically, all satellite or dependent territories. Of the total $996 million in shery exports in 2007, about three-quarters are from these three territories. In terms of export commodities, the most important in value by far are tuna products. Tuna exports from American Samoa alone approach the value of all other shery exports in all other Pacic island countries combined. Determining the precise regional value of tuna exports (or other export commodities) is dicult due to unavailability of export statistics disaggregated to the commodity level in some countries. In 2007, 14 of the 22 countries and territories exported substantial amounts of tuna products. Aquaculture exports in 2007 were dominated by pearl culture in French Polynesia ($123 million), shrimp culture in New Caledonia ($107 million), and pearl culture in the Cook Islands ($1.6 million). These three types of operations were responsible for about one quarter of all shery exports in all the countries of the region in 2007. Other interesting aspects of regional shery exports are: In two countries that are major shery exporters (PNG and New Caledonia) the relative importance of the shery exports is dwarfed by other exports. For many countries in which shery exports are more than half of all exports, only several of them export tiny quantities: Niue, Tuvalu, and Wallis and Futuna. Several countries located in areas of good tuna shing (as judged by access fees) export little or no tuna: Kiribati, Nauru, Tokelau, and Tuvalu. Export of aquarium products is signicant in 10 countries.
Figure 26.4: Annual Value of Fishery Exports

500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0
American Samoa PNG Wallis & Futuna Solomon Islands New Caledonia French Polynesia Pitcairn Islands Cook Islands Vanuatu Palau Kiribati Samoa Tonga Nauru Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands Fiji Islands Tuvalu FSM
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Data are for 2007, unless otherwise noted in the table. Source: Table 26.5.
Figure 26.5: Fishery Share of Value of All Exports (%)

120 Percent of Total Exports 100 80 60 40 20 French Polynesia 0 American Samoa Tuvalu Palau Wallis & Futuna FSM Cook Islands Niue Vanuatu Solomon Islands Marshall Islands New Caledonia Tonga Kiribati Samoa Fiji Islands PNG
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Data are for 2007, unless otherwise noted in the table. Source: Table26.5.
Exports (US$'000)
322
Change in the Value of Fishery Exports

Another aspect of shery exports is their change over time. Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) gave export values for the independent Pacic island countries for 1999. Those values are compared with the values of the present study (for 2007) in Table 26.6 and Figure 26.6. Fishery exports increased from 1999 to 2007 in most countries. They fell signicantly, however, in the Solomon Islands (due to a deteriorating currency exchange rate) and Samoa, where a fall occurred despite an improved exchange rate. In some cases (e.g., FSM), increases in shery exports may be related to improvements in dening and monitoring exports. Total shery exports of the countries compared almost doubled in nominal terms in the 6years between the two studies.
Table 26.6: Change in the Value of Fishery Exports ($)
Country Papua New Guinea Fiji Islands Marshall Islands Solomon Islands Palau Federated States of Micronesia Samoa Tonga Cook Islands Kiribati Vanuatu Tuvalu Nauru Total
Sources: Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) and Table 26.5.
Gillett and Lightfoot (for 1999) 48,106,666 29,193,745 473,000 35,472,033 2,213,419 4,878,387 10,785,287 2,573,670 2,919,136 1,483,871 394,954 4,233 0 138,498,401
Present Study (for 2007) 101,000,000 63,217,953 37,342,000 19,784,631 19,000,000 12,301,318 7,634,000 4,861,780 4,120,828 1,893,375 1,230,189 4,216 0 272,390,290
Figure 26.6: Change in the Value of Fishery Exports

120,000 100,000 Export Value (US$'000) 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Palau Marshall Islands Fiji Islands Solomon Islands Cook Islands Kiribati Vanuatu Tuvalu PNG Tonga Samoa Nauru FSM
Present study
Gillett/Lightfoot
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Sources: Gillett and Lightfoot (2001) and Table 26.6.
Difficulties in Measuring Fishery Exports

In the course of collecting and compiling information on shery exports, a number of observations were made on the accuracy of data. Most notable was the apparent underestimation of the value of shery exports. This underestimation appeared large and relatively worse than in other trade sectors. In most cases, when the ocial export values were compared with other sources of similar information (e.g., importing country information, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [CITES] records, audited exporting company accounts), the dierences were remarkable. Possible reasons for the dierences are (i) most government customs departments are oriented to taxing imports and may give low priority to documenting exports; (ii) keeping track of shery exports is more complex than for other major commodities due to the presence of many exporters, a multitude of dierent products each with dierent values, large numbers of small shipments, and many dierent export points; and (iii) often there is no examination by customs departments of the exported commodities.
324
Further, in many countries, products that would often be considered sheries products, such as coral, are not captured in the ocial export statistics. In some countries, shery exports are conned to nsh, while other countries specically list a few important shery exports and put others together with miscellaneous nonshery commodities. Consequently, the total value of shery exports cannot be easily determined from ocial publications.

In each of the country chapters of this report, information is provided on access fees received for foreign shing. Table 26.7 summarizes the fees paid for the most recent annual period for which data are available and compares those fees to the national revenue and to population. Access fee payments are shown graphically in Figure 26.7.
Table 26.7: Access Fees for Foreign Fishing
Access Fees in Local Currency (year) NZ$356,320 (2007) F$411,176 (2007)a $14,757,221 (2007) Access Fees Share of Government Revenue (%) 0.4 0.03 10.2 41.7 5.4 17.2 2.3 3.2 0.6 0.15 4.4 11.8 0.2 11.3 1.7 Access Fees per Capita ($) 17 0 134 228 37 518 166 55 2 1 23 1,264 1 355 6
Country Cook Islands Fiji Islands Federated States of Micronesia Kiribati A$25,419,845 (2007) Marshall Islands $1,953,644 (2007) Nauru A$6,126,000 (FY2007/08) Niue NZ$382,775 (FY2006/07) Palau $1,121,281 (FY2007) Papua New Guinea K44,300,000 (2007) Samoa ST663,021 (2007/08) Solomon Islands SI$90,000,000 (2007) Tokelau NZ$2,011,000 (2007) Tonga T$267,057 (2007) Tuvalu A$4,100,000 (2007) Vanuatu b Vt149,567,538 (2006)
Access Fees ($) 262,000 256,985 14,757,221 21,361,214 1,953,644 5,147,899 263,983 1,121,281 14,966,216 256,985 11,764,705 1,478,676 132,206 3,445,378 1,359,700
A$ = Australian dollar, F$ = Fiji dollar, FY = fiscal year, K = kina, NZ$ = New Zealand dollar, SI$ = Solomon Islands dollar, ST = tala, T$ = paanga, Vt = vatu.
a Fiji Islands has access fees for its locally based offshore fleet (F$525,000 in 2006), but these are applied to both Fiji Islands and foreign-registered vessels, and are, therefore, not considered here as fees for foreign fishing. b No access fee data are available for Vanuatu later than 2006. Those 2006 payments are matched with 2006 government revenue.
Source: Country chapters of this report; population information from the introduction to this report.
There are several explanations and caveats for the information in Table26.7: Some Pacic island countries consider that all payments under the US tuna treaty are for shing access, while others treat some components as aid. Unless otherwise stated in a readily available government document, all US tuna treaty payments are assumed to be for access. Exchange rates used are the ADB average-of-year rates given at the beginning of this report. Government revenue is dened in various ways in the countries of the region. More information on what is included in Government revenue (if available) is given in the individual country chapters. The annual periods associated with fee payments and government revenue in many cases do not always correspond (i.e., a calendar year and a nancial year). Given the limited information available, this is unavoidable. The access fees listed are (wherever possible) taken from government budget documents in the public domain and represent money actually received. The sources of information are specied in the country chapters.
Figure 26.7: Access Fees Paid for Foreign Fishing

25,000,000 20,000,000 US$ 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Tokelau Marshall Islands Cook Islands Solomon Islands Fiji Islands Tuvalu Palau Kiribati Vanuatu Samoa Tonga Nauru PNG FSM Niue
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Table 26.7.
326
Another important aspect of foreign access fees is their value compared to the value of the catch made by the fee-paying eets in a countrys zone. Table 26.8 uses the amount of access fees from Table 26.7 and compares it to the value of the foreign catch in a countrys zone. Some explanation is required, as follows: The value of foreign catch is derived from estimates of foreignbased oshore shing in the country chapters. Rather than landed values, these values are the in-zone values (i.e., destination market values adjusted for cost of transport to those markets)closer to the real economic value of the catch. The values given are for calendar year 2007 (2006 for Vanuatu) while the access fees are sometimes for a slightly dierent annual period (e.g., FY2007). Due to the presence in some countries of foreign locally based eets that pay foreign access fees, some adjustments have been made, as noted in the table.
Table 26.8: Access Fee Payments Relative to the Value of the In-Zone Foreign Catch
Value of Offshore Foreign-based Access Fees Country Cook Islands (local currency) 356,320 Catch (local currency) 0 Access Fees Share of the Foreign Catch Value Large Comment Access fees were paid by a fleet that did not fish in the Fiji Islands 411,176 844,000 48.7 zone in 2007. Access fees were paid but there was only a small Federated States of Micronesia 14,757,221 185,562,446 8.0 amount of foreign fishing. As the fees included those from locally based foreign fishing, the value of the catch from locally based longlining was added to the value of the foreignKiribati 25,419,845 232,714,135 10.9 based catch. The value of catch of foreign-based locally registered purse seiner (Kao, which presumably did not pay Kiribati access fees) was subtracted from the value of the foreignbased catch in the zone.

Value of Offshore Foreign-based Access Fees Country Marshall Islands (local currency) 1,953,644 Catch (local currency) 35,419,168 Access Fees Share of the Foreign Catch Value 5.5 Comment Because the fees included those from locally based foreign fishing, the value of catch from locally based longlining was added to the value of the foreignbased catch. Nauru Niue 6,126,000 382,775 95,201,620 0 6.4 Large Access fees were paid but there was no foreign Palau 1,121,281 18,747,152 6.0 fishing. Because the fees included those from locally based foreign fishing, the value of catch from locally based longlining was added to the value of the foreignPapua New Guinea 44,300,000 1,143,631,355 3.9 based catch. This was the access fee income divided by the value of catches in PNG waters by foreign-based Samoa 663,021 129,166 513.3 fleets. Access fees were paid but there was only a small amount of foreign fishing. Solomon Islands Tokelau 90,000,000 2,011,000 1,174,648,841 540,484 7.7 372.1 Access fees were paid but there was only a small Tonga 267,057 0 Large amount of foreign fishing. Access fees were paid but there was no foreign Tuvalu Vanuatu 4,100,000 149,567,538 48,700,000 2,704,380,286 8.4 5.5 fishing. Catch was relatively large in 2007. Fees paid and catch value are for 2006.
Source: Table 26.7 and country chapters of this report.
The results from the table (less the outliers) are shown graphically in Figure 26.8. In comparing access fees between countries, it should be noted that some countries (e.g., PNG) charge lower rates to foreign vessels that are locally based to encourage such local basing.
328
Figure 26.8: Access Fee Payments Relative to the Value of the Foreign Catch
12 10 8 Percent 6 4 2 0 Nauru Solomon Islands Palau Vanuatu Kiribati Tuvalu Marshall Islands PNG FSM
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Table 26.8.
The comparisons above between access fees and catch values are for one year only. Given the characteristic variability of catches by tuna shing in a national zone, a more informative approach would be to average several years of data. In Tuvalu, for example, over the 5 years 20032007, access fees averaged A$3.63 million/year, or 14.6% of the value of the sh caught. Unfortunately, such information is readily available for only a few countries in the region. All independent Pacic island countries receive at least some access fees for foreign shing in their zones. Only one Pacic Island territory, Tokelau, presently licenses foreign shing vessels and receives access fees. Payments from the US tuna treaty represent all or almost all of the access fees in the Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, Niue, Samoa, and Tonga. The US eet has never done any signicant amount of shing in Tonga or Niue (where US treaty payments averaged $166 per person in the latest annual period), and only tiny catches have been made in the Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, and Samoa. Table 26.9 gives the access fees and the changes in fees between 1999 (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001) and the present study (2007) for the countries covered in both studies. The fees increased in nominal terms for all but three
Table 26.9: Changes in Access Fees, 19992007

Country Cook Islands Fiji Islands Federated States of Micronesia Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Total
( ) = negative. Sources: Table 26.8 and Gillett and Lightfoot (2001).
Access Fees 2007 ($) 262,000 256,985 14,757,221 21,361,214 1,953,644 5,147,899 263,983 1,121,281 14,966,216 256,985 11,764,705 132,206 3,445,378 1,359,700 77,049,417
Access Fees 1999 ($) 169,072 212,000 15,400,000 20,600,000 4,982,699 3,400,000 151,793 800,000 5,840,000 188,616 273,458 152,041 5,900,000 218,448 58,288,127
Change ($) 92,928 44,985 (642,779) 761,214 (3,029,055) 1,747,899 112,190 321,281 9,126,216 68,369 11,491,247 (19,835) (2,454,622) 1,141,252 18,761,290
Change (%) 35.5 17.5 (4.4) 3.6 (155.0) 34.0 42.5 28.7 61.0 26.6 97.7 (15.0) (71.2) 83.9 24.3
countries, with an overall increase of almost one-quarter ($18.7 million) in the 7 years between the estimates. It should be noted that access fees can uctuate widely year to year because of many factors (e.g., eet movements, exchange rates), and comparing an average of several years (e.g., a moving 5-year average) would be more informative. The total access fees in the table ($77,049,417) do not include Tokelau, for which the access fees were $1,478,676 in 2007 (Tokelau was not included in the earlier study). The total access fees paid regionwide in 2007 were, therefore, $78,528,093. In the earlier study by Gillett and Lightfoot (2001), there was considerable secrecy concerning levels of access fee payment, even at the aggregate national level. Much of the data on access fee payment was estimated with considerable diculty. For the present study, information on access fee receipts was available in the public domain for most countries. Where this was not the situation, sheries and/or nance ocials cooperated to furnish the information.
330

In each country chapter, information is provided on the readily available information related to government revenue generated from the sheries sector that is not from foreign shing access fees. That information is summarized in Table 26.10.
Table 26.10: Government Revenue from Fisheries Other than Foreign Access Fees
Country Cook Islands Government Fishery Revenue The fees received for licensing the domestic offshore fleet were: FY2006, NZ$95,000; FY20007, NZ$110,000; and FY2008, NZ$220,000. The national annual reports do not provide information on government revenue other than fishing access fees. Any licensing of small-scale fishing would occur at the state level. In 2006, F$957,660 was paid by the locally based offshore fishing fleet for access fees, management fees, and other license fees. F$48,650 was paid by participants in coastal fisheries for various fees and permits. There are transshipment fees (A$253,652 in 2006), tourist fishing licenses, observer fees (A$7768 in 2006), and marine product export license fees. In 2007, the transshipment fees collected were $105,600. Other fees and charges were $130,952. Disaggregated information is not available on government revenue from fisheries other than that associated with access by foreign fishing vessels. No information is available on the amount of such revenue, if any. A significant source of direct government revenue from fisheries activities is the fish export tax. Unpublished data from the Bureau of Budget and Planning shows the total amounts collected from the fish export tax: FY2005, $882,000; FY2006, $1,471,000; and FY2007, $1,002,000.
Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Islands
Kiribati
Marshall Islands Nauru
Niue Palau
Papua New Guinea Domestic license fees received by the National Fisheries Authority were K1.4 million in 2007 and other fees K8 million in 2005 (data for later years not available). Samoa Solomon Islands ST105,000 was collected in FY2008 for domestic fishing vessel licenses. The government receives substantial revenue from the fisheries sector. The sources include licensing of domestic vessels, fish export taxes, and transshipment fees. Domestic tuna vessel license fees in 2008 paid by National Fisheries Development Ltd. and Soltai were SI$100,000 and SI$8,000, respectively.
Country Tonga
Government Fishery Revenue The T$180,074 collected for Revenue Performance consisted of Consumption Tax, Sundry Revenue Vavau, Sundry Revenue Haapai, Sundry Revenue Niua Toputapu, Market Fees, Sundry Revenue, Sales of Products and Produces, Sundry Revenue, and Miscellaneous Licenses. Sale of products includes aquaculture items and posters. No information is available on the amount of nonaccess revenue, if any. Vessels rarely transship in Funafuti. There are no licensing requirements or export levies on domestic fishing vessels. The Fisheries Department annual report of 2007 (Fisheries Department 2008a) lists various sources of revenue. Apart from the access fees, the other sources are other disposal (Vt220,404 collected in 2007), total repair fees (Vt1,118,855), total permits recoveries (Vt1,707,905), and other items revenue (Vt1,360). The total of this nonaccess revenue was Vt3,048,524 in 2007. Information on other forms of government revenue from the fisheries sector, if any, is not readily available. In general, the fisheries sector is not revenue generating, but rather subsidy absorbing. Any fishing licensing fees paid by vessels based in Guam go to US government agencies, not to the Government of Guam. There are both subsidies and taxes applied to commercial fishing activity, but this information is not readily available.
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
American Samoa French Polynesia Guam New Caledonia
Northern Mariana Any fishing licensing fees paid by vessels go to US government Islands agencies, not to the Government of Northern Mariana Islands. Pitcairn Islands Tokelau Apart from fees for foreign fishing access, no information is available on government revenue from the fisheries sector. Apart from fees for foreign fishing access, no information is available on government revenue from the fisheries sector.
A$ = Australian dollar, F$ = Fiji dollar, FY = fiscal year, K = kina, NZ$ = New Zealand dollar, SI$ = Solomon Islands dollar, ST = tala, T$ = paanga, Vt = vatu. Source: Country chapters of this report.
The data in Table 26.10 form a heterogeneous mixture, reported with varying degrees of rigor, and not easily comparable across the countries. The listed items are really monies collected by government and are a combination of substantial government revenue items (e.g., domestic license fees), cost recovery for a service provided (e.g., CITES inspection permit), and payments for commercial activities of government sheries agencies (e.g., money paid by exporters for giant clams raised by a sheries division). Domestic shing license fees are one of the most important types of nonaccess revenue from the sheries sector in the region. Five countries (Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, PNG, Samoa, and Solomon Islands) have signicant
332
domestic shing license fees and they make information on those fees readily available. All these examples are at least partially applicable to locally based oshore shing and most of these are intended to procure for the government a portion of the resource rent in that shery. Fees for transshipment are only given in Table 26.10 for three countries, but it is likely that with additional research, the amount of money paid in each country could eventually be obtainedbut this highlights an important issue in shery benets of the region: the sector is not active in most countries at advertising its importance. In the tourism sector, it is likely that a benet of the magnitude of that from transshipping would be publicized with enthusiasm. Some idea of the benets of transshipping in the region is stressed by McCoy (2007): It has been estimated that, on average, a port call by a transhipping purse seiner results in about $3,000$6,000 in direct revenue to the hosting country, including per tonne transshipment fees charged in some countries.During the period 20042006 in-port purse seine transshipment took place approximately 2,700 times in 14 ports of Pacic island countries. The bulk of the activity during that threeyear period took place in Pohnpei (889 transhipments), Majuro (524), Rabaul (381), Honiara (279), and Tarawa (187). Some of the additional features of the nonaccess government revenue from the sheries sector are: Substantial revenue from the sheries sector presumably comes from personal and company taxationbut it appears that this information has not been compiled in any country in the region (as has been done for tourism). Apart from any company/personal taxation, no Pacic island dependent territory obtains signicant nonaccess revenue and only Tokelau received access revenue. Two countries have export duties on shery products, which apparently were imposed to prevent unfair transfer pricing by vertically integrated shing/marketing companies.
These transhipment statistics do not include the large amount of longline transhipping by vessels from the Peoples Republic of China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Taipei,China, and other countries.
In general, semiautonomous sheries authorities (e.g., PNGs National Fisheries Authority, the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority) seem to be better at reporting on government revenue, including nonaccess revenue.
In terms of both good governance and giving due credit to the sheries sector for any revenue generated, it would be sensible to track the signicant revenue generated and make the results readily available to shery stakeholders. Dedicating a small section in the annual report of a government sheries agency, such as that done by the Fisheries Department in Fiji Islands, would be relatively easy and could institutionalize the process.
Employment Related to Fisheries

Country Information
In each of the country chapters of this report, information on sheries employment is provided. Although several dierent types of employment data are presented, the objective of this section is primarily to gain an appreciation of the importance of employment in sheries at the national level relative to other occupations. In addition, this section examines the distribution of this involvement with respect to gender and attempts to make some intercountry comparisons. Although the theme of this study revolves around analyzing benets (including those from employment) that ow from sheries, it is appropriate to present some ideas on the types of employment information that would be important for sheries management. This touches on the subject of why employment information is collected. The employment information presented in the country chapters is a heterogeneous assemblage of various types of data. Meaningful summaries at the national level and intercountry comparisons are dicult for a number of reasons: The data originate from informal estimates to studies that range from initiatives conned to the sheries sector to much broader exercises that covered all economic sectors or the entire population.
In this section, employment and participation are used almost synonymously, but there is a tendency to use employment for wage work and participation for subsistence activities.
334
The studies deal, in dierent ways, with the various mixes of paid work, unpaid work, and work for the family. There is inconsistency across countries in the categorization of sh processing. In some countries, it is placed in the same sector as shing, while in others, it is in manufacturing. Some studies have produced obviously erroneous results; others have problems of credibility. Some information is collected by specic interest groups and thus could be selective and/or self-serving.
Table 26.11 gives for each country of the region survey data believed to be the best indication of the relative importance of (a) employment in commercial sheries, and (b) involvement in subsistence shing.
Table 26.11: Relative Importance of Fisheries Employment Commercial and Subsistence
Country Cook Islands Fishery Employment and/or Participation Information Of the employed population recorded in the 2001 census (5,928 people), 427 (7.2%) indicated they were employed in agriculture and fishing, 183 of them on Rarotonga. For subsistence fishing, the employment situation was very different between Rarotonga and the outer islands. A more recent survey on Mangaia Island indicated that almost all households (92%) were engaged in fisheries with an average of 12 fishers per household. A similar survey on Rarotonga showed that less than half of all households (44%) were engaged in fisheries, with an average of one fisher per every second household only. In FY2007, a survey showed that fisheries accounted for 1.3% of all employed people, but was oriented to formal employment with the larger fishing companies. Little national-level information is available on participation in small-scale fisheries. Based on information in a study in late 2004 and the 2004/05 Fiji Islands employment study, the estimated 9,144 fisheries jobs in the 12 fisheries subsectors (e.g., offshore, processing) represent about 3.8% of the total number of jobs in Fiji Islands (wage, salaried, self-employed). There is little national-level information available on participation in subsistence fisheries. The 2005 Kiribati census indicated that 7.1% of cash workers were in agriculture/fishing. The results of a census in 2000 had greater detail for fisheries employment: Fisheries was the main activity for 1.5% of people. With respect to subsistence fisheries, the results of fishery-focused surveys by the Fisheries Division are mostly narrow in scope (i.e., one company, one island, one subsector of fisheries) and it is difficult to draw national conclusions.
Kiribati
Country Marshall Islands
Fishery Employment and/or Participation Information In early 2008, an employment survey showed that fishing accounted for 2.8% of the total number of jobs in the country and 4.7% of the income from jobs. A 2004 survey estimated that 62.2% of households on Majuro did at least some fishing once a year. Little national-level information is available on participation in subsistence fisheries. A survey in 2005 indicated that fisheries do not play a significant role in income for households. For 5%, it was their first income and for 17%, their second income. A total of 245 households were surveyed for income and expenditure, with 97% of them found to be engaged in fishing activities. The 2002 HIES indicated that fish income represented 0.9% of all income in Niue for the year and that 12% of all households had some fish income. There were 293 boats on the island in 2006 when the population was 1,626, or one boat for 5.5 people. The 2005 census stated that (i) of the 13,800 people reporting income in 2004, 305 (2.2%) reported income from selling fish and (ii) of 14,154 people over 18 years old in 2004, 933 (6.6%) reported some subsistence fishing activity. A 2008 study estimated 8,990 jobs associated with large-scale tuna fishing and canning. Considering the monetary employment of 774,000 in PNG in 2008, these 8,990 tuna jobs represented about 1.2% of the monetary jobs in the country. A 2005 study estimated about 2,0004,000 part-time artisanal fishers. A 2001 study indicated that 250,000500,000 persons participated in the coastal subsistence fishery. Participation in freshwater fishing is very large: 23% of all rural households in the country were engaged in catching fish (both marine and freshwater fishing). Formal registered employment in 2007 consisted of 22,150 people, of which 196 (0.9%) were in the fishing sector. With respect to small-scale fisheries, a Fisheries Division report in 2007 indicated that although only 7.26% of the population consisted of fishers, 41.7% of households had at least one fisher. A study in 2005 indicated a total of 42,297 formal jobs in the country in 2004, of which 5,114 (12.1%) were in fisheries. For small-scale fisheries, a study in 2006 found that 50% of females and 90% of males participated in fishing activities; 83% of households engaged in some form of fishing activity. The 2003 survey of employment indicated that there were 34,561 people employed, of whom 1,050 (3%) were employed in the category of fishing. With respect to participation in small-scale fishing, a 2003 Australian-sponsored study estimated the number of fishers: Tongatapu, 6,470; Haapai, 2,053; Vavau, 4,375, or a total of 12,898, which is 12.8% of the countrys population in 2003.
Nauru
Niue
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
336
Country Tuvalu
Fishery Employment and/or Participation Information The 2002 Population and Housing Census of Tuvalu indicated that 58% of all people participated in fishing during the week before the census, of which 80% was only for own/family use, 2% for sale only, and 18% for mixed subsistence/commercial. There is not much readily available national-level information on employment in the urban-based commercial fishing, aquaculture, and postharvest activities. A 2007 agriculture census indicated that (i) 72% of the rural households in Vanuatu possessed fishing gear and engaged in fishing activities during the previous 12 months; (ii) the number of fishing households was 15,758; and (iii) of the fishing households, 11,577 (73%) fished mainly for home consumption, 4,127 (26%) for home consumption with occasional selling, and 74 (less than 1%) mainly for sale. A government survey in 2006 showed 5,894 government workers, 4,757 cannery workers, and 6,744 employees in the private sector. The canneries, therefore, provided 27% of all employment. There were 153 commercial fishers involved in domestic fishing. Data on involvement in subsistence fishing are not readily available. In 2007, 13 people were involved in non-pearl aquaculture, 7,000 in pearl culture, 1,800 in coastal fishing, 1,025 in offshore fishing, and 200 in freshwater fishing, or a total of about 17,500. For the relative importance of this involvement: (i) the total population of French Polynesia in 2007 was 259,800, and (ii) there were 68,849 declared jobs in the economy. A study in 2008 stated that the Guam Fishermens Cooperative membership included 164 full-time and part-time fishers (0.1% of Guams population) and it processed and marketed an estimated 80% of the local commercial catch. On subsistence fishing, a 2007 household survey of 400 local residents showed that approximately 40% of them fished on a regular basis, which was identified to be more important as a social activity than as an income-generating activity. About 1,000 people are employed in commercial fishing/ aquaculture, which represents about 1.2% of the 80,685 economically active people in the territory. With respect to noncommercial fishing, a study in 2000 indicated that of 1,000 people interviewed in the three provinces of New Caledonia, 50% of the respondents fished 13 times per week. The 2000 census and the 2005 HIES gave the number of employed at 614 and 894 persons, respectively. The data, however, were disaggregated only to the level of people employed in farming, fishing, and forestry. A survey in 2006 found that 20% of all the people interviewed were active fishers and went fishing once every week or two.
Vanuatu
American Samoa
French Polynesia
Guam
New Caledonia
Country Pitcairn Islands
Fishery Employment and/or Participation Information In 1994, an SPC officer observed that there were 89 hardcore fishers on the island, with another 34 who also fish fairly regularly. Twelve people equate to about 19% of the islands population. In 2003, a survey of 153 households on all three atolls determined that 152 households (99.3%) were involved in fishing. A fisheries inventory of Wallis and Futuna in 2001 showed that of the 333 fishers identified on Wallis, 26% fished only once per week, 54% twice per week, and 20% three or more times per week. Of the 46 fishers on Futuna, only 10 fished often enough to be considered artisanal fishers.
Tokelau Wallis and Futuna
FY = fiscal year, HIES = household income and expenditure survey. Source: Employment sections of the country chapters of this report.
are:
Some noteworthy features on sheries employment in the above table The importance of participation in subsistence sheries seems to have a strong relationship to the type of islandhighest in atolls, followed by small islands, and least in large high islands. This pattern is somewhat altered by PNG with its signicant freshwater subsistence sheries. The importance of sheries in formal employment seems to be related more to business conditions than to island type. These conditions include, among others, the tax situation, proximity to processing facilities, and airline connections to fresh sh markets. In about half the countries, there is sucient information to gain an appreciation of participation in commercial shing relative to participation in subsistence shing. With one exception (Palau), involvement in subsistence shing is vastly greater. Typically, 10 20 times more people sh for subsistence than for commercial purposes. Large-scale tuna processing (American Samoa, Fiji Islands, PNG, Marshall Islands, and Solomon Islands) has a remarkable eect on a countrys sheries-related employmentwhere it is captured by surveys. Most formal employment in sheries appears to be tuna-related.
338
Participation in mixed subsistence/commercial shing is signicant in survey results from Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Nauru, and Niue, but is likely to be important in several other countries also.
However, there is considerable subjectivity involved in deciding what is an important level for sheries employment. In one survey (COFISH 2005) for Nauru, it was stated that sheries do not play a signicant role in income for householdsfor 5% it is their rst income and for 17% their second income. There seems to be at least some justication for calling an activity signicant that produces some income for nearly a quarter of the households in a country. Also, general business surveys and surveys based on tax or provident fund records appear to be especially inappropriate for the sheries sector because commercial sheries in most Pacic island countries include large rms as well as tiny businesses, the latter often in isolated areas. Such surveys are carried out in about half of the countries in the region and they typically get responses from the larger rms, which are then assumed to portray the entire sector. This diculty appears to be worse in sheries than in other economic sectors. A surprisingly large number of studies that touch on sheries employment do not dene the terms used (e.g., work, participation, employment). When denitions are dierent in the various countries, they create great diculties for intercountry comparisons. In Samoa, one survey denes employment in an industry as those people who make national provident fund contributions, whereas in Tonga, employment in an industry is dened by the government statistics agency as working at least one hour a week in that industry. PNG, with 68% of the total population in the region, has a massive eect on any regional aggregation of participation in shing. However, little is known about its small-scale sheries employment. The range in estimates for participation in the coastal subsistence sheries in PNG (between 250,000 and 500,000 in one often-quoted study) approaches the magnitude of such participation in all the other countries of the region combined. In reviewing the interface between employment surveys and the sheries sector, one of the most signicant observations that can be made is that one cannot rely on government statistics oces to know what sheries employment information to collect and how to collect it. Considerable knowledge of the sector is required to collect meaningful information. Government sheries ocials and shing industry participants have an important role to play in working with statistics agencies to dene terms and categories, formulate survey strategies, and scrutinize survey results.
Participation of Women in Fisheries

Due to national and regional eorts over the past 15 years, much is now known about womens shery activities in the Pacic islands. Special eorts were made during the present study to obtain quantitative information on this aspect, summarized in Table 26.12.
Table 26.12: Male and Female Participation in Fisheries
Country Cook Islands Federated States of Micronesia Summary of National Qualitative Data Not much gender-disaggregated national information is readily available on participation in fisheries. Quantifying gender participation in fisheries appears to have received limited attention. In 2000 and 2001, a baseline survey was conducted assessing the role of women in the fisheries sector. Although some valuable ideas were put forward, little quantitative information was produced on the participation of women in fisheries. Combining information in a 2008 study of gender issues in the FijiIslands tuna industry with the 2004/05 Fiji Islands employment study, the jobs held by females in Fiji Islands tuna industry represented about 1.0% of the total number of jobs held by females in Fiji Islands. There is considerable gender-specific information on employment in the Fiji Islands tuna industry, but much less so in the wider fisheries sector. Not much gender-disaggregated national information is readily available on participation in fisheries. Not much gender-disaggregated national information is readily available on participation in fisheries. A survey in 2005 estimated that the total number of fishers in Nauru was 4,451, made up of 2,972 men and 1,579 women. There is no information documenting the activities of women involved in fisheries. The 2005 census estimated that of the 933 subsistence fishers 186 (19.9%) were female. A 1995 study estimated that women caught at least 25% of the subsistence catch, or more if the crab catch were added. A 2008 study on gender in the tuna industry indicated that about 7,000 women worked in the PNG tuna industry, including onshore handling and loining or canning, and technical and administrative positions. The study concluded that the tuna industry employed 3.3% of all formally employed women in the country.
Fiji Islands
Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru Niue Palau Papua New Guinea
340
Country Samoa
Summary of National Qualitative Data Of the people formally employed in fishing in 2007, 11.7% were female. For small-scale fishing, a study in 2001 indicated that approximately 18% of all village fishers were female. These women contributed around 23 % of the total weight of seafood. About 90% of the 750 employees of the tuna cannery were women in 2008. A 2006 poverty assessment found that 50% of females and 90% of males participated in fishing activities. The 2001 agriculture census showed that 7,704 persons were engaged in the fishing activities during the week prior to the census, 21% of whom were female. The 2003 survey of employment in the country indicated that there were 34,561 people employed in Tonga, of whom 1,050 (3%) were employed in the category of fishing. Of those employed in fishing, 180 (17%) were female. The 2002 Population and Housing Census of Tuvalu indicated that of the 528 people whose main economic activity was fishing, 68 (12.9%) were female. Not much gender-disaggregated national information is readily available on participation in fisheries. Not much gender-disaggregated national information is readily available on participation in fisheries. Not much gender-disaggregated national information is readily available on participation in fisheries. Not much gender-disaggregated national information is readily available on participation in fisheries. Not much gender-disaggregated national information is readily available on participation in fisheries. Not much gender-disaggregated national information is readily available on participation in fisheries. In 1994, an observation was that women and men fished regularly from the rocks, mainly for the evening meal. A 1998 survey found that the average household spent 14 person hours per week fishing, with women spending an average of 2 hours, and men 12 hours. In 2003, a study found that females were involved in some inshore fishing methods, although males still dominated. Females accounted for just over 50% of the reef gleaning effort, and around 40% of diving effort, with most of the diving effort directed at harvesting clams. Men go fishing, but it is mainly the women who provide the daily seafood. The island of Wallis is relatively flat compared to Futuna and gardens do not have to be made in difficult terrain so far from the villages. The women of Wallis are not involved in fishing in the same way as the Futunan women.
Solomon Islands Tonga
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
American Samoa French Polynesia Guam New Caledonia Northern Mariana Islands Pitcairn Islands Tokelau
Wallis and Futuna
Source: Employment sections of the country chapters of this report.
For most of the independent Pacic island countries there is at least some quantitative information at the national level on participation in sheries by sex. For the territories, such information is readily available only for Tokelau. A close scrutiny of the surveys upon which the estimates in Table 26.12 are based (see country chapters for details) shows that the accurate portrayal of the importance of women in sheries employment appears to be negatively aected by two factors: (i) the concept of using main unpaid activity in surveys for dening the subsistence sheries sector, which downplays the importance of secondary activities (e.g., even for women who do considerable shing, childcare is often the main unpaid activity); and (ii) placing commercial sh processing in some countries (where many women are employed) in the manufacturing sector. The relative participation in village shing by sex for all types of shing activities combined, from the preliminary results of a multidisciplinary regionwide sheries survey (SPC 2008b) in which 46 sites were surveyed in 17 countries or island groups, is given in Figure 26.9. It is concluded that there is a general dominanceof shing at the village level by men. The opposite is true for invertebrate shing, still a domain of women.
Figure 26.9: Proportion of Men and Women Participating in Fishing
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Percent
Fr en
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: SPC (2008b).
Regional Employment Studies

Fishery subsectors for which estimates of regional employment are available are:
Sa m oa P o M l y ar n sh es i al l Is a la nd s Pa FS la u M -C hu uk Ne w Nau Ca r le u do ni a K Co irib a ok ti Isl an ds So lo Ni m on ue Isl a Fi nds ji I sla nd Va s nu at u W al PN lis /F G ut un a ch

Men Women
Tu v
FS
al u -Y ap
342
Aquaculture. Aquaculture may contribute some form of full-time or partial employment for around 25,000 people in the region (SPC 2008b). Foreign Fishing Vessels. There are about 1,200 men from the region working on the 10 major eets. The major employers are Japan (about 30% of employment), [Republic of ] Korea (24%), [the] United States (15%), and [Taipei,China] (13%) (Gillett and McCoy 1997). Trochus Processing. The 14 operational trochus factories in the Pacic islands employ 213 workers (World Bank 1997). Large- and Small-scale Commercial Fishing. Using estimates of vessel numbers, about 45,000 Pacic islanders appear to be presently involved in commercial shing in the region (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001).
Table 26.13: Tuna Employment in Pacific Island Countries

Local Jobs on Vessels Country Cook Islands Fiji Islands Federated States of Micronesia Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Total 2002a 50 893 89 39 5 5 5 1 460 674 464 0 161 59 54 2,959 2006b 15 330 36 15 0 0 0 0 110 110 66 0 75 20 20 797 2008c 12 150 25 15 25 0 0 0 440 255 107 0 45 65 30 1,169 Local Jobs in Shore Facilities 2002a 15 1,496 131 47 457 10 0 11 2,707 108 422 0 85 36 30 5,555 2006b 15 2,200 24 80 100 2 14 5 4,000 90 330 0 35 10 30 2008c 10 1,250 140 70 116 0 18 20 8,550 40 827 0 35 10 30
6,935 11,116
Note: The new Majuro loining plant began operation after the period covered by the 2008 survey. Sources: a Gillett (2002), b DevFish (2007), c Gillett (2008).
As mentioned above, most formal sheries employment in the region is associated with tuna. Employment related to tuna in Pacic island countries in 2002, 2006, and 2008 is shown in Table 26.13. Given the amount of eort that regional organizations have exerted on individual shery subsectors across the region, it is surprising that more work has not been done on estimating the associated employmentespecially considering that unemployment is arguably one of the most serious longterm problems of the region. There appear to be no readily available data on total regional employment in such activities as marine aquarium industry, live reef food sh trade, domestic sh marketing, bche de mer diving/processing, and commercial sportsshing. With respect to estimating regional employment in shery subsectors, any estimate, however crude, may have considerable value, if only to encourage renement of the employment estimates. In this regard, SPCs eorts to estimate aquaculture employment in the region are commendable. However, some degree of standardization in terminology and units of measurement is needed. It is not very meaningful to compare the number of full-time equivalents jobs in one study with the number of people having fulltimeorpartialemployment in another study.
Employment Information and Fisheries Management

Information on sheries employment is critically important not only for estimation of benets to the countries concerned but also for sheries management. In the many trade-os that sheries management entails, it is important to know how many people will be aected, positively or negatively, by management decisions. With the possible exception of employment related to tuna (shing/processing), few data are available for employment by shery in any of the countries of the region. As an example, there has been a debate in Fiji Islands stretching over at least 2 decades involving the trochus trade. The management issue is whether to ban the export of unprocessed trochus (and encourage processing and associated employment in Suva), or to allow unprocessed exports (which results in a higher price to rural shers). The precise number of people working at the trochus processing plants is known, but much of the debate over allowing raw trochus exports revolved around the number of trochus collectorsfor which no estimates have ever been made. Similar debates over the number of people to be aected by sheries management decisions have occurred in other sheries of the region, including
344
bche de mer (Solomon Islands), spearshing (Fiji Islands), night scuba diving (American Samoa), giant clams (Tonga), and export of reef sh (Palau). The message is that the availability of sheries employment information by shery could improve sheries management decisions. Other disaggregations that would be useful to sheries management are by sex, by urban/rural resident, and by local/expatriate. A ban on relatively high technology (e.g., use of scuba gear) would favor rural shers. The use of Asian versus local crews on locally based tuna vessels is a topical sheries management issue in several countries of the region.
Fish Consumption
This section presents selected information on per capita sh consumption in the region and some notable features encountered while obtaining and analyzing this information. Some objectives of collecting sh consumption information are given and some simple suggestions for improvement are oered.
Per Capita Fish Consumption

The readily available information on the consumption of sh and other shery resources is given in the country chapters. For most countries, there have not been any dedicated national-level studies of sh consumption in the last decade. The Gillett and Lightfoot study (2001) compiled ranges in national sh consumption as determined by various studies in the 1990s (Table 26.14). The table shows some signicant patterns. In general, countries comprising small islands have high sh consumption, while large island countries have low consumption. Exceptions are Tonga, where the studies suggest surprisingly low sh consumption, and Palau, where sh consumption is remarkably high. In general, the per capita consumption gures in Table 26.14 show that most Pacic island countries exceed by a large margin the world average per capita shery product consumption rate of 16.5 kg (Vannuccini 2005). Based on the predicted age structure of populations in the Pacic until 2030, the ageweight relationships typical of the region and the fresh sh content of about 20% protein suggest that an annual average per capita sh consumption of 3437 kg provides about 50% of the recommended protein intake for Pacic island countries (Bell et al. 2009).
Table 26.14: Ranges of Estimated Annual Per Capita Fishery Product Consumption
Country Cook Islands Fiji Islands Federated States of Micronesia Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu
Source: Gillett and Lightfoot (2001).
Range of Estimates (kg/person/year) 47.071.0 44.062.0 72.0114.0 72.0207.0 38.959.0 46.7 49.0118.9 84.0135.0 18.224.9 46.371.0 32.232.7 25.230.0 85.0146.0 15.925.7
Comparing Fish Consumption Estimates

On a more detailed level, comparisons between sh consumption surveys and between countries may be inappropriate, or even wrong, due to methodological dierences. The main diculty is that most studies on sh consumption in the region determine one of two kinds of consumption: either the amount of food actually ingested or the whole weight of the sh that produces the food (known as whole weight [or live weight] equivalent). These two measurements are quite dierent. Problems set in when a study using one measurement is compared directly (without any correction) to other studies using the other method, or (most frequently) when the comparisons involve studies in which the methods are unknown. The situation portrayed in Box 26.1 occurs quite frequently.
346
Box 26.1: Fishy Comparisons

During the present study, there was one Pacific island country in which a fish consumption study in 1998 (unknown methodology) was directly compared with a study in 2001 (used a mixture of food weight and whole fish equivalent) and with another in 2006 (that used food weight). Changes in per capita consumption between the surveys were calculated and attributed to specific factors (i.e., ciguatera, fisheries management measures).
Source: Consultants observation.
Other diculties in comparing sh consumption surveys include food items being comparedwhether just nsh, or all aquatic animals or even aquatic plants, are included. The term seafood is sometimes used, but this creates uncertainty in countries with a large production from freshwater sheries; canned shwhether this is included and whether the quantity (all edible) is being compared to whole sh equivalents (not all edible); sh imports and exports(i) whether these are included, (ii) how they are included in countries that have unreliable export statistics, and (iii) determining from the statistics whether imports consist of whole sh or just the edible parts; and touristswhether the tourist population is included and whether there is any correction for dierential consumption by tourists.
In view of the above diculties, there is considerable justication for avoiding comparison of sh consumption surveys unless the methods used by the studies are known and they are either the same or corrected so that equal features are being compared. Thus, caution is advised when considering the results of the comparisons in the table above, which involved all available studies of per capita sh consumption in those countries. Similarly, for the present study it would not be appropriate to compare the many incongruous sh consumption studies encountered in the countries covered. As an alternative, two regional studies that used a consistent methodology across the region to estimate national sh consumption are compared here. The rst (Preston 2000) used estimates of sh production, imports, exports, and population to estimate per capita sh consumption expressed as whole weight equivalent. The second (Bell et al. 2009) used information from HIES
conducted between 2001 and 2006 to estimate per capita sh consumption expressed as whole weight equivalent. The Preston (2000) study did not include the territories of PNG, while the Bell et al. (2009) study did not have comparable HIES data for PNG or the US territories. The two studies gave similar consumption levels in ve countries (Palau, FSM, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu), while the Bell et al. study gave signicantly higher per capita consumption in four countries (Tuvalu, Samoa, Niue, and Nauru) and signicantly lower per capita consumption in three countries (Kiribati, Cook Islands, and Fiji Islands) (Figure 26.10).
Figure 26.10: Fish Consumption as Estimated by Two Studies
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Kg/Person/Yr
na
ia
oa
ue
ds
lu
s nd la Va
ds
nd
ng
at
ur
ni
va
tu
es
an
an
FS
Ni
rib
Pa
do
lyn
Na
Tu
Fu
Sa
Isl
Isl
sla
To
Po
on
ok
Ca
&
ji I
lis
Fi
ch
Co
al
en
lo
Ne
Fr
Preston (2000)
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia. Sources: Preston (2000) and Bell et al. (2009).
Bell et al. (2008)
No reasons are apparent for the three groupings (similar, high, low) in Figure 26.10. It should be noted that the Bell et al. estimate for per capita sh consumption in Kiribati (62.2 kg) is lower than those in many other studies.
Country Issues
Some of the important issues in per capita sh consumption of each country and its measurement are given in Table 26.15. Common features that emerge from the country information include uncertainty over what is being measured: food ingested versus whole sh equivalent; need to reconcile the results of HIES and shery-focused surveys;
So
ar
sh
al
l Is
Ki
le
nu
at
la
348
presence of a tourist population, which adds to the complexity of determining per capita sh consumption; and importance of sh from industrial tuna operations in sh consumption.
Table 26.15: Some Features of Fish Consumption in the Countries of the Region
Country Cook Islands Features and Issues Many of the recent studies of fish consumption have been confined to Rarotonga. The major change in fish consumption in Rarotonga in the last decade is the availability of fish from longliners. Outbreaks of ciguatera on Rarotonga may have reduced fish consumption. The presence of a relatively large tourist population increases the complexity of determining per capita fish consumption. A recent detailed review of the nutritional literature has no mention of per capita fish consumption. Bycatch from longline fleets and discards from seiner transshipment are important sources of food. Local sales of the catch from locally based offshore fishing are having a major impact on per capita fish consumption in the Suva area. One of the major objectives of tilapia farming was to increase fish consumption in noncoastal areas, but no assessment of the impact has been carried out. The results of the 2004 Fiji Islands National Nutrition Survey do not provide much insight on the level of seafood consumption, but rather the frequency of consumption. Many studies of fish consumption indicate that Kiribati has the highest rate of fish consumption of any country in the world. Several studies of the Kiribati section of this report do not use the same methodology, or do not specify the methodology, for determining fish consumption. There have been no general nutrition surveys in the last decade that involve fish consumption. Information on fish consumption comes from older general nutrition surveys or new studies focused on the fisheries sector. Most of the latter have been focused on Majuro. Several studies state that the consumption of fishery products has changed considerably in the last decade. A recent study indicates that food security has emerged as a serious issue, with men, women, and children foraging on reefs and hunting birds daily for food, and families resorting to extended family systems to barter wild food for imported food items. The three fish consumption studies cited in this report gave annual per capita consumption (whole weight equivalent) amounts that were very different: 49.0 kg, 118.9 kg, and 79.3 kg.
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Niue
Country Palau
Features and Issues There is a very large difference in per capita fish consumption between the various estimates. Determining consumption is made complex by the tourist population, a local longline fleet, and seafood imports. Most documents and reports on nutrition focus on agriculture and animal husbandry, and pay little attention to fish. Both fresh fish and canned fish are important, with most of the latter being produced domestically (unlike in most countries of the region). Difficulties of measuring the production of small-scale fisheries hamper efforts to determine fish consumption and there are no new HIES data. The HIES and a fisheries survey (both reported to be of high quality) have estimated per capita fish consumption: 87.4 kg (HIES) and 71 kg (fishery survey). The contribution to food supply of the locally based offshore fleet has been variable over the last 15 years. The HIES and a fisheries survey gave similar results for annual per capita fish consumptionabout 33 kg. Tuna canned in the country and discarded fish from tuna transshipment operations are significant sources of food, but the latter tends to periodically displace coastal commercial fishers. Annual per capita consumption based on dividing the subsistence and locally marketed fishery coastal production by the Tongan population is about 58 kg per capita, substantially more than most recent estimates. A relatively low consumption of fish is likely to be caused by the availability of cheap fatty imported meats. The amount of bycatch and nonexported fish from offshore locally based vessels is large. A recent policy report states that estimates of per capita fish consumption vary from island to island, but are in the range of 100200 kg/year. The HIES and a fisheries survey gave similar results for capita fish consumption: 20.3 kg (HIES) and 21.0 kg (fishery survey). Most estimates of fish consumption in American Samoa show low levels, usually the lowest of any Pacific island country. There is a large range in the various studies of per capita fish consumption, which could be related to measuring different types of consumption (food vs. whole weight). A large amount of high-quality seafood is imported. The presence of a relatively large tourist population increases the complexity of determining per capita fish consumption. Annual seafood consumption is very low. The HIES and a fisheries survey gave similar results for capita fish consumption: 25.6 kg (HIES) and 21.6 kg (fishery survey). A large amount of high-quality seafood is imported.
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
American Samoa French Polynesia
Guam New Caledonia
350
Country Northern Mariana Islands
Features and Issues Estimating the per capita fishery product consumption is complicated by large amount of canned and noncanned seafood imports, the presence of a large tourist population, and a subsistence fishery that is not covered by the 2005 HIES nor covered explicitly by current fishery monitoring programs. The annual per capita fish consumption (whole fish equivalent) is about 148 kg, but with the small population, it would vary with the number of adults on the island. Most fishery-focused estimates of fish consumption indicate over 100 kg per person per year. There are no HIES estimates of fish consumption. The HIES and a fisheries survey gave somewhat similar results for capita fish consumption: 74.6 kg (HIES) and 66.9 kg (fishery survey).
Pitcairn Islands Tokelau
Wallis and Futuna
HIES = household income and expenditure survey, kg = kilogram. Source: Country chapters of this report.
Contributions of Tuna and Aquaculture to Per Capita Fish Supply

The importance of sh from industrial tuna shing operations in sh consumption in several countries of the region is highlighted above. The main types of such shing are longlining and purse seining. The impact of bycatch from locally based longline eets on sh consumption appears to be quite large. For example, as noted in the chapter on Fiji Islands, the amount of domestically marketed catch from locally based oshore vessels suggests an annual supply of sh to Suva residents from the local oshore eet of 10.4 kg per capita. In Tonga, the amount of bycatch and nonexported sh from oshore locally based vessels is about the sameabout 10.7 kg per capita per year for the population of Tongatapu. Total catch (tuna plus bycatch) of the locally based oshore eet in the Pacic islands was about 44,000 t in 2007 (country chapters of this report). Assuming that 10% of this sh was marketed locally, this amounted to 4,400 t in the entire region. Domestically available sh from industrial tuna operations is likely to grow in the future, at least in the western and equatorial parts of the Pacic islands. Management measures are being progressively adopted that require seiners to retain all the tuna catch, including discards, on board as a measure to reduce shing pressure on juvenile yellown and bigeye tuna. This measure
is likely to increase substantially the supply of tuna where seiners ooad and transship (McCoy and Gillett 2007). Some will be used for canning, but due to the economics of canning small sh, much is likely to be sold in domestic markets. The precise amount is open to speculation, but with the regional purse seine catch being about 1.5 million t in recent years, even a small percentage sold or given away would be a large amount (e.g., 3% would be 45,000 t). Due to the high catch variability and geographic mobility of the seiners, there will probably be periodic gluts and scarcity of this sh. Aquaculture in the region produces food for Pacic Islanders and tourists, and nonfood commodities for export. Aquaculture production that is not destined for the nutrition of local residents can also make a contribution to food supplies because the income earned can be used to purchase local and imported food. To investigate production of food from aquaculture for local residents, high-value domestic markets were excluded because most of the expensive aquaculture food does not contribute signicantly to food supplies for Pacic Islanders. Accordingly, in this analysis, such items as cultured shrimp and oysters were not included. The amounts of aquaculture commodities produced in 2007 that were likely to become part of local food supplies are shown in Table 26.16. Table 26.16 shows that about half the countries and territories do not have aquaculture production that contributes signicantly to local food supplies. In most countries where there is aquaculture production for local food supplies, it is tiny on a per capita basis, even in the highest consuming countries, Guam and Nauru. Tilapia is by far the most important cultured commodity for local food. The tabled data further indicate that for most of the countries listed, the contribution of aquaculture to local food supplies is considerably less than that from industrial tuna shing operations. For the region as a whole, if 10% of the catch of locally based longliners is marketed locally, this amounts to 4,400 t, or over 10 times the local food from aquaculture in the region. There are, however, challenges in distributing this sh to areas away from the longline bases. Another highly relevant but less evident issue is that most of the meager amount of aquaculture food production in the region is subsidized by governments and/or donors. In Fiji Islands, for example, tilapia production is heavily reliant on government subsidies (ADB 2005).

This statement would not apply as rigidly in some of the territories (e.g., New Caledonia). As an extreme example, locally cultured shrimp in Vanuatu was selling at $33/kg in January 2009 (F. Hickey, personal communication, January 2009).
352
Table 26.16: Aquaculture Production for Local Food, 2007

Production (t) 152 143 67 13 10 9 8 4 3 2 2 2 415 Production per capita (kg/person/year) 0.87 0.17 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.14 0.81 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.10
Country Guam Fiji Islands Papua New Guinea Vanuatu Samoa American Samoa Nauru Kiribati Northern Mariana Islands Cook Islands French Polynesia Palau Total
kg = kilogram, t = ton. Source: Country chapters of this report.
Commodity Catfish, Milkfish, Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia, Carp, Trout Tilapia Tilapia Tilapia Milkfish Milkfish Milkfish Tilapia Finfish Milkfish
Note that SPC (2008b) estimated the amount of milksh and tilapia produced annually in the region in recent years to be about 552 t (12% of the total aquaculture production of 4,600 t), or about one-third more than that in the table above.
Fisheries and Food Security Issues

A study of sheries and food security issues in the Pacic islands (Gillett and Preston 2000) identied the major issues in the interface between sheries and food security. The issues that were especially relevant to the present study are lack of eective sheries management action combined with increasing need for action, lack of appreciation of the contribution of sheries to food security, aquaculture not contributing substantially to food security in many Pacic island countries, coastal shery production constrained by postharvest situation,
reconciling development of export-oriented sheries with the encouragement of sheries for domestic consumption, and slow development of the private sector.
The Bell et al. (2009) study used current consumption and population growth data to forecast sh requirements in the future for each country of the region. The study indicated that to provide the countries with access to the sh required for food security to 2030 and beyond, national planners and managers need to assess whether the potential sustainable production from oceanic (tuna), coastal and freshwater sheries, and aquaculture, can meet future demand for sh; identify how best to allocate access to the necessary proportions of production available from these various sources of sh; develop systems for catching/producing and distributing sh to deliver these allocations eectively; implement policies to support the necessary systems and allocations; and oversee ecient management of the systems and other steps in the process.
In addition, information in the present study suggests the following: Countries made up of atolls and small islands that attempt to export food sh from inshore and reef areas may end up creating food security problems through declines in food sh availability. Tokelau and some of the Micronesian economies may be in this category. Objective economic scrutiny of subsidized aquaculture operations intended to enhance food security could suggest more ecient mechanisms to produce the same nutritional benets. In view of the likely increased availability of tuna from industrial shing operations in localized population centers, some consideration should be given to the development of systems for distribution to the more remote areas. An analysis of sh requirements for a country (including that for local resident nutrition, food necessary for a tourist population, and nonextractive value of sh resources) may suggest merit in discouraging the export of food sh from inshore/coastal areas. This has been considered in Palau and the Maldives.
354
Measuring Fish Consumption

Some diculties in measuring per capita sheries consumption and comparing measurements were mentioned above. Attempts at improving the situation must rst address the issue of the objectives of collecting information on sh consumption. There is a growing need for information on sh consumption and its change over time. Such consumption information is obviously used for monitoring health and diets, but from a sheries perspective it has many other uses. As shown in Bell et al. (2008), sh consumption rates are important for predicting demand for sh in the future. Probably, the most important shery-type use of per capita sh consumption is to determine the impacts of policy changes and management interventions, especially on small-scale shers. Some examples follow. Protection of village food sh supplies is arguably the most important objective of subsistence sheries management in the Pacic islands. Monitoring per capita sh consumption is important in determining the degree to which this objective is being achieved. The use of marine protected areas (MPAs) is now widespread in the Pacic islands. It is likely that their use will increase. MPAs are established for many worthwhile objectives, including increasing the abundance of important species, protecting other species, biodiversity conservation, and increasing the value of nonextractive uses (e.g., dive sites). To assure that these multiple objectives are not being achieved at the expense of the diets of villagers living in the area, some monitoring of per capita sh consumption is important. If the objective of a government supporting aquaculture is to improve nutrition, it would seem logical to monitor per capita consumption of aquaculture production to determine if the support to aquaculture is eective.
In the country chapters, some studies used estimates of sh production to estimate per capita sh consumption, while other studies used per capita sh consumption (obtained through dietary studies) to estimate sh production. The latter are mainly for crude assessments of production in the absence of other surveys, including HIES. As more countries develop more eective survey tools, the use of sh consumption to estimate production appears to be declining. By contrast, methods of estimating sheries production using non-nutrition techniques are becoming more prevalent and accurate.
Information in the present study oers suggestions that are both simple and obvious for improving the measurement of sh consumption. Reports of sh consumption studies need to state very clearly what they are measuring: food actually consumed or whole sh equivalent. With respect to the latter term, whole sh equivalent or live sh weight is often used in the regional literature (and here), but a term that is clearer, more accurate, and less ambiguous is per capita sh supply. Regional organizations can play a role in encouraging these two aspects of standardization.
Fishery Benefits by Zone

To some degree, the shery categories used in this report (coastal commercial, locally based oshore, etc.) can be rearranged slightly to represent ecological zones. Combining information from various sections of this report can provide some insight of shery benets by those zones, as shown in Table 26.17. It should be noted that, in the partitioning of benets by zone, some information is exact and/or quantitative, some is qualitative, and some is largely conjecture. A general observation on the table above is that a large part of the benets from employment and nutritionthings that directly aect Pacic islanderscome from the coastal zone. The less tangible and more abstract benets (contribution to GDP, exports, and government revenue) tend to come disproportionately from the oshore area. Pacic islanders have somewhat less direct involvement in generating those benets, and the benets reach the average Pacic Islander in a more circuitous fashion.
Table 26.17: Fisheries Benefits by Ecological Zone

Contribution to Exports Very little A substantial number of people are involved in PNG and to a lesser extent in the other countries that have large islands. If the number of people with involvement is combined with the number of people with part-time or full-time employment, this would be by far the largest category. PNG alone has 250,000500,000 such people. 1,169 on vessels and 11,000 in shore facilities. Only significant on large islands; about 24,000 t, of which about 75% is from PNG. Very large. All of the 110,000 t from coastal subsistence and most of the 45,000 t from coastal commercial fishing. Contribution to Direct Government Revenue Contribution to Employment Contribution to Nutrition
356
Item
Contribution to GDP
Inland
4%
Very little, especially after the collapse of the PNG barramundi fishery.
Coastal
49%made up of 19% from commercial, 30% from subsistence
Aquarium fish, bche de mer, trochus, and other coastal products are responsible for about 10% of the fishery exports of the region.
Very little
Offshore
35%
About 62% of all exports are associated with tuna fishing. Tuna exports from American Samoa are almost half of all fishery exports from the region.
The vast majority of all direct government revenue from the fisheries sector comes from offshore fishing. Access fees for foreign fishing were about $77 million in 2007. Licensing domestic offshore vessels is also significant and likely to be the second most important source in the fisheries sector.
4,400 t from locally based longliners, plus local sales from canneries, plus leakage from purse seine transshipment.
Item Very little SPC (2008b) states Aquaculture may contribute some form of full-time or partial employment for around 25,000 people in the region. The vast majority of involvement with aquaculture in the region occurs in the interior of PNG. The number of PNG people in the various categories overwhelms those in all other countries. It is not possible to determine the relative contribution from each category due to difficulties in comparing involvement with formal employment.
Contribution to GDP
Contribution to Exports
Contribution to Direct Government Revenue
Contribution to Employment
Contribution to Nutrition Quite small, 415 t in 2007.
Aquaculture
4%
About 28% of all fishery exports; aquaculture exports from French Polynesia and New Caledonia alone are responsible for about 23% of all fishery exports.
Notes
Estimates are judged to be quite accurate; based on data in the GDP sections of this report.
Estimates are judged to be somewhat accurate; based on data in the export sections of this report.
Estimates contain some degree of speculation because information on nonaccess revenue is not readily available.
Reasonably accurate estimates; based on data in the consumption sections of this report.
GDP = gross domestic product, PNG = Papua New Guinea, SPC = Secretariat of the Pacific Community, t = ton.
Source: GDP, export, government revenue, employment, and nutrition sections in this report.
Issues in Measuring Benets
Household Income and Expenditure Survey

HIES and the Pacific Islands
Most countries in the region attach great importance to their subsistence and small-scale commercial sheries. However, it is these sheries that present the greatest diculties for the collection of production information. In general, the smaller the scale of shing, the less is known about production levels, with quantitative information being especially scarce for subsistence sheries in most countries. Only a few dedicated sheries statistical systems in the region attempted to cover small-scale production. The techniques most often used to estimate catches by subsistence and coastal commercial shing are one-o sheries surveys, household income and expenditure surveys (HIES), and sh consumption surveys. The HIES and sh consumption surveys are broader than the sheries surveys and not well known to many sheries ocers. Some comments are made on sh consumption surveys in section 26.5 of this report, while the interface between the HIES and sheries is explored here. In recent years, most Pacic island countries have had the HIES. All the independent Pacic island countries and several of the territories are planning for the HIES in the next few years (Haberkorn 2008). The HIES may be a good opportunity to improve the measurement of small-scale sheries, but some signicant problems are apparent in its use for shery purposes.
Issues in Measuring Benets 359
SPCs Statistics and Demography Programme kindly provided sheries information from HIES in 18 Pacic island countries. Information from 10 HIES were used to a signicant extent in the present study. The others were not used because of the existence of other sources of data believed to be more accurate, and because of the peculiarities of some national HIES data. General information on HIES is available from a variety of sources (e.g., Deaton 1997). In the following sections, some observations on the shery results of the HIES in several countries are made, followed by some general comments on deriving shery information from HIES, and ideas on improvements.
National HIES versus Fishery Surveys

A feature common in many countries of the region is that coastal sheries production estimated by the HIES is relatively low. The HIES generally suggests sh catches signicantly smaller than that estimated by other survey techniques or smaller than that perceived by specialists familiar with national sheries. For example, in the eight countries in the present study from which sheries production levels could be obtained from both the HIES and a more sheries-focused estimate, the HIES indicated or suggested a lower production in six countries, similar production in one country (Cook Islands), and higher production in another country (Samoa). Information for the eight countries follows.

The HIES in 2005 (Statistics Division 2007a) indicated that $23,034,000 was spent on sh and seafood, of which $15,732,000 (66%) was home produced and $9,200,000 was purchased (presumably from either local sheries or from imports). Unpublished HIES data (supplied by SPCs Statistics and Demography Programme) indicated that 6,806 t of local shery production was obtained by FSM households in 20055,411 t of home produced and 1,395 t of purchased. Results of a sheries survey in Pohnpei covering 19982008 (Rhodes and Tupper 2007; Rhodes et al. 2008), adjusted and extrapolated to all the FSM, suggested an annual coastal commercial sheries production in FSM for the mid-2000s of about 2,800 t.
Examples of this are in the Solomon Islands and FSM where it was not possible to distinguish in the HIES between production from coastal, oshore locally based, and oshore foreign-based shing.
360
Kiribati
Unpublished data from the HIES in 2006, supplied by the SPC Statistics and Demography Programme, showed that nationwide in 2006 about 2,000t of sh were purchased for A$5.9 million and 3,371 t of sh valued at A$8.4million were caught for subsistence purposes. Preston (2008) carried out eld work on sheries in Kiribati in June and July 2008 and examined multiple sources of catch estimates; he considered the HIES sheries production estimates to be low.
Marshall Islands
The HIES in 2002 (EPPSO 2002) indicated that sheries production was 583t. Sta of EPPSO cautioned that, due to very limited coverage of nonurban areas, the results were likely to be applicable only for Majuro and Ebeye (C. Hacker, personal communication, October 2008). The present study selectively used several sources of information to estimate (a) a coastal commercial sheries production in the Marshall Islands in the mid-2000s of 950 t, and (b) a coastal subsistence sheries production of 2,800 t.
Palau
Unpublished data from the 2006 HIES (Alonz 2007), provided by SPCs Statistics and Demography Programme, showed 189 t of annual sh purchases and 288 t caught for home use. The total amount from the HIES (477 t) was less than one-quarter of the highly regarded estimate made by PCS (2000) in the previous decade (2,115 t).
Tonga
The HIES in 2000 and 2001 (TSD 2002) indicated 900 t purchased and 613t caught sh. In late 1990s, coastal sheries production was estimated to consist of 4,173 t of coastal commercial sh and 2,863 t of subsistence sh (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). Discussions with the HIES specialist in the SPC Statistics and Demography Programme suggested that the Tonga HIES seriously underestimated subsistence shing (G. Keeble, personal communication, September 2008).
Vanuatu
The HIES suggested that subsistence sheries production in 2006 was 2,116t. However, a Vanuatu-based sheries specialist felt that this was quite low (F. Hickey, personal communication, September 2008), based on both his intuition and on the results of a sheries study in 1983 (David and Cillaurren 1992), which gave an annual production by village sheries from nearshore habitats of 2,849 t.
Cook Islands
The HIES in FY2006 indicated annual commercial sheries production of 139t and subsistence production of 239 t. A study on the situation and outlook for Cook Islands marine resources (MMR 2008) gave similar results for coastal commercial sheries (within 7%) and for subsistence sheries (within 20%).
Samoa
The HIES in 2002 suggested coastal commercial production of 4,076 t worth ST30.0 million and coastal subsistence production of 4,437 t worth ST22.8million. A nationwide household sheries survey in 2000 estimated the total annual coastal catch at 7,169 t worth ST45 million (Passeld 2001). After correcting for sh price changes between 2000 and 2002, the 2002 HIES could be compared to the 2000 sheries survey with respect to sh production. On that basis, the HIES gave 50% more value and 32% more catch for the coastal commercial component and almost identical catches and values for coastal subsistence sheries.
The HIES/Fisheries Interface

The Samoa situation above deserves closer scrutiny. Discussion with the HIES specialist at SPC (C. Ryan, personal communication, November 2008) indicated that the quality of Samoa HIES was as good as it gets. The HIES used individual diaries lled out by respondents over a 2-week periodand the HIES sta stayed in the selected villages during the entire period to monitor record-keeping by the respondents. Interestingly, this was the only HIES covered by the present study that gave a larger estimate of sh catches than the focused sheries surveys. Thus, one explanation for the large
362
dierence between estimates by HIES and shery studies/surveys in other countries could be the quality of the overall HIES process. In general, the discussion above suggests some major diculties of uncritically using the results of HIES for shery purposes. In practice, in about half of the Pacic island countries, HIES results are a key to estimating the small-scale shing contribution to GDP. The conclusions of Bell et al. (2009), based on per capita sh consumption from HIES surveys, could easily be dierent if actual sh consumption was 24 times greater than assumed. Some additional points on the HIES/sheries interface deserve mention, as follows: The HIES can provide more than just information on sheries production. Much of the information in the present study on sheries employment and participation in subsistence sheries comes from HIES. The sheries information produced by the HIES could be less accurate than HIES information on other sectors. The HIES specialist at SPC indicates that some ground truthing is done for some types of household expenditures (e.g., cross-checking with actual electricity bills), but not normally for income/expenditures relating to shing (C. Ryan, personal communication, December 2008). The HIES may not just be an option for obtaining information on small-scale sheries; an improved HIES may represent the only cost-eective mechanism for obtaining information on small-scale sheries. The Vanuatu situation, described in section 15.1, occurs in many countries of the region: there appear to be two sub-optimal possibilities for estimating subsistence sheries production in Vanuatu using existing information: extrapolation of an outdated estimate, or the use of the HIES-derived gure that is likely to be very low. Comparison of the results of a household survey on an island in Fiji Islands with a creel survey (Kuster et al. 2006) showed that the mean catch was 25%30% higher in the household survey than what was actually observed in the creel survey. An additional result was that the reported sh consumption appeared to be more accurate than the reported sh catch.
This was a sheries-oriented household survey, rather than the HIES.
The above examination of the sheries results of HIES in the region is from the perspective of a sheries analyst. It suggests that there are diculties with the HIES sheries data, but it oers little insight into mechanisms for improvement. By contrast, HIES specialists are familiar with the survey technique and its constraints and opportunities for improvement, although they are less sensitive to the problems of the HIES/sheries interface and peculiarities of the sheries sector. This suggests that sheries specialists should cooperate with HIES specialists on improving the applicability of HIES to the sheries sector. Indeed, a recent meeting held at SPC discussed how household income and expenditure surveys and censuses could be modied relatively easily to provide better sheries information (Bell et al. 2008).
Satellite Account for Fisheries

General
The system of national accounts (SNA 1995) categorizes economic activities according to the International Standard Industrial Classication of All Economic Activities (ISIC). In this system, the category relevant to sheries is ISIC 0500: Fishing, operations of sh hatcheries and sh farms, service activities incidental to shing. As such, the SNA sector is closer to what is commonly referred to as shing, rather than the broader sheries. The SNA shing sector does not include postharvest activities, which are quite important in many Pacic island countriesand are likely to become more important in the future. The value added by postharvest activities, including sh processing, is generally counted in manufacturing, transportation, and other formal economic sectors. This classication system and the associated categories of contribution to GDP have important consequences for decision making that aect the sheries sector. To some degree, sectoral contributions to GDP and their change over time can provide useful information to decision makersconsequences of management action are apparent in variations in GDP contributions. However, if only shing is reected in the GDP sectoral component and not the postharvest activities, much of the change in economic activity in the shing/processing industry cannot be readily discerned from GDP data. Also, attention that a government focuses on a sector is to some extent related to the economic importance of the sector. It is unfortunate for the shing/
364
processing industry that in many intersectoral comparisons, only part of the industry is considered. To rectify this situation a satellite account can be constructed. Within the framework of the SNA, groups and subgroups of industries can be identied and aggregated to form a satellite that is linked to, but not actually a part of, the main national account. Satellite accounts have been constructed for many clusters of related industries, including information and communication technologies (Australia), ocean industries (Nova Scotia), and nonprot institutions (several countries). A tourism satellite account is the most widespread example, with over 70 countries having compiled one. Tourism is not an industry in the SNA/ISIC categorization, but rather an amalgamation of activities in various sectors, such as transport, retail trade, etc. By constructing a tourism satellite account, the economic contribution of tourists can be measured, compared, and monitored. The introduction of Tourism Satellite Account 2002 Fiji Islands (FIBOS 2002) states: To be able to better understand the true size and value of the tourism industry so as to increase economic growth and create more and better jobs, hard gures that are internationally comparable and reliable need to be produced. So therefore, compiling a tourism satellite account by the Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics is an important step towards understanding the size and strength of tourism in Fiji. Satellite accounting presents an opportunity to demonstrate the importance of the broad sheries sector in Pacic island countries. It is ironic that to date the satellite concept seems to have had the opposite eect downplaying the importance of sheries. In Fiji Islands, the satellite account constructed for tourism estimated a contribution to GDP of F$402 million in 2002, representing 11.2% of Fiji Islands GDP for that year (FIBOS 2008). This aggregated contribution has been compared by promoters of tourism to the contribution of other economic sectors (i.e., to the narrow SNA shing category contribution of F$102 million in 2002) to arrive at the unjustied conclusion that tourism is a certain percentage greater than other industries. A correct comparison would be between satellite accounts, but none exists for sheries. Although attempts have been made to estimate the aggregate economic contribution of sheries in some Pacic island countries (e.g., a 2004 cabinet paper in Fiji Islands), no hard gures that are internationally comparable and reliable for the broad sheries sector have been assembled in any country of the region.
Constructing a Satellite Account for Fisheries

The construction of a formal satellite account for sheries in a country of the region is far beyond the scope of the present study. The Fiji Islands tourism satellite account for 2002 took 3 years to formulate, F$750,000 of government funds, and a large technical contribution by Statistics New Zealand. In addition, the World Tourism Organization published guidelines for tourism satellite accounts in 2000 and 2008. No such guidelines exist for the sheries sector. For a sheries satellite account, an assessment could be made of the value added in each of the sheries subsectorssomething that would conceptually mirror what a more complex satellite account would do. Specically, the Fiji Islands sheries sector can be dened and specic components identied. Existing information in an ADB report on value added in the various components of Fiji Islands sheries sector can be enhanced by estimates for remaining components. The value added in this crude approximation of a satellite account (a proto-satellite) can then be compared to (a) the narrower shing sector, and (b) to the tourism satellite account.
Satellite Account for Fiji Islands Fisheries Sector

The Fiji Islands sheries can be dened in a variety of ways. In the absence of international guidelines, considerable exibility is allowed. For the purpose of the present study, the sheries sector is dened as the SNA shing sector plus the activities in the chain of custody of sh products. In national accounting terms, this would be considered a rst order account. Estimates of the value added in 2003 by various components of the Fiji Islands sheries are shown in Table 27.1. To complete the chain of custody (i.e., to aggregate all elements of the Fiji Islands sheries sector), several other components of Fiji Islands sheries sector have to be added. The additional components not included in Table 27.1 include
A second order account for sheries would include items related to shing and postharvest activities, but not directly involved in the chain of custody of sh, with boat building for shing being an example. A third order account would include spin-o benets in areas not directly related to sheries.
366
Table 27.1: Value Added in Some Components of the Fiji Islands Fisheries Sector
Component Inshore artisanal Marine aquarium Subsistence Offshore fishery Aquaculture PAFCO Other fish processors
F$ = Fiji dollar, PAFCO = Pacific Fishing Company. Source: ADB (2005).
Value Added (F$000) 16,578 2,800 41,310 16,322 810 6,153 3,152
domestic marketing of the production of coastal sheries; postharvest activities associated with export of the production of coastal sheries, including bche de mer and trochus processing; domestic marketing of the production of oshore sheries; and ground and air transport of the export of the production from oshore sheries.
Information to make a cursory assessment of the value added from these components was derived from discussions with shing industry participants, sta of the Fisheries Department, Fisheries Department annual reports, recent general economic reviews of the sector (Gillett 2003; Langley and Reid 2004; ADB 2005), the consultants knowledge of the sector, and specic studies of subsectors cited in the following paragraphs. A recent study by the University of British Columbia estimated the entrepreneur's value added to the production from Fiji Islands reef sheries to be about $2.2 million (F$3.3 million), or about $5,100 per entrepreneur (sh wholesaler), and the value added to be about $5.1 million (F$7.7 million), or about $4,100 per vendor (Starkhouse and Sumaila 2008; Starkhouse personal communication, December 2008). This is for domestic sales of reef species for 2008 only. As in the Fiji Islands section of this report (section 4.1), about 8% should be added to this gure to cover the domestic marketing of nonreef species; 8% could also be subtracted to deate to 2003 prices. The DOF (2008a) states that the FOB value of inshore resources exported was about F$31.7 million in 2005. About half of this value was from marine aquarium covered in Table 27.1. It is estimated that the value added by the postharvest activities associated with other commodities (non-marine aquarium) was F$2 million in 2003.
About 12.5% of the production from Fiji Islands locally based oshore sheries is marketed domestically. In 2003, the total catch from locally based oshore sheries was 12,314 t (see section 4.1), indicating a domestic marketing of about 1,539 t of sh. The value added by this marketing is estimated to be F$1 million (R. Dunham, D. Lucas, personal communication, December 2008; and consultants estimate). Estimating the value added to the Fiji Islands economy in the process of transporting sh to international markets (ground/air transport plus handling at Nadi airport) requires more speculation. The available information from company sources indicates the following. Ground transport, airport handling, and clerical work associated with the export of tuna result in the employment of about 45 people (full-time equivalents) (R. Dunham, D. Lucas, personal communication, December 2008). The largest tuna exporter has had annual airfreight charges of about F$5 million in recent years. The largest exporter handles about onethird of the tuna exports by air, and about 80% of this quantity is on Air Pacic, the national airline (R. Dunham, D. Lucas, personal communication, December 2008). A crude approximation of the value added to the Fiji Islands economy in the above shipping operations is F$3.25 million.
Using the value added estimates from ADB (2005) for some of the subsectors of Fiji Islands sheries sector in 2003 and making estimates of the remaining subsectors, the total value added can be estimated. Accordingly, the value added by the broad sheries sector in Fiji Islands in 2003 is estimated to be about F$104,375,000. This gure is about 34% greater than the $77.8million that ADB (2005) estimated for the narrow SNA shing sector and would increase the sheries sector contribution to GDP in 2003 (section 4.2) from 1.8% to 2.3%. In the tourism satellite account, the contribution to GDP from that sector is 11.2% (FIBOS 2008). Tourism is, therefore, 6.2 times greater than the shing sector. Comparing the tourism satellite account to the crude sheries satellite account, the tourism contribution is only about 4.9 times greater. If additional activities were to be included in the denition of the sheries sector, the contribution would increase. An example of this would be

Fishing industry leaders indicate that 2003 was not a favorable year for comparison, as very poor oshore shing was experienced that year.
368
activities that directly input into shing and processing, such as shing gear manufacturing or shing vessel repair.
Utility of a Fisheries Satellite Account

Knowledge of the broad sheries contribution to GDP, including postharvest activities, would obviously be much more informative and useful for decision making than the narrow shing contribution. The ability to track changes in the disaggregated sheries components should allow considerable insight into the dynamics of the sheries sector and be quite useful, as the following example shows. In late 2008, when the Government of Fiji Islands was contemplating an export tax on fresh tuna exports, there were no reliable/comparable estimates of the value added in postharvest tuna activities. Consequently, a punitive tax was levied, only to be retracted when some idea of the true value became apparentin this case through the number of jobs that were threatened by the tax. Would it be worthwhile doing more work to enable the production of a formal satellite account for sheries in a Pacic island country? The following are some issues to consider when reecting on this question. The construction of a formal satellite account results in information for decision making that is credible, reliable, comparable, and impartial. Presently, in many countries of the region, the data that come closest to serving the same function are information compiled by the shing industry that government decision makers often view as biased and/or self-serving. The cost of compiling a formal sheries satellite account is signicant. The Fiji Islands tourism satellite account was an expensive exercise that took several years and considerable technical expertise from overseas. While in-house expertise could conceivably be used to compile a sheries satellite account, most government sheries agencies in the region have a fairly low capacity in economics. It appears that most of the work in compiling a satellite account occurs in the second and third order accounts (related industries and spin-os, respectively), while much of the utility of a satellite account for sheries-type decisions would come from the rst order. Compiling a crude proto-satellite account, as was done above, could have some utilityeven if it gives an idea of the relative sizes of the narrow shing and broad sheries sectors (i.e., that the sheries sector in Fiji Islands is 1/3 larger than the shing sector).
Nationally, the construction of satellite accounts in other industries may result in a greater need for a sheries satellite account, if for no other reason than simply to prevent perception that the sheries sector is shrinking in relative terms. As an alternative to a satellite account for sheries (the net eect of shing on economic activity), the multiplier eect (Appendix 2) may be worthy of consideration. For example, one dollar of landed sh will generate additional dollars of revenue that will be spent in other service sectors unrelated to sheries. The issue of whether a sheries satellite account would be used if one were to be constructed should be considered. It appears that such an account would be most useful in a country where there is a sizeable sheries industry, multiple developments that aect the industry are planned, and various industrial sectors are competing for government attention. An important market for a satellite account is industry champions, individuals who are inuential in stressing the importance of the sector.
Subsidies in Fisheries
A study of sheries benets is incomplete without exploring the topic of subsidies. In many cases, subsidies can represent a hidden cost of a benet. For example, If government subsidies are considered, the real cost for each job created in FSM public sector shing companies was $300,000 (Jacobs 2002). During the present study, it became evident that many sheries ocers of the region do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes a subsidy. The World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures contains a denition of subsidy as a nancial contribution by government or an agency designated by government that confers a benet. In this context, a nancial contribution can be (i) direct or potential direct transfers of funds or liabilities (i.e., loan guarantees); (ii) provision of goods or services, other than general infrastructure and purchase of goods; (iii) foregone government revenue (i.e., tax credits); (iv) payments to a funding mechanism that carries out any of these functions; and (v) any form of income or price support. Subsidies in sheries are not inherently bad; in fact, they can perform some useful social functions, such as establishing a new shery in a rural area. However, the following common problems associated with shing subsidies became apparent in the course of the present study.
370
Lack of Transparency of Subsidies. Good governance dictates that the public be made aware of the way public funds are spent. Lack of transparency prevents stakeholders from undertaking an alternative assessment of the value of those subsidiesincluding whether the subsidy is achieving its objective. Lack of transparency for a particular shery subsidy can create an illusion of a successful activity that others may try to emulate. Lack of an Exit Strategy. If the intention is to provide a subsidy in perpetuity, there should be explicit government policy recognition of this. If not, there should be an established mechanism and criteria for terminating the subsidy. An FAO report that reviewed sheries subsidies worldwide (Schrank 2003) made a relevant comment: Over time, subsidies which once may have served a useful social purpose may have become entrenched and now serve primarily the interests of participants in the industry receiving the subsidies.
Subsidies also cause diculties for measuring benets from sheries. In some cases, they can play a very large role in terms of the operating cost structure of the eet, with the Spanish swordsh longliners based in some Pacic Island ports being a good example. In addition, the contribution of the shery industry to GDP is likely an underestimate in countries that subsidize (explicitly or implicitly) farm-gate prices, which will not show up as value added in the national accounts. Even though the production approach has been taken in this report, the VARs estimated may still be distorted by subsidization. Some additional thoughts on the relationship between subsidies and shery benets in the region are given in section 29.2.
Factors that will have Major Impacts on Fisheries Benets
Climate Change
A preliminary assessment of the eects of climate change on sheries and aquaculture in the Pacic islands is given in Appendix 4. It outlines how the climate of the Pacic is projected to change, how climate change has aected sheries elsewhere in the world, and how it is expected to aect sheries and aquaculture in the Pacic. The information is derived from the early phases of a major regional project to assess the vulnerability to climate change of sheries and aquaculture in the Pacic. The project is coordinated by the Secretariat of the Pacic Community and supported by the Australian Agency for International Development. Alterations in ocean temperatures and currents and the food chains in the open ocean are projected to aect the future location and abundance of tuna species in the Pacic island region. Initial modeling indicates that the concentrations of skipjack and bigeye tuna are likely to be located further to the east than in the past. The simulations have yet to be done for yellown and albacore. Signicant changes to future distribution of tuna will make the zones of some Pacic island countries more or less favorable for the surface shery for skipjack tuna. Displacement of tuna stocks further east in the Pacic would be a windfall for the countries in those areas. Reduced abundance of skipjack
372
in Melanesia should have a far lower impact on their GDP in relative terms, but there will be substantial losses in real terms given the large quantities of tuna currently caught there. Identifying the preliminary implications of climate change for longlining operations is not practical at this stage because although initial simulations indicate that there will also be an eastward shift in adult bigeye tuna, the modeling has not yet been done for yellown and albacore. Projections that cyclones will become progressively more intense may increase the risk of damage to shore-based facilities, eets for domestic tuna shing, and processing operations in countries located within the cyclone belt. Rising sea level will eventually make many of the existing ports and shore-based facilities unusable. The projected eects of climate change on coral reefs are better understood than for other coastal habitats. Rising sea surface temperatures and more acidic oceans are projected to have increasingly severe impacts on the growth of hard corals. The expected loss of structural and biological complexity on coral reefs will have profound eects on the types of sh and invertebrates associated with them. Species that depend on live coral for food, and on the intricate variety of shelter created by structurally complex reefs for their survival, are likely to disappear. Eects of climate change on coastal sheries associated with coral reefs may not be immediately apparent, but result in slow, long-term (decadal) declines in yields as resilience and productivity are gradually eroded. Projected increases in temperatures, sea level, storm intensity, and turbidity of coastal waters due to higher rainfall, can be expected to aect the growth and survival of mangroves, seagrasses and nonreef algal habitats, and the nature of intertidal and subtidal sand and mudat areas. These areas function as nurseries for juvenile organisms and/or as feeding habitats for a wide range of coastal sh species. Reductions in coverage and structural complexity of mangroves and seagrasses can be expected to reduce the recruitment success for many species of sh and invertebrates. Climate change will also aect the freshwater sheries of the region. The projected increases of rainfall in the tropics are expected to increase the extent and duration of inundation. The eects of increased ooding and higher water temperatures on the sh themselves, and on the vegetated lowland areas that support them, have yet to be determined. Freshwater sheries throughout the region are based largely on species that migrate between the sea and freshwater. Small changes in either rainfall or sea level may have major impacts on the ability of sh to move between estuaries and freshwater, lowering recruitment.
Factors that will Have Major Impacts on Fisheries Benets 373
With respect to aquaculture, climate change could result in losing sh from ponds during oods, invasion of ponds by unwanted species, and damage to ponds through inlling and breaching of walls. However, heavier rainfall in low-lying tropical Pacic island countries and territories may increase the area suitable for rain-fed pond aquaculture. Pearl farming faces risks from increased acidication of the ocean. As aragonite saturation levels fall, the shells of blacklip pearl oysters will be weaker. This is likely to lead to higher rates of predation of juveniles and lower rates of collection of wild spat. The winter mortality disease currently causing problems for the production of blue shrimp in New Caledonia may ease with the changing climate. Higher water temperatures combined with lowered salinity are factors linked to outbreaks of disease that aect production of seaweed. Warmer water temperatures, increased acidication, and more severe cyclones can also be expected to inuence the development of aquaculture for marine ornamental products.
Fuel Costs
As part of the present study, an analysis of energy costs and shing in the region was commissioned by the World Bank. The report (a summary is given in Appendix 5 below) assesses the direct impact of fuel price uctuations on the nancial performance of ongoing shing operations of domestic shing eets in Pacic island countries. The report indicates that the fuel price impact has uctuated considerably among sheries and countries. While the largest component of domestic fuel price, the international bulk price, has risen dramatically over the past 10 years (1998: $20 per barrel for diesel; 2008: $170 per barrel),10 very signicant variations in fuel prices occur between countries, the lowest price being in French Polynesia ($0.56/liter) and the highest in Vanuatu ($1.87/liter).11 Tuna longliners have the highest consumption of fuel per ton of catch: on average over four times as much as purse seiners. Small-scale sheries fall between the two, consuming about twice as much fuel per ton as seiners. The costs of fuel per dollar of catch show similar dierences, but less pronounced,
10
All domestic bunker fuel is supplied in automotive diesel oil (ADO), the regional market being too small for suppliers to consider oering other heavier (and cheaper) grades of fuel. In December 2008, the Singapore spot price for automotive diesel oil was $0.76 per liter, while the average price paid by the shing industry was $1.33 per liter, of which $0.11 per liter was tax.
11
374
because prices of some sh products have increased more than others.12 The nancial impact of fuel price increases of longliners is still greater than that of purse seiners but the dierence is very much smaller than the dierence in specic fuel consumption per ton of catch, on account of increases in sh prices. Artisanal shers are the most nancially exposed of all the eets analyzed. Historical trends in the nancial exposure of the main eets to fuel price uctuations (sh-to-fuel ratio13) suggest that for the domestic longline shery for sashimi grade tuna, this ratio increased by a factor of 4.5 from 1999 to 2008. In the purse seine shery for cannery grade tuna, the ratio showed two peaks, in 2000 and 2006, when the nancial impact of high fuel prices was worse than during the recent peak in mid-2008. Exposure to fuel price change of small-scale sheries in Fiji Islands has remained relatively constant during the period. Country exposure to fuel price uctuations suggest that PNG, with by far the largest potential national production, would suer the largest changes in prots and value added. The exposure of aquaculture to energy cost uctuations varies substantially: pearl aquaculture is estimated to consume only about $3 of fuel per $100 of product value; intensive penaeid shrimp aquaculture is estimated to consume 1.7 tons of fuel per ton of product; if feed production were to be taken in to account, consumption would be higher still. Changes in operations as a result of increasing fuel costs in the oshore purse seine sector have been virtually zero; increased technical ecacy and favorable prices for skipjack and yellown tuna oset increased fuel costs. For domestic-based longliners that have had to face increases in fuel prices without product price increases while experiencing drops in catch per unit of eort, modest operational changes have been made. Small-scale sheries facing higher fuel costs have reduced the distance traveled and changed gear. Policy options and tools that would reduce the impact of fuel price uctuations include competitive and ecient sourcing of fuel, either through competitive processes or via a regional bulk supply arrangement, and public control of domestic bulk-storage infrastructure;
12
The principal market for WCPO cannery grade tuna, Bangkok, has shown positive price developments during 20002008, similar to the price increase in fuel; relative prices for sashimi quality tuna have declined in US dollar terms. Fish-to-fuel ratio is a measure of the weight of sh catch that is of the equivalent value to the cost of a xed amount of fuel.
13
Factors that will Have Major Impacts on Fisheries Benets 375
temporary adjustment of taxation and excise on fuel, targeted at particular sectors; establishment of scal and other incentives to encourage operators to adopt fuel saving measures or more fuel-ecient shing technologies, and to diversify fuel usage; and raise awareness through training.
Fishery Benefits and Economic Rent

An important aspect of benets from sheries concerns the rent generated by various management regimes. This rent, sometimes referred to as resource rent or economic rent, is most simply described as the dierence between total shery revenue and shery costs. Thus, management strategies that contribute to lowering costs and thereby increasing rent create the conditions that can allow maximum benets to ow from a shery. Although a complete discussion of the topic is beyond the scope of the present report, a recent study deserves some mention. In 2008, the World Bank prepared a global report on the economic state of world capture sheries (Sunken Billions, World Bank 2008). The report provided estimates that the annual economic losses from current or actual management versus the potential economic rents were some $51 billion/ year with a 95% condence level that the value is between $27 billion and $73billion. To complement the World Banks global estimate of economic losses from business as usual, regional or bottom up models of economic losses from current sheries management are required. Such a study on the tuna sheries of the Western and Central Pacic Ocean was undertaken by Grafton and Compass (2009). This Tuna Wealth Study provides a theoretical assessment of the potential regional economic wealth of the tuna resources and the relative economic rent drain resulting from the current sheries governance model. Using an existing bioeconomic model and open source data for the analysis, it rened the methodological approach for estimating resource rents (and losses) as described in the Sunken Billions report. The method used in the Tuna Wealth Study explicitly accounted for the transition costs in moving from the current biomass and actual eort levels to the optimal biomass and eort levels. Using a planning period of 50 years, and a discount rate of 5%, total prots for purse seine, frozen-sh longline, and fresh-sh longline eets for 2006 were calculated at $93million, $120million, and $109 million, respectively (in 2008 prices). The study estimated that
376
governance based on a business-as-usual approach would generate economic losses in net present value terms of at least $3.4 billion over a 50-year period, compared to optimal harvesting, despite the fact that, overall, the sheries currently generate positive prots. Sensitivity analyses suggest that economic losses from business as usual are very large in net present value terms under a wide range of alternative scenarios. An important point to emerge from the Tuna Wealth Study is that consideration should be given to a change in management regime to avoid the very large wealth losses associated with the business-as-usual approach.
Recommendations and Concluding Remarks
Recommendations for Improving the Measurement of Fisheries Benefits

Recommendations for improving the measurement of the main categories of sheries benets are summarized in Table 29.1. These suggestions for measurement improvements mostly involve minor or obvious change to established procedures and mechanisms. Improving the measurement of sheries employment may, however, require more fundamental work.
Fisheries Employment
Information on sheries employment of the region is scattered and inconsistent. Employment information presented in the country chapters is a heterogeneous assemblage of various types of data. There is no standard nomenclature or standard measurementsattributes that make it dicult to make comparisons. In the many trade-os that sheries management entails, it is often important to be able to determine and balance how many people will be aected by decisions. Using actual examples encountered in this study, it is dicult to balance impacts on a type of shing that may contribute some form of full-time or partial employment for around 25,000 persons with a shing activity that is the rst income for 5% of the households in a
378
Table 29.1: Improving the Measurement of Fisheries Benefits

Benefit Category Gross Domestic Product Suggestion to Improve Measurement Statistics staff should obtain technical fisheries expertise when devising methodology, collecting data, making the estimate, and reviewing the results of estimating the fishing contribution to GDP. Statistics staff should compare the reestimated fishing contribution to GDP in the country chapters of this report to the official estimate and evaluate the differences and any need for modification to the methodology. When using the production approach for estimating fishing contribution to GDP, the analyst should (a) formulate logical fisheries categories that group similar fisheries with similar value-added ratios; (b) in the absence of specialized economic studies for the concerned country, use the suggested value-added ratios of Appendix 3 of this report; and (c) for estimates of offshore fisheries production, use the WCPFC national fisheries reports. The results of past informal and specialized studies used in estimating the fishing contribution to GDP should be critically reviewed. Estimates of coastal fisheries production should be improved, through refinement of HIES and other mechanisms. Government fisheries agency staff should scrutinize the quantities and values of fishery exports in the official customs department data for erroneous information and omissions. The official value of tuna exports should be compared with the values on the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) spreadsheet The Value of WCPFC Tuna Fisheries available from the Fisheries Development Section of the FFA, Honiara. Government fisheries agency staff should reconcile their estimates of foreign fishing access fees with those of the Ministry of Finance. Clarification should be obtained from the Ministry of Finance on what components of fees received from the US tuna treaty are to be considered payments for fishing access and what should be considered development aid. The annual reports of government fisheries agencies should provide a reconciled list of access fees and other government income (e.g., domestic fishing license fees)as distinct from all money received. Conceptual work should be undertaken on the measurement of fisheries employment, taking advantage of worldwide experience both in and outside the fisheries sector. There should be significant fisheries technical input on the design and implementation of general surveys that are intended to obtain information on fisheries employment.
Exports
Government Revenue
Employment
Recommendations and Concluding Remarks 379
Benefit Category Nutrition
Suggestion to Improve Measurement Reports of fish consumption studies should state very clearly what they are measuring: (a) food actually consumed or the live weight of the fish that produced the food; and (b) the consumption of just finfish or all seafood or all aquatic foods. The term, per capita fish consumption, whole fish equivalent is often used in the region, but a term that is clearer, more accurate, and less ambiguous should be used: per capita fish supply.
GDP = gross domestic product, HIES = household income and expenditure survey, US = United States, WCPFC = Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Source: Chapter 26 of this report.
country. Given that unemployment is arguably one of the most serious longterm problems of the region, there is justication for doing some conceptual work on the measurement of sheries employment. This would entail taking advantage of worldwide experience both in and outside the sheries sector.
Consolidated Reporting
Consolidated reporting of the measures of shery benets in the region (similar to the present report) should ideally be done every 4 or 5 years. Such a report, giving comparisons between countries and between time periods, would be an important tool for national and regional shery management agencies and their development partners. Thought should be given to rening such reporting and to institutionalizing its periodic production.
Concluding Remarks
In this report, numerous observations have been made relating to increasing benets. Obviously, this study cannot result in a remarkable improvement of benets related to sheriesthis has been the work of national sheries agencies, regional organizations, and international agencies for a half century. Nevertheless, some overall comments related to sheries benets and to their enhancement are oered.
380
Fisheries Production and Benefits: What Has Been Achieved?

Box 29.1: Summary of Fisheries Production in the Region
Total fisheries and aquaculture production in the region in 2007 is estimated to be 1,327,361 t, plus an aquaculture production of 2,984 t and 305,336 pieces. Total value of this production in 2007 is estimated to be about $2,049,500,000. Offshore foreign-based fishing is responsible for about half of the value of fisheries in the region, offshore locally based for about a quarter, and coastal commercial, coastal subsistence, and aquaculture for the remaining quarter in about equal shares. Between 1999 and 2007, there was a remarkable increase in fishery production by Papua New Guinea and a moderate increase by most other countries. By category of fishing, there were substantial increases in offshore fisheries production, while coastal fisheries production did not change.
Source: Chapters 25 and 26.
Box 29.1 summarizes the status of sheries production in the region. Regarding the independent countries of the region, for which comparisons between 1999 and 2007 can be made, the role of sheries in the economies of most countries increased during the period: the relative contributions to GDP (i.e., share of shing contribution to total GDP) increased in 11 countries and decreased in 3 countries; and in nominal terms, shery exports almost doubled. Fishery exports increased relative to total exports in most countries, but fell signicantly in the Solomon Islands and Samoa. Foreign shing access fees increased in nominal terms for all but three countries, with an overall regional increase of almost one quarter ($18.7 million) in the 7 years between the studies. However, gains were moderated by granting access fee concessions to encourage local basing (i.e., other types of benets through domestic industry development). The ocial and reestimated shing contributions to GDP (see section 26.1) may seem small, but the shing contributions (mostly 1%10% for the reestimations) may actually be large in national account terms. Iceland provides a good example. Icelands economy is highly dependent on sh and shing. Fishery products made up 40% of exports in 2007. Despite this importance, the shing sector contributed only 7% to GDP in 2007 (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 2008). This is because many shingrelated activities are accounted for in other sectors such as manufacturing and much economic activity generated by shing is attributed to other sectors, such as retail trade.
The shing contribution range of 1%10% is also large relative to other countries in the world. In a recent FAO global survey, most developingcountry shing nations had shing contributions to GDP of slightly more than 1% (P. Jern, FAO, personal communication, January 2009).
Coastal Resources: Reaching the Limits

For the region as a whole, while oshore sheries are expanding substantially, there has been no overall production increase from coastal sheries. This contention is quite consistent with a recent policy paper by SPC that stated: Coastal sheries are mature in shery development terms, and the main focus with reef sheries is on consolidation and protection of current benet. If anything, the main prospects for economic and livelihood development from reef resources, over and above maintaining current levels of production, lie not in sheries but in tourism and other nonextractive uses (SPC 2008b). The section on sheries benets by zone concluded that most of the benets from sheries that directly touch the lives of Pacic islanders employment and nutritioncome from the coastal zone. Together, these two conclusions have major implications for the region. Limited shery production expansion in the coastal zone equates to a stagnant amount of food and employment being spread among a growing number of people. In conjunction with the generally expanding oshore sheries, the distribution of benets from the sheries sector in the Pacic islands is likely to undergo a profound change in the future. Another implication is that the government sheries agencies of the regionmany of which are oriented to developing coastal shery potentialmay require a fundamental reorientation to include a strong emphasis on safeguarding the existing levels of food and jobs from the coastal zone.
Subsidies: Hidden Costs of Benefits

In many cases, subsidies can represent a hidden cost of a benet (see section 27.3). Discussions of subsidies are not common in the sheries and aquaculture literature of the region. Exploration of the subject could result in any subsidies being more eectively applied or, alternatively, it could point to more eective uses of public funds.
382
Estimating Production from Coastal Fisheries: The Big Unknown

Estimating the production from coastal sheries in about half of the Pacic island countries is largely guesswork. In very few Pacic island countries are the levels of coastal catches well known. Monitoring of production from oshore sheries is relatively ecient, nationally and regionally. SPCs Oceanic Fisheries Programme continues to improve its estimates of catch from oshore sheries and assists national governments to monitor those sheries. FFA is in the process of reinvigorating its program that monitors the economics of oshore sheries, including employing people in each country to assist in these eorts. No such improvements are underway for coastal sheries at the regional level, and few, if any, countries are embarking on new national initiatives to determine production from coastal sheries. The lack of knowledge of catches from coastal sheries is especially troublesome. This is likely to be a factor in the under-appreciation for these sheries in many countries. In the present study, it has become evident that poor data on coastal sheries production create considerable diculty in accurately portraying shery benets, especially in the areas of GDP contribution, employment, and nutrition. Protection of village food sh supplies is arguably the most important objective of the management of coastal sheries in the Pacic islands, but to know if such management eorts are eective overall, some idea of gross coastal sheries production is required. In terms of government priorities, it seems that a lack of production information tends to result in a lack of attention. Because these are the sheries that have the greatest direct eect on the lives of Pacic Islanders (see section 27.6), determining production in coastal sheries deserves more attention. The above should not be taken as an argument for establishing systems of ongoing and extensive data collection from coastal sheries of the Pacic islands. Such systems are expensive to the point of rarely surviving the withdrawal of donor support. Cost-eective mechanisms for periodically obtaining information on gross production from coastal sheries are needed. The use of the HIES for sheries purposes was discussed above, but there are other possibilities, including the one-time intensive sheries snapshot survey, as was done in Samoa. SPC, with its Coastal Fisheries Programme and the Statistics and Demography Programme, is in a powerful position to develop, perfect, and promote such shery measurement tools.
Aquaculture: Improving the Track Record

In this report, there has been considerable discussion of aquaculture, especially in the production and sh consumption sections. The observations and comments on the past performance of the subsector should not be taken to indicate that aquaculture has no potential in the region. On the contrary, given worldwide trends, it is likely that the contribution of aquaculture to the economies will increase. With respect to what has been achieved to date, pearl culture is one of the biggest successes in the entire sheries/aquaculture sector of the region. During the study, a close examination of the net benets of aquaculture in each Pacic island country resulted in considerable reection on the subject of success and failures in the development of aquaculture in the region. Two suggestions for improvement (applicable to both the national and regional levels) can be oered, as follows: The development models being pursued should be constantly evaluated for eectiveness, especially in cases where the model has resulted in limited success over many years. There should be periodic objective analysis of the net benets and potential of aquaculture development initiatives.
Access Fees: Getting to Know the Unknown

In the earlier study by Gillett and Lightfoot (2001), considerable secrecy was encountered concerning levels of access fee payments, even at the aggregate national level, and much of the data on access fee payments in that study were estimated with considerable diculty. For the present study, information on access fee receipts was available in the public domain for most countries. Where this was not the situation, sheries and/or nance ocials cooperated to furnish the information. This favorable change appears to be in accordance with the Vavau Declaration on Pacic Fisheries Resources issued at the Thirty-Eighth Pacic Islands Forum held in October 2007, which stressed the importance of transparency in sheries licensing arrangements.
Economic Analysis: Assuring Objectivity

Observations during the eld work of this study in almost all Pacic island countries lead to two general suggestions for improvement of economic analysis of benets from the sheries sector:
384
In the analysis of benets from specic sheries subsectors, eorts should be taken to assure that the analytical work is completely independent of individuals involved in promoting that subsector. Schemes that subsidize various aspects of sheries should be regularly analyzed by individuals external to the subsidy program to determine whether the objectives of the subsidization are being achieved, whether there is a favorable cost-benet ratio of the subsidy, and whether alternative mechanisms could be more appropriate or eective than the subsidy.
Promoting the Fisheries Sector: Where Are the Champions?

Measuring the sheries contribution to the economies of Pacic island countries could be improved markedly by closer liaison between sheries and statistics agencies. The sheries agencies are in a position to provide information on new developments, technical insights, and recent data, all of which could improve the measurement of sheries benets. This cooperation, however, rarely occurs. Because sheries agencies have a vested interest in assuring that the importance of their sector is not underestimated, they should take the lead in improving this cooperation. One reason for the continuing underestimation of the importance and benets of the sheries sector is that, with few exceptions, Pacic island countries lack individuals who actively publicize it. By contrast, the tourism sector in many Pacic island countries has champions that rarely miss opportunities to stress to the government and to the public the value of the tourism sector. Therefore, it is no surprise that tourism enjoys the benets of one of the rst satellite accounts in the region (measurement of all activity related to tourism; section 27.2). A recent positive development is that sheries associations, such as in Tonga, are moving into the role of being champions of the sheries sector.
References
Abbasi, Z. November 2008. Personal communication. Adams, T. November 2008. Personal communication. Adams, T. and A. Langley. 2005. The Potential for Development of Fisheries in the Pitcairn EEZ. Noumea: Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Ailloud, A. October 2008. Personal communication. Allen, B.J., R.M. Bourke, and L. Hanson. 2001. Dimensions of PNG Village Agriculture. Proceedings of the Papua New Guinea Food and Nutrition 2000 Conference. PNG University of Technology, Lae, 2630 June 2000. Allen, S. and P. Bartram. 2008. Guam as a Fishing Community. Honolulu: Pacic Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. Alongi, D.M. 2002. Present State and Future of the Worlds Mangrove Forests. Biological Conservation 29. pp. 331349. Alonz, V. 2007. 2006 Republic of Palau HIES. Oce of Planning and Statistics, Ministry of Finance. Amesbury, J. 2006. Monitoring and Forecasting Ecological Changes in the Mariana Archipelago. Presentation to the Ecosystem Social Science Workshop, Honolulu. Amoe, J. 2008. Fijis Tuna Fisheries. Working Paper 8. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. Amos, M. 2007. Vanuatu Fishery Resource Proles. Apia, Samoa: Pacic Regional Environment Programme.
386
Andres, Z. 1987. Country StatementPitcairn. Working Paper 10. Noumea: Nineteenth Regional Technical Meeting on Fisheries, South Pacic Commission. . 1991. The Republic of the Marshall Islands National Nutritional Survey. Technical Report. Majuro: Marshall Islands Ministry of Health Services. . 2001a. Fiji Country Statement. Paper presented at the Pacic Islands Workshop on Fisheries Statistics, Noumea, New Caledonia. . 2001b. Country StatementSolomon Islands. Paper presented at the Pacic Island Regional Workshop on Fisheries Statistics, Noumea, Apia.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1718 July 2001. . 2002. HIES 2002 Final Report. Economic, Planning, Development, and Statistics Unit, Premiers Department, Government of Niue. . 2003. Tokelau 2001 Population and Housing Census. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. . 2004. Evaluation of the Eects of Community-Based Fisheries Management on Coral Reef Communities of American Samoa. Masteral thesis, University of Wales. . 2005. Republic of Palau National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Koror: Palau National Environmental Protection Council. . 2006. Census 2006. Economic, Planning, Development, and Statistics Unit, Premiers Department, Government of Niue. Anon. 2007a. Censuses and Surveys. Statistics Oce, Rarotonga, Cook Islands. www.stats.gov.ck/Statistics/CensusSurveys/censurvnav.htm . 2007b. Kiribati 2005 Census. Port Vila: National Statistics Oce of Kiribati. . 2007c. Population Estimate Quarter 1 2006. Niue: Niue Statistics. . 2007d. Tokelau Annual Report to the WCPFC Commission for 2007. Working Paper 28. Third Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1324 August 2007. . 2007e. Wallis and Futuna Country BriefDecember 2007. Canberra: Department of Foreign Aairs and Trade. . 2008a. Cook Islands National Fisheries Report. Fourth Session, Scientic Committee, Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008.
References 387
. 2008b. Nauru. Working Paper 17. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. . 2008c. Tuna Fisheries in the Waters of the Republic of Palau. Working Paper 22. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. . 2008d. 2007 National Tuna Fishery Report Solomon Islands. Working Paper 25. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. . 2008e. New Caledonia Annual Report. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. . 2008f. Memento Agricole Donnees 2007. Direction des Aaires Veterinaires. Noumea. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2005. Republic of the Fiji Islands: Fisheries Sector Review. Manila. . 2007a. Country Economic Report Nauru. Manila. . 2007b. Tuvalu 2006 Economic ReportFrom Plan to Action. Pacic Studies Series. Manila. . 2008a. Cook Islands 2007 Social and Economic Report: Equity in Development. Manila. . 2008b. Kiribati: Managing Development Risk. Manila. . 2008c. Samoa Social and Economic Report 2008: Continuing Growth and Stability, TA6245-REG: Samoa Pier. Manila. Ask, E.I. 1999. Cottonii and Spinosum Cultivation Handbook. Philadelphia: FMC Corporation. Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). 2007. Valuing Pacic Fish: A Framework for Fisheries-Related Development Assistance in the Pacic. Canberra: AusAID. Avalos, B. 1995. Women and Development in PNG. National Centre for Development Studies, Research School for Pacic and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. Pacic Economic Bulletin. 10 (1). 7383. Awira, R. October 2008. Personal communication.
388
Bain, D. 1996. A Guide to Estimating the Value of Household Non-Market Production in the Pacic Island Developing Countries. Noumea: South Pacic Commission. Barclay, K. 2008. Fisheries and Aquaculture. In Solomon Islands Diagnostic Trade Integration Study (DTIS). Honiara: Ministry of Foreign Aairs and External Trade. Barclay, K., and I. Cartwright. 2006. Capturing Wealth from Tuna: Key Issues for Pacic Island Countries. Canberra: Australian National University. . 2007. Capturing Wealth from Tuna: Case Studies from the Pacic. Australian National University, Canberra: Asia Pacic Press. Baron, W. August 2008. Personal communication. Batty, M. April 2009. Personal communication. Bell, J. and M. Gervis. 1999. New Species for Coastal Aquaculture in the Tropical PacicConstraints, Prospects and Considerations. Aquaculture International. 7. pp. 207223. Bell, J. et al. 2008. Importance of Household Income and Expenditure Surveys and Censuses for Management of Coastal and Freshwater Fisheries. Secretariat of the Pacic Community Fisheries Newsletter. 127. pp. 3439. . 2009. Planning the Use of Fish for Food Security in the Pacic. Marine Policy. 33. pp. 6476. Bell, L., U. Faanunu, and T. Koloa.1994. Fisheries Resources Proles: Kingdom of Tonga. Report 94/5. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. Bellwood, D.R. et al. 2006. Coral Bleaching, Reef Fish Community Phase Shifts and the Resilience of Coral Reefs. Global Change Biology. 12. pp.1,5871,594. Berdach, J. and M. Llegu. 2005. Solomon Islands Country Environmental Analysis: Mainstreaming Environmental Considerations in Economic and Development Planning Processes. ADB TA 6204-REG. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Bertram, I. January 2009. Personal communication. Bindo, N.L. et al. 2007. Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In S. Solomon et al., eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 385428. Blanc, M. and A. Templeton. 2008. Review of the Nauru Canoe and Nearshore FADs Project. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community.
References 389
Bloomeld, A.L., and B.M. Gillanders. 2005. Fish and Invertebrate Assemblages in Seagrass, Mangrove, Saltmarsh, and Nonvegetated Habitats. Estuaries. 28. pp. 6367. Boseto, D., C. Morrison, P. Pikacha, and T. Pitakia. 2007. Biodiversity and Conservation of Freshwater Fishes in Selected Rivers on Choiseul Island, Solomon Islands. South Pacic Journal of Natural Science. 3. pp. 1621. Brander, K.M. 2007. Global Fish Production and Climate Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104. pp. 19,70919,714. Brown, J. October 2008. Personal communication. Brownjohn, M. November 2008. Personal communication. Brownjohn, M., H. Walton, J. Wani, and D. Wilken. September 2008. Personal communication. Buere, B. 2006. Enquete Budget des Familles Wallis et Futuna 20052006. Mat-utu: Service Territorial de la Statistique et des Etudes Economique. Buga, B. August 2008. Personal communication. Bureau of Budget and Planning. 2008. 2006 Statistical Yearbook. Koror: Ministry of Finance, Republic of Palau. Bureau of Statistics and Plans. 2005. 2004 Guam Statistical Yearbook. Hagatna, Guam: Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Oce of Governor Felix P. Camacho, Government of Guam. . 2008. Guam Export Report. Hagatna, Guam: Business and Economic Statistics Program, Government of Guam. Burton, M., K. Nero, and N. Pollack. 1997. Food Consumption Patterns in the Marshall Islands. Arlington, VA: US National Science Foundation. Central Bank of the Solomon Islands (CBSI). 2007. Annual Report 2006. Honiara: CBSI. . 2008. Annual Report 2007. Honiara: CBSI. Census Bureau. 2000. Census of Population. Pago Pago: American Samoa Department of Commerce. . 2008. Economic Census of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. www.census.gov/econ/overview/mu1900.html Central Intelligence Agency. 2008. The World Fact BookPitcairn. www.cia .gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook
390
Central Statistics Division. 2006. Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) 2004/2005 Final Report. Tuvalu: Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Industries, Government of Tuvalu. . 2008. Biannual Statistical Report. Tuvalu: Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. Government of Tuvalu. Chapman, L., K. Des Rochers, and M. Pelasio. 2005. Survey of Fishing Activities in Tokelau. Fisheries Newsletter #115. October/December 2005. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Chapman, L. 2004. Nearshore Domestic Fisheries Development in Pacic Island Countries and Territories. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. ______. 2005. Duty Travel Report, Fisheries Development Adviser, Nauru (1829 April 2005). Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Climate Change Science Program. 2008. Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and US Pacic Islands. In T.R. Karl et al., eds. A Report by the US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC: NOAA National Climatic Data Center. Coastal Fisheries Development Programme (CoFish). 2005. Nauru Country Report: Prole and Results from In-Country Survey Work. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Coates, D. 1987. Consideration of Fish Introductions into the Sepik River, Papua New Guinea. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management. 18. pp.231 241. . 1996. Review of the Present Status of, and Constraints to, Inland Fisheries Development: the Pacic Island Counties. Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Oce for Asia and the Pacic, IPFC Working Party of Experts on Island Fisheries. Coles, R.G. et al. 1992. Seagrass Beds and Juvenile Prawn and Fish Nursery Grounds. Brisbane: Department of Primary Industries. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). 2008. Trade Database. www.cites.org Cook, J. 1988. A Review of the Solomon Islands Fisheries Statistics Program. Fisheries Statistical Bulletin Number 1. Honiara: Fisheries Division, Ministry of Natural Resources.
References 391
Coutures, E. 2003. The Shoreline Fishery of American Samoa. DMWR Biological Report Series No. 102. Pago Pago: Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa. Craig, P. 2004. Preliminary Catch and Eort Survey Data from the Subsistence Fishery of Ofu and Olosega. Unpublished manuscript. . 2005. Natural History Guide to American Samoa. National Park of American Samoa, Pago Pago. Craig, P., A. Green, and F. Tuilagi. 2008. Subsistence Harvest of Coral Reef Resources in the Outer Islands of American Samoa: Modern, Historic and Prehistoric Catches. Fisheries Research. 89. pp. 230240. Crossland, J. and P. Philipson. 1993. The Rural Fishing Enterprises Project in Solomon Islands: Fish Market and Marketing Study. Report for the Ministry of Natural Resources, Solomon Islands. Auckland: James Crossland and Associates. Dalzell, P. December 2008. Personal communication. Dalzell, P., A. Debao, and P. Jacobs. 1992. A Preliminary Account of Coastal Fisheries in Nauru with an Outline for a Catch Monitoring Programme. Noumea: South Pacic Commission. Dalzell, P., S. Lindsay, and H. Patiale. 1990. Niue Fisheries Resources Survey, 1125 July 1990. Noumea: South Pacic Commission. . 1993. Fisheries Resources Survey of the Island of Niue. Inshore Fisheries Research Project, Technical Report No. 3. Noumea: South Pacic Commission. Dalzell, P., T.J.H. Adams, and N.V.C. Polunin. 1996. Coastal Fisheries in the Pacic Islands. Oceanography and Marine Biology. 34. pp. 395531. Dame, O. 2006. Status of Labour Market in Nauru: Issues and Challenges. Paper for Conference on Globalisation and their Impacts on Labour Markets in Pacic Island Countries, University of the South Pacic, Fiji Islands, 1719 October 2006. David, G. and E. Cillaurren. 1992. National Fisheries Development Policy for Coastal Waters, Small-Scale Village Fishing, and Food Self-Reliance in Vanuatu. Man and Culture in Oceania. 8. Death, G., J.M. Lough, and K.E. Fabricius. 2009. Declining Coral Calcication on the Great Barrier Reef. Science. 323. pp. 116119. Deaton, A. 1997. The Analysis of Household Surveys. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
392
DeBrum, I. October 2008. Personal communication. Demei, L. October 2008. Personal communication. Department of Economic Aairs (DEA). 2002. Second FSM Coastal Fisheries ConsortiumReport of Proceedings. Pohnpei: DEA. Department of Commerce. 2003. Guam 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. . 2005. American Samoa: 20022002 Economic Census of Island Areas. Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau. Department of Fisheries. 2005. Department of Fisheries Annual Report 2004. Suva: Ministry of Fisheries. . 2008a. Draft Department of Fisheries Annual Report 2005. Suva: Ministry of Fisheries. . 2008b. Draft Department of Fisheries Annual Report 2006. Suva: Ministry of Fisheries. . 2008c. Draft Department of Fisheries Annual Report 2007. Suva: Ministry of Fisheries. Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources (DFMR). 2006. Annual Report 2005. Honiara: DFMR. Development of Tuna Fisheries in the Pacic ACP Countries (DevFish). 2006. Visits to Palau, Federated States of Micronesia and Marshall Islands June 2006. DevFish Trip Report #3. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. . 2007. Second Year Annual Report. DevFish Programme. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. Diey, S. 2005. Market and Market Linkages Study. Port Moresby: Rural Coastal Fisheries Development Project, National Fisheries Authority, Government of Papua New Guinea, and the European Union. Division of Marine Resources. 1994. Annual Report 1993. Palau: Bureau of Natural Resources and Development, Ministry of Resources and Development. . 1995. Small-Scale Sustainable Sport Fishery for Palau. Palau: Bureau of Natural Resources and Development, Ministry of Resources and Development. Division of Marine Resources. 2001. Country Statement: Palau Fisheries Statistics. Paper presented at the Pacic Islands Regional Workshop on
References 393
Fishery Statistics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Sub-Regional Oce for the Pacic Islands, Apia. Division of Statistics. 2004. The FSM 2000 Census of Population and Housing National Census Report. Palikir: Department of Economic Aairs, Federated States of Micronesia. Douglas, N. and N. Douglas. 2004. Pacic Islands Yearbook. Suva: Fiji Times Ltd. Duarte, C.M. 2002. The Future of Seagrass Meadows. Environmental Conservation. 29. 192206. Dudgeon, D. and R.E.W. Smith. 2006. Exotic Species, Fisheries and Conservation of Freshwater Biodiversity in Tropical Asia: The Case of the Sepik River, Papua New Guinea. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 16. pp. 203215. Dueas, M. October 2008. Personal communication. Dunham, R. and D. Lucas. December 2008. Personal communication. Dunn, E. December 2008. Personal communication. Dupont, A., L. Harris, and M-Management. 2004. ADECALProgramme ZONECOllaboration dun schma directteur de dveloppementt de la liire pche-Phase IIConstat. Noumea: Auclair Dupont. Durand, A. September 2008. Personal communication. Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Oce (EPPSO). 2002. Republic of the Marshall Islands Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2002 Basic Tables. Majuro: EPSSO. . 2006. Marshall Islands Statistical Yearbook 2004. Majuro: EPSSO. . 2008a. Statistical Tables. Majuro: EPSSO. . 2008b. Preliminary Employment Statistics for Fiscal Year 2007. Majuro: EPSSO. Elymore, J., A. Elymore, J. Badcock, and F. Bach. 1989. The 1987/88 National Nutritional Survey of the Federated States of Micronesia. Pohnpei: Oce of Health Services, Department of Human Resources; and Noumea: South Pacic Commission. Englberger, L., G. Marks, and M. Fitzgerald. 2002. Insights on Food and Nutrition in the Federated States of Micronesia: A Review of the Literature. Public Health Nutrition. 6 (1). pp. 517. Etaix-Bonnin, R. August 2008. Personal communication.
394
Evans, D. December 2008. Personal communication. Faanunu, J. November 2008. Personal communication. Faanunu, U. 2007. Aquarium Fishery in Tonga. Commercial Fisheries Conference 2007. Faasili, U., Jr. September 2008. Personal communication. Fabricius, K.E. et al. 2008. Disturbance Gradients on Inshore and Oshore Coral Reefs Caused by a Severe Tropical Cyclone. Limnology and Oceanography. 53. pp. 690704. Fao, B. August 2008. Personal communication. Fenner, D., M. Speicher, and S. Gulick. 2008. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of American Samoa. In The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacic Freely Associated States: 2008. Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Fiji Faqs. 2008. Suva Fiji Faqs and Fiji Faqs. South Pacic Photography. www.ji-faqs.com/index.cfm/city/20/suva.html Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics (FIBOS). 2002. Tourism Satellite Account 2002 Fiji Islands. Suva: FIBOS. . 2007. A Study of the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Sector 2002. Suva: FIBOS. . 2008. Key Statistics. Suva: FIBOS. Finau, A. September 2008. Personal communication. Finikaso. 2004. Traditional Marine Ethnobiodiversity and Its Application to Inshore Fisheries Management in Tuvalu: A Case Study of Vaitupu and Funafuti Atolls. Masteral thesis, Marine Studies Programme, University of the South Pacic. Fisheries Department. 2005. 2004 Annual Statistical Report. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Fisheries Department. . 2006. Annual Report for the Year 2005. Nukualofa, Tonga: Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Forests and Fisheries. . 2007. Annual Report for the Year 2006. Nukualofa, Tonga: Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Forests and Fisheries. .2008a. National Tuna Fishery ReportVanuatu. Working Paper 32. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008.
References 395
. 2008b. Tuna Fisheries in French Polynesia in 2007. Working Paper 11. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. Fisheries Division. 2000. 1999 Annual Report of the Fisheries Division. Suva: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forests. . 2004. Fisheries Division Annual Report 2003. Tarawa, Kiribati: Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Development. . 2005. Fisheries Division Annual Report 2004. Tarawa, Kiribati: Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Development. . 2008a. Annual Report for the Year 2007. Nukualofa, Tonga: Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Forests and Fisheries. . 2008b. Annual Report to the CommissionPart 1: Information On Fisheries, Research, and Statistics. Working Paper 25. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea,1122 August 2008. . 2008c. Fisheries Division Annual Report 2006. Tarawa, Kiribati: Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Development. . 2008d. Fisheries Division Annual Report July 2007June 2008. Apia, Samoa: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Fisk, D. 2004. Niue Sustainable Coastal Fisheries Pilot Project. Marine Baseline Survey. International Waters Project. Apia, Samoa: Pacic Regional Environment Programme. Fonua, P. 2008. Main Features of the 2008/09 Budget. Matangi Tonga Magazine. April 2008. Nukualofa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1997. Technical Guidelines for Responsible FisheriesFisheries Management 4. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 5. Rome: FAO. . 2007. Building Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change: Policies to Sustain Livelihoods and Fisheries. Rome: FAO. . 2008. Capture Production 19502006. FISHSTAT PlusUniversal Software for Fishery Statistical Time Series. Rome: FAO. Forster, P. et al. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radioactive Forcing. In S. Solomon et al., eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
396
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). 1993. Cook Islands Fisheries Resources Proles. Report No.93/25. Honiara: FFA. . 2008. The Value of WCPFC Tuna Fisheries. Unpublished report. Honiara. Fourmy, J. 2002. Inventaire des Pecheurs de TerritoireExploitation des Donnees Brutes. Mautu, Wallis and Futuna. Gaiafuna, J. August 2008. Personal communication. Gay, D. 2008. Vanuatu Diagnostic Trade Integration Study 2008 Report. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Blue Planet Media + Communications. Geberi, K. September 2008. Personal communication. George, A. 2008. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Federated States of Micronesia. In The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacic Freely Associated States: 2008. Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Gibson, J. 2000. The Economic and Nutritional Importance of Household Food Production in PNG. In R. M. Bourke, M. G. Allen, and J. G. Salisbury, eds. Food Security for Papua New Guinea. Proceedings of the Papua New Guinea Food and Nutrition 2000 Conference. University of Technology, Lae, 2630 June 2000. ACIAR Proceedings No. 99. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Gilman, E.L., J. Ellison, N.C. Duke, and C. Field. 2008. Threats to Mangroves from Climate Change and Adaptation Options. Aquatic Botany. 89. pp.237250. Gillett, R. 1994. Tonga Fisheries Bibliography: 1st Revised Edition. Pacic Islands Marine Resource Information System, University of the South Pacic, and Technical Cooperation Programme. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. p. 115. . 1995. Aspects of Trochus Industries, Trade and Marketing Relevant to the Pacic IslandsA report prepared for the World Bank. Washington, DC: The World Bank. p. 75. . 2002. Pacic Island Fisheries: Regional and Country Information. AsiaPacic Fishery Commission. Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Oce for Asia and the Pacic.
References 397
. 2003. Domestic Tuna Industry Development in the Pacic Islands: The Current Situation and Considerations for Future Development Assistance. Report 03/01. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. . 2008. A Study of Tuna Industry Development Aspirations of FFA Member Countries. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. . 2008. Coastal Fisheries in the Pacic Islands Region: Candidates for Marine Stewardship Council Certication. Suva: Worldwide Fund for Nature. p. 37. Gillett, R. and C. Lightfoot. 2001. The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacic Island Countries. Pacic Studies Series. Manila: Asian Development Bank. p. 218. Gillett, R. and C. Reid. 2005. A Business Plan for the National Fishing Corporation of Tuvalu. Report prepared for the Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Gillett, Preston and Associates. p. 30. Gillett, R. and F. Toloa. 1987. The Importance of Small-Scale Tuna Fishing in the Pacic Islands: A Case Study at Fakaofo Atoll, Tokelau. In D. Doulman, ed. Tuna Issues and Perspectives in the Pacic Islands Region. Pacic Islands Development Programme. Honolulu: EastWest Center. Gillett, R. and G. Preston. 1997. The Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security in the Oceania Sub-Region of the AsiaPacic Region: Review of Food Security Issues and Challenges in the Asia and Pacic Region. UNDP TSS1 ProjectRas/95/01T. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Gillett, Preston and Associates. p. 50. Gillett, R. and M. McCoy. 1997. The Employment of Pacic Islanders Aboard Foreign Fishing Vessels: A Report for the Forum Fisheries Agency. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Gillett, Preston and Associates. p. 90. Gillett, R., G. Preston, and H. Walton. 2008. Development of Tuna Fisheries in the Pacic ACP Countries (DevFish)Mid Term Review. Brussels: European Union. p. 59. Gillett, R. et al. 1998. Tonga Fisheries Sector Review, Volume I: Main Report of the Consultants. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and Canberra: Australian Agency for International Development. p. 132. Gillett, Preston and Associates (GPA). 2006. Review of the Cost Structure and Building Sustained Competitive Advantage in the Papua New Guinea Domestic Fishing Industry. Report prepared for the Papua New Guinea National Fisheries Authority. Port Vila, Vanuatu.
398
Gloerfelt-Tarp, T. December 2008. Personal communication. Government of Kiribati. 2008. Approved Budget 2008. Tarawa: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Government of Samoa. 2008. Approved Estimate of Receipt and Payment of Government of Samoa. Partnership Paper Number 8. Apia: Government of Samoa. Grafton, R. and T. Compass. 2009. Tuna Wealth Study: Assessment of the Value of the Tuna Resources in the Western and Central Pacic. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Graham, N.A.J. et al. 2006. Dynamic Fragility of Oceanic Coral Reef Ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 103. pp. 8,4258,429. Green, A. et al. 2006. Solomon Islands Marine AssessmentTechnical Report of Survey Conducted May 13June 17, 2004. TNC Pacic Island Countries Report No. 1/06. Brisbane: The Nature Conservancy, Indo Pacic Resource Centre. Green, B.S. and R. Fisher. 2004. Temperature Inuences, Swimming Speed, Growth and Larval Duration in Coral Reef Fish Larvae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 299. pp. 115132. Green, R. 2008. The Commonwealth Yearbook. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Guinotte, J.M. and V.J. Fabry. 2008. Ocean Acidication and its Potential Eects on Marine Ecosystems. Annals of the NewYork Academy of Science. 1134. pp. 320342. Guinottte, J.M., R.W. Buddemeier, and J.A. Kleypas. 2003. Future Coral Reef Habitat Marginality: Temporal and Spatial Eects of Climate Change in the Pacic Basin. Coral Reefs. 22. pp. 551558. Gulbrandsen, O. 1977. Report on Travel to Tokelau, 1524 February. Unpublished FAO Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Gutierrez, J. October 2008. Personal communication. Haberkorn, G. 2008. 20002020 Census and Household Surveys. Statistics and Demography Programme. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Hacker, C. October 2008. Personal communication. Halahi, T. and U. Faanunu. 2008. Tonga Tuna Fishery Annual Report to SC4 Papua New Guinea, 22nd August 2008. Working Paper 29. Fourth
References 399
Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. Hamilton, A. 2007. The Samoa Alia Fishery. Development of Tuna Fisheries in the Pacic ACP Countries (DEVFISH) Project. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. Hamilton, A. December 2008. Personal communication. Hamm, D., M. Quach, K. Brousseau, and C. Graham. 2008. Fishery Statistics of the Western Pacic. 23. Honolulu: Pacic Islands Fisheries Science Center. Hampton, J. January 2009. Personal communication. Hangaripaii, M. October 2008. Personal communication. Henry, M. October 2008. Personal communication. Hickey, F. December 2008. Personal communication. . September 2008. Personal communication. . January 2009. Personal communication. Hickey, F. and A. Firiam. 2003. Feasibility Study for a Fishing Project for the Shepherd Outer Islands. POPACA II. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Division. Hickey, F. and R. Jimmy. 2008. Fisheries. In D. Gay, ed. Vanuatu Diagnostic Trade Integration Study 2008 Report. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Blue Planet Media + Communications. Hinds, V. 1969. A Fisheries Reconnaissance to Wallis Island. Noumea: South Pacic Commission. Hobday, A.J. et al. 2006. Impacts of Climate Change on Australian Marine Life. Hobart: CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2007. Coral Reefs under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidication. Science. 318. pp. 1,7371,742. Holden, B. November 2008. Personal communication. Hooper, A. 1984. Tokelau Fishing in Traditional and Modern Contexts. In K. Ruddle and R. Johannes, eds. Proceedings of the UNESCOROSTEA Seminar on Traditional Management of Coastal Systems. Jakarta, December 1983. Jakarta: United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization. Hughes, T.P. et al. 2003. Climate Change, Human Impacts and the Resilience of Coral Reefs. Science. 301. pp. 929933.
400
. 2007. Phase Shifts, Herbivory, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs to Climate Change. Current Biology. 17. pp. 360365. Hunter, J. August 2008. Personal communication. . January 2009. Personal communication. . November 2008. Personal communication. Infosh. 2008. Solomon Islands. Kuala Lumpur. www.infosh.org/shtradenet/ tradereg/soi.html Institut DEmission DOutre-Mer (IEOM). 2008. La Polynesie Francaise en 2007. Paris: IEOM. Integrated Marine Management Limited.1993. Kiribati Marine Resources Sector Study. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In S. Solomon et al., eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2005. Solomon Islands: Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix. IMF Country Report No. 05/364. Washington, DC: IMF. . 2006. Public Information Notice on the Executive Board Discussion; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Palau. Washington, DC: IMF. . 2008. Solomon Islands: Tax Summary and Statistical Appendix. IMF Country Report No. 08/359. Washington, DC: IMF. Institut de la Statistique de la Polynesie Francaise (ISPF). 2008. Polynesie Francaise en Bref 2008. Papeete: ISPF. Jacobs, M. 2002. Spoiled Tuna: A Fishing Industry Gone Bad. Micronesian Counselor #40. Pohnpei: Micronesian Seminar. www.micsem.org/pubs Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). 1983. Basic Design Study for the Development of the Infrastructure for a Fishing Base in the Marshall Islands. Tokyo: JICA. Jenkins, A. 1999. A Preliminary Investigation of the Freshwater Ichthyofauna of Ngardok Lake and Ngeremeduu Bay Watersheds, Republic of Palau. Canberra: Wetlands International Oceania. Jern, P. January 2009. Personal communication.
References 401
Johns Hopkins. 1992. Overnutrition and Undernutrition in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. A Report of a Pilot Study. Baltimore: Division of Human Nutrition, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University. Johnson, J.E. and P.A. Marshall, eds. 2007. Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef: A Vulnerability Assessment. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Australian Greenhouse Ofce. Joseph, G. October 2008. Personal communication. Joseph, G. and Jack, D. October 2008. Personal communication. Kaureata, T. October 2008. Personal communication. Keeble, G. September 2008. Personal communication. Keeble, C. Ryan. September 2008. Personal communication. Keith. P., E.Vigneux, and G. Marquet. 2002. Atlas des poissons et des crustaces de Polynesie Francaise. Paris: Museum National dHistoire Naturelle. Keke, K. 2008. 2008/09 Budget. Republic of Nauru. Kinch, J., S. Purcell, S. Uthicke, and K. Friedman. 2008. Population Status, Fisheries and Trade of Sea Cucumbers in the Western Pacic. In V. Toral-Granda, A. Lovatelli, and M. Vasconcellos, eds. Sea Cucumbers: A Global Review of Fisheries and Trade. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 516. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. pp. 756. Kitalong, A. October 2008. Personal communication. Kitalong, A. and P. Dalzell. 1994. A Preliminary Assessment of the Status of Inshore Coral Reef Fish Stocks in Palau. Technical Document No. 6. Inshore Fisheries Research Project. Noumea: South Pacic Commission. Klyashtorn, L.B. and A.A. Lyubushin. 2005. Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity. Government of the Russian Federation State Committee for Fisheries of the Russian Federation Federal State Unitary Enterprise. Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography. Salinas, California, USA: Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study. . 2007. Monetary and Non-Monetary Values of Small-Scale Fisheries in Pacic Island Countries. Women in Fisheries. Information Bulletin #16, March. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Kronen, M. and D. Solomona. 2008a. Mangaia Socio-Economic Survey. PROCFish-C Country Report Cook Islands. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community.
402
. 2008b. Rarotonga Socio-Economic Survey. PROCFish-C Country Report Cook Islands. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Kronen, M. March 2009. Personal communication. Kumoru, L. 2008. Papua New Guinea. Working Paper 23. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. Kuster, C., V. Vuki, and L. Zann. 2006. Comparative Analysis of Catch and Eort of Subsistence Fishers from Creel and Household Surveys. Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia. Lagibalavu, M. August 2008. Personal communication. Lal, P. and A. Cerelala. 2005. Financial and Economic Analysis of Wild Harvest and Cultured Live Coral and Live Rock in Fiji. Suva: International Secretariat, Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacic. Lal, P. and J. Kinch. 2005. Financial Assessment of the Marine Trade of Corals in Solomon Islands. A report prepared for the Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacic International, Suva, Fiji Islands; South Pacic Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa; and Departments of Fisheries and Marine Resources, and Forestry and Environment and Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resources, Solomon Islands Government, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Lambeth, L. 2001. An Overview of the Involvement of Women in Fisheries Activities in Oceania. Global Symposium on Women in Fisheries. Sixth Asian Fisheries Forum, Kaohsiung, Taipei,China, 29 November 2001. pp.127142. Lambeth, L. and R. Abraham. 2001. An Assessment of the Role of Women in Fisheries in Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia. Field Report No. 3, Community Fisheries Section. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Langley, A. and C. Reid. 2004. An Economic Analysis of the Fiji Longline Fishery. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency; and Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Llegu, M. 2007. Participatory Poverty Assessment Report, Solomon Islands, 2 April30 Nov 2007, ADB REG TA 6157: Strengthening Poverty Analysis and Strategies in the Solomon Islands. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Lehodey, P., F. Chai, and J. Hampton. 2003. Modelling Climate-Related Variability of Tuna Populations from a Coupled Ocean Biogeochemical-
References 403
Populations Dynamics Model. Fisheries and Oceanography. 12. pp. 483 494. Lehodey, P., I. Senina, J. Sibert, and J. Hampton. 2008. SEAPODYM.v2: A Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model with Parameter Optimization Providing a New Tool for Tuna Management. Working Paper 10. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. Lehodey, P., M. Bertignac, J. Hampton, A. Lewis, and J. Picaut.1997. El Nio Southern Oscillation and Tuna in the Western Pacic. Nature. 389. pp. 715718. .2008. Preliminary Forecasts of Pacic Bigeye Tuna Population Trends under the A2 IPCC Scenario. In E. S. Poloczanska, A. J. Hobday, and A. J. Richardson, eds. In Hot Water: Preparing for Climate Change in Australias Coastal and Marine Systems. Proceedings of a conference held in Brisbane, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.1214 November 2007. Lehodey, P. et al. 2006. Climate Variability, Fish and Fisheries. Journal of Climate. 19(20). pp. 5,0095,030. Lehodey, P. et al. (in press). Preliminary Forecasts of Population Trends for Pacic Bigeye Tuna under the A2 IPCC Scenario. Special issue of the 1st international CLIOTOP Symposium La Paz, Mexico, 37 December 2007. www.web.pml.ac.uk/globec/structure/regional/ cliotop/symposium/CS1/CS1_OP12.pdf Lewington, R. 2000. Niue National AccountsYears ended June 1997 to 2000: Interim Technical Report. Niue: Economic, Planning, Development and Statistics Unit, Premiers Department, Government of Niue. . 2004a. Niue National Accounts, Years ended June 1999 to 2003, Source and Methods. Niue: Economic, Planning, Development and Statistics Unit, Premiers Department, Government of Niue. . 2004b. Tuvalu National AccountsReport on the Revision in November 2003. Funafuti: Central Statistics Division, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Government of Tuvalu. Lewis, A. 2004. PNG Tuna Information. ADB TA 6128-REG 226. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Likiliki, P. 2006. Tonga: Fisheries Co-Management and the Evolution Towards Community Fisheries Management. Masteral thesis, United Nations University, Reykjavik.
404
Lindley, R. 2007. Interim Report of the Rural Fisheries Development Specialist. NZAID Solomon Islands Marine Resources Organizational Strengthening Project. Honiara: Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. Lindsay, S. 2002. Federated States of Micronesia Aquaculture Prole. SPC Aquaculture Technical Papers. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. . 2007. Aquaculture Sector Assessment. Solomon Islands Lincoln International Pty Ltd., NZAID Solomon Islands Marine Resource Organizational Strengthening Project. Honiara: Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. Lo, C. 2007. Pearl Culture Farming in French Polynesia. Tahiti: Department of Research and Development, Service de la Perliculture. . October 2008. Personal communication. Loukos, H., P. Monfray, L. Bopp, and P. Lehodey. 2003. Potential Changes in Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Habitat from a Global Warming Scenario: Modelling Approach and Preliminary Results. Fisheries Oceanography. 12 (4-5). pp. 474482. Lovell, E. April 2009. Personal communication. Lovell, E., T. Kirata, and T. Tekenaiti. 2000. National Coral Reef Status ReportKiribati. Halifax: International Ocean InstituteSouth Pacic and Kiribati Fisheries Division. Lovelock, C.E. and J.C. Ellison. 2007. Vulnerability of Mangroves and Tidal Wetlands of the Great Barrier Reef to Climate Change. In J. E. Johnson and P.A. Marshall, eds. Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef: A Vulnerability Assessment. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Australian Greenhouse Ofce. MacIntyre, H.L., R.J. Geider, and D.C. Miller. 1996a. Microphytobenthos: The Ecological Role of the Secret Garden of Unvegetated, ShallowWater Marine Habitats. I. Distribution, Abundance and Primary Production. Estuaries. 19. pp. 186201. MacIntyre, H.L., R.J. Geider, and D.C. Miller. 1996b. Microphytobenthos: The Ecological Role of the Secret Garden of Unvegetated, ShallowWater Marine Habitats. II. Role in Sediment Stability and ShallowWater Food Webs. Estuaries. 19. pp. 202212. Malona, S. September 2008. Personal communication.
References 405
Maoate, T. 2008. Cook Islands Government Budget Estimates 2008/2009. Avarua, Rarotonga: Ministry of Finance. Marino, S. 2008. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of Palau. In The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacic Freely Associated States: 2008. Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA). 2006. Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority Annual Report 2004/2005. Majuro: MIMRA. . 2007. Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority Annual Report 2005/2006. Majuro: MIMRA. . 2008a. Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority Annual Report 2006/2007. Majuro: MIMRA. . 2008b. Marshall Islands Tuna Fisheries. Working Paper 16. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. Marurai, J. October 2008. Personal communication. Masga, F. 2002. Northern Marianas Islands National Tuna Fishery Report. Working Paper 16. 13th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billsh, Noumea, New Caledonia. Mathieu B. 1998. Mmoire de matrise: La perliculture peut-elle constituer un moteur de dveloppement en Polynsie franaise. www.com.univmrs.fr/IRD/atollpol/resatoll/perlicul/devlperl/ukecoper.htm Matthews, E. 2004. Subsistence Fishing Activities in the Rock Islands. Report 2004/01. Koror: Palau Conservation Society. . October 2008. Personal communication. McCoy, M. 1990. Niues Fishery Sector: Planning for the Future. Suva: FAO/ UNDP Regional Fisheries Support Programme. . 1991. Survey of Safety at Sea in Pacic Island Artisanal Fisheries. Field Document 91/3. Suva: FAO/UNDP Regional Fisheries Support Programme. . 2007. Regulation of Transhipment by the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission: Issues and Considerations for FFA Member Countries. Hawaii: Gillett, Preston and Associates.
406
. November 2008. Personal communication. McCoy, M. and K. Hart. 2002. Community-Based Coastal Marine Resources Development in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. TA No. RMI 3522RMI. Manila: Asian Development Bank. McCoy, M. and R. Gillett. 2007. Consideration of Catch Retention as a Tuna Management Measure in the Western and Central Pacic Ocean. Report prepared for the Forum Fisheries Agency. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Gillett, Preston and Associates. McKinlay, G. 2007. The Treatment of Fisheries in National Accounts in Micronesia: Case Studies and Issues. Presentation for SPC Heads of Statistics Meeting. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. . October 2008. Personal communication. Meehl, G.A. et al. 2007. Global Climate Projections. In S. Solomon et al., eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Meekan, M.G. et al. 2003. What Determines the Growth of Tropical Reef Fish Larvae in the Plankton: Food or Temperature? Marine Ecology Progress Series. 256. pp. 193204. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. 2008. Icelandic Fisheries. www.sheries. is/economy Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). 2002. Kingdom of Tonga Agriculture Census 2001. Nukualofa: MAF and Statistics Department, Government of Tonga. Ministry of Finance. 2008. Quarterly Economic Review. Issue No 41. Apia, Samoa. Ministry of Finance and National Planning. 2007. 2007 Revised Budget Securing Economic and Financial Stability. Inside FMR. Suva: Ministry of Finance and National Planning. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). 2008a. Breakdown of Revenue Estimates, 2008. Honiara: MFMR. . 2008b. Statistics and Information. Special Edition for 30th Independence Anniversary. Honiara: MFMR. Ministry of Foreign Aairs and Trade (MFAT). 2008. Tokelau. Wellington. www.mfat.govt.nz/Countries/Pacic/Tokelau.php
References 407
Ministry of Marine Resources (MMR). 2000. Basic Information on the Marine Resources of the Cook Islands. Avarua, Rarotonga: Ministry of Marine Resources and the Secretariat of the Pacic Community. . 2001. Ministry of Marine Resources Annual Report for the Year ended June 2000. Avarua, Rarotonga: MMR. . 2008. Situation and Outlook for Cook Islands Marine Resources 2007. Avarua, Rarotonga: MMR. Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2008. National Master Plan for Fisheries Development 20082011. Funafuti: MNR. Moore, J. 2006. Seafood Consumption Survey Rarotonga, September 2006. Tauranga, New Zealand: Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, Windemere Campus. Mufuape, K., M. Simon, and K. Chiaka. 2000. Inland Fish Farming in PNG. Papua New Guinea Food and Nutrition 2000 Conference, University of Technology, Lae, 2630 June 2000. Mulipola, A. 1998. Samoa Aquaculture Prole. Apia, Samoa: Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Fisheries and Meteorology. . 2003. Fisher Creel Census 2003 Report. Apia, Samoa: Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture. . September 2008, Personal communication. Mulipola, A., A. Taua, O. Tuaopepe, and S. Valencia. 2007. Samoa Fisheries Socio-Economic Report 2006-2007. Apia, Samoa: Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Munday, P.L. et al. 2009. Ocean Acidication Impairs Olfactory Discrimination and Homing Ability of a Marine Fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (in press). Munday, P.L., G.P. Jones, M.S. Pratchett, and A. Williams. 2008a. Climate Change and the Future for Coral Reef Fishes. Fish and Fisheries. 9. pp.261285. Munday, P.L., M.J. Kingsford, M. OCallaghan, and J.M. Donelson. 2008b. Elevated Temperature Restricts Growth Potential of the Coral Reef Fish Acanthochromis polyacanthus. Coral Reefs. 27. pp. 927931. Nair, M. October 2008. Personal communication. Nandlal, S. 2005a. Monoculture of the Native Freshwater Prawn Macro brachium lar in Vanuatu, and Integrated with Taro in Wallis and
408
Futuna. Fisheries Newsletter No. 112. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. . 2005b. Catching Eels in Pacic Islands Countries and Territories. Fisheries Newsletter No. 115. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Narsey, W. 2007. 2004-2005 Employment and Unemployment Survey. Suva: Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics. National Fisheries Authority (NFA). 2004. National Fisheries Authority presentation on National Economic Sectors Ministerial Brieng, Port Moresby, 27 September 2004. . 2006. Annual Report 2005. Port Moresby: NFA. . 2008. Corporate Plan 2008-2012. Port Moresby: NFA. National Food and Nutrition Centre (NFNC). 2007. 2004 Fiji National Nutrition Survey. Suva: NFNC. National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA). 2008. Federated States of MicronesiaNational Fisheries Report. Working Paper 7. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. National Statistics Oce (NSO). 2003. 2000 Census FinalFigures. Port Moresby: NSO. . 2007a. Preliminary Report Agriculture Census 2006. Port Vila: NSO. . 2007b. Vanuatu 2006 Household Income and Expenditure Survey Preliminary Report. Port Vila: NSO. . 2008a. Gross Domestic Product by Kind of Economic Activity. Port Vila: NSO. . 2008b. Preliminary Report Agriculture Census 2007. Port Vila, Vanuatu. Nauru Fisheries and Marine Resources Authority (NFMRA). 2005. Nauru Aquaculture Development Plan, 20052010. Yaren, Nauru: NFMRA. Navilini, M. January 2009. Personal communication. Nelson, S. and L. Eldredge. 1991. Distribution and Status of Introduced Cichlid Fishes of the Genera Oreochromis and Tilapia in the Islands of the South Pacic and Micronesia. Asian Fisheries Science. 4. pp. 1122.
References 409
Newnham, R. October 2008. Personal communication. Ngaluafe, P. September 2008. Personal communication. Nube, M. 1989. Some Quantitative Data in Relation with Food and Nutrition in Kiribati. Regional FAO/UNDP Project, Development of National Food and Nutrition Planning and Programme in the South Pacic. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Nystrom, M., N.A.J. Graham, J. Lokrantz, and A.V. Norstrom. 2008. Capturing the Cornerstones of Coral Reef Resilience: Linking Theory to Practice. Coral Reefs. 27. pp. 795809. Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation (OFCF). 2006. Implementation Report: the Project for Inshore Fisheries Resource Study and Management in Atoll Areas (Atoll Project), Republic of Marshall Islands. Tokyo: OFCF. OFCF and MIMRA. 2004. Report of the Majuro Atoll Fishery State Survey. Tokyo: OFCF and MIMRA with the Marine Science Laboratory of the Commonwealth of the Marshall Islands. Oce of Planning and Statistics. 2005. 2005 Census of Population and Housing of the Republic of Palau. Koror, Palau: Oce of Planning and Statistics. Ogo, M. October 2008. Personal communication. Oreihaka, E. 1997. Freshwater and Marine Aquatic Resources in Solomon Islands. Honiara: Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Orr, J.C. et al. 2005. Anthropogenic Ocean Acidication over the TwentyFirst Century and its Impact on Calcifying Organisms. Nature. 437. pp.681686. Pacic Islands Trade and Investment Commission (PITIC). 2008. Doing Business in the Marshall Islands. Sydney: PITIC. www.pitic.org.au/pdfs/ bigs/marshalls.pdf Palau Conservation Society (PCS). 2000. Proles of Palaus Inshore Fisheries, 19891998. Koror: PCS. Pangelinan, E. October 2008. Personal communication. Pangelinan, E. and M. McCoy. November 2008. Personal communication. Parker, R.O. and R.L. Dixon. 2002. Reef Faunal Response to Warming Middle US Continental Shelf Waters. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 32. pp. 141154. Pasisi, B. December 2008. Personal communication.
410
Passeld, K. 1994. An Assessment of the Monetary Value of the Subsistence and Small-Scale Commercial Coastal Fishery in Fiji: A Case Study in Verata, Tailevu Province, Viti Levu. Masteral thesis, University of the South Pacic, Fiji Islands. . 1997. Valuing Coastal Marine Resources in the Pacic Islands: Case Studies of Verata, Fiji Islands and Tongareva, Cook Islands. Masteral thesis, University of the South Pacic, Suva. . 1998. A Report of a Survey of the Marine Resources of Fakaofo Atoll, Tokelau. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. . 2001. Prole of Village Fisheries in Samoa. Samoa Fisheries Project. Canberra: Australian Agency for International Development. p. 33. Perry, A.L., P.J. Low, J.R. Ellis, and J.D. Reynolds. 2005. Climate Change and Distribution Shifts in Marine Fishes. Science. 308. pp. 1,9121,915. Philipson, P. 2006. An Assessment of Development Options in the Longline Fishery. DevFish Programme. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. . 2007a. An Assessment of the Economic Benets of Tuna Purse Seine Fishing and Onshore Processing of Catches. DevFish Programme. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. . 2007b. Financial Evaluation of the Nauru Fisheries Trading Corporation. DevFish Programme. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. . November 2008. Personal communication. Pickering, T. February 2009. Personal communication. Pitcairn Islands Study Center. 2008. Census Data. Angwin, CA: Pacic Union College. www.library.puc.edu/pitcairn/pitcairn/census Poloczanska, E.S. et al. 2007. Climate Change and Australian Marine Life. Oceanography and Marine Biology. 45. pp. 409480. Polovina, J.J., E.A. Howell, and M. Abecassis. 2008. Oceans Least Productive Waters are Expanding. Geophysical Research Letters 35: L03618, doi:10.1029/2007GL031745. Ponia, B. 2004. Review of Aquaculture in the Pacic Islands. In Emerging Trends and Experiences in AsiaPacic Aquaculture: 2003. Bangkok: Network of Aquaculture Centres in AsiaPacic and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Ponsonnet, C. November 2008. Personal communication. Ponsonnet C., C. Misselis, and M. Yonger. 2007. Information on Fisheries, Research and Statistics: French Polynesia. Third Regular Session of
References 411
the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, 1324 August 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii. Pratchett, M.S. et al. 2008. Eects of Climate-Induced Coral Bleaching on Coral-Reef Fishes: Ecological and Economic Consequences. Oceanography and Marine Biology. 46. pp. 251296. Preston, G. 1990. Inshore Fishery Resource Management in Palau. Noumea: South Pacic Commission. . 1996a. Evaluation of the Potential for Commercialisation of SmallScale Fisheries, Papua New Guinea. TCP/PNG/6611. Field Document. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. . 1996b. Masterplan for the Sustainable Management of Development of Vanuatus Inshore Fisheries Resources. Technical Report 2. TCP/ VAN/4552. Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. . 1998. Cost and Benets of Aquaculture Research and Development. Issue Paper No. 8. Tonga Fisheries Sector Review. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. . 1999. National-Level Arrangements for Coastal Fisheries Management in FSM. Fisheries Management and Development Project, TA No. 2832FSM. Manila: Asian Development Bank. . 2000. Managing the Ocean. Report prepared for the World Bank, Washington, DC. . 2001a. Management of the International Operations of Vanuatu-Flagged Fishing Vessels. Report prepared for the Vanuatu Fisheries Department and Forum Fisheries Agency. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Gillett, Preston and Associates, Inc. . 2001b. Review of the PNG Fisheries Sector. PNG Fisheries Development Project, TA No. 2832-FSM. Manila: Asian Development Bank. . 2008. Coastal Fisheries Development and Management. Working Paper 3, Institutional Strengthening Scoping Study Report. Tarawa: Kiribati Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Development. . August 2001. Personal communication. . November 2008. Personal communication. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC). 2007. 2008 Papua New Guinea National Budget. Port Moresby: PWC.
412
Radtke, H. and S. Davis. 1995. Analysis of Saipans Seafood Market. Saipan: Division of Fish and Wildlife, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Raiwalui, A. November 2008. Personal communication. Raubani, J. 2008. Fisheries Department 2007 Annual Report. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Management and Policy Division, Fisheries Department. Raumea, K., T. Turua, and S.Tatuava. 2004. Summary of the Subsistence/ Artisanal Catch for the Islands of Atiu, Mangaia, Mauke, Mitiaro and Rakahanga. Miscellaneous Report 05/04. Avarua, Rarotonga: Aquaculture and Inshore Fisheries Division, Ministry of Marine Resources. Rawlinson, N. et al. 1993. A Survey of the Subsistence and Artisanal Fisheries in Rural Areas of Viti Levu, Fiji. ACIAR Monograph No.25. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research. Reddy, M. 2004. Economic Analysis of Artisanal Fisheries in Fiji: Issues of Protability and Sustainability. South Pacic Studies 25(1). Reserve Bank of Fiji. 2008. Quarterly Review June 2008. Suva, Fiji Islands. Reserve Bank. 2008. Quarterly Bulletin June 2008. Nukualofa: National Reserve Bank of Tonga. Rhodes, K. 2008. Summary Findings and Recommendations from Research Conducted in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 1998 2008. Report for Marine Development Department, Pohnpei State Government, Federated States of Micronesia. Rhodes, K. and M. Tupper. 2007. A Preliminary Market-Based Analysis of the Pohnpei, Micronesia, Grouper (Serranidae: Epinephelinae) Fishery Reveals Unsustainable Fishing Practices. Coral Reefs. 26. pp. 335344. Rhodes, K., M. Tupper, and C. Wichimel. 2007. Characterization and Management of the Commercial Sector of the Pohnpei Coral Reef Fishery, Micronesia. Coral Reefs. 27. pp. 443454. Richards, A. 1994. Fiji Fisheries Resources Proles. Report No.94/4. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. Richardson, A.J. 2008. In Hot Water: Zooplankton and Climate Change. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 65. pp. 279295. Rimmer, M., L. Bel, M. Lober, and A. Trevor. 2001. Evaluation of the Potential for Aquaculture in Samoa. Apia: Samoa Fisheries Project, Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Fisheries & Meteorology. Roberto, R. October 2008. Personal communication.
References 413
Roberto, R. and M. Tenorio. October 2008. Personal communication. Rodwell, L. 1998. Nauru Fisheries Development. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. Rubin, M. 2005. Final Trip Report on Benchmark Estimates of 2002 Gross Domestic Product in American Samoa. Washington, DC: International Programs Center, Population Division, US Bureau of the Census. Rubin, M. and S. Sawaya. 2005a. Benchmark Estimates of 2002 Gross Domestic Product in Guam. Washington, DC: International Programs Center, Population Division, US Bureau of the Census. _____. 2005b. Final Trip Report on Benchmark Estimates of 2002 Gross Domestic Product in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Washington, DC: International Programs Center, Population Division, US Bureau of the Census. Rui, J. March 2009. Personal communication. Russell, D. and B. Buga. 2001. Solomon Islands Seafood Marketing Analysis Interim Report. EU Rural Fishing Enterprise Project. Honiara. Ryan, C. November 2008. Personal communication. _____. December 2008. Personal communication. Sabater, M. and B. Carroll. 2008. Trends in Reef Fish Population and Associated Fishery After Three Millennia of Resource Utilization and a Century of Socio-Economic Changes in American Samoa. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 17 (3). pp. 318335. Sabater, M. and Hamm, D. September 2008. Personal communication. Salani, A. September 2008. Personal communication. Samoa Bureau of Statistics (SBS). 2008. Statistical Indicators. Apia: Samoa Bureau of Statistics. Saruwatari, C. October 2008. Personal communication. Schrank, W. 2003. Introducing Fisheries Subsidies. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 437. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. SCP Fisheries Consultants International. 1997. Dried Fish Marketing Study. Sydney: SCP Fisheries Consultants International, Tuvalu Outer Islands Dried Fish Processing and Marketing, and AusAID. Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC). 1999. The Fisherwomen of Futuna. Women in Fisheries Information Bulletin No.5. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community.
414
_____. 2004. Fiji Islands Freshwater Aquaculture Sector Plan. Secretariat of the Pacic Community for the Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry, Government of the Fiji Islands. _____. 2005. Tuvalu 2002: Population and Housing Census. Vol. 1. Analytical Report. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. _____. 2007a. The Future of Pacic FisheriesPlanning and Managing for Economic Growth, Food Security and Sustainable Livelihoods. 5th Conference of the Pacic Community, Apia, Samoa, 1213 November 2007. _____. 2007b. Aquaculture Action Plan 2007. _____. 2008a. PIC Populations 20002015. Statistics and Demography Programme. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. _____. 2008b. Status Report: Nearshore and Reef Fisheries and Aquacul ture. Ocials Forum Fisheries Committee, Sixty-Seventh Meeting, 1216 May 2008. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. _____. 2008a. Fish and Food Security. Policy Brief 1/2008. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. _____. 2008b. Fisheries and Climate Change. Policy Brief 5/2008. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. _____. 2009. Agriculture, Forestry and Climate Change. Policy Brief 7/2009. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Sefo-Leau, L. September 2008. Personal communication. Service de la Pche. 2008. Bulletin 2007Synthese de Donnes de la Pche Professionnelle et de lAquaculture. Papeete: Cellule Statistique. _____. 2008b. Bulletin PalangrierSynthse des donnes de la Pche Professionnelle Palangrire Anne 2007. Papeete: Cellue Statistique. Service de la Pche et de lAquaculture. 2007. Wallis and Futuna. Working Paper 33, Third Regular Session, Scientic Committee, Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1324 August 2007. Sharples, P. 1994. Pitcairn Island Fisheries Resource Survey1994 Observer Trip Report. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Shaw, A. October 2008. Personal communication. Sheaves, M. et al. 2007. Vulnerability of Coastal and Estuarine Habitats in the GBR to Climate Change. In J. E. Johnson and P. A. Marshall, eds. Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef: A Vulnerability Assessment.
References 415
Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Australian Greenhouse Ofce. Sheaves, M. and R. Johnston. 2008. Inuence of Marine and Freshwater Connectivity on the Dynamics of Subtropical Estuarine Wetland Fish Metapopulations. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 357. pp. 225243. Simon, O. 2008. Lconomie de Wallis-et-Futuna en 2005: Une conomie traditionnelle et administre. No. 12, Comptes Economiques Rapides Pour Loutre-Mer. Sisior, K. October 2008. Personal communication. Sisior, K. and M. McCoy. October 2008. Personal communication. Skewes, T. 1990. Marine Resource Proles: The Solomon Islands. FFA Report 90/61. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. Smith, A. 1992a. Federated States of Micronesia: Marine Resources Proles. FFA Report 92/17. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. _____. 1992b. Republic of the Marshall Islands: Marine Resources Proles. Honiara: FFA Report 92/78. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. Smith, D. and J. Tamate.1999. Fiji Islands Skipjack Pole-and-Line Fishery. Forum Secretariat. Smith, P. 2007. Aquaculture in Papua New Guinea: Status of Freshwater Fish Farming. ACIAR Monograph No. 125. p. 124. Smith, P., K. Mufuape, K. Kia, and M. Aranka. 2007. Findings of the Survey of Fish Farms. In P. Smith, ed. Chapter 5: Aquaculture in Papua New Guinea: Status of Freshwater Fish Farming. ACIAR Monograph No. 125. p. 124. Smith, R. 1947. Survey of the Fisheries of the Former Japanese Mandated Islands. Fishery Leaet 273, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. SMMPM (Service de la Marine Marchande et des Pches Maritimes). 2008a. Pches Professionnelles Maritimes et Aquaculture Marine de 2000 2006. Service de la Marine Marchande et des Peches Maritime, Territoire de NouvelleCaldonie, Nouma. _____. 2008b. Quelques Chires 2007. Service de la Marine Marchande et des Peches Maritime, Territoire de NouvelleCaldonie, Nouma. Spurgeon, J. et al. 2004. Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs and Adjacent Habitats in American SamoaFinal Draft Report. Jacobs Inc. in association with MRAG Americas, National Institution of Water & Atmospheric Research, University of Newcastle.
416
Stanley, J. 2005. Fishery Policy in the Marshall Islands. FAO/FishCode Review. No. 15. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Starkhouse, B. August 2008. Personal communication. , B. 2009. Whats the Catch: Uncovering the Catch Volume and Value of Fijis Coral Reef-Based Artisanal and Subsistence Fisheries. Masteral thesis, University of British Colombia. Starkhouse, B. and U. Rashid Sumaila. 2008. Economics of Fijis Coral ReefBased Artisanal Fisheries. University of British Colombia. p. 130. Starkhouse and Sumaila. December 2008. Personal communication. Statistics Division. 2008. American Samoa 2006 Statistical Yearbook. Department of Commerce, American Samoa Government. . 2007a. 2005 Household Income and Expenditure Survey Analysis Report. Statistics Division, Oce of Statistics, Budget & Economic Management, Overseas Development Assistant & Compact Manage ment, FSM National Government, Pohnpei. _____. 2007b. Gross Domestic Product of the FSMEstimation Methodology. Statistics Division, Oce of Statistics, Budget & Economic Manage ment, Overseas Development Assistant & Compact Management, FSM National Government, Pohnpei. _____. 2008a. FY2007 Economic Statistical Tables. Statistics Division, Oce of Statistics, Budget & Economic Management, Overseas Development Assistant & Compact Management, FSM National Government, Pohnpei. _____. 2008b. International Trade Publication, Federated States of Micronesia 2007. Oce of Statistics, Budget & Economic Management, Overseas Development Assistant & Compact Management, FSM National Government, Pohnpei. _____. 2008c. Key StatisticsGross Domestic Product by Major Sector of Economic Activity and State. Statistics Division, Oce of Statistics, Budget & Economic Management, Overseas Development Assistant & Compact Management, FSM National Government, Pohnpei. Statistical Oce. 2008. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Economic Activity Current and Constant Price Values. Ministry of Finance, Honiara.
References 417
Statistics Oce. 2003. Cook Islands 2001 Census of Population and Dwellings. Ministry of Finance and Economic Management, Avarua, Rarotonga. Statistics Oce. 2006. Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2005/6. Solomon Islands Statistics Oce, Department of Finance and Treasury, Honiara. Statistics Oce. 2007. Cook Islands Household Expenditure Survey (HES) 200506. Statistics Oce. 2008. Economic Statistics. www.stats.gov.ck/Statistics/ Economic Stein, A. 2008. La pche lagonaire en 2007. Service de la Pche, Papeete, Tahiti. . December 2008. Personal communication. Sullivan, N. and V. Ram-Bidesi. 2008. Gender Issues in Tuna FisheriesCase Studies in Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and Kiribati. DevFish Programme. Honiara: Forum Fisheries Agency. System Science Consultants. 1994. The Development Study on Improvement of Nationwide Fish Marketing System in Solomon IslandsFinal Report Summary. Tokyo: Japan International Cooperation Agency. System of National Accounts (SNA). 1993. System of National Accounts. New York: International Monetary Fund. Tafatu, J. 2006. Country Fisheries ReportNiue. Kolonia, Pohnpei State, Federated States of Micronesia: Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission Scientic Committee Second Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 718 August 2006. _____. 2007. Country Fisheries ReportNiue. Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Scientic Committee Third Regular Session, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1324 August 2007. Takarie, R. October 2008. Personal communication. Tamate, J. October 2008. Personal communication. Tangimetua, T. October 2008. Personal communication. Taro, T. October 2007. Personal communication. Teitelbaum, A. August 2008. Personal communication.
418
Thaman, R. 1990. Evolution of Food Systems. In A. Jansen, S. Parkinson, and A. Robertson, eds. Food and Nutrition in Fiji. Suva: University of the South Pacic. Thaman, R., R. Gillett, and N. Prescott. 1995. The Haapai Conservation Area. South Pacic Regional Environment Programme and the University of the South Pacic. p. 181. Thresher, R., J.A. Koslow, A.K. Morison, and D.C. Smith. 2007. DepthMediated Reversal of the Eects of Climate Change on Long-Term Growth Rates of Exploited Marine Fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104. pp. 7,461-7,465. Tiroa, T. 2007. Analytical Report on the 2006 Kiribati HIES. Kiribati: National Statistics Oce. Toloa, F. December 2008. Personal communication. Tonga Fisheries Project. 2005. Tongan Seafood Socio Economic Survey. Tonga Fisheries Project. Treasury Department. 2007. Government of Niue Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue 2006/2007. Niue: Treasury Department. Tonga Statistics Department (TSD). 2002. Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2000/01. Tonga Statistics Department, Series No.SDT:46-01. Nukualofa: TSD. _____. 2004. Report on the Tonga Labour Force Survey 2003. Nukualofa: Tonga Statistics Department. _____. 2006. Statistical Abstract 2006. Nukualofa: Tonga Statistics Department. _____. 2007. Key Statistics. Nukualofa: Tonga Statistics Department. Tuara, P. 1998. An Assessment of the Role of Women in Fisheries in the Republic of Nauru. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. _____. 2000. An Assessment of the Role of Women in Fisheries in Niue. Field Report No. 1, Community Fisheries Section. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacic Community. Tuatai, T. 2001. Seafood Consumption Survey for Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Masteral thesis, University of the South Pacic. Tulafono, R. September 2008. Personal communication. Tumoa, R. 2008. Kiribati Fisheries Annual Report. Working Paper 14. Fourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central
References 419
Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. Tumoa, R. October 2008. Personal communication. Tupulaga, P. 2008. TuvaluPart1Report2008. SubmissiontotheFourth Regular Session of the Scientic Committee of the Western and Central Pacic Fisheries Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1122 August 2008. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1994. Report of the United Nations Joint Inter-Agency Mission to Papua New Guinea on Sustainable Development. UNDP, Port Moresby. US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2005. American Samoa 2003 Census of Agriculture. Geographic Area Series Part 55, AC02-A-55, Volume 1, USDA. October 2005. Valefakaaga, E. November 2008. Personal communication. VanBeukering, P. 2006. The Economic Value of the Coral Reefs of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Cesar Environmental Economics Consulting, US Department of the Interior and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. p. 153. _____. 2007. The Economic Value of Guams Coral Reefs. Technical Report No. 116, Marine Laboratory. Mangilao, Guam: University of Guam. Vannuccini, S. 2005. Implications for FAO Fish Consumption Statistics of Trash Fish Utilization in the AsiaPacic Region. Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on Low Value and Trash Fish in the AsiaPacic Region, Ha Noi, Viet Nam, 79 June 2005. Virly, S. 2000. Analyse de lenqute sur la pche vivrire et plaisancire dans les lagons de Nouvelle-Caldonie - Rapport Final. Noumea: Programme ZoNCo. Visser, T. 1997. Status of Fishery Statistics in the South Pacic. RAPA Publication 1997/30. Bangkok: Regional Oce for Asia and the Pacic, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Warbitz, C., M. Taylor, E. Green, and T. Razak. 2003. From Ocean to Aquarium. Cambridge, UK: UNEPWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre. Ward, T. August 2008. Personal communication. Waycott, M. et al. 2007. Vulnerability of Seagrasses in the GBR to Climate Change. In J.E. Johnson and P.A. Marshall, eds. Climate Change and the
420
Great Barrier Reef: A Vulnerability Assessment. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Australian Greenhouse Ofce. Welch, D.W., Y. Ishida, and K. Naoa-Awa.1998. Thermal Limits and Ocean Migrations of Sockeye Salmon (Onchorynchus nerka): Long-Term Consequences of Global Warming. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 55. pp. 937948. Western Pacic Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN). 2006. 2006 Annual Report. Honolulu: NOAA Pacic Islands Fisheries Science Center. . 2008. 19822007 Commercial Landings for American Samoa. Honolulu: NOAA Pacic Islands Fisheries Science Center. www.pifsc .noaa.gov/wpacn Williams, P. November 2008. Personal communication. _____. December 2008. Personal communication. _____. January 2009. Personal communication. Wilson, M. 2007a. A Fisheries Sector Development Strategy for the Solomon Islands. Honiara: NZAID Solomon Islands Marine Resources Organizational Strengthening Project. _____. 2007b. The Tongan DW Line Fishery 2007An Assessment of the Need for Fisheries Management. Tonga Fisheries Project. Wilson, S.K. et al. 2006. Multiple Disturbances and the Global Degradation of Coral Reefs: Are Reef Fishes at Risk or Resilient? Global Change Biology. 12 (2). pp. 2,2202,234. World Bank, The. 1995. Pacic Island Economies: Sustainable Development of Fisheries. EAP Report 14615. Washington, DC: East Asia and Pacic Region, The World Bank. .1997. Aspects of the Industry, Trade, and Marketing of Pacic Island Trochus. Discussion Paper Series No.2. Washington, DC: The World Bank. . 2000. Cities, Seas and Storms: Managing Change in Pacic Island Economies. Managing the Use of the Oceans. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Papua New Guinea and Pacic Islands Country Unit. . 2008. The Sunken Billions: The Economic Justication for Fisheries Reform. Washington, DC: The World Bank and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
References 421
Wright, A. 2000. Vanuatu Fisheries Sector Review. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Zeller, D., S. Booth, and D. Pauly. 2005. Fisheries Contributions to GDP: Underestimating Small-scale Fisheries in the Pacic. Working Paper No. 2005-05, Fisheries Centre. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. . 2007. Fisheries Contributions to the Gross Domestic Product: Underestimating Small-Scale Fisheries in the Pacic. Marine Resource Economics. 21. pp. 355374. Zeller, D., S. Booth, P. Craig, and D. Pauly. 2006. Reconstruction of Coral Reef Fisheries Catches in American Samoa, 19502002. Coral Reefs. 25. pp. 144152. Zeller, D., S. Booth, G. Davis, and D. Pauly. 2007. Re-estimation of SmallScale Fishery Catches for US Flag-Associated Island Areas in the Western Pacic: The Last 50 Years. Fishery Bulletin. 105. pp. 266277.
Appendixes
AppENdiX 1
The 2001 Study
The 2001 study led to the production of the document The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacic Island Countries (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001). The main ndings, conclusions, and recommendations of the report are summarized below.
Official Data on the Contribution of Fishing to GDP

According to ocial data in Pacic island countries, the contribution of shing to gross domestic product (GDP) in 1999 (or latest prior year available) ranges from 0.6% in Papua New Guinea (PNG) to 12.0% in Kiribati.
Reestimation of the Fishing Contribution of Fishing to GDP

Given the complexity of the issues to be addressed and the large dierence in the accuracy of the ocial shing estimates made in the Pacic island countries, it was important for the study to reestimate the shing contribution to GDP using a consistent method across all countries. It was believed that, at the very least, these estimates would provide useful comparators for the
426
compilers of national accounts. In addition, it was anticipated that the review of the dierent methods and approaches used in each country would provide useful insights into the eectiveness of alternative approaches to national accounting.
Comparison of Official and Reestimates

The comparison between the ocial and the new estimates of shing contribution to GDP is presented on Figure A1.1 below. The largest dierence was found in Kiribati, Palau, and Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), where the new estimates nearly doubled or tripled the ocial gures. By contrast, this study lowered the estimate of shing contribution to GDP in Marshall Islands, Samoa and, to a lesser extent, Cook Islands. On average, the new estimates indicated a higher contribution of shing to GDP than reported by national statistics (7.0% versus 5.4% across all countries).
Figure A1.1: Comparison of Official and New Estimates of Fishing Contribution to the Gross Domestic Product of Pacific Island Countries
25 20 15 10 5 0
Percent
Solomon Islands
Marshall Islands
Cook Islands
Nauru
Palau
PNG
Fiji Islands
Samoa
Tuvalu
Tonga
FSM
Official Contribution
Vanuatu
Re-Estimate Contribution
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, GDP = gross domestic product, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Corresponding tables in country chapters.
Kiribati
Niue
Appendix 1: The 2001 Study 427
Major Reasons for Difference in Estimates of Fishing Contribution

In some countries, notably FSM and PNG, the dierence in estimates is primarily due to subsistence shing not being included in the ocial gures. In other countries, in particular, Palau, the dierences are primarily due to the methods used. For most countries, it is a combination of dierences in the estimate of production and the method used to calculate the GDP contribution. In Samoa, for example, subsistence production was valued at the full market value, rather than at farm-gate prices. Cook Islands, Niue, Tonga, and Tuvalu all compile soundly based national accounts that include reasonable estimates of shing contribution. Nauru and the Solomon Islands have weaknesses in compiling national accounts.
Common difficulties associated with calculating the contribution of fishing to GDP

The common diculties found in estimating the contribution of shing to GDP in many Pacic Island countries include Fisheries Technical Input. Lack of coordination exists between sheries agencies and statistical agencies in the calculation of shing input. Treatment of Subsistence Fisheries. There is often a lack of data on subsistence sheries and diculties in isolating shing from other subsistence activities. Fish Processing. Because in the national accounting scheme the processing of sh is outside the shing sector, it is often not possible to isolate the contribution of this important shing-related activity from other forms of food processing. Export Data. Ocial export gures in the Pacic island countries characteristically undervalue exported commodities, especially sheries products. Economics of Small-scale Fisheries. Data on small-scale sheries are often scarce, as is technical assistance for its analysis. Lack of Champions. There is often a scarcity of individuals in Pacic island countries who are vocal at stressing the importance of
428
the sheries sector, contributing to its undervaluation in national statistics.
Fishery production in specific Pacific island countries

Figure A1.2 and A1.3 show the estimated sheries production and annual value in Pacic island countries.
Fishery production patterns

Key patterns in the sheries production data include the following: The weighted average price per kilogram (kg) in the region is $1.04 for subsistence sheries, $2.41 for coastal commercial sheries, $1.28 for locally based oshore sheries, and $1.04 for foreignbased oshore sheries. The ranking of countries by total sheries production is strongly inuenced by the level of tuna catches. There is a general pattern of total national catches decreasing going from west to east across the region, and from equatorial to higher latitudes.
Figure A1.2: Estimated Annual Fisheries Production of Pacific Island Countries, late 1990s
180,000 160,000 Annual Production (mt) 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000
Solomon Islands Marshall Islands Vanuatu Kiribati Samoa Fiji Islands Tuvalu Cook Islands Tonga Nauru
0
PNG FSM
Palau
Offshore Foreign
Offshore Local
Coastal Commercial
Subsistence
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, mt = metric ton, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Corresponding tables in country chapters.
Niue
Figure A1.3: Estimated Value of Annual Fisheries Production of Pacific Island Countries, late 1990s
200 180 160 in millions of US$ 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Solomon Islands Marshall Islands Fiji Islands Kiribati Tuvalu Samoa Nauru Tonga Palau Vanuatu Cook Islands Niue FSM PNG
Offshore Foreign
Offshore Local
Coastal Commercial
Subsistence
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Corresponding tables in country chapters.
The higher value of longline tuna relative to purse seine tuna is apparent from the ranking of FSM where a relatively large proportion of the catch is taken by longline vessels. FSM ranks third by quantity and rst by value. Fiji Islands appears to have the largest non-tuna production, in terms of both quantity and value. The production from Nauru and Tuvalu is almost entirely related to tuna shing.
Fisheries-Related Employment
Certain observations can also be made about employment in the sheries sector, as follows: The importance of sheries in the subsistence economy seems to be strongly related to the type of island. In decreasing importance, atolls, islands, and large high islands are associated with very dierent levels of signicance. This pattern is somewhat altered by PNG with its important freshwater subsistence sheries. The importance of formal employment in sheries seems to be related more to business conditions than to island type. Most formal employment in sheries appears to be tuna-related.
430
The importance of women employment in sheries is generally understated due to (i) the practice of classifying activity according to a persons main unpaid activity, which masks the importance of secondary activitiese.g., for many women, childcare is often the main unpaid activity so any shing activity, even if it is a substantial amount of activity, is not duly reported; and (ii) placing commercial sh processing (where many women are employed) in the manufacturing sector. Where commercial sh processing occurs (canning, loining) and when this is attributed to the sheries sector, the increase in sheries employment is remarkable.
Fishery Exports
The most notable feature of shery trade data in the Pacic islands is the underestimation of the value of shery exports. This underestimation appears large and is probably worse than in other trade sectors. In most cases, when the ocial export values are compared to other sources of similar information, the dierences are remarkable. Figure A1.4 provides estimates of sheries exports for end-1990.
Figure A1.4: Estimated Values of Fisheries Exports of Pacific Island Countries, late 1990s
60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000
US$
30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 0

Tonga Solomon Islands Marshall Islands Tuvalu Kiribati Vanuatu Cook Islands Nauru Palau Samoa Niue Fiji Islands PNG FSM
Features of the Fishery Import and Export Data

Some of the key features of sheries trade in the region are as follows: In general terms, the region exports tuna and other high-value species such as trochus and bche de mer, while importing canned and inexpensive frozen sh. Tuna products dominate the shery exports of the region. For the ve main exporting countries, tuna (fresh, frozen, and processed) overshadows all other shery exports. Canned mackerel dominates the shery imports. The relatively new aquarium sh industry accounts for a signicant portion of shery exports. Aquarium sh exports now account for 78% in Kiribati and 95% in Marshall Islands of all their shery exports. A considerable inter-annual variation is noted in shery exports. Fishery products exported as passenger baggage is quite large, especially in Marshall Islands, FSM, Palau, and Samoa.
Access fees
All Pacic island countries received fees for foreign shing activity in their waters. In some countries, the access fees form a very large portion of government revenue. In FSM, for example, the 1999 access fees represented an estimated 39% of nontax revenue and 22% of total domestic revenue. In Kiribati, 34% of government income in 1999 was derived from shing license fees. Figure A1.5 summarizes the value of access fees received by the dierent Pacic island countries in 1999.
Fish Consumption
Key features of shery product consumption in the region include In general, countries made up of predominantly small islands have high sh consumption rates, while large island countries have low consumption rates. Exceptions to this are Tonga where data suggest surprisingly low sh consumption rates, and Palau where sh consumption is remarkably high.
432
Figure A1.5: Estimated Access Fees from Foreign Fishing Vessels, 1999
25,000,000 20,000,000 US$ 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Solomon Islands Marshall Islands Palau Fiji Islands Samoa Tuvalu Nauru Vanuatu Kiribati Cook Islands Tonga Palau Niue FSM FSM PNG
Most of the Pacic island countries exceed by a large margin the world average per capita shery product consumption rate of 13.0 kg. Most estimates for Kiribati indicate that it has the highest rate of sh consumption in the world.
The estimates of per capita consumption are summarized in Figure A1.6.
Ranges in per capita Fish Consumption

Figure A1.6: Ranges in Annual Per Capita Fisheries Consumption for Pacific Island Countries in the 1990s
12 10 kg/capita/year 8 6 4 2 0 Marshall Islands Nauru Tuvalu Vanuatu Fiji Islands Samoa Tonga Niue PNG
Low estimate
High estimate
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, kg = kilogram, PNG = Papua New Guinea. Source: Corresponding tables and discussion in country chapters.
Major Conclusions and Recommendations

A major conclusion of the present study is that sheries contribution to GDP is underestimated in most Pacic island countries. In countries where estimates of shing contribution to GDP are markedly dierent from estimates made in this study, the process used in preparing the national accounts tends to rely on dated surveys, weak indicators, and/or poorly understood methods. It is recommended that, in these countries, the compilers of national accounts carefully examine and evaluate the data, the assumptions, and the methods used. The accuracy of the estimate of shing contribution to GDP could be improved with a closer liaison between sheries and statistics agencies. Fisheries agencies are in a position to provide information on new developments, technical insight, and recent data, all of which could improve GDP estimates. This cooperation, however, rarely occurs in Pacic island countries. Because sheries agencies have a vested interest in assuring that the importance of their sector is not underestimated, they should take the lead in improving the liaison with the compilers of national accounts. One of the factors that often resulted in an underestimation of sheries contribution to national economies is limited available information on the production of small-scale sheries. Throughout most of the region, statistics on small-scale sheries are incomplete, inaccurate and, in some cases, absent. Given this reality, it is recommended that maximum use be made of survey opportunities outside the sheries sector. At little cost, production information on small-scale sheries could be collected through such tools as the national census, nutrition surveys, agriculture censuses, household income and expenditure surveys (HIES), and poverty studies. In many countries, the underestimation of the value of sheries exports in ocial customs statistics is a major source of error in calculating sheries contribution to national economies. It appears that export information could be worse in sheries than in most other sectors. In countries where this problem is especially acute, it is recommended that export valuation be based on a broader spectrum of information than what is provided by customs. Additional information on the economics of small-scale sheries would contribute to improving measurement of the sheries contribution to GDP. Studies to gather the required data need not be complex but should cover the major small-scale commercial and subsistence sheries. Where compilers of national accounts have access to comprehensive and detailed information on income and/or expenditure of participants in one or more sectors of the shing industry, the income approach is the most
434
appropriate method. In the Pacic, it is, however, rare for this data to be available. In these circumstances, the production approach is likely to produce the most accurate results. Regional organizations could help in improving the measurement of sheries in the economies of their member countries.
AppENdiX 2
National Accounting and the Fisheries Sector
The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacic Island Countries (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001) went into considerable detail in discussing points in the system of national accounts (SNA 1993) that are especially important to the shing sector. Because that discussion is quite relevant to the present study, it is repeated here.
Definitions and Conventions in the System of National Accounts

As with any system, a set of procedures and conventions is used in compiling national accounts. The nature and application of these procedures and conventions must be taken into account when interpreting national accounts. Some of the important SNA concepts applied to the shing sector are given below.
436
Productive Activity
One of the most basic issues in preparing national accounts is the nature of activities that are included in estimating domestic product. In particular, any goods or services produced by a resident of a country for sale are included. Goods and services that are for sale are known as market production. Service activities that are for personal or households own consumption are not included in the calculation of national accounts. For example, house cleaning is not included if carried out by the family. These goods and services are known as nonmarket production or subsistence production. However, if goods produced for own consumption could reasonably be sold, they are included in the national accounts. Subsistence shing is an example. While the sh may have been caught for a familys own consumption, convention assumes that the sh could have been sold and, therefore, it should be treated as adding value to the economy. Clearly, this can be a signicant issue in sheries in the Pacic island countries where large numbers of households rely on the harvest of aquatic resources for food and other uses.
Residency
The nature and extent of residency is a core concept of the SNA. It denes what shall be counted as domestic product. For goods and services to be included in the domestic product of a particular country, a resident of that country must produce them. A resident is an individual or enterprise whose center of economic interest is within the country. The center of economic interest is determined by the following tests: Do residents of the country, in whose area the shing activity occurs, get signicant factor payments (i.e., wage or operating surplus) from the activity? Does the government of the country or the individual or the business entity located in the country, in whose area the shing activity occurs, have a day-to-day inuence on the way the shing is carried out? Is the shing based in the economic territory and/or employing local sta? Is the shing an integral part of the domestic economy?
It is important to note that a resident need not be a citizen. The production of foreign nationals is treated as domestic product provided the country is the center of economic interest for the enterprise or individual.
Appendix 2: National Accounting and the Fisheries Sector 437
This concept is particularly important in the case of shing where many of the enterprises are mobile, and it is common for vessels to be staed by nationals from dierent countries. In eect, this means that the product of locally based oshore foreign vessels is treated as domestic product of the country from which they are operating regardless of the nationality of the crew. Under the SNA, the standard convention is to treat activities by a foreign operator that take place in a country for less than 12 months as being foreign activities. In the case of shing, it is common for oshore foreign vessels to sh for only part of the year in local waters. In these circumstances, a strict interpretation of the SNA convention on time in country would treat these activities as foreign and only include the license fees as part of the national accounts. However, where the activities are seasonal and the main activity of the vessels is based locally, it would be more appropriate to follow the center of economic activity convention and count their production as domestic product. A related issue, which is particularly important in shing, is the geographic extent of the center of economic interest. The SNA convention is to treat any activity as domestic provided it takes place within the economic territory of the country. The SNA boundary for domestic activity is not limited to the political boundary. It extends to include the economic territory. This convention has particular importance for shing, especially oshore shing, which can take place a considerable distance from the land and political boundaries of a country. For example, the political boundary is usually conned to the territorial seas, which extend out to 12 nautical miles from the high water level. In practice, most countries use their exclusive economic zone (EEZ) when dening the geographic limits of their economic territory and in the circumstances, this practice is the most appropriate. Two other geographic issues that must be addressed in shing are (i) how to treat shing activities that take place in other jurisdictions, and (ii) how to treat those that take place in international waters. When shing occurs in the waters of another country, that activity can be determined in the national accounts based on the duration and its center of economic activity. The SNA indicates that temporary work in a foreign country should be treated as domestic product in the home country (the center of economic activity) of the entity carrying out the job. For example, the income earned by a consultant who normally resides in Fiji Islands and undertakes a short-term contract in Samoa would be treated as Fiji Islands' domestic product, i.e., it is tantamount to an export (of services). SNA, Section 6.239 states:
438
It should be noted, however, that GDP is not intended to measure the production taking place within the geographical boundary of the economic territory. Some of the production of a resident producer may take place abroad, while some of the production taking place within the geographical boundary of the economy may be carried out by non-resident producer units. For example, a resident producer may have teams of employees working abroad temporarily on the installation, repair or servicing of equipment. This output is an export of a resident producer and the productive activity does not contribute to the GDP of the country in which it takes place. Thus, the distinction between resident and non-resident institutional units is crucial to the denition and coverage of GDP. This being the case and in the absence of any indication to the contrary, such as the formal relocation of the operation, shing activity of less than 12 months in foreign waters should be treated as domestic product in the home country of the vessel owner and/or operator. Following the same convention, shing that takes place in international waters may be domestic product of a country provided the operation is carried out by a resident and is temporary in nature. In some circumstances, shing carried out in international waters could become a particularly perplexing problem for the compilers of national accounts. Where a eet operates in international waters most of the time, including transshipping and resupply, the question of whether to allocate the production as domestic or national product becomes an issue. It is dicult to set strict rules because each situation is dierent. In practice, the compilers of national accounts will make judgments about where to allocate production of eets that occurs on the boundaries of countries and nationality.
Valuation
In all cases, national accounts are reported in monetary terms. Usually the local currency is used and, almost always, accounts are presented in current market (nominal) values and constant (real) values. Current market values use the value of the currency at the time of measurement. Constant values are indexed to the price levels of a specied year so as to remove the eects of price ination and thereby allow the comparison of real changes over time. It is also common for international agencies, such as Asian Development Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN), and The
World Bank, to produce national accounts using the equivalent value of a convertible currency, usually the United States dollar. This practice makes it easier to do cross-country comparisons and to track the changes in each countrys international competitiveness. An important valuation convention that is particularly relevant for shing is the treatment of nonmarket household production (subsistence). Since by denition these items are not sold and the quantity produced is seldom recorded, it is necessary to make assumptions about their value. It is common practice to value nonmarket household production conservatively and, in some cases, production for own consumption is not even included in the national accounts.
Assets
In the SNA, assets are restricted to things that are produced by an economic activity. This distinction is particularly important for natural resources and is a contentious issue, especially in relation to the overexploitation of natural resources. Naturally occurring assets, such as marine resources, minerals, and forests, do not enter the national accounts until they are being exploited and then only to the extent that they are being exploited. Unlike changes in inventories of produced assets, changes in the quantum of natural assets are not reected in the national accounts. This convention ignores the very real impact that changes in abundance of natural assets have on the wealth of an economy. This can result in misleading values being reported on sheries and other sectors that rely on natural resources. For example, the income generated from the exploitation of sh is included in the national accounts, while the changes in abundance are not. In these circumstances, the shortterm gain from the overexploitation of a sh stock shows up as a positive gain for the economy. If the changes in abundance were also taken into account as happens with inventories of produced assets, the apparent benets for the exploitation of natural assets would be substantially reduced.
Fishing versus Fisheries

For the purpose of clarity, it is useful to distinguish between the terms shing and sheries. Fishing is commonly used to describe the various activities involved in the harvest of aquatic resources, whereas sheries is usually used to describe a broader range from capture through postharvest handling, transport, processing, and marketing.
440
The conventions used in the SNA and those followed in this report are somewhat dierent. The categories of economic activities recognized by the SNA are those of the International Standard Industrial Classication of All Economic Activities (ISIC). In this system, the category relevant to sheries is ISIC 0500: Fishing, operations of sh hatcheries and sh farms, service activities incidental to shing. It is important to note the following: Postharvest activities, including sh processing, are not included in the shing sector, but rather they are generally counted in manufacturing and other sectors. Aquaculture is included in the sector. Subsistence shing is a legitimate component of the shing category. For convenience, the sector is usually referred to as shing.
Weaknesses of GDP
It must be kept in mind that GDP is an estimate of economic activity; it is seldom a precise calculation. Even though the SNA sets out fairly straightforward procedures, in practice, the analyst is usually confronted with many uncertainties. Data are often unavailable, incomplete or suspect; hence, the analyst is forced to make judgments about what data to use and how those data should be treated. Some people may nd this apparent lack of rigor disturbing, but it is usually unavoidable, especially in complex sectors like shing. To make matters worse, the shing sector is often only a small part of GDP, which means that only a limited amount of the analysts time and eort can be expended for collecting data to update the estimate. Typically, the sources of data an analyst would use to estimate the contribution of shing include income and expenditure data from commercial operations, sheries production and marketing information, and household income and expenditure data. Sometimes, secondary data, like social security records, air cargo records, international market reports, and various reports that bear on aspects of the industry might be used. The choice of which data set to use depends upon the analysts judgment about the accuracy of the data, the coverage, and the ease of accessing the information. GDP and its component parts provide an important and very useful guide to the structure of an economy, but they do not show the impact of any activity on the economy. For example, shing contribution to GDP is limited to its value added to the economy, but the ow eects from the activity of
shing appear as value added by other sectors of the economy. The dierence between contribution and impact can be illustrated by considering the consequences of an increase in shing activity. If the amount of shing activity increases by $1.0 million and the intermediate costs used in this activity are $0.4 million, then GDP will increase by $0.6 million. At the same time, the $0.4 million spent on the intermediate costs will directly increase the level of activity elsewhere in the economy. If $0.1 million of the $0.4 million were spent on provisions, the contribution by the Wholesale and Retail sectors to GDP would increase by $0.1 million less any intermediate costs. In addition, the $0.6 million that has now been added to the shing contribution to GDP is principally wages and prots, most of which will be spent by the recipients on goods and services. This, in turn, will increase the level of activity in other sectors of the economy. The people who benet from the sale of goods and services from shing will in turn purchase goods and services from others, and thereby stimulate further activity. The cycle of activity generated by the initial production will have ripple eects throughout the economy. The aggregate impact will depend on the extent to which the goods and services purchased are produced domestically and the proportion of their income that people spend or save. The net eect on economic activity will almost certainly be far greater than the contribution to GDP. This cycle of impact is known as the multiplier eect. In practice, the multiplier eect can be fairly dicult to calculate. The dynamic nature of economies means that every action will be followed by a reaction. Changes in a sector will be at least partly oset by changes in the structure of the economy. This was illustrated by the response of households in Samoa to the impact of taro blight on their primary subsistence crop. Most households responded by switching their food production eorts to alternative crops, notably plantains. So while the level of economic activity committed to taro production contracted, in terms of the overall level of economic activity in the economy, this contraction was largely oset by the increase in the level of activity in plantain production. While it was beyond the scope of this study to identify the multiplier eects of shing, it remains an important issue.
AppENdiX 3:
Guidelines for Calculating the Fishing Contribution to GDP
General
As with the estimation of any contribution to gross domestic product (GDP), the most appropriate method to use will depend on the nature of the data and the resources available to collect and analyze these data. The compilers of national accounts must strike a balance in their desire for accuracy and the limitations on the time and eort they can dedicate to collecting and analyzing data. In the case of shing, striking this balance means that they are usually limited to using generalized estimates of income or production. In the consultants opinion, the minimum level of aggregation that should be used would divide shing into three categories: (i) locally based oshore shing (foreign-based shing in a countrys zone does not contribute to that countrys GDP), (ii) coastal commercial shing, and (iii) coastal subsistence shing. In the Pacic island countries that have signicant freshwater sheries (e.g., Papua New Guinea [PNG], Fiji Islands) or aquaculture (e.g., Cook Islands, New Caledonia) these categories should be added. In general, where good and comprehensive data exist at the shing enterprise level, the income approach to estimating shing contribution is
Appendix 3: Guidelines for Calculating the Fishing Contribution to GDP 443
likely to be the most accurate, informative, and timely. Some of the recent DevFish studies are in this category (e.g., Philipson 2006, 2007; P. Philipson, personal communication, November 2008). Unfortunately, such data at the enterprise level are usually not available; data either do not exist or are condential. Applying the income approach to estimating GDP becomes especially dicult when dealing with the many small companies involved in coastal commercial shing in most Pacic island countries. The production approach may be the only viable option for calculating shing contribution to GDP. Although the production approach may be the most practical method to use in estimating shing contribution to GDP, compilers of national accounts should, in many cases, be aware of, and compensate for some important weaknesses in that approach, which are as follows: The assumption of xed value-added ratios (VARs) (discussed in the following section). In practice, these ratios are subject to substantial variation, more so than in any other industrial sectors. Major causes of this are changes in catch rates and in prices. The diculty of estimating prices. Typically, prices for sh vary widely by sh size, species, product form, season, and market so that average price estimates derived from price data, as opposed to revenue data, can be substantially inaccurate. The need for specialized knowledge of the shing sector. While compilers of national accounts using the income approach can deal with shing companies in much the same way that they deal with any commercial enterprise, the production approach requires greater insight into the special attributes of the sector. This involves knowledge of items like identication and/or inclusion of all signicant components of the shing sector, the aggregation of the similar components of the shing sector (discussed above), determining VARs, and estimating prices.
The diculties with the production approach can be at least partially compensated for in several ways. Periodic surveys can be undertaken to ground truth the assumptions on VARs and prices. Export data can be used to estimate the production of large-scale commercial shing, but (as explained in Section 31.2) ocial export gures are often inaccurate. In many countries, the most appropriate mechanism for dealing with the diculties with the production approach is simply more frequent and eective liaison between compilers of national accounts and government sheries ocials.
444
Value-Added Ratios
The production approach to estimating shing contribution to GDP requires two basic sets of data: (i) value of gross output of shing, and (ii) intermediate costs. It is usually convenient to express intermediate costs as a proportion of the gross output. For example, in the case of small-scale shing, using motorized boats, the fuel, bait, provisions, and maintenance are all intermediate costs. If total value of the catch is $1,000 and the sum of the intermediate costs is $400, then the proportion of the gross output attributable to intermediate costs is 40%. Therefore, the value added by small-scale shing using motorized boats is $1,000 * (1-0.40) = $600. In this example, the intermediate cost ratio is 0.40 and its reciprocal, 0.60, is the VAR. It should be noted that intermediate costs refer to operating expenses. Expenditures on large capital items, such as engines, are capital expenditures and are thus not counted as intermediate costs. In practice, each operator is likely to have a dierent VAR. However, in the preparation of national accounts, it is usually not possible to individually measure each operation. The normal practice is to estimate an average VAR for each type of activity for each country.
Calculating Value-Added Ratios

Oshore Fishing. All enterprises involved in this sector are large-scale commercial operations. Of necessity, these enterprises keep records of their income and expenditure from which it is possible to calculate a VAR. It should be noted that if income and expenditure data are available for every enterprise in the sector, an income approach to calculating the VAR would normally be used. However, when this is not the case, analysts must resort to using a production approach based on overall production from large-scale shing and price data. In these circumstances, a sample of the income expenditure of one or more typical enterprises can be used to calculate the VAR for the sector. Coastal Commercial Fishing. This sector is usually more diverse than largescale commercial operations. There is often a marked dierence in the type of vessel used by each enterprise. Typically, the vessel used could be specially designed shing boats with inboard motors, outboard skis, and canoes. The cost of operating each type of vessel diers and, hence, the VAR of the related activity also diers. Some enterprises may keep income and expenditure records, but many do not. Also, it is often dicult to split the sector catch
between each class of activity. In such circumstances, the analyst usually must resort to using a generalized estimate of VARs based on information about the composition of the eet. To estimate the VARs for small-scale shing, information may be available from (i) the records of development banks and other nancial institutions, (ii) surveying the sector, (iii) published reports on the sector including studies on the benet and/or cost of proposed development projects, and (iv) anecdotal information from discussions with people involved in the sector. Subsistence Fishing. The subsistence sector is also quite diverse. Subsistence shing can include gleaning, canoe shing, gill netting, cast nets, sh drives, sh traps, torch shing, and trolling from motorized skis. While the VAR for each activity is dierent, in general, it should be possible to categorize subsistence shing into two sets of activities: (i) those that involve motorized boats, and (ii) those that do not. The non-motorized shing activities have a very low level of intermediate cost and, therefore, a high VAR. It would be rare to have less than 90% VAR for non-motorized activities. In contrast, motorized subsistence shing activities range from high-cost trolling to medium- and low-cost bottom shing. Estimating the VAR of the non-motorized activities is likely to prove most dicult but, given the high percentage of value added in these activities, slight errors in the VAR used for them is unlikely to result in a major dierence in their estimated contribution to GDP. The value added from motorized subsistence shing activities should be very similar to that of the small-scale commercial shing. Given the diculty in separating the gross output of each activity in the subsistence sector, a reasonable approach is to estimate an average VAR weighted by the proportion of the catch (by value) taken by non-motorized and by motorized shing activities. Aquaculture. Village-level aquaculture in the region, most commonly involving tilapia and seaweed, has characteristically low intermediate costs. Financial records are often not maintained and consequently, estimating value added can involve considerable speculation. On the other hand, the relatively large-scale aquaculture operations of the region, mostly pearls and shrimp, have much higher intermediate costs. Good nancial records are kept, but commercial secrecy becomes an issue in accessing the data for determining value added. Freshwater. No good data exists on overall freshwater shery production in any Pacic island country and any estimate involves a considerable amount of guesswork. Most of the production is for subsistence purposes and should be valued accordingly. The catch is mostly taken with low-technology gear,
446
associated with high VARs. In some Pacic island countries, a signicant level of non-subsistence freshwater shing is conducted, such as commercial shing in the rivers of PNG, and the capture of Macrobrachium shrimp for roadside sales in Fiji Islands.
Value-Added Ratios from Previous Studies

The VARs used by the earlier study (Gillett and Lightfoot 2001) are given on Box A3. Although the above VARs were the best available at the time, there has been considerable room for improvement. The Gillett/Lightfoot report stated: Additional information on the economics of small-scale sheries would contribute to improving the measurement of the sheries contribution to GDP. Accordingly, the present study devoted considerable attention to gathering information from which improved VAR could be derived, with an emphasis on small-scale shing and aquaculture. Data in the various reports of dierent types and scales of shing were scrutinized and VARs were calculated (Table A3.1). It should be noted that the ratios in Table A3.1 should be considered indicative, rather than precise. In many of the studies listed, there is a lack of information on taxes, depreciation, and loan interestwhich may have several percentage points of eect on the VARs. Some work has been conducted recently on VARs for oshore tuna shing in the region. In 2006 to 2007, the Forum Fisheries Agency/Secretariat
Box A3: Value-Added Ratios used in Gillett and Lightfoot (2001)

The value-added ratios used in the earlier study ......................Value-Added Ratio were generally: Large-scale offshore fishing................................................................... 40%55% Small-scale commercial fishing. .............................................................. 55%70% Subsistence Non-motorized. ...............................................................................................90% Motorized.............................................................................................. 65%75% Aquarium fish ................................................................................................65% Seaweed cultivation....................................................................................... 90% Pearl culture ...................................................................................................80%
Source: Gillett and Lightfoot (2001).
of the Pacic Community (FFA/SPC) DevFish project enjoyed access to nancial information at the enterprise level in several Pacic island countries. On the basis of examining records at several longline and purse seine shing companies, it was concluded that a VAR of 0.20 should be used for the period 20052007 for locally based longlining and 0.496 for purse seining. (Philipson 2006, 2007a, 2007b; P. Philipson, personal communication, November 2008). From Smith and Tamate (1999), likely the best source of information for the VAR for industrial pole-and-line tuna shing, a VAR of 0.60 has been estimated.
Table A3.1: Value-Added Ratios from Recent Studies of Small-Scale Fishing and Aquaculture
Category Non-vessel fishing Activity and Location Fishing without use of vessel, Niue; using rods from the reef top by walking Fishing without use of vessel, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Fishing activity included mainly (in descending order) spearing, line fishing, and netting Non-motorized fishing Non-motorized canoe fishing, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Fishing activity included mainly (in descending order) spearing, line fishing, and netting Non-motorized canoe fishing, Niue; deepbottom fishing and/or the use of fishing rods and handlines from nonmotorized canoes Source and Date Kronen (2007); study carried out MayJune 2005 Rhodes et al. (2007); study carried out January 2006 January 2007 Value- Added Ratio 0.92
0.89
Rhodes et al. (2007); study carried out January 2006January 2007
0.91
Kronen (2007); study carried out MayJune 2005
0.950.98
448
Table A3.1: continuation
Category Fishing from small outboard powered skiffs
Activity and Location Tuna trolling from outboard-powered skiffs in Tarawa, Kiribati Outboard-powered fishing with engines 640 horsepower, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Fishing activity included mainly (in descending order) spearing, line fishing, and netting Small boat fishing in New Caledonia; outboard vessels 3.44.5 meters in length Small boat fishing in New Caledonia; outboard vessels 5.55.5 meters in length Motorized skiff fishing, Niue; using motorized boat transport for deepwater and pelagic fishing Artisanal fishing in Fiji Islands
Source and Date R. Stone, Forum Fisheries Agency, unpublished data, 2007 Rhodes et al. (2007); study carried out January 2006January 2007
Value- Added Ratio 0.60
0.740.79
Dupont et al. (2004); data from 2002 to 2004 Dupont et al. (2004); data from 2002 to 2004 Kronen (2007); study carried out MayJune 2005 Reddy (2004); data from June 2003 to January 2004 Dupont et al. (2004); data from 2002 to 2004 Dupont et al. (2004); data from 2002 to 2004 Hamilton (2007); data from 2006 Hamilton (2007); data from 2006 Hamilton (2007); data from 2006
0.65
0.80
0.610.72
0.51
Fishing from vessels larger than 7 meters
Small boat fishing in New Caledonia; inboard vessels 78 meters in length Small boat fishing in New Caledonia; inboard vessels 8.4 12.0 meters in length Alia longline fishing in Samoa; Apia-based Alia longline fishing in Samoa; rural Upolu-based Alia longline fishing in Samoa; Savaii-based
0.65
0.60
0.47 0.48 0.39
Table A3.1: continuation
Category Aquaculture
Activity and Location Tilapia farming model developed for the Pacific islands, 2-pond farm (20x30 m), mill mix feed Large-scale pearl culture in Fiji Islands Pearl culture in the Cook Islands, 30% technician paid locally
Source and Date Secretariat of the Pacific Community, unpublished data J. Hunter (Personal communication, November 2008) R. Newnham (Personal communication, October 2008); 2005 and 2006 Secretariat of the Pacific Community, unpublished data Lal and Cerelala (2005); data for 20002004 Cospi (2007).
Value- Added Ratio 0.74
0.450.51
0.41 (2005) 0.21 (2006)
Pearl culture model developed for mediumsized pearl farm in Kiribati Live rock culture in Fiji Islands Seaweed culture in the Solomon Islands. Others Coral harvesting in Fiji Islands
0.69
0.40
0.72
Lal and Cerelala (2005); data for 20002004
0.70
Source: Sources are shown in the table.
Value-Added Ratios Used in this Report

In view of the above studies and experience gained from Gillett and Lightfoot (2001), in this report the VARs in Table A3.2 are generally used. Some judgment is, however, required in using the VARs. Depending on the national situation, the mix of shing activities, and associated intermediate costs of those activities, the VARs used herein vary somewhat from Table A3.1.
450
Table A3.2: Value-Added Ratios Used in this Report

Category of Fishing/ Aquaculture Offshore tuna fishing Specific Type Locally based longlining Locally based purse seining Locally based pole-and-line Coastal commercial and subsistence Fishing without a boat Fishing in non-motorized canoe Fishing with small outboard boat Tuna trolling Alia longline fishing Aquaculture Pearl culture Tilapia culture Seaweed culture Coral culture Other
VAR 0.20 0.50 0.60 0.90 0.92 0.600.80 0.60 0.47 0.45 0.74 0.72 0.40 0.70 0.65
Coral harvesting Aquarium fish collection
AppendiX 4
Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacic
Johann Bell, Mike Batty,1 Alex Ganachaud, Peter Gehrke, Alistair Hobday, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Johanna Johnson, Robert Le Borgne,2 Patrick Lehodey, Janice Lough, Tim Pickering,1 Morgan Pratchett, Marcus Sheaves,9 and Michelle Waycott.9
1 2 3 3 5 6 7 8 9
Secretariat of the Pacic Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Institut de Recherche pour le Dveloppement, Noumea, New Caledonia. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, Brisbane, Australia. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Australia. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. C2O Consulting, Townsville, Australia. CLS-MEMMS, Ramonville St. Agnes, France. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
452
Introduction
This brief report outlines how the climate of the Pacic is projected to change, how climate change has aected sheries elsewhere in the world, and how it is expected to aect sheries and aquaculture in the Pacic. The emphasis is on the implications for economies of Pacic island countries and territories (PICTs). It concludes with general recommendations that should help the regional and national management agencies and other stakeholders in sheries to adapt to maintain the benets of sheries. The assessments of the projected eects of climate change, and the recommended approaches for adaptation, are preliminary. They are derived from the early phases of a major regional project to assess the vulnerability of sheries and aquaculture in the Pacic to climate change coordinated by the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC) and supported by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).10 The project is due to be completed by mid-2010 and will deliver a much more comprehensive assessment of likely impacts, practical adaptations, and investments needed to address key gaps in knowledge.
Changing Climate and Ocean

The build-up of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities is acting in two major ways that will ultimately aect sheries and aquaculture in the Pacicglobal warming and ocean acidication. The accumulation of greenhouse gases is trapping more of the heat that previously escaped from the earth, leading to an overall increase in average global temperature (Meehl et al. 2007). For the low emissions (B1) and high emissions (A2) scenarios outlined in the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007), the projected increases in surface atmospheric temperature in the Pacic region by 2035 range from 0.50C to 0.80C, but to increase considerably for both the B1 and A2 scenarios by 2100 (Table A4.1). The oceans will absorb much of this heat. Thermal expansion of the oceans, together with melting of glaciers and land ice, results in a rise in sea level, which is projected to increase by up to 50 cm by 2100 under the A2 scenario (Table A4.1). However, this may well be an underestimate due to accelerated melting of land ice (Bindo et al. 2007).
10
For details see www.spc.int/sppu/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=1&Itemid=80
Appendix 4: Preliminary Assessment of the Eects of Climate Change 453
Increases in ocean temperature also make the surface waters more stable, reducing vertical mixing and the availability of nutrients in the upper level of the ocean. Reductions in the supply of nutrients limit the primary production at the base of the food chains supporting sheries. A warmer global climate also causes changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns, giving rise to regional changes in climate. Tropical cyclones and anticyclones are a major source of disturbance to coastal environments in the tropical Pacic and although there may be fewer of them in a warmer world, those that do occur are likely to be more intense, resulting in rougher seas, more powerful waves, stronger winds, more intense rainfall, and greater localized destruction (Poloczanska et al. 2007; CCSP 2008; Fabricius et al. 2008). As tropical oceans warm, there will be greater evaporation and moisture availability, leading to an intensication of the hydrological cycle and expansion of the Hadley Circulation in the Pacic. Total rainfall is projected to increase in the tropical Pacic between 10oN to 10oS and decrease in the subtropics (Table A4.1). El NioSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) events are the major source of interannual climate variability in the region, with distinct oceanographic, temperature, rainfall, and cyclonic conditions associated with the two phases: El Niowhen the equatorial divergence is located well to the east of the Pacic, and surface waters are warmer than usual, and La Niawhen the equatorial divergence occurs across much of the region and temperatures are cooler. The divergence brings nutrient-rich waters to the surface and enhances the production of phytoplankton and zooplankton that supports sheries. Global climate models do not, at present, provide a consistent picture as to how the occurrence, intensity, or frequency of ENSO events might change with continued global warming. However, they do indicate that ENSO events will continue to be a dominant feature of Pacic climate for the foreseeable future. In addition to changing atmospheric and oceanic climates, the increased burden of the main greenhouse gas, CO2, is changing ocean chemistry, a process called ocean acidication (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). The ocean has absorbed about a third of the human CO2 emissions since around 1750 and it is now more acidic than at any time during the last 650,000 years (Orr et al. 2005). This eect is largely independent of global warming and has grave consequences for marine life. The dissolved CO2 reacts with seawater to form weak carbonic acid, which reduces availability of the dissolved carbonate required by many marine calcifying organisms to build their shells or skeletons (Poloczanska et al. 2007; Guinotte and Fabry 2008). There is serious concern that continued emissions of CO2 will drive sucient gas into
454
Table A4.1: Projected Changes in Pacific Climate and Oceans Relative to 19801999 Levels, and Projections of Total Concentration of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Climate feature Surface atmospheric temperature (C) Sea surface temperature (C) Sea-level rise (centimeter)a Low emissions (B1) scenario 2035 0.50.8 High emissions Low emissions High emissions (A2) scenario (B1) scenario (A2) scenario 2035 2100 2100 0.50.8 1.01.5 2.53.0
Sea surface temperature changes are similar to those for surface temperatures though slightly lower in magnitude; there is also a spatial pattern to the projected surface warming with greater warming in the eastern than in the western equatorial Pacific and less warming in southeastern Pacific. 8 5%15% increase in tropics, decreases in subtropics 8 5%15% increase in tropics, decreases in subtropics 1838 10%20% increase in tropics, decreases in subtropics 2351 10%20% increase in tropics, decreases in subtropics
Rainfall
Cyclone frequency and intensity El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Aragonite saturation levels in ocean Carbon dioxide (parts per million)
a
Cyclones less frequent but more intense. Projected to increase in intensity by 6%12% by 2100, equivalent to 0.5 of a cyclone warning category. ENSO events will continue as a source of interannual climate variability, but it is uncertain whether they will increase in frequency or intensity. Adequate to marginal for coral reefs ~400 Adequate to marginal for coral reefs ~400? Low to risky for coral reefs 750800
Marginal 450500
Could be underestimates, depending on rate at which land ice and glaciers melt.
Sources: Information on rainfall, temperature, tropical cyclones, and ENSO was prepared for the Secretariat of the Pacific Community project by G.A. Meehl, National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA, following Meehl et al. (2007); sea level from Bindoff et al. (2007), carbon dioxide concentrations from Foster et al. (2007); and aragonite saturation states from Guinotte et al. (2003).
the oceans to cause undersaturation of carbonate. Where this happens, the environment will not favor formation of structures like coral reefs created by animals and plants with carbonate skeletons and shells. The Pacic Ocean is projected to become more acidic by 0.30.4 pH units by 2100, reducing the
supersaturation levels of aragonite (a form of carbonate) from >4 to 3.03.5 by 2070 throughout much of the tropical and subtropical Pacic (Guinotte et al. 2003), causing many coral reefs there to collapse (see Section 4.2). Some of these projected changes in the climate system are already evident in the observational records. The pH of the oceans has fallen by 0.1, global sea level has risen by ~20 cm, and global average temperatures are now ~0.7C warmer than at the end of the 19th century (IPCC 2007). Evidence of recent acceleration in the rate of these changes in the physical environment also exists. This rate of change is of considerable concern when considering the impacts of a warming world on natural ecosystems, such as the sheries of the tropical Pacic. Over the period 19502007, global average land and sea temperatures have warmed at 0.12C/decade and tropical Pacic sea surface temperatures at 0.07C/decade.
Effects of Climate Change on Fisheries Worldwide

There is broad concern around the world about the eects that future changes to climate will have on sheries and aquaculture. This concern arises because even recent variations in climate on time scales of years to decades have caused signicant variation in sheries production. For example, catches of Peruvian anchovies varied from < 100,000 tons to > 13 million tons between 1970 and 2004 as a result of changes in ENSO (Brander 2007). Closer to home, the alternate phases of the ENSO cycle largely determine the distribution of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacic Oceanthey move further east during El Nio years and then follow the warm pool west during La Nia episodes (Lehodey et al. 1997; Lehodey et al. 2003; Loukos et al. 2003). In other cases, abrupt changes in physical oceanography and biology, known as regime shifts, which can persist for more than a decade, have major consequences for the species composition and productivity of sheries (Lehodey et al. 2006; Brander 2007). The eects of such shorter-term changes in climate are not always negativea period of ocean warming around Greenland starting in 1925 resulted in a northern extension in the range of cod by more than 1,000 km and creation of an international shery of more than 400,000 tons/year (Brander 2007). In view of these often dramatic eects, sheries managers are confronted by many important questions. Will the species that currently support sheries still be available as greenhouse gases increase? If not, which species are most likely to replace them? For those species that continue to support sheries,
456
will climate change reduce the capacity for replenishment and production and increase the risk of overshing? What costs will be involved in adapting to harvest sh in dierent ways? Will shing at sea become more hazardous? To answer these questions, concerted eorts in some parts of the world are now documenting how the observed and projected changes to atmospheric climate and the oceans are aecting, or are likely to aect, the distribution and production of sh, and the sheries that depend on them (Perry et al. 2005; Hobday et al. 2006; Lehodey et al. 2006; FAO 2007; Brander 2007; Johnson and Marshall 2007; Poloczanska et al. 2007; Munday et al. 2008a).
Effects on Distribution of Fish

Alterations to water temperature, depth of the surface mixed layer, and currents occurring as a result of changes in climate are having signicant eects on the distribution of both oceanic and coastal sh. The main patterns that have emerged are (i) expanded distributions of warm water sh species toward the poles (Parker and Dixon 2002; Perry et al. 2005), (ii) latitudinal shifts in areas where species occur (Munday et al. 2008a), and (iii) contracted distributions of species adapted to cooler waters (Welch et al. 1998). Other eects of climate change are also altering the patterns of sh distribution. These include (i) expansion of zones of low productivity (Polovina et al. 2008), which oceanic sh avoid in their search for food; (ii) occurrence of key prey species at increasingly higher latitudes (Richardson 2008), which help support the food chain for oceanic sh where it was inadequate previously; and (iii) changes to the strength of currents, which aect dispersal of sh larvae and connectivity among populations in dierent areas (Munday et al. 2008a).
Effects on Fish Production

Climate change can be expected to mediate sh production through eects on reproductive success, recruitment processes, and survival and growth of target species and/or their prey. These eects occur both directly, due to inherent sensitivities of marine organisms to changing environmental conditions, and/or indirectly through the inuence of climate change on the habitats that support sh or the pathogens that can control their abundance (Brander 2007; Munday et al. 2008a). Collectively, these eects can ow on to sheries productivity; Klyashtorin and Lyubushin (2005) showed that changes in long-term dynamics of 12 important commercial Atlantic and Pacic sh
stocks mirrored long-term changes in seaair temperature and atmospheric circulation. Reproduction of sh is often highly sensitive to temperature uctuations (Munday et al. 2008a) and so warming can have either a positive or a negative eect on egg production, depending on whether the target sh species is close to its thermal optimum. In general, most shes are strongly adapted to the range of environmental conditions that they experience throughout the year. Rapid or dramatic increases in temperature above normal maximum temperatures are expected to have signicant negative eects on overall viability of some sh populations (Munday et al. 2008b). Interactions between the eects of higher water temperatures, altered currents, and changes to the depth of the mixed layer on the dispersal and survival of larvae (Meekan et al. 2003; Green and Fisher 2004; Poloczanska et al. 2007), are expected to result in new patterns of recruitment. As a result, the areas with the potential to yield the most sh within the distribution of a species can be expected to change. Evidence is also emerging that acidication of the ocean can disrupt the olfactory cues used by sh larvae to settle successfully on coral reefs (Munday et al. 2009), raising concerns that the inherently large variation in recruitment success may become even more extreme. Both eects have implications for sheries as they can be expected to alter the location of the best shing grounds. The area and structural complexity of the coral reefs, seagrasses, and mangroves that provide shelter and food for many coastal sh species are likely to be altered by rising water temperature, acidication of the ocean, more intense cyclones, changes in sedimentation from new patterns of rainfall, and rising sea levels (Poloczanska et al. 2007). The coverage and quality of these key structural habitats have already been reduced dramatically worldwide through the impacts of developments in the coastal zone (Duarte 2002; Alongi 2002). The concern is that climate change will create damaging synergies with localized nonclimate stressors, and exacerbate the problem (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007; Johnson and Marshall 2007). Increasing temperatures are also expected to have a direct eect on the growth of sh, especially for temperate species in which growth is currently limited by cold winter temperatures (Thresher et al. 2007). The relative importance of these various processes is yet to be determined. In some locations, the impact of any increased production of existing target species may be overshadowed by the alterations to species composition likely to occur as a result of changes to sh distribution and modication of habitats.
458
Potential Impact of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacific

Preliminary assessments indicate that the oceanic, coastal, and freshwater sheries and aquaculture operations of the Pacic will be as equally subjected to the direct and indirect eects of climate change as sh resources elsewhere in the world. A summary of the main potential positive and negative eects of climate change on sheries and aquaculture in the region is provided below.
Changes to the Distribution and Abundance of Tuna

Alterations in ocean temperatures and currents, and the food chains in the open ocean, are projected to aect the location and abundance of tuna species (Lehodey et al. 1997, 2003; Loukos et al. 2003). Initial modeling indicates that the concentrations of skipjack and bigeye tuna are likely to be located further to the east than in the past (Lehodey et al. 2008a, 2008b; Lehodey et al., in press). The simulations have yet to be done for yellown and albacore. Although the current patterns of abundance of tuna are mediated strongly by ENSO (Lehodey et al. 1997), the quantities of tuna likely to be available to each PICT during El Nio and La Nia events are relatively well understood and are used by PICTs in consultation with regional agencies to plan contributions to economic growth through provision of access rights to distant-water shing nations (DWFNs). They are also taken into account in proposals to attract investments to develop domestic shing eets and to establish local canneries, loining plants, and export businesses. Signicant changes to the distribution of tuna will make the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of some PICTs more, or less, attractive to DWFNs engaged in the surface shery for skipjack tuna, with consequences for national gross domestic product (GDP). As it stands, revenues from the sale of shing rights for tuna currently make up a far greater proportion of GDP in some of the smaller PICTs in the central Pacic (e.g., Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tokelau) than they do for many countries further to the west (Table 26.7 in main report). Displacement of tuna stocks further east in the Pacic would be a windfall for these PICTs because they currently have few other options for generating national income. Their GDP would increase substantially in relative terms, especially if prices increase due to depressed catches elsewhere in the world. Reduced demand by DWFNs to sh for skipjack tuna within the EEZs of PICTs in Melanesia will have a far lower impact on their GDP in relative terms because revenue from access fees currently makes only a minor contribution to their larger economies (Table 26.7 in main report). Nevertheless, there will
be substantial losses in real terms given the large quantities of tuna currently caught there, particularly during La Nia episodes. The negative eects on other PICTs in the western and central Pacic (Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru) are likely to be more severe. The consequences of skipjack tuna moving further east over time may have some negative eects on the viability of canneries in the western Pacic. Currently, the canneries in Melanesia use sh caught within their EEZs and pay about $150/ton less for sh than their competitors in Thailand, which have to meet higher costs for the delivery of their raw materials. However, if the canneries in Melanesia have to source some of their sh from further east, this comparative advantage could be reduced substantially because the costs per ton for delivery are not directly proportional to distance; there is a large xed cost for charter and demurrage. Another consequence of skipjack tuna moving further east is that operators in the shery in the Philippines, which is already heavily exploited and has some overcapacity, will seek to follow the resource. Because the Philippine industry usually operates close to shore bases, this may provide opportunities for, or conict with, plans by PICTs to domesticate the tuna sector. The changes in the distribution of skipjack tuna will happen progressively over many years, giving the industry time to adapt. A potential complicating factor is the specter of future rises in the cost of fuel. This subject is covered in Appendix 5. Identifying the preliminary implications of climate change for longlining operations is not practical at this stage because although initial simulations indicate that there will also be an eastward shift in adult bigeye tuna (Lehodey et al. 2008), modeling for yellown tuna and albacore is not yet available. Given the great value of the longline shery, and the fact that it is the main way that tuna currently contribute to the economic growth of PICTs in the south and east of the region, this modeling eort should be done as a matter of urgency. The plans to use tuna to help meet the emerging need for sh for food security in the Pacic (SPC 2008a; Bell et al. 2009) could be more dicult to implement in Melanesia as a result of climate change. These plans include (i) selling tuna of low export value on local markets to provide sh for the urban poor; and (ii) establishing low-cost, inshore sh aggregating devices (FADs) in rural areas to improve access to tuna for subsistence shers. Projections that cyclones will become progressively more intense may increase the risk of damage to shore-based facilities and eets for domestic tuna shing and processing operations in PICTs located within the cyclone belt. For all PICTs, rising sea level will eventually make many of the existing
460
wharfs and shore-based facilities unusable. Careful planning will be needed to ensure that future investments in this vital infrastructure are climate proof. The fact that cyclones are not projected to become more frequent in the southern Pacic means that there should be little eect on the number of days suitable for shing at sea. However, the dangers associated with more severe cyclones may require some eets operating or based in subtropical PICTs to be upgraded to sizes that confer acceptable standards of safety at sea under such conditions. Taken together, the increased costs associated with repairing and relocating shore-based facilities, and addressing increased risks to occupational health and safety for shers, will aect the protability of domestic shing operations. This will need to be taken into account by PICTs when planning the optimum mix of developing local industries for tuna and providing continued access for DWFNs.
Changes to Coastal Fisheries Production

Signicant changes can be expected in the availability and relative abundance of sh and invertebrates that currently support coastal sheries in the Pacic. Although there is still little certainty about how changes to water temperatures, acidity of the ocean, current regimes, availability of nutrients, and cyclone intensity will aect coastal sh species directly, there is more condence about how climate-induced changes to their supporting habitats (coral reefs, mangroves, sea grasses, and intertidal and shallow bare sediments) will aect these sh and the sheries they sustain. The projected eects of climate change on coral reefs are better understood than for other coastal habitats. Rising sea surface temperatures and more acidic oceans are projected to have increasingly severe impacts on the growth of hard corals. In recent decades, mass coral bleachingexpulsion by corals of the symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) that provide them with energyhas increased in frequency and severity. For many corals, bleaching occurs when sea surface temperatures exceed the normal maxima by 1C2C for 34 weeks. Deprived of their energy source, corals slow their growth, have lower reproduction and become much more susceptible to physical damage, being overgrown by algae and infected by diseases. Periods of extended bleaching result in death of corals. The rate of global warming is projected to outstrip the capacity of many corals in the Pacic to adapt (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). This is predicted to result in a net loss of structural complexity on coral reefs because the rate at which corals die and erode following bleaching is likely to exceed the rate at which new corals form.
This situation will be compounded by the acidication of the ocean, which reduces the carbonate available for construction of coral skeletons (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). As the acidity of the ocean increases, the balance between calcication (reef building) and bioerosion of reefsexcavation of coral skeletons by animals like parrotsh, sea urchins, and boring polychaete wormswill be upset, accelerating the collapse of reefs. The growth of some corals in Australia has already begun to slow down due to reduced rates of calcication (Death et al. 2009). More powerful waves from stronger cyclones will exacerbate the destruction of reefs in PICTs in the cyclone belt. Taken together, these aspects of climate change are projected to progressively reduce the biological and structural complexity of coral reefs. A rise of 2C in water temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 of 450500 parts per million (ppm) will eliminate most branching corals and reefs will be dominated by macroalgae. If water temperatures increase by >3C and CO2 exceeds 550 ppm, reefs are likely to consist mainly of coral rubble (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). The onset of such degradation is expected to occur even earlier in places where overshing removes the herbivores that feed on the algae that normally impedes the growth of coral (Hughes et al. 2003, 2007). The loss of structural and biological complexity on coral reefs will have profound eects on the types of sh and invertebrates associated with them. Species that depend on live coral for food, and on the intricate variety of shelter created by structurally complex reefs for their survival, are likely to disappear (Wilson et al. 2006; Graham et al. 2006; Pratchett et al. 2008). These coral-dependent and highly specialist reef shes may be replaced by herbivorous and generalist species, leading to changes in community structure rather than net losses of biodiversity or productivity (Bellwood et al. 2006). However, this simplication of reef habitats will involve the loss of many existing energy pathways and make these ecosystems much more sensitive to future disturbances, including overshing (Nystrm et al. 2008). Eects of climate change on coastal sheries associated with coral reefs may not be immediately apparent, but result in slow, long-term (decadal) declines in yields as resilience and productivity are gradually eroded. The demise of coral reefs is not the only factor that will aect coastal sheries resources. Depending on the location of PICTs, projected increases in temperatures, sea level, cyclone intensity, and turbidity of coastal waters due to higher rainfall, can be expected to aect the growth and survival of mangroves, seagrasses, nonreef algal habitats, and the nature of intertidal and subtidal sand and mudat areas. Although the role that these habitats play in supporting sheries production in the Pacic is poorly understood compared
462
to that of coral reefs, there is evidence that the vegetated areas provide important nurseries for juvenile organisms (Coles et al. 1992; Bloomeld and Gillanders 2005), and they all provide important feeding habitats for a wide range of coastal sh species (Coles et al. 1992; MacIntyre et al. 1996a; Bloomeld and Gillanders 2005). Reductions in coverage and structural complexity of the vegetated habitats due to more severe disturbance from cyclones, increased stress from higher temperatures, reduced light levels from more turbid conditions, and increasing sea levels can be expected to reduce recruitment success for many species of sh and invertebrates (Lovelock and Ellison 2007; Sheaves et al. 2007; Waycott et al. 2007; Gilman et al. 2008). Erosion of intertidal ats, and changes to the associated microalgae that drive the high productivity of these areas (MacIntyre et al. 1996b), are likely to occur as a result of more intense cyclones and sea level rise. Such changes can be expected to alter the function of intertidal ats as feeding areas for sh. Given the vital role that coastal sheries play in subsistence throughout the Pacic (Dalzell et al. 1996; SPC 2007a, 2008a; Bell et al. 2009), one of the greatest impacts that climate change is likely to have is on food security. If future production of sh from coral reefs and other coastal habitats decreases, or is comprised of sh not readily accepted as food by local communities, the emerging gap in the sh needed for food security will increase. This will place even more pressure on governments to allocate an increasing proportion of their tuna resources for local food security. The eects of climate change on valuable invertebrate export commodities, such as trochus and bche de mer, have yet to be determined. On the one hand, increased acidication of the ocean could aect the survival of trochus by making their shells signicantly weaker and by increasing their exposure to predators during their vulnerable juvenile stages. Similarly, the growth and survival of bche de mer could be impeded by poorer development of their spicules (Kinch et al. 2008). On the other hand, it is possible that the predators of these valuable invertebrates could be reduced and algal food sources enhanced by climate change. Any such eects will be dicult to determine in many countries due to chronic overshing. Management must strive to rebuild viable spawning stocks so that these resources not only deliver more benets, but are more resilient to adverse conditions and able to take advantage of any favorable changes to their ecosystems. There is a reasonable risk that the projected changes to coral reefs and the sh and invertebrates associated with them will make it more dicult to supply the diverse range of organisms demanded by the marine ornamental trade (Warbitz et al. 2003). However, the progressive nature of these changes should enable enterprises to adapt. The industry, which employs hundreds of
people in Fiji Islands alone, has proved to be responsive to substantial recent changes in the market place. Therefore, it should be able to capitalize on any opportunities to supply valuable species favored by climate change, or to culture selected popular species no longer readily available in the wild.
Changes to Freshwater Fisheries Production

The imprecision of the estimates of production and value of freshwater sheries in the Pacic documented in this report underscores the need for a more thorough understanding of the benets of these resources to local economies. Native and introduced freshwater sh and invertebrates may be making greater contributions to shery catches than governments appreciate. In particular, freshwater sh and invertebrates may be providing much of the animal protein in large areas of inland Papua New Guinea (PNG). The quantities consumed have yet to be conrmed. The potential importance of freshwater resources is evident in the Sepik River catchment, PNG, where more than 350,000 people live and at least 15 species are caught for food, several of which were introduced for this purpose (Coates 1987; Dudgeon and Smith 2006). A range of freshwater species (e.g., tilapia, Macrobrachium prawns, and mussels) are also harvested regularly from lakes and rivers elsewhere in the region. Future household income and expenditure surveys in these countries need to be modied to quantify the contribution of freshwater resources to the national diet (Bell et al. 2008). In PNG, freshwater sheries resources also contribute to employment. Even in highland areas where sh stocks are very poor, over 50% of the population engages in shing activities in many areas, traditionally for eels but more recently for several exotic species also (Coates 1996). In the Fly River, there are plans to harvest about 5,000 tons of freshwater herring per year to produce shmeal for aquaculture and animal husbandry. The freshwater sheries of PNG are based on a broad range of river channel and oodplain habitats, fed by some of the highest levels of rainfall on earth. The cycles of ooding not only govern the life cycles of the sh in these habitats but also how, where, and when people can sh. The projected increases of rainfall in the tropics of 5%15% by 2035, and 10%20% by 2100 (Table A4.1) are expected to increase the extent and duration of inundation. The eects of increased ooding and higher water temperatures on the sh themselves, and the vegetated lowland areas that support them, have yet to be determined. This must be done quickly so that the species likely to be favored or disadvantaged by the changing conditions can be determined, and the implications for food security and development of enterprises identied.
464
Increased ooding and warmer water is also expected to enhance the ability of some exotic species to colonize PNG from Irian Jaya. This has already happened in the case of the snakehead. Where the new exotic species are accepted well as food and do not displace valued indigenous species, this will benet households. Where undesirable sh invade, communities will need to be given options to derive other benets from them, e.g., as ingredients for feeds for poultry, pigs and small pond aquaculture. Freshwater sheries throughout the region are based largely on species that migrate between the sea and freshwater. The combination of rising sea level and changes in rainfall and runo is likely to aect habitats and sheries in both estuarine and freshwater reaches of the regions river systems. Small changes in either rainfall or sea level may have major impacts on the ability of sh to move between estuaries and freshwater, aecting nursery ground function (Sheaves and Johnston 2008). These eects also need to be evaluated quickly to determine the potential implications for shery production, food security, and livelihoods.
Effects on Aquaculture
The latest SPC Aquaculture Action Plan (SPC 2007b) indicates that small pond aquaculture has potential to provide sh for future food security in the region. Analyses of where such production is likely to be practical and cost-eective, and investments in launching the necessary research and development, will need to be made in the near future if this relatively simple form of aquaculture is to make a signicant contribution to food security by 2030. Tilapia is arguably the easiest species to produce in small ponds, and the introduced freshwater sh species with the broadest appeal in the Pacic. Increasing surface temperatures should enable tilapia to be grown at increasingly higher altitudes in PNG. Provided systems can be developed to distribute ngerlings eectively to remote areas, and suitable feeds based on local ingredients can be formulated, small pond aquaculture has potential to progressively contribute much-needed animal protein in inland PNG and on high islands elsewhere in the region. Heavier rainfall in low-lying tropical PICTs may increase the area suitable for rainfed pond aquaculture. However, increased levels of rainfall, particularly if it occurs as heavier events, will increase the risks in lowland areas. These risks would include losing sh from ponds during oods, invasion of ponds by unwanted species, and damage to ponds through inlling and breaching of walls.
Emerging plans to develop cage culture of sh in coastal waters will need to consider the increased risks to investments in infrastructure due to more severe, albeit less frequent, cyclones in those PICTs in the cyclone belt. In tropical PICTs, the possible benecial or adverse eects of warmer water temperatures on growth and the incidence of diseases will need to be assessed. The range of aquaculture commodities being developed in the region to support sustainable livelihoods (SPC 2007b) will also be aected by climate change. Preliminary assessments of some of the impacts are summarized below. Pearl farming faces risks from increased acidication of the ocean. As aragonite saturation levels fall (Table A4.1), the shells of blacklip pearl oysters will be weaker. This is likely to lead to higher rates of predation of juveniles and lower rates of collection of wild spat. Large-scale farms may be forced to rely more heavily on hatcheries to produce spat, increasing production costs. It also remains to be seen whether acidication will impair the ability of pearl oysters to form nacre. If so, pearl quality may decline progressively, reducing the value of pearls produced in the future. More severe cyclones can be expected to increase the risk of damage to the infrastructure of pearl farms in subtropical PICTs. The winter syndrome disease currently causing problems in the production of blue shrimp in New Caledonia may ease with the changing climate. Increases in water temperatures and in salinity of ponds as a result of the reduced rainfall projected to occur in subtropical areas could progressively reduce the occurrence of conditions favored by the pathogen. These are complex issues, however, and it is dicult to predict how shrimp pathogens may respond to these projected temperature and salinity increases, not only in winter but also at the height of summer. Warmer temperatures may also extend the duration of the present single-cycle shrimp growing season and allow production of warmer-water species, such as Penaeus monodon. Climate change may aect the viability of farming seaweed (Kappahycus or cottonii) over the longer term. As a general rule, conditions that cause coral bleaching are also bad for Kappaphycus. Higher water temperatures combined with lowered salinity are factors linked to outbreaks of epiphytic lamentous algae (EFA) and ice-ice disease that reduce production of Kappaphycus (Ask 1999). In more tropical high-island countries, increases in total rainfall will render fewer locations suitable for culture. As coral reefs degrade and herbivorous sh become more prevalent (see Section 4.2), the risk of losses of cuttings and crops to such sh, already a problem at some sites, may increase further.
466
Warmer water temperatures, increased acidication and more severe cyclones can also be expected to inuence the development of aquaculture for marine ornamental products. Village-based farmers in tropical PICTs growing corals and giant clams will face the risk of increased losses due to bleaching, whereas those in subtropical areas will incur greater risks to equipment and loss of stock from rougher sea conditions associated with more intense cyclones. Larger-scale investors able to operate hatcheries in sheltered locations may benet from market opportunities as sought-after specimens become scarcer in the wild due to degradation of coral reefs. Ultimately, however, the viability of such operations will depend on their capacity to compete with the enterprises culturing ornamentals emerging in Asia.
Adaptations to Maintain the Benefits of Fisheries and Aquaculture

In a changing world, both industry and communities will need to adapt past practices to maintain the benets from sheries, and to take advantage of new opportunities emerging from altered resources. One of the keys to successful adaptation will be diversicationthe more options that industry and communities have to produce, process, and distribute sh, the greater the chance that some of them may be favored, or not aected, by climate change. To maintain the benets of skipjack tuna in the face of redistribution of the stock, PICTs in the western Pacic will need to develop ways to add more value to the lower sh catches projected for their EEZs. Adaptations that promote successful domestication of the industry will be important. Displacement of tuna further east will automatically confer more options to the PICTs there. They will need to undertake thorough analyses to identify the most practical and protable mix of domestication and access to DWFNs, and the adaptations needed to implement their selected strategies. For the longline industry, warmer water temperatures and altered ocean currents may change the location of the most protable shing grounds, and the composition and abundance of bycatch species. If so, gear and baits may need to be adapted to exclude unwanted, or attract desirable, species. Ways that coastal shing communities can diversify their production to continue to catch the quantities of sh they will need for food security include the use of low-cost inshore FADs to provide better access to tuna, and development of small pond aquaculture to supply sh when it is too rough to sh at sea (SPC 2008a, 2008b). However, these simple production methods
cannot provide improved access to sh everywhere in the region. Coastal communities may be grouped into seven broad vulnerability categories based on their needs and potentials to adapt in these ways (Table A4.2). Investments in understanding where and how the vulnerability of coastal communities to shortages of sh can be reduced through diversifying their production will not only help build resilience to climate change, it will also help these communities cope with disasters, such as tsunamis. In cases where it will remain dicult to diversify the production of sh, governments will need to place more emphasis on other aspects of the broader livelihood approaches required to build resilience to shortages of food, e.g., development of climate ready crops and plant varieties to diversify local agricultural production systems (SPC 2009). Another key way of adapting coastal sheries to provide future food security will involve development and uptake of methods to increase the shelf life of tuna when large catches are made around FADs. This will be particularly important in PICTs where the occurrence of tuna is projected to become more sporadic. The general approach outlined for diversifying production, processing, and distribution of sh in coastal areas can also be applied to inland communities dependent on freshwater sheries. However, their options may be largely limited to development of pond aquaculture in ways that can withstand increased risks of ooding.
Table A4.2: Vulnerability Categories of Coastal Communities to Future Fish Shortages
Coastal Fisheries Expected to Meet Future Demand X X X X X X * ** * ** X X X X X Area Suitable for Anchored, Inshore Fish Attraction Devices (FADs) Area Suitable for Pond Aquaculture
Vulnerability Rating (increasing) 1 Very low 2 Very low to low 3 Low 4 Low to medium 5 Medium 6 High 7 Very high
* FADs anchored in depths of < 500 meters and within paddling distance by canoe, i.e., within 2 kilometers of the coast. ** Boat and motor needed to reach FADs anchored in depths of < 1,000 meters within 6 kilometers of the coast. Source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community.
468
Owing to the edgling status of much of the aquaculture in the Pacic (Bell and Gervis 1999; SPC 2007a), policy makers and planners need to consider not only the impacts of climate change on aquaculture as it is now, but also on how it may evolve in the future. There is much room for exibility in the way this sector develops. Aquaculture itself promises to be a tool for adaptation to some of the impacts of climate change on sheries.
Gaps in Knowledge and Priority Activities

In preparing this preliminary report, it was evident that there are many gaps in the knowledge required to make sound projections about the likely eects of climate change on sheries and aquaculture in the Pacic. Investments are needed to ll these gaps so that future assessments can be made with greater condence. a preliminary list of the key activities that need to be supported is set out below. High-quality observations of surface weather for PICTS and oceanographic conditions in the Pacic. These observations are needed to detect the nature of a changing climate and Pacic Ocean and the signicance of their linkages to the regions ecosystems. Down-scaling of climate change and oceanographic modeling to the scales of islands. This will allow more rigorous assessment of local sensitivity and vulnerability of PICTs to a changing climate and ocean. Improved modeling of the responses of tuna to climate change, including yellown tuna and albacore. Future models should incorporate projected shing eort and interactions between tuna species. They will also require descriptions and long-term observations of the macrozooplankton and micronekton that provide food for tuna between a depth of 1,200 m and the surface to quantify accurately the link between production in the photic zone and tuna abundance. Identication of areas likely to be suitable for diversifying coastal and/or freshwater sheries production through the establishment of low-cost inshore FADs and/or small pond aquaculture. Scaling-up regional research facilities to support key experiments and eldwork on coastal habitats and climate change. Examples of such research include (i) evaluating whether dissolution of coral reefs due to decreasing pH will be capped at local scales through
buering by the dissolved carbonate, and (ii) assessing the eects of rising temperature and pH on coral reef sh and invertebrate species important for food security and aquaculture. Inventory of vegetated coastal habitats, including their connectivity to coral reefs, environmental thresholds for growth and survival, and links to sheries productivity. Research and modeling to assess (i) the habitat and freshwater ow requirements, and connectivity needed to sustain riverine and estuarine sheries in PICTs; and (ii) projected changes in the area and availability of oodplain habitats for sheries production, and for pond aquaculture. This will allow better assessment of possible changes in production and species composition of freshwater sheries resources and the potential for lowland small pond aquaculture, under climate change. Assessment and monitoring of the size and composition of coastal and inland shery landings across the region to assess changes in catch resulting from climate change, and the success of adaptations to retain the benets of sheries. Investigations of the risk of increased incidence of pathogens for important aquaculture species, such as pearl oysters, shrimp, and seaweed during climate change.
AppendiX 5
The Energy Costs and Fishing Study

James Wilson and Mike McCoy
This appendix summarizes the ndings of the Energy Costs and Fishing Study (published by the World Bank11) commissioned as part of the present study. The Energy Costs and Fishing Study assesses the direct impact of fuel price uctuations on ongoing shing operations of domestic shing eets in Pacic island countries and territories (PICTs), covering both changes in the nancial performance and operating patterns. The study includes analysis of fuel supply arrangements (prices, sources, infrastructures), fuel consumption characteristics of the main eets, and changes in product. The eld work for the study was carried out in SeptemberOctober 2008.
Fuel Supply Markets

Almost all fuel for domestic eets and locally based foreign eets in the Pacic is supplied via domestic bunkering. Fuel is sourced through established global distributors who stock in-country tank farms that they themselves usually
11
Wilson, J., and M. McCoy. 2009. Study of the Impact of Energy Price Fluctuations on Fisheries in thePacic, with Emphasis on the Tuna Industry. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Appendix 5: The Energy Costs and Fishing Study 471
own. From here, fuel is supplied to the shing industry either via public fuel wharfs, company shing wharfs, or normal retail outlets. In general, the market for fuel in the region is small, fragmented, and diused and countries suer from negative economies of scale, made worse by the very small number of suppliers. High seas and EEZ purse seine eets are normally able to bunker at sea, thereby avoiding some commercial margins and any national taxes. High seas bunker is normally only possible for heavier fuel grades, which are not suitable for small-engined vessels, such as domestic longliners. Under exceptional conditions, domestic companies have been given concessions to bring in their own fuel for their own consumption, at a savings of around 6%. All domestic bunker fuel is supplied as automotive diesel oil (ADO), the regional market being too small for suppliers to consider oering other heavier (and cheaper) grades of fuel. The largest component of domestic fuel price, the international bulk price, rose dramatically over the past 10 years from under $20 per barrel for diesel in 1998 to a peak of $170 per barrel mid-2008 (Figure A5.1).
Figure A5.1: International Bulk Fuel Price
180 160 140 120 US$/barrel 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan97 Jan98 Jan99 Jan00 Jan01 Jan02 Jan03 Jan04 Jan05 ADO Jan06 Jan07 Jan08
Unleaded Gasoline 95
ADO = automotive diesel oil, Jan = January.
Source: Wilson, J., and M. McCoy. 2009. Study of the Impact of Energy Price Fluctuations on Fisheries in thePacific, with Emphasis on the Tuna Industry. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
472
Figure A5.2: Cost of Fuel in Countries of the Region

2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 US$/liter 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Singapore Bulk Price Sept-08
Sa So m lo oa m on Isl an ds To ng a
nd s Po ly ne sia
Ki rib at sh i al l Is la nd s Pa la u
nd s
PN
va lu Tu
sla
sla
Co ok I
en ch
Fi
ji I
Fr
M ar
CIF+Margins
Net Tax
FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PNG = Papua New Guinea, Sept = September. Source: Wilson, J., and M. McCoy. 2009. Study of the Impact of Energy Price Fluctuations on Fisheries in the Pacific, with Emphasis on the Tuna Industry. Washington, DC: World Bank.
At the time of the study, the Singapore spot price for ADO was $0.76liter, while the average price paid by the shing industry (among the countries for which data were collected) was $1.33/liter, of which $0.11/liter was tax. Signicant variations in fuel prices existed between countries, the lowest being in French Polynesia ($0.56) and the highest in Vanuatu ($1.87). Taxation rate varied from -34% (subsidy) in French Polynesia to 39% in Samoa. Fuel prices and taxation are summarized in Figure A5.2. Note that data were not obtained from all PICTs and the values were those paid by domestic eets. Governments have sought to reduce the impacts of fuel price uctuations by various measures, some of which have beneted all consumers, while others have been specically targeted at the sheries sector. Tax reductions on fuel have been the most immediate and responsive tool used to lessen the impact of price rises and in many PICTs have been specically targeted at the sheries industry. The potential for tax reduction is obviously limited to the degree of taxation in each country, and tax cuts will be at the expense of scal receipts. In some countries (Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea [PNG]) tax reductions were planned but enactment was slow or delayed, thereby reducing the impact of the measure. More favorable supply arrangements have been attempted through (i) the introduction of competitive bidding (Samoa) for bulk supply
Va
nu a
FS
tu
contracts; (ii) hedging and forward contracts for fuel purchase (Samoa); (iii) control of fuel storage infrastructure (Samoa, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia), being key to opening up the possibility of alternative suppliers entering the market; (iv) support for the development of a regional bulk purchase arrangementthe arrangement aims to achieve strategic cost reductions by aggregating demand, and although it has the potential of providing some widespread and common benets (especially to smaller markets), many of the implementation details remain to be developed; and (v) permitting, under exceptional circumstances, individual direct imports of fuel by companies for their own consumption. This is only feasible for larger companies, such as group purse seine operators, with high fuel demand and sucient nancial and technical resources to be able to bring in fuel. The development of biofuels in the region as a potential alternative energy source has focused on coconut diesel. Although it can be used with few engine modications (especially if mixed with ADO), the price of biodiesel has also risen along with that of fossil fuels. The potential for production of biofuels is limited in PICTs by access to suitable land, with the exception of PNG. In the future other potential sources of biofuels may include macroalgae.
Exposure to Fuel Price Fluctuations

Exposure to fuel price uctuations, being the degree to which nancial results are aected by fuel price changes, of a selection of eets in the Western and Central Pacic Ocean (WCPO) was analyzed in terms of the specic fuel consumption (tons of fuel consumed per ton of catch) and a valued version of the same indicator, the cost of fuel consumed per dollar of catch value. The specic fuel consumption is a factor of shing method, proximity to grounds, operational arrangements, onboard catch preservation, speed, maintenance, vessel design, engine size, and resource productivity. Some of these factors can be considered variables and are under the immediate control of vessel operators (such as speed), while others are parameters that are essentially xed, such as hull form or shing method. Figure A5.3 shows the specic fuel consumption for a selection of eets. Of the cases examined, the consumption of fuel per ton of catch in small-scale sheries was less that of longliners but about twice as much as seiners. Longliners with on-board freezing do not show signicantly higher fuel consumption than those using ice to cool the sh, indicating that both technical (design, machinery) and operational factors play important roles in determining fuel consumption.
474
Figure A5.3: Fuel Consumption by Fleet

1.8 1.6 tons consumed / tons catched 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Longliners Small-scale fisheries Seiners
DWHL = deepwater handline, FAD = fish attracting device, FIJ = Fiji Islands, FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, FZN = frozen, LL = longline, PNG = Papua New Guinea, PS = purse seiner, RMI = Republic of the Marshall Islands, US = United States. Source: Wilson, J., and M. McCoy. 2009. Study of the Impact of Energy Price Fluctuations on Fisheries in the Pacific, with Emphasis on the Tuna Industry. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Figure A5.4: Cost of Fuel Relative to Catch Value

0.7 fuel consumed / catch value ($) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
FA D FA FIJ an D Ne t* PN ar Sp G by ea ** r Sp FIJ ea Va r F rio IJ u Tr s R M ol lK I Al ia irib LL ati Sa m oa LL F LL IJ Sa m LL oa Ic ed LL PN Fz G n LL PN G Ic ed LL RM Ic I ed US PS FS M PS FS M PS Ja pa n PS RM PS I RM I PS US Di st HL To ng a
DW
DWHL = deepwater handline, FAD = fish attracting device, FIJ = Fiji Islands, FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, FZN = frozen, LL = longline, PNG = Papua New Guinea, PS = purse seiner, RMI = Republic of the Marshall Islands, US = United States. Source: Wilson, J., and M. McCoy. 2009. Study of the Impact of Energy Price Fluctuations on Fisheries in the Pacific, with Emphasis on the Tuna Industry. Washington, DC: World Bank.
n FA ga D Di st FA FIJ a Ne nt* D P ar Sp NG by e ** ar Sp FIJ e Va ar rio FIJ Tr us o R Al ll K MI ia iri LL ba Sa ti m oa LL LL FI J LL Sam Ic o ed a LL PN Fz G LL n P Ic NG ed LL RM Ic ed I U PS S FS PS M PS FSM Ja pa PS n RM PS I RM PS I US

* Urban-based vessels fishing distant grounds. ** Village-based vessels fishing local grounds, including fuel required for marketing.
Small-Scale Fisheries Longliners Industrial Fisheries Seiners
DW
HL
To
* Urban-based vessels fishing distant grounds. ** Village-based vessels fishing local grounds, including fuel required for marketing.
Figure A5.5: Trends in Fish-to-Fuel Ratio

kg of fish of equal value to 1 barrel of diesel 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08
Jan = January, kg = kilogram. Source: Wilson, J., and M. McCoy. 2009. Study of the Impact of Energy Price Fluctuations on Fisheries in the Pacific, with Emphasis on the Tuna Industry. Washington, DC: World Bank..
The nancial exposure linked with specic fuel consumption is illustrated in Figure A5.4, showing the costs of fuel per dollar of catch value. The nancial exposure of longliners is still greater than that of purse seiners but the dierence is very much smaller than the dierence in specic fuel consumption. Artisanal shers are the most nancially exposed of all the eets analyzed, but with notable variation depending upon operating patterns. Historical trends in the nancial exposure of the main eets to fuel price uctuations were examined through the analysis of the terms of trade between sh and fuel. The sh-to-fuel ratio is a measure of the weight of sh catch that is of the equivalent value to the cost of xed quantity of fuel. In the longline shery for sashimi grade tuna, this ratio has grown steadily from 1999 to 2008, increasing by a factor of 4.5. In the purse seine shery for cannery grade tuna, the pattern over the same period is not so simple (as Figure A5.4 shows) and there are peaks in 2000 and 2006 that indicate that during these years, the nancial impact of high fuel prices was worse than during the recent peak in mid-2008. In small-scale sheries, the same indicator was analyzed for sh landed onto the domestic market in Fiji Islands and showed that the exposure to fuel price had remained relatively constant. Estimates were made of country exposure to fuel price uctuations on the basis of updated prot and VARs, declared catches, and the indicators above. Results of exposure to a 5% change in fuel price are presented in Table A5.1. PNG has, by far, the largest national production and would suer the
476
Table A5.1: Indicative Country Exposure to Fuel Price Fluctuation (5% change)
Change in Profits $ million 0.12 0.41 0.31 0.07 0.35 Change in Profits per ton $/t 42 30 11 9 9 Change in Profits (%) 12 8 3 2 2 Change in Value Added (%) 3 2 0 2 1
Catcha Country Cook Islands Fiji Islands Federated States of Micronesia Kiribati Marshall Islands Nauru Niue Papua New Guinea Palau Samoa Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu
a
000 t 2.9 13.4 27.8 7.1 41.1 0.1 211.7 2.5 24.1 0.8 87.7
$ million 9.7 45.1 28.8 7.3 39.2 0.1 228.7 8.2 32.2 3.4 122.8
0.00 2.34
33 11
9 1
1 0
0.08 0.22
31 9
9 1
2 0
0.04 1.28
56 15
15 4
0 0
= not available, t = ton. National purse seine + longline fleets. Sources: Catch and values from Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA); Profit and value-added coefficients from FFA reports.
largest changes in prots and value added. In terms of percentage changes to prot, however, Tonga is estimated as being the most exposed. The exposure of aquaculture to energy cost uctuations is very dependent on product and production method. Pearl aquaculture is estimated to consume only about $3 per $100 of product value, considerably less than any capture shery. Intensive penaeid shrimp aquaculture is estimated to consume 1.7tons of fuel per ton of product when powered from the mains networka level similar to that of some longliners. If fuel used in feed production were to be taken into account, consumption would be considerably higher still.
Operational Changes as a Result of Increased Fuel Costs

Changes in operations as a result of increasing fuel costs in the EEZ and/ or high seas purse seine subsector have been virtually zero, primarily due to increased dtechnical ecacy and favorable prices for skipjack and yellown tuna in world canning markets osetting the pressure from increased fuel costs. In the same eet, no signicant increases were noted in the number of sh attracting device (FAD)-based setsa phenomenon that conventional wisdom suggests should accompany fuel price increases. In group purse seine operations (Japanese style) within national EEZs, operational changes were instigated as a result of fuel price increases; these have included shutting down the main engine between sets, reduction of speed, closer monitoring of vessel movement and speed via satellite-based vessel monitoring systems, and reduced reliance on inecient service vessels that have been converted from old pole-andline vessels. Domestic-based longliners have had to face increases in fuel prices together with drops in catch per eort and static product values; the pressure for operational change has been consequently higher than in the purse seine subsector. Changes have included longer trip lengths, a shift toward frozen sh (linked with longer trip lengths), closer vessel monitoring by satellite, consolidation of catches of fresh tuna at sea, concentration on shing grounds closer to port, reduction of exploratory trips, speed limitation in transit, shutting down main engine and drifting when conditions permit. In small-scale sheries, operational changes have included minimization of distance traveled by sea, achieved by moving the operational base nearer to shing grounds or abandoning distant shing grounds; changes in shing method from fuel intensive techniques, such as trolling; and changes in marketing strategy to attempt to maximize value through increased direct sales to consumers.
Market Changes
The principal market for WCPO cannery grade tuna, Bangkok, has shown price increases during 20002008, quite similar to those of fuel. Consumer demand has risen, especially in Europe, boosted by the strong euro. In addition, new markets have expanded in South America and the Middle East. Global supply of cannery grade tuna has been down, especially for catch from the Indian Ocean. Newer longliners that supply albacore for canning have
478
the ability to switch to sashimi tuna, further limiting supplies to canneries. Although sh prices have developed favorably, this is not considered to be a direct consequence of fuel price increases, but rather favorable market conditions in Europe, helped by preferential trade conditions. In the markets for sashimi-grade fresh tuna from longliners, there has been little if any positive price development during 20052008 in US dollar terms. This is attributed to the economic downturn in Japan, falls in the value of the yen against the US dollar, and the availability of substitute products, such as ultra-low-temperature (ULT) frozen tuna and ranched bluen tuna. On the national market in Fiji Islands, supplied by small-scale sheries, sh prices increased during 20052008, in a very similar manner to those for fuel. Although sh price increases lagged those for fuel, both showed similar tendencies and it is reasonable to conclude that production costs, specically fuel, have had some inuence on consumer prices.
Reduction of Exposure to Fuel Price Fluctuations

Vessel-related technical issues that can reduce exposure to energy costs can be grouped under those related to the engine and propulsion and those related to hull form. Large-scale sheries: a. The use of slow or medium-speed diesel engines can bring fuel consumption savings over high-speed engines. The slower revving engines are, however, heavier and larger and only suitable for use in large vessels such as high-seas seiners. In the small-scale shery, savings could be made through the use of 4-stroke outboard motors instead of 2-stroke. The capital cost, however, is greater for the 4stroke models. b. Slow and medium-speed diesels can burn heavier and cheaper grades of fuel, marine gas oil and marine diesel oil, which unfortunately are generally not available in the Pacic region for domestic bunker. c. Engine capacity should be in keeping with the hull size and application. Excess capacity is common on vessels brought in from other sheries, such as old pole-and-line vessels currently in use as service vessels in group seine operations or longliners. These vessels usually run at excessive service speeds, under full load of their engines
and propellers; fuel consumption could be substantially reduced if running at more moderate speeds. d. Hull design parameters as well as the details of external appendages (rudder, cooling tubes) can contribute to fuel savings. These characteristics are either xed at design phase or can only be changed during a ret. e. Heat recovery, although still an emerging technology, may oer worthwhile fuel savings in the future through the extraction of energy from the exhaust system and using this for refrigeration via absorption, electricity generation via turbine, and mechanical/ electrical power via a combined cycle power plant. Small-scale sheries: f. Correct specication and installation of the propeller and gearbox is essential for an ecient installation. The matching of these components with each other and the engine is particularly relevant after ret or after transferring the vessel to a dierent application. g. Alternative fuels may oer savings in the future, but at the moment are not available in sucient quantities, nor have commercial vessel trials been carried out. h. The use of sails together with motors in small-scale sheries can oer considerable fuel savings. However, the equipment is an added expense, takes up space in the boat, and requires adequate structure and hull form and trained and experienced crew. Experience with the re-introduction of sail is not encouraging, as many shers refuse to use sails when they can use engine power. Operational issues that can minimize exposure to fuel price uctuations include the following. i. Awareness and knowledge is fundamental to fuel saving. The easiest step to take, slowing down, requires self-imposed restraint. Small reductions in speed can yield signicant fuel savings. The penalty is more time at sea, possibly less time shing and/or less time in port between trips. j. Consolidation of catch, whereby the majority of the eet remains shing while one or two vessels bring the catch of the whole eet to port. k. The use of FADs eliminates hunting for pelagic sh and increases the likelihood of successful seine sets.
480
l.
Individual fuel supply arrangements, if permitted, can lead to useful savings. m. Hull and machinery maintenance help to reduce fuel consumption, and should include regular antifouling of underwater surfaces, cleaning the propeller, etc. Policy options and tools that are relevant for governments to reduce the impact of fuel price uctuations include the following. n. Competitive and ecient sourcing of fuel, either through competitive processes or via a regional bulk supply arrangement. The control of relevant infrastructure is very relevant to competitive supply arrangements. o. Direct impact on operating costs via the adjustment of taxation and excise on fuel. With care, these can be targeted to particular sectors of the economy (if desirable). This has been widely used in PICTs during the recent peak. However, there are potentially negative impacts, including reduction of scal receipts, lowering of incentives to use fuel ecient technologies and practices, and suppression of changes in comparative advantage (or lack thereof ) and competitiveness of Pacic sheries. p. The establishment of scal and other incentives to encourage operators to adopt fuel-saving measures or more fuel-ecient shing technologies, diversify fuel usage, and to raise awareness through education and training.
Recommendations
The Forum Secretariat should reestablish its regional fuel price collection and reporting system.
There is a lack of basic data necessary to monitor the development and impact of fuel prices and availability in the Pacic region. The most basic of these is a mechanism for monitoring long-term fuel price changes on national markets. Previously, this function was performed by the Forum Secretariat through the Pacic Fuel Prices Monitor, but the data have not been updated for several years. Data collection should be integrated, as far as possible, into national government data collection systems and the process of reporting automated, or at least standardized. It is desirable for the system to periodically report in
a transparent manner on prices and the tax component, and tax concessions available to particular sectors of the economy.
The fish-to-fuel exchange indicator should be compiled and analyzed on a regular basis.
This tool, illustrating the terms of trade, is useful for tracking the basic nancial status of the shing industry, especially with respect to the impact of changes in relative fuel and sh prices. Compilation and analysis could be made at several levels. At a eet level, Singapore spot ADO prices could be compared with current market prices from Bangkok (cannery grade) and Japan (sashimi) as has been done in this report. At a national level, achieved export prices could be compared against actual fuel prices charged to the industry, net of any tax or duty concessions. The measure could be used as a tool to indicate when and where interventions, such as the temporary suspension of excise, might be justied. The data required for this exercise are already being collected by some national governments and regional bodies, such as FFA.
Collection of market data for small-scale fisheries should be expanded.

The collection of market data for small-scale sheries is equally important and only being performed in few PICTs. This information, together with premix or gasoline prices should be collected and used to monitor the sh-to-fuel exchange for important small-scale sheries. The system needs to be focused on a few relevant markets in order to minimize operating expenses, and could be supported directly by national budgets or via regional organizations.
In the absence of a regional fuel supply arrangement, national governments should continue to promote competitive supply.
Competitive fuel supply is one of the basic mechanisms whereby the impact of changes in energy costs can be lessened. It can be promoted through competitive tendering for supply contracts, regaining or retaining control over key infrastructure, such as fuel wharves and storage facilities, and the establishment of a suitable facilitating regulatory framework.
482
Change in the basis for fuel taxation should be considered.

National governments should examine the economic and political acceptability of changing the taxation structure on fuel from one based on percentage of value to a xed rate per unit of quantity. This would reduce the impact of international price uctuations on fuel prices (to the benet of both national industrial sheries as well as national consumers of products from smallscale sheries). It would safeguard government receipts but be vulnerable to exchange rate uctuations between national currencies and the US dollar.
Continue the monitoring of the development of alternative fuels, especially coconut biofuel.
The Forum Secretariat should resume the monitoring of the development of biofuels and their markets and serve as a clearing house for published data and research that might allow PICTs to replicate successes from research and development in other parts of the world. Such support can be provided on a national or regional basis, as developments in alternative fuels may benet smaller countries through assurance of regional supply in the absence or reduction of imported petroleum-based products. A program to trial such fuel in a commercial shing vessel should be considered.
Governments should take a more active role in promoting fuel-saving technologies.

Where value-added tax (VAT) and duty are still applied on outboard engines, exemptions should be considered for fuel-ecient (4-stroke) engines when purchased for use in small-scale sheries. The same should be applied to other equipment specically targeting improvements in energy eciency, such as heat recovery. Where either government or the private sector has experimented with innovative fuel-saving mechanisms (such as apped rudders) results and experience should be compiled and presented in an appropriate public forum.
Governments should consider re-equipment loans to the industry, under preferential terms, to support the installation of modern and more efficient engines.
It is understood that there are rarely discrete funds available for such purposes; however, such institutions as national development banks might be more amenable to such loans if part of an overall government program to reequip and improve the nancial viability of the domestic industry. Other avenues, such as allocation of sheries foreign aid grants, should also be explored for this purpose.
The provision and maintenance of FADs for use by small-scale fisheries should be a priority for national governments in support of domestic fisheries.
The need for FADs to support small-scale sheries is vital to the maintenance of some specic small-scale sheries in the region, including those in PNG and Fiji Islands. The need is underscored by the high degree of exposure of such sheries to fuel price increases and fuel usage.
A focused regional program should be developed to heighten awareness of fuel price impacts and mitigating measures.
The program should be aimed at both government and the private sector to raise awareness of the degree and nature of impacts of fuel price uctuations in sheries and the measures that can be taken to minimize them. Such a program might entail organizing meetings and seminars and producing suitable training and informative material.
About Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacific Island Countries and Territories The fishing industry benefits the people and economies of the Pacific in various ways but the full value of these benefits is not reflected in the regions statistics. Records may be maintained but they are not complete, or accurate, or comparable. The research summarized in this report reaffirms the importance of this sector to the economies and societies of the Pacific island countries. The research reveals that the full value of fisheries is likely to have eluded statisticians, and therefore fisheries authorities, government decision makers, and donors. But its value has never escaped the fisher, fish trader, and fish processor. The difference in appreciation between public and private individuals must raise the question of whether fisheries are receiving adequate attention from the public sectorincluding the necessary management and protection, appropriate research, development, extension and training, and sufficient investment. About the Asian Development Bank ADBs vision is an Asia and Pacific region free of poverty. Its mission is to help its developing member countries substantially reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of their people. Despite the regions many successes, it remains home to two-thirds of the worlds poor: 1.8 billion people who live on less than $2 a day, with 903 million struggling on less than $1.25 a day. ADB is committed to reducing poverty through inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional integration. Based in Manila, ADB is owned by 67 members, including 48 from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue, loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance.
Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines www. adb. org ISBN 978-971-561-708-6 Publication Stock No. RPS090148
Printed in the Philippines

Fisheries in The Economies of The Pacific Island Countries and Territories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fisheries in The Economies of The Pacific Island Countries and Territories

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fisheries in The Economies of The Pacific Island Countries and Territories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pacific Studies Series

Fisheries in the Economies

THE WORLD BANK

Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacific Island Countries and Territories

iv Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

vi Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADB ADO AusAID BMR CBSI

FAO FFA FOB FSM GDP HIES IMF

UNDP US VAR WCPFC WCPO WPacFIN

About the Author

Regional Fisheries and Aquaculture Production

xx Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

Table 1: Total Regional Fishery and Aquaculture Production, 2007 (t)

Source: Authors estimates.

Executive Summary xxi

Regional Fisheries and Aquaculture Value

165,691,002 200,366,961 596,836,589 1,086,581,587 23,115,025 146,872,423

23,115,025 146,872,423 2,049,463,587

Executive Summary xxiii

Figure 1: Official and Reestimated Fishing Contribution to GDP, 2007

Contribution to Gross Domestic Product

Fishery Product Exports

Executive Summary xxv

Foreign Fishing Access Fees

Executive Summary xxvii

Executive Summary xxix

Table 5: Ranges of Estimated Annual Per Capita Fishery Product Consumption

Effects of Climate Change

Executive Summary xxxi

Impact of Fuel Costs

Fishery Benefits and Economic Rent

Main Conclusions and Recommendations

Executive Summary xxxiii

Study Considerations and Denitions

 Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

Study Considerations and Denitions 

Source: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.

 Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

Table 1.1: The 22 Pacific Island Countries and Territories

Independent Pacific Island Countries

12,189 197 3,521 549 19,103 475 5 12 124

Sources: Gillett and Preston (1997), SPC (2008a).

Study Considerations and Denitions 

 Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

National Accounts, GDP, and Fishing

Study Considerations and Denitions 

Structure of the Report

 Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

Fishery Benets in the Independent Pacic Island Countries

Source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community.

12 Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

Total Urban Total

Rural 9,319 636 0 10,287 1,947 144 0 1,399 1,604 0 0 0 458

57,998 110,603 1,105 5,062 2,286 5,062

25,792 113,594 139,386 174,913

64,387 239,300 200,705 177,981 378,686

Coastal Subsistence Catches

14 Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

Study Considerations and Denitions

Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

Study Considerations and Denitions

Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories

Study Considerations and Denitions

Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacic Island Countries and Territories