Marine Policy 38 (2013) 174–183

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59

http://d

n Corr

E-m

dediadh

e.allison

pip.coh

Michae

pedro.fi

Natasha

n.weera

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

Food security and the Coral Triangle Initiative

Simon Foale a,n, Dedi Adhuri b, Porfiro Alino c, Edward H. Allison d, Neil Andrew e, Philippa Cohen a,Louisa Evans a, Michael Fabinyi a, Pedro Fidelman f, Christopher Gregory g, Natasha Stacey h,John Tanzer i, Nireka Weeratunge e

a ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australiab Worldfish Centre, Penang, Malaysia, and Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jakarta, Indonesiac Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippinesd Worldfish Centre, Penang, Malaysia, and School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UKe Worldfish Centre, Penang, Malaysiaf Sustainability Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australiag Christopher Gregory, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australiah Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australiai Global Marine Programme, WWF International, Zurich, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 16 April 2012

Received in revised form

25 May 2012

Accepted 25 May 2012Available online 29 June 2012

Keywords:

Poverty

Coral reef

Marine protected area

Fishery management

Economic development

Ecosystem approach to fisheries

management

7X/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.033

esponding author. Tel.: þ61 7 4781 6785; fax

ail addresses: simon.foale@jcu.edu.au (S. Foal

uri@hotmail.com (D. Adhuri), pmalino@upm

@cgiar.org (E.H. Allison), n.andrew@cgiar.org

en@my.jcu.edu.au (P. Cohen), Louisa.evans@jc

l.fabinyi@jcu.edu.au (M. Fabinyi),

delman@gmail.com (P. Fidelman), chris.grego

.stacey@cdu.edu.au (N. Stacey), jmtanzer@bi

tunge@cgiar.org (N. Weeratunge).

a b s t r a c t

The Asia-Pacific’s Coral Triangle is defined by its extremely high marine biodiversity. Over one hundred

million people living in its coastal zones use this biodiversity to support their livelihoods. Hundreds of

millions more derive nutritious food directly from the region0s marine resources and through local,

regional and global trade. Biodiversity and its values to society are threatened by demographic and

habitat change, rising demand, intensive harvesting and climate change. In partnership with interna-

tional conservation organisations and development funders, the governments of the region0s six

countries have come together to develop the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) on Coral Reefs, Fisheries

and Food Security. The CTI has explicit goals and defined targets for marine biodiversity conservation,

but not for the food security of the region0s marine-resource dependent people, despite this being the

wider aim used to justify conservation action. This article suggests how the food security aim of the CTI

could be made more explicit. It outlines the complex pathways linking marine biodiversity with food

security and argues that improved social science analysis, inter-sectoral policy and management

interactions are necessary if conserving marine biodiversity is to contribute towards meeting food

security challenges in the region.

& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Biodiversity loss and food insecurity are two of the greatestchallenges of the 21st century [1,2]. Sustainably managed coastaland marine environments are critical to addressing both [3], butthe links between biodiversity conservation and improved foodsecurity are contingent on various assumptions, many of whichmay not be met in practice. Marine conservationists have recently

All rights reserved.

: þ61 4781 6722.

e),

si.ph (P. Alino),

(N. Andrew),

u.edu.au (L. Evans),

ry@anu.edu.au (C. Gregory),

gpond.com (J. Tanzer),

begun to reorientate their analyses towards an emphasis on foodsecurity, but are doing so without adequate attention to whatfood security is, or how fish contribute to it. Conservation anddevelopment objectives can involve trade-offs and conflicts [4–6],yet integrated conservation and development policy continues tosuggest that potentially disparate objectives can be reconciled.With reference to a major marine conservation and developmentintervention – the ‘Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fish-eries and Food Security’ (CTI) – this article identifies the need tocritically evaluate proposed food security-biodiversity conserva-tion linkages before engaging in conservation that promises todeliver both outcomes.

Following some background information on the CTI, the role offisheries in food security in the Coral Triangle will be reviewed,emphasising key challenges and drivers of change: trade, urbani-sation, population growth, geographical differences and how todeal with marginalised groups. Drawing on this analysis of foodsecurity in the Coral Triangle, a constructive critique of the two

S. Foale et al. / Marine Policy 38 (2013) 174–183 175

key fisheries-related platforms of the CTI is then offered: MarineProtected Area (MPA) networks and the Ecosystem Approach toFisheries Management (EAFM). In reviewing the potential of keyCTI goals to deliver joint objectives of biodiversity conservationand food security, the important shortcomings of the assumptionsunderlying CTI regional policy and implementation to-date arehighlighted. While the article does not prescribe solutions to thepolitical challenge of achieving multiple governance objectives, itconcludes with some thoughts on how the CT6 and partners maybetter engage with these important social and developmentissues.

2. The Coral Triangle Initiative

The global epicentre of marine biodiversity is located withinthe Asia-Pacific’s Coral Triangle region, which contains 76% and37% of the world0s coral and reef fish species, respectively [7]. Theregion has a combined population of over 370 million people witharound 120 million who benefit from marine ecosystem goodsand services for fishery production, shoreline protection, andtourism [8]. Population growth and increasing global demandfor the region0s resources have resulted in widespread and oftensevere problems including coastal deforestation, unsustainableshoreline development, pollution, over-exploitation and destruc-tive fishing practices [9]. High levels of threat combined with higheconomic dependence on coral reefs and associated ecosystemsmean that significant numbers of people in the Coral Triangleregion are ecologically, socially, and economically vulnerable tomarine environmental degradation [10].

In an attempt to address the degradation of marine and coastalenvironments in the region, President Yudhoyono of Indonesiaproposed the establishment of the CTI. The CTI is an inter-governmental agreement between six member states (CT6):Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, SolomonIslands and Timor Leste, which covers an area of 5.7 million km2,biogeographically delineated by high coral diversity (Fig. 1) [8].External financial support of the CTI is provided by the Govern-ment of the USA in partnership with The Nature Conservancy,Conservation International, and The World Wide Fund for Nature(USD 42 million), the Global Environment Facility in collaborationwith the Asian Development Bank (USD 90 million), and theAustralian Government (AUD 2.5 million). High-level politicalcommitment to the CTI occurred when the leaders of the sixcountries met in Manado, Indonesia in May 2009 and signed offon the Regional Plan of Action (RPOA). Following this, the CT6drew up National Plans of Action to mirror regional objectives.Implementation of actions is expected to occur in the decade upto 2020.

The CTI provides a bold and transformative vision for regionalcoastal and marine governance articulated in five regional goals,

Fig. 1. Biodiversity of reef building corals, showing the location of the Coral Triangle

interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to

namely: (i) Priority seascapes designated and effectively mana-ged; (ii) EAFM and other marine resources fully applied; (iii)MPAs established and effectively managed; (iv) Climate changeadaptation measures achieved, and; (v) Threatened species statusimproved [8]. The CTI regional vision suggests that biodiversityconservation, fisheries sustainability, and food security outcomesare expected to result from a long-term investment in these goals.The CTI plan of action has clear targets and indicators for theabove goals, but no clear statement on its wider food security orpoverty reduction aims, despite using these aims as its rationalefor marine conservation action. There is thus, as yet, no cleararticulation of how meeting the CTI goals will result in improvedfood security in the CTI countries and how this improvement willbe measured and attributed to the programme0s interventions.The CTI is part way through a ten-year programme of investmentto 2020. This is a pertinent time for the CT6 and partners tore-think how the Initiative0s overarching conservation and devel-opment objectives, in particular food security, can realistically beachieved.

3. Food security and fisheries across the Coral Triangle

Populations are said to be food secure when all people, at alltimes, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe andnutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferencesfor an active and healthy lifestyle [11]. Food security has threecomponents: availability of consistent and sufficient quantities offood; access to appropriate and sufficient foods; and consumptionor appropriate use of basic nutrition and food preparation [12].Fisheries are recognised as an important contributor to foodsecurity, particularly in coastal developing countries [13]. Marineproducts contribute to food security indirectly by the income,profits, taxes, licence fees and trade revenues they generate,enabling fishers and traders to purchase food, and supportinglocal and national economic growth, which in turn provideeconomic opportunity, that leads to wider food security [14]. Fishalso contribute to food security directly as a source of importantanimal protein, essential fatty acids, and micro-nutrients (e.g.,vitamin A, Iron) to consumers who may have limited alternativemeans of ensuring nutritional quality as a component of theirfood security [15]. Seafood is also a preferred and culturallyimportant food choice in many places [16,17].

Throughout most of the Coral Triangle region, populations areheavily dependent on fisheries for direct consumption and forgenerating income to purchase other food supplies [18,19].Revenues from licenses and trade in tuna, farmed prawns andcoral reef fish also provide significant macro-economic contribu-tions to the region. However, these multiple direct and indirectcontributions to people0s food security are threatened as demandrises, wild fisheries decline, and coastal and marine ecosystems

. Colors indicate total species richness per ecoregion. (Adapted from [74]). (For

the web version of this article.)

S. Foale et al. / Marine Policy 38 (2013) 174–183176

degrade [19–21]. To address food security shortfalls while alsoconserving coastal environments and ensuring viable fisheries, thechanging patterns of production, access and utilisation of fish mustbe considered at a range of scales. Here, examples are providedfrom across the region to illustrate the different pathways linkingfood security and fisheries. We examine the trade-offs and syner-gies between them and propose ways to support the pathways thatare most important in a given national or local context.

Patterns of consumption of fish from the Coral Triangle areincreasingly shaped by rising numbers (and incomes) of consu-mers, associated with rapid urbanisation from both within andoutside the region [16,19,21]. The influence of global fish demandon food security in the Coral Triangle is intensifying with thecontinued economic integration of CT6 economies with othercountries over the past several decades. Major economies includ-ing Japan, South Korea and China import large volumes of fishfrom the Coral Triangle region (Fig. 2). The impacts of increasedregional and international trade on food security (subsistence andincome) in the region are largely unknown. However, Dey et al.[22] argue that increases in the price of fish that result fromincreased demand and trade would affect low-income fish con-sumers the most: Their fish consumption declines as fish becomesless affordable, with likely consequences for their nutritionalstatus. It has also been shown that this market integration isdriving demand for high value commodities, including shark fin,sea cucumbers and live reef food fish [23]. While providing highlevels of income in the short term allows fishers to purchase food,these commodities are all unsustainably exploited and hencetheir long-term viability is uncertain [23]. In general, achievingCTI regional objectives requires a better understanding of howexternal drivers, such as trade, impact biodiversity and foodsecurity, and interact with approaches to manage them.

Drivers influencing food security differ substantially across theCoral Triangle region, as do the contexts and opportunities forrelated policy responses. The economic, social and political geogra-phy of the region varies, most broadly between the Asian west andthe Melanesian east. Asian cultures are in general pre-adapted tocapitalist modes of production and thus are able to capture more

Fig. 2. Map of Coral Triangle region showing outline of the Coral Triangle boundary

Dr Geoffrey Muldoon, WWF Coral Triangle.

benefits from engaging with global markets and financial systems[24,25]. At the same time Asia has experienced massive industria-lisation in the past 50 years and a dramatic shift away fromagriculture and an increase in urbanisation [26]. In contrast,Melanesian cultures have been powerfully shaped by the impera-tive to redistribute economic surpluses (typically perishable rootcrops: Fig. 3) to convert them to social indebtedness [24,25]; in amodern context this frequently has negative consequences forsmall business enterprises [27]. Melanesian populations remainlargely rural and heavily reliant on subsistence economies. Suchdemographic, cultural and economic heterogeneities have profoundimplications for CTI policy outcomes at the regional scale, particu-larly for alternative livelihood development, and consequently,resource management and food security.

Urbanisation is increasing in all CT6 countries, though it ismore advanced in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, whichon average have over 60% of their populations living in urbanareas (Table 1, Fig. 5). Reflecting these trends, demand for fish isprojected to increase (Fig. 6). Dey et al. [17] project increases intotal urban consumption of 1.92% in Indonesia and 1.38% in thePhilippines, with a decline in urban consumption but a very high(12.55%) increase in rural fish consumption in Malaysia. Moregenerally, Delgado et al. [21] project a 0.5% increase in per capitaconsumption per year to 2020 in southeast Asia. In the relativelysparsely populated Melanesian east, fish consumption per capitais one of the highest in the world and although most of thepopulation is still rural, overall consumption is rising faster inurban hubs (Figs. 4–6). In both Papua New Guinea and SolomonIslands, coastal fisheries are projected to fail to supply the fishneeded for current levels of domestic demand by 2030 [19].

While urbanisation and rising cash incomes drive increased fishconsumption, they can also influence populations0 food security byaltering access conditions. For instance, trade links often shift thedistribution of products away from poorer consumers to those withhigher incomes [22,28]. Urban poor households, as net foodpurchasers, are particularly vulnerable to uncertainties in supplyexacerbated by food and fuel price rises, market volatility and civilunrest [29,30]. Regional population dynamics, economic trends, and

and trade routes for the live reef food fish (LRFF) industry. Figure courtesy of

Table 1Measures of urbanisation through time in the CT6 and in neighbouring Asian

countries.

Country Urban population as % of total

populationa

Urban coastal

population as % of

total coastal

populationb

1990 2000 2010 (estimate) 1990 2000

CTI Countries

Malaysia 49.8 62.0 72.2 73.27 70.74

Philippines 48.8 58.5 66.4 52.80 51.07

Indonesia 30.6 42.0 53.7 55.71 54.60

Timor Leste 20.8 24.3 28.1 5.22 5.31

Solomon Islands 13.7 15.7 18.6 38.02 42.41

Papua New Guinea 15 13.2 12.5 33.31 36.13

Asian Neighbours

Korea, Republic of 73.8 79.6 81.9 63.85 70.69

Japan 63.1 65.4 66.8 94.96 95.23

China 27.4 35.8 44.9 47.07 54.41

Thailand 29.4 31.3 34.0 73.26 75.69

Vietnam 20.3 24.3 28.8 28.37 29.88

a UN 2009. World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2008 Revision. Population

Database.b Based on CIESIN data for low elevation coastal zones up to 10 m (2009).

Fig. 3. Map of Coral Triangle region showing outline of the Coral Triangle boundary and the locations of the rice/tuber boundary in 1500 and 1950. The predominance of

tubers in Melanesian agricultural systems has shaped cultures in ways that do not predispose people to capitalist behaviour, which has significant implications for

alternative livelihood policy there.

S. Foale et al. / Marine Policy 38 (2013) 174–183 177

consumer preferences differ across the region and will haveimplications for the CTI food security strategies and outcomes.

A significant challenge for the CT6 and their partners will be tosafeguard the food security requirements of economically andpolitically marginalised groups, including women. Men and womenhave different roles in coastal livelihoods and receive differentialreturns from fisheries value chains [31]. Gender differences infishing activity, participation in markets, purchasing power andentitlements all have an impact on access to marine products forfood. Thus, women as buyers and sellers of marine products, basedon income and other assets they control, play significant roles as‘‘gate keepers’’, mediating access to food at household level and as

‘‘shock-absorbers’’, who sacrifice their own consumption needs inperiods of food scarcity [32]. Women0s decision-making is thusparamount in food utilisation, health and nutrition. The educationlevel and status of women is considered the single most importantfactor determining children0s nutritional status, accounting for 55%of the average global reduction of child malnutrition [33,34].

Similarly, rights and access to resources and markets vary amongethnic and political groups. Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islandsboth have relatively secure customary marine tenure, while Philip-pines and Indonesia have strengthened community rights to inshoremarine areas through contemporary institutions. However, the extentto which these property rights lead to improved management andfood security is also contingent on factors such as economic pres-sures, environmental knowledge and political unity, even at verylocal scales [35]. Further, conflict over tenure is prevalent in someareas [36,37], and there are some social groups who are excludedfrom these traditional and/or state sanctioned arrangements. Forexample, in Indonesia maritime populations such as the Bajo engagein migratory behaviour as part of artisanal commercial fisheries forlocal and international market trade [38,39]. The migratory fishingbehaviour of these mobile populations is often considered as a threatto biodiversity conservation [40,41], and management often aims to0settle0 such communities. Yet, mobility and adaptability underliesthe social and economic viability of these communities [39] while italso renders them vulnerable and marginalised (ILO Convention no169 (1989) in [42]: 42), due to landlessness and a lack of secure seatenure. Novel and flexible strategies are required to address foodinsecurity and fisheries management in these communities, particu-larly if spatial closures are a primary tool for fisheries management.

4. Linking CTI regional objectives to food security

Strategies for improving food security can range from embracingglobal market integration in order to generate export revenue andforeign currency at the national level, to protecting local access andpromoting national self-sufficiency. The CTI Regional Plan of Action

Fig. 4. CT6 countries showing human population density.

Fig. 5. CT6 countries showing per cent of population living in urban centres.

S. Foale et al. / Marine Policy 38 (2013) 174–183178

refers to ‘‘large-scale levels of investments in targeted coastal regionsparticularly dependent on coastal fisheries’’ [8]: 9 (emphasis added),suggesting a preference for the latter approach. Here, we examinehow two of the core goals of the CTI: MPA networks, and theecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM), could impactmarine-based food security in communities of the Coral Triangle.

4.1. MPA networks

The growing pressures on coastal wild fisheries throughoutthe Coral Triangle mean that if fishing effort is not reduced insome way, total fishery production will inevitably decline, to the

detriment of all [18,43]. Regardless of the approach, offsetting theshort to medium term economic cost of this effort reduction forthe poorest coastal fishers in the region is a key challenge forthe CTI. MPAs can benefit food security by increasing overallfish production. The export of larvae and spillover of adult fishfrom permanent no-take closures can replenish fish stocks inadjacent unprotected areas [44,45], although this can take dec-ades [46]. Displacement of fishing effort due to closures can,however, elevate pressures on already stressed adjacent systems[47], which in some contexts may cause irreversible damage toecosystem function [48,49] and limit receptivity to settling larvaeexported from reserves [50]. These ecological realities bring two

Fig. 6. CT6 countries showing per capita fish consumption (in kg) per year.

S. Foale et al. / Marine Policy 38 (2013) 174–183 179

critical points into sharp focus: (1) a diversity of resource usecontrols are required to avoid or reduce the effects of concentrat-ing effort in open fishing grounds; and (2) equitable access toalternative livelihoods will be critical to minimise the economicimpacts of reduced catches due to MPA establishment. This isexpanded on later in the paper.

Pre-existing access constraints on particular groups of people,including migratory fishers, further complicate the food securitymandate of a network of permanent and/or temporal no-takeclosures. Even basing MPA networks around customary tenurearrangements can be problematic, including (1) where tenure iscontested; (2) where the likely fishery benefits from spillover mayaccrue more to neighbouring groups than to those bearing all ormost of the economic penalty of a closed area [51], or (3) wherecommunity capacity and responsiveness to externally drivenconservation initiatives are highly variable [52]. Designating afifth of the near-shore resources as no-take areas, based primarilyon biodiversity criteria (as is proposed in the CTI RPOA, 2009) is atarget that will need to be substantially modified to accommodatethe challenges posed by (1) oceanographic heterogeneities (spa-tial and temporal) in primary production and fishery production(e.g., [53,54]), (2) political and cultural diversity of the region, and(3) the widespread and complex development handicaps withinCT member states (discussed above and below).

4.2. Ecosystem approach to fisheries

An ecosystem approach to fisheries management embodies anarea-based integrated systems approach, which accounts forimpacts of fishing on non-target species, the wider ecosystem(including coastal catchments), and to some extent, social andeconomic systems [55]. The extent to which such fisheriesmanagement arrangements can be structured to increase theamount of fisheries benefits to society is presently subject todebate between alternative economic positions, which we refer toas 0wealth-based0 [56,57] and 0welfare-focused0 [58]. The relativemerits of these two positions are to some extent contingent ongeographic location, the fishery sector under consideration, andpolitical and economic context.

A wealth-based ecosystem approach would prioritise a struc-tured intervention to reduce fleet capacity (e.g., with controlledlicensing systems, and removing subsidies, where these exist),enhance processing and added-value contributions to the indus-try, promote trade networks and economies of scale, captureresource rent, and ostensibly re-distribute rent into public goodsand services [56]. The emphasis of a wealth-based approach onthe value chain would aim to enhance food security at thenational or regional scale, potentially at the expense of locallivelihoods and subsistence-based nutrition security. It would bedifficult to apply to a fishery based on large numbers of smalloperators in countries where regulatory capacity is limited, and inCoastal Melanesia the state-supported system of customarymarine tenure presents an additional institutional obstacle.Some industrial export fisheries in the region already fit thewealth-based model (e.g., tuna in Solomon Islands and PNG), butsignificant problems persist with both capture and distribution ofrent. Further, with all export fisheries, particularly those con-trolled at one or more stages by a small number of transnationalbusiness entities, there is a serious risk of loss of rent throughcapital flight, facilitated by transfer pricing and banking secrecy[59]. Hong Kong and Singapore, two of the most importanttrading entrepots in the Coral Triangle, are ranked the 4thand 6th most important financial secrecy jurisdictions (or ‘taxhavens’) in the world, respectively, on the Tax Justice Network0sFinancial Secrecy Index [60] (Switzerland and Cayman Islandsrank 1st and 2nd, respectively).

By contrast a welfare focused ecosystem approach wouldinstead promote inclusivity and flexibility to enable fisheriesstakeholders to move into and out of the fishery in response tovariability in environmental and socio-economic conditions [58].The welfare approach would aim to enhance food-security at localto provincial scales through fresh fish consumption and localincome-generation, and, due to higher levels of participation bysmall-scale fishers directly, is better placed to account for differ-ential food security among producers and consumers, differentethnic groups, households and genders. It would trade off theeconomic efficiency of the wealth-based approach for greaterflexibility and inclusivity, avoid the risk of capital flight and

Fig. 7. The ‘theory of change’ implicit in the CTI programme hypothesis that

addressing marine resource governance will lead to improved food security.

S. Foale et al. / Marine Policy 38 (2013) 174–183180

inequitable distribution of benefits, and address the access and (inpart) consumption pillars of food security.

The EAFM strategy must also consider the synergies and trade-offs between wild capture fisheries and aquaculture for foodsecurity. Aquaculture is the fastest growing food industry in theworld [61]. It has expanded exponentially in the East-Asian sub-region of the Coral Triangle [62], but remains limited in theMelanesian countries [63]. Aquaculture is increasingly recognisedas essential to meeting the future food security demands of theregion [62–64]. However, there are important concerns aroundenvironmental outcomes and impacts on biodiversity, as well asaround marginalisation of poorer fishers, traders and farmerswithin the industry and unequal distribution of benefits for foodsecurity [14,65]. Dey et al. [17] suggest that trends in globaldemand and trade incentivise production of high-value species,which make up much of the production growth in aquaculture, tothe detriment of supply and access in local markets.

5. Strengthening the food security orientation of the CTIprogramme—Some suggestions

As social scientists with interests in both marine conservationand human wellbeing in the region, we would suggest that theCTI goals – which are for conservation – could more effectivelycontribute to its wider stated regional food security aim if the CTIwere to consider the following:

(1)

A programme with food security as its major developmentoutcome needs a stronger articulation of how food security isto be achieved, and for whom, by the proposed conservationactions. We suggest that a more explicit impact-pathway analy-sis could guide such thinking, (e.g., building on Figs. 7 and 8).

(2)

There is need for a more balanced, flexible and politically-informed application of MPA protection along with wealth-based and welfare-oriented approaches to the EAFM, whichemphasises equitable distribution of benefits (and costs) atleast as much as improved production.

(3)

While the biodiversity conservation focus is primarily on reefs,to properly address the desired food security outcome of theCTI, there must be a wider consideration of both alternativesources of livelihood and alternative ways of supplying fish, orother food products with comparable nutritional and culturalbenefits, to people in the region who are food or nutrition-insecure. Although offshore and semi pelagic fisheries have notgarnered the same enthusiasm from a biodiversity conservationpoint of view, they can in many cases be vastly more productivethan coral reef fisheries [53,54,66]. Addressing food securityfrom fish cannot discount the importance of capturing andsustaining these benefits whether by optimising and managingindustrial fleets (wealth based model), or facilitating small scalefishers0 access and utilisation (e.g., by setting aside areas fortheir exclusive use and/or deploying near-shore fish aggregat-ing devices, and by supporting small-scale trade and localmarket development (welfare based model)). Similarly, aqua-culture must form a key component of such a ‘food-system’approach, along with the various trade-offs and impacts (envir-onmental, economic, social) it entails [67].

(4)

The CTI would benefit from approaches that account for theheterogeneity of cultural, economic and political contexts ofcoastal management. Reducing wild coastal fisheries exploitationmay bring conservation gains and rebuild heavily exploited fishstocks, but reducing exploitation has a short- to medium-termcost that is particularly hard to bear for the poorest strata ofsociety across the Coral Triangle. It will require a far moresocially- and politically-informed engagement with the challengeof developing alternative livelihoods than the present, ratheroptimistic reliance on tourism [8]. In addition to anchoring thepromotion of livelihoods in local cultural and economic realities(see [68]), addressing livelihood challenges should include afocus on some of the national- and global-scale drivers of povertysuch as unfair trading agreements that block or retard thedevelopment of industry and service sectors [69,70], capital flightfacilitated by offshore banking networks [59] and, in the Philip-pines, the continued need for land reform [71]. Addressing theseissues requires a stronger social science analysis in both therationale for the Initiative and the process of implementation.

6. Conclusion

Our analysis of the potential of key CTI goals to maintain andimprove food security in the region indicates that CTI policy andpractice, which focuses on improving fish availability throughbiodiversity conservation of coral reef systems, currently embodiesa relatively narrow understanding and approach to food security;and one in which the links between biodiversity conservation andimproved food security are often assumed rather than explicit. MPAnetworks are problematic in practice as a result of (1) limitedpotential to recover degraded fisheries, (2) displacement of effortand over-exploitation of adjacent areas, and (3) high short- tomedium-term livelihood costs for fishers. The EAFM can also beinadequate where it fails to account for issues of access andequitable distribution of benefits in wild capture fisheries andaquaculture. In contrast, a more comprehensive understanding ofthe multiple drivers (economic development, global trade, urbanisa-tion, population growth, social diversity) of food security outcomes,and the multiple dimensions of food security (availability, accessand nutrition) can identify pathways to improved food security, thatdo not necessarily contravene biodiversity conservation goals.

Achieving food security via conservation actions presentsfundamental challenges. Strategies that focus on improving avail-ability and sustaining productivity of marine resources for food

Social Roles & Equity

Intra-community and intra-household roles and power relations influence the distribution of responsibilities and benefits at local to

national scales

Nations and communities vary in their capacity to participate and to bear the short term costs of conservation and development interventions – influencing pressure

on resources, outcomes of management and implications for food security

Community Capacity & Responsiveness

Customary rights are strengthened or undermined by interventions, with implications for pressure on resources and management outcomes. Some groups

are excluded from customary, state or private property rights arrangements

Property Rights & Tenure

Demographic Change

Population growth and urbanisation within and outside nations affect demand and pressure on resources

Economic Development & Trade

Governing Marine Resources

MPA Networks Ecosystem approach to fisheries

Climate change adaptation

Availabilityof consistent and sufficient

quantities of food

Accessor the capacity to obtain

appropriate and sufficient foods

Consumptionor appropriate use of basic

nutrition and food preparation

Food Securityall people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food

to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy lifestyle

Ecology & Ecological ChangeIncome, consumption patterns and local-to-global trade put pressure on resources and

influence the flow of food security benefits. Heterogeneous responses to capitalist interventions, e.g. microcredit, call for culturally-informed livelihood diversification schemes

Ecology, changing climates, patterns of land & sea use influence vulnerability of resources and resultant management and food security outcomes – varying

significantly between and within nations

Fig. 8. A conceptual framework of the complex pathway linking coastal and marine resource governance to food security. To improve governance of marine resources, the

Coral Triangle and other initiatives invest in marine protected areas, ecosystem approach to fisheries management and climate change adaptation. The framework

illustrates that ecological, social, cultural and economic contexts will transform – by dampening or enhancing – outcomes of marine resource governance interventions for

the three pillars of food security. Food production and availability, access and consumption will concurrently influence ecosystem and marine resource governance.

S. Foale et al. / Marine Policy 38 (2013) 174–183 181

security are in many cases difficult to reconcile with biodiversityconservation aims and CTI policy should include some scope forcompromise on the latter [5,72]. Focusing on the access andconsumption components of food security, rather than just onproduction or total supply, may offer more scope for addressingfood security of communities in ways that are complementary toconservation activities taking place across the region.

Most critically, explicit acknowledgement of the trade-offsinherent in integrated conservation and development initiativesis needed in regional and national CTI policy to steer away fromfalse and failed expectations [5,73]. Better engagement by the CTImember states and partners with global policy and action on foodsecurity is required to build an integrated CTI on Coral Reefs,Fisheries and Food Security. At the very least this involves betterintegration with the development agendas of the CT6, but alsoincludes building a more inclusive CTI in terms of partner

agencies and national stakeholders with multiple perspectives,and learning from existing expertise and knowledge of contem-porary approaches to addressing food insecurity, poverty andmarginalisation.

Broadly, an inclusive CTI that is socially and politicallyinformed, accepts multiple pathways for action, and adopts newways of engaging communities and creating partnerships is bestplaced to reconcile the drive for environmental sustainabilityalongside development.

Acknowledgements

Funding for the working group which led to this paper wasprovided by the Australian Research Council to the ARC Centreof Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University,

S. Foale et al. / Marine Policy 38 (2013) 174–183182

Townsville, Australia. We thank Nurulhada Ahmad Fatan and StanleyTan of Worldfish Centre, Penang, for assistance with Figs. 2–6,Dr Geoffrey Muldoon from WWF Coral Triangle for the trade routesdata in Fig. 2 and Dr J.E.N. Veron and The Nature Conservancy,Brisbane Office, for Fig. 1, which is based on Fig. 3 in [74].

References

[1] Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, et al. Asafe operating space for humanity. Nature (London) 2009;461:472–475.

[2] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The MillenniumDevelopment Goals Report 2010. New York: United Nations Department ofEconomic and Social Affairs; 2010. p. 76.

[3] Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being:Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press; 2005.

[4] Brown K. Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutionalmisfit. Front Ecol Environ 2003;1:479–487.

[5] McShane TO, Hirsch PD, Trung TC, Songorwa AN, Kinzig A, Monteferri B, et al.Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation andhuman well-being. Biol Conserv 2011;144:966–972.

[6] Rice JC, Garcia SM. Fisheries, food security, climate change, and biodiversity:characteristics of the sector and perspectives on emerging issues. ICES J MarSci 2011:1–11 Advance Access.

[7] Green A, Petersen N, Cross A, MacLeod E. Coral Triangle facts, figures andcalculations. Part II: Patterns of biodiversity and endemism. Brisbane: TheNature Conservancy; 2008.

[8] Coral Triangle Initiative. Regional Plan of Action, Coral Triangle Initiative onCoral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF). Manado: Coral TriangleInitiatlive; 2009. p. 42.

[9] Hoegh-Guldberg O, Veron JEN, Green A, Gomez ED, Lough J, King M, et al. TheCoral Triangle and Climate Change: Ecosystems, People and Societies at Risk.Brisbane: WWF Australia; 2009 p. 276.

[10] Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M, Perry A. Reefs at risk revisited. Washington DC:World Resources Institute; 2011.

[11] FAO. Report of the World Food Summit 13–17 November 1996. Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1996.

[12] WFP. Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook—Second Edition.Rome: World Food Programme; 2009.

[13] Bene C, Macfadyen G, Allison EH. Increasing the contribution of small-scalefisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. FAO fisheries technicalpaper. no. 481. Rome: FAO; 2007 p. 125.

[14] Allison EH. Aquaculture, fisheries, poverty and food security. working paper2011-65. Commissioned for OECD. Penang: Worldfish Centre; 2011 p. 60.

[15] Kawarazuka N, Bene C. Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture tohousehold nutritional security: an overview. Food Secur 2010;2:343–357.

[16] York R, Gossard MH. Cross-national meat and fish consumption: exploringthe effects of modernization and ecological context. Ecol Econ 2004;48:293–302.

[17] Dey MM, Garcia YT, Kumar P, Piumsombun S, Haque MS, Li L, et al. Demandfor fish in Asia: a cross-country analysis. Aust J Agric Res Econ 2008;52:321–338.

[18] FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Rome: Food andAgricultural Organisation of the United Nations; 2010.

[19] Bell JD, Kronen M, Vunisea A, Nash WJ, Keeble G, Demmke A, et al. Planningthe use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Mar Policy 2009;33:64–76.

[20] Bell JD, Johnson JE, Hobday AJ. Vulnerability of tropical pacific fisheries andaquaculture to climate change. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Commu-nity; 2011 p. 925.

[21] Delgado CL, Wada N, Resurgent MW, Meijer S, Ahmed M. Fish to 2020:Supply and demand in changing global markets. Washington, DC: Interna-tional Food Policy Research Institute; 2003 Worldfish Centre, Penang.

[22] Dey MM, Briones RM, Garcia YT, Nissapa A, Rodriguez UP, Talukder RK, et al.Strategies and options for increasing and sustaining fisheries and aquacultureproduction to benefit poorer households in Asia. WorldFish Center Studiesand Reviews No 1823. Penang. Malaysia: The Worldfish Centre; 2008 p. 180.

[23] Fabinyi M. Historical, cultural and social perspectives on luxury seafoodconsumption in China. Environ Conserv 2012;39:83–92.

[24] Gregory CA. Savage money: the anthropology and politics of commodityexchange. Amsterdam: Harwood; 1997.

[25] Gregory CA. South Asian economic models for the Pacific? The case ofmicrofinance Pac Econ Bull 1999;14:82–92.

[26] Rigg J. Poverty and livelihoods after full-time farming: a South-East Asianview. Asia-Pac Viewpoint 2005;46:173–184.

[27] Curry G. Doing Business in Papua New Guinea: the social embeddedness ofsmall business enterprises. J Small Business Entrepreneur. 2005;18:231–246.

[28] Garcia SM, Rosenberg AA. Food security and marine capture fisheries:characteristics, trends, drivers and future perspectives. Philos Trans R SocB—Biol Sci 2010;365:2869–2880.

[29] UNSCN. 5th Report on the World Nutrition Situation: Nutrition for ImprovedDevelopment Outcomes—March 2004. Geneva: United Nations SystemStanding Committee on Nutrition, World Health Organization; 2004. p. 148.

[30] Gay D. Solomon Islands Diagonostic Trade Integration Study. Honiara:Ministry of Foreign Affairs and External Trade; 2009 p. 335.

[31] Gaynor JL. Flexible fishing: gender and the new spatial division of Labor inEastern Indonesia0s Rural Littoral. Radical Hist Rev 2010;107:74–100.

[32] Brown L, Feldstein H, Haddad L, Pena C, Quisumbing A. Generating foodsecurity in the year 2020: women as producers, gatekeepers, and shockabsorbers. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute;1995 2020 Vision Brief No 17.

[33] Quisumbing AR, Maluccio JA. Intrahousehold allocation and gender relations:new empirical evidence from four developing Countries. Discussion paperbriefs. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2000 p.1–2.

[34] Smith LC, Haddad L. Overcoming child malnutrition in developing countries:past achievements and future choices. A 2020 vision for food, agriculture, andthe environment. Washington, DC: International Food Policy ResearchInstitute; 2000 p. 53.

[35] Foale S, Cohen P, Januchowski S, Wenger A, Macintyre M. Tenure and taboos:origins and implications for fisheries in the Pacific. Fish Fish 2011;12:357–369.

[36] Adhuri D. The incident in Dullah Laut: marine tenure and the politics ofvillage leadership in Maluku, Eastern Indonesia. MAST 2004;3:5–23.

[37] Adhuri D. Social identity and access to natural resources: ethnicity andregionalism from a maritime perspective. In: Sakai M, Bank G, Walker JH,editors. The politics of the periphery in Indonesia: social and geographicalperspectives. Singapore: NUS Press; 2009. p. 134–152.

[38] Fox JJ, Adhuri DS, Therik T, Carnegie M. Searching for a livelihood: thedilemma of small-boat fishermen in eastern Indonesia. In: Resosudarmo BP,Jotzo F, editors. Working with nature against poverty: developmentresources and the environment in Eastern Indonesia. Singapore: Institutefor Southeast Asian Studies; 2009. p. 201–225.

[39] Stacey N. Boats to Burn: Bajo fishing activity in the Australian fishing zone.Canberra: ANU E-Press; 2007.

[40] Clifton J. Achieving congruence between conservation and community: theBajau ethnic group and marine management within the Wakatobi and South-East Asia. In: Clifton J, Unsworth RKF, Smith DJ, editors. Marine Research andConservation in the Coral Triangle. The Wakatobi National Park: NOVAPublishers; 2010. p. 209–224.

[41] Lowe C. Wild Profusion: Biodiversity Conservation in an Indonesian Archi-pelago. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.

[42] Borrini-Feyerabend G Sharing power: a global guide to collaborative manage-ment of natural resources. London: Earthscan; 2007.

[43] Pauly D, Christensen V, Guenette S, Pitcher T, Sumaila U, Walters C, et al.Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature (London) 2002;418:689–695.

[44] Russ GR, Alcala AC. Enhanced biodiversity beyond marine reserve bound-aries: the cup spillith over. Ecol Appl 2011;21:241–250.

[45] Jones GP, Srinivasan M, Almany GR. Population connectivity and conserva-tion of marine biodiversity. Oceanography 2007;20:100–111.

[46] Russ GR, Alcala AC. Decadal-scale rebuilding of predator biomass in Philip-pine marine reserves. Oecologia 2010;163:1103–1106.

[47] Hilborn R, Stokes K, Maguire JJ, Smith T, Botsford LW, Mangel M, et al. Whencan marine reserves improve fisheries management? Ocean Coast Manage2004;47:197–205.

[48] Bellwood DR, Hughes TP, Folke C, Nystrom M. Confronting the coral reefcrisis. Nature (London) 2004;429:827–833.

[49] Hughes TP, Graham NAJ, Jackson JBC, Mumby PJ, Steneck RS. Rising to thechallenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25:633–642.

[50] Steneck RS, Paris CB, Arnold SN, Ablan-Lagman MC, Alcala AC, Butler MJ, et al.Thinking and managing outside the box: coalescing connectivity networks tobuild region-wide resilience in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs 2009;28:367–378.

[51] Foale SJ, Manele B. Social and political barriers to the use of Marine ProtectedAreas for conservation and fishery management in Melanesia. Asia-PacViewpoint 2004;45:373–386.

[52] Fabinyi M, Knudsen M, Segi S. Social complexity, ethnography and coastalresource management in the Philippines. Coast Manage 2010;38:617–632.

[53] Ruddle K, Ishige N. Fermented fish products in East Asia: IRMI research study1. Hong Kong: International Resources Management Institute; 2005.

[54] Villanoy CL, Cabrera OC, Yniguez A, Camoying M, de Guzman A, David LT,et al. Monsoon-driven coastal upwelling off Zamboanga Peninsula, Philip-pines. Oceanography 2011;24:156–165.

[55] FAO. The ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: Issues, terminology, principles,institutional foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries Tech-nical Papers. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organanisation of the UnitedNations; 2003. p. 71.

[56] Cunningham S, Neiland AE, Arbuckle M, Bostock T. Wealth-based FisheriesManagement: using fisheries wealth to Orchestrate sound fisheries policy inpractice. Mar Resour Econ 2009;24:271–287.

[57] World Bank. The Sunken Billions. Washngton DC: The World Bank; 2009.[58] Bene C, Hersoug B, Allison EH. Not by rent alone: analysing the pro-poor

functions of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Dev Policy Rev2010;28:325–358.

[59] Shaxson N. Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the men who stole the World.London: The Bodley Head; 2011.

[60] Tax Justice Network. Financial Secrecy Index. /http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/2011results.htmlS. Tax Justice Network; 2011.

[61] Bostock J, McAndrew B, Richards R, Jauncey K, Telfer T, Lorenzen K, et al.Aquaculture: global status and trends. Philos Trans R Soc B—Biol Sci 2010;365:2897–2912.

S. Foale et al. / Marine Policy 38 (2013) 174–183 183

[62] Department of Agriculture Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. In:Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Cebu City: CoastalResource Management Project of the Department of Environment andNatural Resources; 2004.

[63] Weeratunge N, Snyder KA, Sze CP. Gleaner, fisher, trader, processor: under-standing gendered employment in fisheries and aquaculture. Fish Fish2010;11:405–420.

[64] Hall SJ, Delaporte A, Phillips MJ, Beveridge M, O0Keefe M. Blue frontiers:managing the environmental costs of aquaculture. Penang: The WorldfishCentre; 2011.

[65] Cabral RB, Alino PM. Transition from common to private coasts: conse-quences of privatization of the coastal commons. Ocean Coast Manage2011;54:66–74.

[66] Birkeland C. Symbiosis, fisheries and economic development on coral reefs.Trends Ecol Evol 1997;12:364–367.

[67] Ericksen PJ. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental changeresearch. Global Environ Change 2008;18:234–245.

[68] Eder JF. Environmental reconfigurations and livelihood transformations inrural Southeast Asia. Reg Cohesion 2011;1:145–164.

[69] Stiglitz J, Charlton A. Fair trade for all: how Trade can promote development.Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.

[70] Chang H-J. Kicking away the ladder. London: Anthem Press; 2003.

[71] Borras SM. Competing views and strategies on grarian reform—Volume 2:Philippine perspective. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press; 2008

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

[72] Kareiva P, Lalasz R, Marvier M. Conservation in the anthropocene: beyond

solitude and fragility. Breakthrough J 2011:29–37.

[73] Coulthard S, Johnson D, McGregor JA. Poverty, sustainability and humanwellbeing: a social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis. GlobalEnviron Change—Hum Policy Dimen 2011;21:453–463.

[74] Veron JEN, Devantier LM, Turak E, Green A, Kininmonth S, Stafford-Smith M,et al. Delineating the Coral Triangle. Galaxea, J Coral Reef Studies 2009;11:

91–100.