Giant clam aquaculture in the Pacific region: perceptions of value and impact

ABSTRACT

Aquaculture of giant clams was developed in the Pacific region in the 1970s and 1980s, linked to community farming and efforts to develop commercial opportunities, particularly high-value exports. Giant clam industries did not develop as expected, but nonetheless many countries still have giant clam aquaculture programmes. Investigations in three countries indicate that giant clams hold other values, notably cultural value, socio-ecological value, value to tourism, and value through building social capital, and these may explain the continuation of the aquaculture programmes. Understanding and adequately assessing local values is a challenge for development investors, who may be missing important impacts from their projects.

KEYWORDS:

• Aid effectiveness
• Environment (built and natural) – Agriculture
• Oceania and Japan

Introduction

Giant clams have long been exploited across their natural range, the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans. Large and immobile animals that live in shallow reefs and lagoons, they present an easy target and during the twentieth century their numbers declined drastically (Copland and Lucas 1988). The reasons for harvesting have changed through time and across locations, and include for subsistence or as ceremonial food for coastal communities, to supply high-value food markets in Asia, for the international aquarium trade (Tisdell 1992; Tisdell, Shang, and Leung 1994), and more recently, shells for carving in China, as an alternative to ivory (Larson 2016). All seven known species (Tridacna gigas, T. derasa, T. squamosa, T. maxima, T. crocea, Hippopus hippopus, and H. porcellanus) were protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) from 1985. Five further species have since been recognised (T. rosewateri, T. mbalavuana, T. squamosina, T. noae, and T. lorenzi (Neo et al. 2017)) and the first two are now also CITES-listed. This has reduced the overt harvesting and marketing of wild giant clams, but poaching and illegal trade continue (Purcell and Eriksson 2016).

From the 1970s, several groups began efforts to address the decline in giant clam numbers in the Pacific region. The approach was to link aquaculture of giant clams with coastal community livelihoods and commercial opportunities (trade in aquacultured giant clams is permitted by CITES). Early partners in this work included the International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources (ICLARM, now the WorldFish Center), the Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center in Palau, and James Cook University in Australia, with the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) funding much of the work.

Research and trials took place through the 1980s and 1990s, with various projects across the region attempting to link aquaculture at national hatcheries, community grow-out (i.e. farming of giant clams once they reached a certain size and would survive in the lagoon), and commercial markets that would provide the economic incentive and viability (Copland and Lucas 1988). Primary objectives of the early projects were to support recovery of giant clam populations for food, and to repopulate the reefs. For example, a project funded by ACIAR, which ran from 1989 to 1992 in Fiji, Kiribati, the Philippines and Tonga, aimed to:

“benefit subsistence farming, where clams are of great importance as a traditional food, and the restocking of reefs. It will also train fisheries personnel and develop mariculture expertise in the Pacific island nations. In the long term, the research will lead to export opportunities … ” (ACIAR project FIS/1987/033)

The costs of maintaining a hatchery and other associated aquaculture activities are significant, and it was assumed that in the long term, aquaculture programmes would have to be profitable to cover these costs. Further, it was hoped that the projects would lead to significant industries that would contribute to economic development.

The first projects focused on the scientific and technical aspects of giant clam aquaculture, and were very successful in building knowledge on giant clam biology and ecology, establishing hatcheries, and developing techniques for breeding and ranching (Braley 1992; Calumpong 1992; Norton and Jones 1992). By the mid-1990s about eight countries in the region had functioning giant clam hatcheries (Table 1).

Table 1. Giant clam aquaculture programmes in the Pacific region.

Country	Brief history	Current status
Cook Islands	Hatchery production on Aitutaki since the early 1990s, for restocking/local use and some export for the aquarium trade^1,2	Active^2
Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)	Hatcheries in Kosrae (since 1991) and Pohnpei (since 1989), for restocking and commercial purposes (FSM is a significant supplier for the aquarium trade)^1,2	Active, though production is reported to have declined recently^2
Fiji	Active programme since the mid-1980s, when hatchery was established on Makogai Island^3	Active, and currently being revitalised by the government^3
Kiribati	A private-sector hatchery was set up on Tarawa in 2001 producing for the aquarium trade^4	Active, but limited production in recent years^2
Marshall Islands	Long-standing programme, with several hatcheries established; a major supplier to the aquarium trade^2	Active
Palau	One of the earliest giant clam hatcheries, the Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center (now the Palau MDC) has provided aquacultured giant clams to many other countries in the region to help them set up their own programmes; also produces for restocking and for export for the meat and aquarium trade^2	Active, though production and export are reported to be erratic^2
The Philippines	One of the longest standing aquaculture programmes, set up by the University of the Philippines in the 1980s under the original ACIAR project. A major restocking programme has supplied many thousands of giant clam juveniles to communities and resorts^3	Active, producing juveniles, training in handling and management, and carrying out research^3
	A private-sector hatchery was set up by Semirara Mining and Power Corporation in 2010 as part of its corporate social responsibility programme^3	Active, producing several species for a marine sanctuary^3
Samoa	Programmes on and off since the 1980s; current hatchery opened in 2014^3	Active, with approximately 45 villages involved in grow-out, for their own use and conservation^3
Solomon Islands	A key country in the early giant clam projects, and a focal point for giant clam aquaculture research in the region, the programme was derailed by civil tensions in 1999 (it briefly recovered from 2005 to 2010 but when donor funding ceased the government was unable to continue activities)^5	Not active^5
Tonga	Programme established in the late 1990s for restocking and export for aquarium trade^2	Active, but erratic production and declining exports in recent years^2
Vanuatu	Hatchery set up in the early 2000s for restocking and supplying the aquarium trade; in 2005 a commercial operation took over production^1	Active, but production has declined in recent years^2

Sources: ¹ SPC Aquaculture Portal (www.spc.int/aquaculture)

² Neo et al. (2017)

³ Country visit by author in early 2017

⁴ Bueno and Pongthanapanich (2014)

⁵ Country visit by author in late 2016.

In the late 1980s it was becoming clear that the economics side of the projects was complex and needed further research. Two complementary research projects were set up, funded by ACIAR and the US Department of Agriculture, to study the economics of giant clam aquaculture. The findings from the projects were collected in two monographs published by ACIAR (Tisdell 1992; Tisdell, Shang, and Leung 1994). Three key potential markets were identified for the giant clams – food, the aquarium trade, and shells. A conclusion at this stage was that “Biological obstacles to the aquaculture of giant clams have been overcome … The spread of development of the industry of giant clam aquaculture now depends only on entrepreneurship and the economics of production” (Tisdell, Shang, and Leung 1994, 305).

However, in the intervening years, none of these markets has achieved the potential identified by the economic research projects. By the late 1990s it was becoming clear that supplying high-value food markets was not possible for various reasons, and attention turned to the international aquarium trade (Hambrey Consulting and Nautilus Consultants 2011). Today this is the main market for the few commercial aquaculture programmes; however, it is a relatively small market with limited growth potential (Hambrey Consulting and Nautilus Consultants 2011; Meis et al. 2017).

Despite this lack of anticipated economic success, giant clam aquaculture and community farming programmes are still active in many countries in the region (Table 1). As one of the original investors and drivers of the research phase in the 1980s and 1990s, ACIAR was interested to understand the legacy of its investments in giant clam aquaculture. In 2016 the Centre commissioned two studies to shed light on this – a conventional impact assessment, and an investigation that sought to understand the broader outcomes through the collection and examination of stakeholder perspectives.

The impact assessment focused on two countries – Solomon Islands and the Philippines (Davila et al. 2017). Using a benefit–cost analysis framework (Davis et al. 2008), complemented by analyses of knowledge and policy impacts, the assessment identified significant positive impacts in terms of knowledge and capacity built in giant clam biology and aquaculture techniques, with spill over to other areas such as farming sea cucumbers and pearl oysters. However, it concluded that: “From the perspective of traditional economic assessment frameworks, it is likely that there have been zero or negative economic returns on ACIAR investments” (2017, 10), and “Overall, social and community benefits were also unclear” (2017, 8).

The findings of the second investigation are presented in this article. The aim was to hear the stories of diverse people involved with giant clams, and through analysis, gain understanding on why giant clam aquaculture continued when there appeared to be few or no direct economic returns.

Methods

The study was carried out by a development communication specialist. Three countries were identified that were known to have long-standing giant clam aquaculture programmes but no obvious linked commercial activities (Fiji, Samoa, and the Philippines; Table 1). Interviewees, who were people connected with giant clams in different capacities, were identified through researcher–practitioner networks. Names of interviewees, and places and dates of interviews, are in the Appendix.

Interviews were unstructured, encouraging the interviewee to tell their story in their own way, focusing on aspects that were important to them, with follow-up questions as appropriate. The opening question was broad, prompting the interviewee to talk about their experience with giant clams. Most interviews were recorded.

Information provided by the interviewees was combined into three summary case studies, which the interviewees reviewed and agreed to be accurate overviews of the giant clam aquaculture story within their respective country. The interviews were also analysed to identify the reasons why giant clams were valued by the interviewee and the group they represented.

Case studies

Fiji

Fiji has been carrying out giant clam aquaculture and farming since the late 1980s. Following an extensive survey of Fiji’s giant clam stocks, which found low numbers of several species and T. gigas apparently extinct (Lewis et al., in Copland and Lucas 1988, 66–72), the Fiji government established a quarantine facility on Makogai Island and juvenile T. gigas were brought from Orpheus Island in Australia in 1986–87, in an effort to re-establish the species (Ledua and Adams, in Copland and Lucas 1988, 237–240; E. Ledua, interview). The facility was later developed into a full-scale aquaculture research and production facility, with T. derasa and T. squamosa the two main species being produced by 1993 (Ledua 1993).

The Fiji government banned the export of giant clam meat in 1989. The main objective of the giant clam aquaculture programme through the years has been research and restocking, with little emphasis on commercial production. The Fisheries Department, which funds and manages the hatchery, publicised the availability of giant clams through local agriculture events and other means, and received increasing numbers of requests from communities through the years as the “word spread” (M. Tabunakawai-Vakalalabure, interview).

Fiji has a well-developed network of locally managed marine areas, the Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area network (FLMMA), and the Fisheries Department works with FLMMA to ensure communities that receive giant clams understand how to care for them, and the importance of their conservation (A. Batibasaga, interview). However, it seems that most of the giant clams that initially survive in community-managed areas are later either harvested by the community or poached by outsiders (T. Pickering, interview; M. Tabunakawai-Vakalalabure, interview; J. Veitayaki, interview; K. Ravonoloa, interview). Some of the FLMMA communities have currently kept their giant clams for seven to eight years; these are known to be communities with good governance in place, and able to enforce their rules and protect their clams (M. Tabunakawai-Vakalalabure, interview). The FLMMA network, though well established, is not currently supported by clear legislation so that communities do not have effective legal backing in protecting their marine areas.

FLMMA communities report a healthier marine ecosystem where giant clams are growing, with more fish (M. Tabunakawai-Vakalalabure, interview). Giant clams are also recognised as an indicator species for successful locally managed marine areas, in that their survival reflects good governance by the community (A. Batibasaga, interview; T. Pickering, interview; M. Tabunakawai-Vakalalabure, interview).

The aquaculture programme has also worked closely with the tourism sector since around 2000, supplying juvenile giant clams to many resorts. These have proved vulnerable to poaching and are known to survive only in small numbers and where they are closely guarded by resort staff (W. Wragg and A. Garland, interview; K. Mataiyaga, interview).

Giant clam juveniles are usually given to communities at no cost. Resorts pay a nominal cost per juvenile and the cost of transportation from the hatchery.

Category 5 Tropical Cyclone Winston badly damaged the Makogai hatchery in February 2016. However, this has acted as a stimulus for the Fiji government to revitalise giant clam aquaculture in the country, with plans to develop links to international markets (which may be legally supplied with farmed giant clams) (A. Batibasaga, interview). The hatchery is being restored, and a training course was held in January 2017 for more than 30 participants on giant clam spawning and hatchery skills – the first such course for 17 years (“Officers learn giant clam spawning, hatchery”, Fiji Times, 19 January 2017).

Samoa

Samoa has also had giant clam projects, on and off, since the late 1980s, run by the government Fisheries Department. Currently it has an active aquaculture and grow-out programme linked to its community-based fisheries management (CBFM) programme. T. derasa and T. gigas are the species cultured. T. derasa was found to be locally extinct as a result of overharvesting, and this species was brought from the Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center in Palau in 1988 to begin the programme. T. gigas may not be native to Samoa, and the current broodstock (mature clams used for breeding) were brought from Tonga in 2007 (M. Etuati Ropeti, interview; S. Tiitii, interview).

Samoa’s current multi-species hatchery at Toloa was officially opened in 2014 and has had several successful cycles of spawning giant clams and raising and distributing juveniles to village grow-out sites (SPC 2016). There are currently about 45 villages in Samoa (of a total of approximately 200 coastal villages) growing giant clams in protected areas in their lagoons and reefs as a result of the aquaculture initiative (M. Etuati Ropeti, interview).

Samoa has a strong CBFM programme which builds on traditional governance systems and customary fishing rights (Fairbairn, in Tisdell 1992, 169–189; Johannes 2002). Villages must be part of the CBFM programme before they can request giant clams. As part of the CBFM process, communities draw up a fisheries management plan which, for relevant communities, includes their commitment to maintaining the giant clams. Management plans are legally recognised under the Fisheries Management Act 2016 (S. Tiitii, interview).

Fisheries staff work with the community to ensure the marine environment is suitable for raising giant clams, to identify any potential problems, and to ensure a good level of commitment, before they deliver juvenile giant clams. Communities initially receive a small number of juveniles as a pilot and are given training in how to care for them (for example, they need to be cleaned two or three times a week during the early stages). If the communities are successful they can request larger batches. Fisheries officers make regular visits to the communities (usually quarterly), providing support and advice, and in the process building good relations with the communities (S. Tiitii, interview).

The juvenile giant clams are given to the communities at no cost. The giant clams are farmed for village use and reef restocking; there are currently no commercial objectives, with just one giant clam sanctuary at Savaia village bringing in some money from tourism (these clams are also used as broodstock for the aquaculture programme). There is no stipulation or restriction on utilisation, but the community is asked to keep them until they reach adult size, which is at about 10 years. Fisheries staff report that at early 2017 some communities have kept some of their giant clams for more than 10 years. Communities occasionally harvest one or more of the giant clams for a major event or celebration, but there is awareness that they should protect and conserve most of the giant clams or they will be lost, as happened in the past (S. Tiitii, interview; Fiauivaa Maa, interview). According to Fisheries Department staff and community members interviewed, communities see an improved reef ecosystem where giant clams have been restored, and they are keen to maintain them for this reason.

There is significant commitment by the Samoa Fisheries Department to the giant clam programme, from spawning and rearing at the hatchery to supporting communities during grow-out and beyond. Enthusiasm and commitment is also evident from the communities. The process is demand-driven in that the starting point is a request from a community. Fisheries staff report that the communities want the clams, and through the programme they are able to provide “something [the communities] really want” (M. Etuati Ropeti, interview).

Because of the strong CBFM system within which giant clams are managed, there appears to be little problem with poaching, at least in the villages visited for this study which are on the less populated south coast of Upolu. Giant clams appear to be harvested sustainably by the communities that grow them. The communities understand (from experience, and through interactions with Fisheries staff) that if they overharvest, the giant clams will not return naturally (U. Roebeck, interview; Fiauivaa Maa, interview).

Fisheries staff believe that the giant clam programme has raised awareness more generally of the importance of coastal resources management and maintaining reef health (M. Etuati Ropeti, interview; S. Tiitii, interview). While the support provided to communities is labour- and time-intensive, staff say it serves to strengthen relations between the Fisheries Department and communities, which contributes to the overall success of the CBFM programme.

The Philippines

The University of the Philippines has been the major player in an active giant clam aquaculture programme since the 1980s. Today there are thought to be tens of thousands of aquacultured giant clams surviving on the reefs around the Philippines, in community-managed areas and tourist sites.

Giant clam aquaculture is based at Bolinao Marine Laboratory, which is part of the university’s Marine Science Institute. Research on giant clams, coral, and other reef species, and broader coastal resource management, is carried out in parallel with the rearing and restocking programme. The laboratory also runs training courses in giant clam handling (for those wanting to restock their reefs) and culturing (for those wanting to learn hatchery techniques). The focus has been on T. gigas, although other species have also been bred and farmed over the years (E. Gomez, interview).

As in the other countries, the early giant clam projects had livelihood objectives, and intended to develop links to supply the international aquarium trade, mainly with T. derasa. However, in 1996 the Philippines government passed a blanket ban on all giant clam exports, including farmed clams. As a result, and assisted by a grant from the Pew Foundation, the programme turned its focus to restocking the reefs around the country with T. gigas, which had been found in an assessment to be virtually extinct (Juinio et al. 1989; E. Gomez, interview). By 2006, more than 75,000 giant clams (T. gigas and other species) had been restocked in more than 40 sites around the country (Gomez and Mingoa-Licuanan 2006). Monitoring has not been undertaken at most sites, and there have certainly been losses from poaching as well as natural mortality, but survival is known to be good at some sites, for example, Hundred Islands National Park (M.S. Sison, interview).

Bolinao Marine Laboratory responds to requests for giant clams and does not advertise or “market” the clams. Through the years, as the word spread, the numbers of requests rose (S. Licuanan, interview). Communities report increased numbers of fish in areas where giant clams have been restocked, and this is a reason they cite for wanting giant clams (members of Silaki community, interview; J. Gabatin, interview). This is supported by research from the Marine Science Institute that showed a rapid increase in the abundance and species richness of reef fishes with giant clam restocking and coral transplantation, both separately and together (Cabaitan, Gomez, and Aliño 2008).

People requesting giant clams are required to attend a training course at Bolinao Marine Laboratory. The aquaculture team helps with site selection prior to distributing the juvenile giant clams, and provides ongoing support where possible (C. Conaco, interview). Most juveniles are placed in areas with some form of protection, often by bantay dagat – groups of local fishermen who have learnt the need to protect reef resources to improve fish stocks. There has been little formal monitoring, but according to informal feedback it seems that many are surviving where initial site selection was good, juveniles are given adequate care, and the area is protected from poaching (Gomez and Mingoa-Licuanan 2006; C. Conaco, interview).

Tourism is another driver of the aquaculture programme, with increasing demand from a rapidly growing sector. An example is Hamilo Coast, two hours’ drive south of Manila, which is being developed by a large private company as a “premier leisure development”. The company partnered with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) for a giant clam project in the 2000s, and there are now about 95 T. gigas surviving from 175 that were brought from the Bolinao Marine Laboratory in 2008. Tourists staying at the resort take boat trips to snorkel and see the giant clams. The company employs a full-time caretaker for the bay, and the area is also protected by the local bantay dagat who patrol the area. The resort has a policy of employing local people, providing alternative livelihoods and thereby reducing direct reliance on (and overexploitation of) natural resources in the area (W. Caballa, interview).

The Hundred Islands National Park at Alaminos provides another example. Benefitting from close proximity to Bolinao, the park received some 10,000 giant clams in the 1990s and reports approximately 6,000 surviving today. Alaminos City authorities who manage the park are focusing on enhancing the environment for eco-tourism, and the park is well protected by the local bantay dagat and island rangers. The park attracted more than 450,000 tourists in 2016, nearly twice as many as in 2014 (M.S. Sison, interview).

Bolinao Marine Laboratory is funded by the university and through projects funded by the Philippines government’s Department of Science and Technology. The laboratory recovers some of the clam production and maintenance costs by charging for the juvenile giant clams and associated costs (transport, training courses) where the recipients can afford them (for example, the resorts), and funds are also generated from services such as hiring boats and providing accommodation at the facility. However, much of the cost of the day-to-day running of the programme is carried by the university funding (C. Conaco, interview).

Values of giant clams

In the interviews, reasons given by interviewees why giant clams are valued were: food security, income, cultural, conservation, socio-ecological (improved reef health), and other (indicator species for well-managed marine areas, social capital, raising awareness and providing incentive for good reef management, scientific interest, and potential to improve international relations).

Table 2 categorises interviewees into the stakeholder groups they represent and shows the reasons they suggested that giant clams were valuable for their group. Some interviewees overlapped two or more groups, as is inevitable in small countries and when focused on a specialist area; in this case they were assigned to the main one they represented during the interview. In the unstructured interviews, interviewees were not specifically asked a question about value, but these values were identified through later analysis of the interviews. All values mentioned (or implied) by an interviewee were recorded, that is, an interviewee could cite more than one value.

Table 2. Value of giant clams to different groups of people in Fiji, Samoa and the Philippines.

Country and interviewee category	Value of giant clams
	Food security	Income (tourism)	Income (other)	Cultural^a	Conservation^b	Socio-ecological^c	Other
Fiji
Govt/research (n = 2)	✓	✓	✓^d	✓✓	✓	✓	✓✓ (indicator sp.)^e ✓ (social capital)^f
NGO (n = 2)	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓ (indicator sp.)^e
Private sector (n = 2)		✓✓	✓^d	✓	✓
Community (n = 2)	✓			✓✓		✓✓
Samoa
Govt/research (n = 3)		✓		✓✓✓		✓✓✓	✓ (awareness and incentive)^g ✓ (social capital)^f
Community (n = 3)		✓		✓✓✓		✓✓
The Philippines
Govt/research (n = 8)		✓✓✓✓		✓	✓✓✓	✓✓✓	✓✓✓✓✓ (scientific interest) ✓✓ (international relations)^h
Private sector (n = 2)		✓✓			✓✓
Community (n = 2)		✓✓				✓✓

Notes. n = number of interviewees representing the group. ✓ = a value indicated by an interviewee.

^a For example, used as ceremonial food or in thanksgiving services.

^b The value purely of conserving the species.

^c The belief that having giant clams on the reef improves the overall health of the reef (and results in more fish in the area).

^d Potential value: intention to try and sell to high-value food markets and the aquarium trade in the future.

^e Giant clams surviving on the reef indicate good reef management, including good governance, by the managing community.

^f Giant clams given by the government to communities serve to strengthen relations.

^g The aquaculture programme is raising awareness of the need for coastal resource management, and receiving giant clams provides incentive to do so.

^h Potential value: supporting regional relations in the South China Seas through cooperation over giant clam aquaculture.

Analysis and discussion

Techniques for aquaculture of giant clams were developed in the 1970s and 1980s in the Pacific region to address the decline of giant clams in the wild. The aim was to link community farming with commercial opportunities that would provide livelihood benefits and economic sustainability, and such projects were set up in at least eight countries. With a few exceptions, the commercial side of the projects did not develop as hoped; yet giant clams continue to be cultured and farmed in many countries across the Pacific. Interviews with various people working with giant clams in Fiji, Samoa, and the Philippines provide some insights into the reasons for this.

All three countries have active giant clam aquaculture programmes, none of which has obvious economic benefits. In Fiji and Samoa the government funds and manages the programme, while in the Philippines the programme is run by the University of the Philippines, with some cost recovery. Samoa and the Philippines have successful programmes in terms of many aquacultured giant clams surviving to maturity under the care of communities. In Fiji, while the aquaculture programme has been active for many years and has distributed many giant clams around the country, there appears to be low survival on the reefs due to continued overharvesting and poaching.

The interviews confirmed that direct economic returns were not seen as the main value of the aquacultured giant clams. Only two interviewees (in Fiji) mentioned income (other than from tourism), and in both cases this was a potential value that might be realised in the future, if high-value export markets could be accessed.

Instead, a range of other values was cited. Interviewees in Fiji and Samoa indicated that cultural value is high in their countries, and in all three countries socio-ecological value seemed to be high. Cultural value included use as ceremonial food and in thanksgiving services and was acknowledged by one or more interviewees in all groups in these two countries, except NGOs. Socio-ecological value is here defined as the belief that having giant clams living on the reef improves the overall health of the reef, and this also results in more fish in the area. This value was mentioned by one or more interviewees in all groups in all three countries, except the private sector in Fiji and in the Philippines. Communities claimed they “saw their reefs or within their lagoons … sort of blossomed after they had giant clams in it”, according to an NGO interviewee in Fiji. There is some scientific evidence that giant clams are beneficial to reef ecosystems (Cabaitan, Gomez, and Aliño 2008; Neo et al. 2015).

These two values were not unknown during the early aquaculture projects. Hviding (1993) carried out a major anthropological study around giant clams and their aquaculture in Solomon Islands (which was one of the key countries during the early projects) in the early 1990s and described a strong spiritual association with giant clams, and a conviction among Solomon Islanders that giant clams are associated with healthy reefs. He suggested that “such types of motives may be as strong among some current village trial participants as the cash crop motive more commonly mentioned in relation to mariculture” (Hviding 1993, 37). Govan (1993) also noted that, in the Solomon Islands:

“The prospect of farming giant clams generated much local interest not only due to the perceived economic benefits, but also interest in the animals themselves due to their traditional prominence in diet and custom and concern about the depletion of clam stocks.”

While these local values were recognised during the early research projects, they do not appear to have been given much attention as the projects progressed. The early emphasis was on scientific and technical research, and the emphasis then refocused onto the economics of giant clam aquaculture. A review in 1993 noted only that “The Review Team had little opportunity to consider social impacts … in the absence of significant progress on ocean farming” (ACIAR internal review of Project FIS/1987/033).

The fact that the economic expectations were not realised, but the aquaculture programmes continued in the three study countries (as well as others), suggests that these local values may be of greater significance than initially appreciated by the external project investors, and in other Pacific island countries as well as Solomon Islands. The findings from this study support this suggestion.

A great deal of enthusiasm for and commitment to the giant clam aquaculture programme was evident in all three countries, and among the different stakeholder groups. Implementers of the aquaculture programmes in Fiji, Samoa, and the Philippines all reported increasing numbers of requests from communities to farm giant clams as word of their availability spread, indicating high levels of interest from the communities.

In Fiji and Samoa, the value of giant clams in building social capital between government and communities was explicitly recognised. In both countries aquacultured giant clams are given to communities at no charge, and the clams are highly valued by the communities. Fisheries staff in Samoa said that through the aquaculture programme they are giving communities “something they really want”, and this is contributing to the strong partnership between the Fisheries Department and communities that is reflected in the successful community-based resource management programme in the country.

Information provided by the interviewees suggests that the giant clam programmes are contributing, both directly and indirectly, to improving coastal resource management by communities. The loss of giant clams seems to have provided an explicit lesson in unsustainable harvesting, and the recovery of this highly valued species through the aquaculture programmes appears to be having additional positive benefits for community-based resource management programmes.

Communities witnessed a decline in numbers of giant clams within the lifetime of their older members. Natural replenishment of giant clam populations may have been expected, as happened in the past when harvesting was at lower levels. However, a combination of increasing populations, a breakdown of traditional management, and poaching from outsiders reduced numbers, in some cases below the critical level for survival. As a highly visible and valued species, the loss of giant clams provided an overt lesson, and one that reflects a broader concern with other less obvious reef species.

As stated by a community leader in Fiji, “We’ve gone through the time when there were plenty … now people are beginning to have an appreciation of the limits that have to be respected in terms of the use of marine resources.”

With the giant clam aquaculture programmes, communities were given the opportunity to recover these valued resources. They seized it, and it appears that they are keen to not lose them again. This is likely a key factor behind the success of the programmes in Samoa and the Philippines, that is, where many aquacultured giant clams are nurtured to maturity. The aquaculture projects seem to have been “just in time”, reintroducing giant clams before they were lost to community memory.

A second key factor behind the success in these two countries is the provision of adequate protection for the giant clams to prevent overharvesting or poaching. This is enabled in Samoa by the CBFM programme and in the Philippines by bantay dagat and various forms of designated marine protected areas. In Fiji, community management of coastal resources lacks clear government support, and this is reflected in continued overharvesting and poaching. A policy brief in 2015 called on the government to develop a closer partnership with FLMMA, provide more resources, and take the main responsibility for community-based coastal resource management (FLMMA 2015).

Through the aquaculture and farming programmes, in learning to nurture and protect juvenile giant clams, communities are gaining awareness and knowledge of wider reef and fisheries management issues that are critical to the sustainability of these systems. This was mentioned by a government interviewee in Samoa and seems likely to be the case in all the countries. The value of giant clams as incentive for communities to well manage their reef habitat was also mentioned.

Giant clams were also mentioned by three interviewees in Fiji as valuable indicator species for well-managed coastal resources. Management – specifically controlling harvesting and poaching – is a particular challenge in Fiji where locally managed marine areas do not have clear legal backing, and giant clam survival on Fiji’s community-managed reefs indicates exceptional management.

The original giant clam programmes had restocking as one of their main objectives, with the hope that this would contribute to the recovery of giant clam populations in the Pacific region. Researchers from the Marine Science Institute in the Philippines recently reported evidence of natural breeding of restocked T. gigas (Cabaitan and Conaco 2017), the first time this has been officially reported (although there have previously been anecdotal reports from the Philippines and other countries). This represents an important milestone in the recovery of wild populations and supports a role for giant clam aquaculture in healthy marine systems.

Conclusion

Johannes (1989) warned about attempting to apply Western economic models to Pacific small-scale fisheries, pointing out that “Pacific Islanders have many priorities and values that differ from those in the West, and some have important implications for marine resource management” (Johannes 1989, 87). The giant clam projects may provide an example of the expression of these different priorities and values, and this may explain the continuation of the giant clam aquaculture programmes when they were not “profitable”.

Project assessments are perhaps inevitably weighted towards the value system of the investors and may overlook benefits that are important in local value systems. This returns to a long-recognised and significant challenge facing development projects and their investors – how to meaningfully quantify (and for benefit–cost analyses, monetise) different perceptions of value. Johannes (1989, 91) noted that:

“Too many relevant variables are either only fuzzily quantifiable at best (e.g. social costs and benefits in societies where fish and fishing play an exceptionally important and complex role in social organisation) or impossible to quantify without impractically expensive data-gathering projects.”

The recent ACIAR impact assessment of the giant clam projects found that much of the data that would be needed for a benefit–cost analysis, especially relating to social and environmental impacts, was “not available”, “difficult to estimate”, or “unclear” (Davila et al. 2017, 15).

Development investors are under pressure to demonstrate “value for money” to taxpayers and other stakeholders, ex ante at the time of making investment decisions and ex post through impact assessment. There is a need to broaden the understanding of this value, to find ways to include these more diverse values in accounting and decision-making processes, and to explain them to stakeholders. Otherwise there is a real risk of investors missing opportunities to invest in potentially worthwhile projects, or undervaluing important social, cultural, and ecological benefits from their projects.

Acknowledgements

ACIAR provided funding for the study. All interviewees are very gratefully acknowledged. Additional information was kindly provided by Paul Southgate, Johann Bell, and Robert Gillett. Many thanks to Tim Pickering, Mai Alagcan, and Mara Faylon for facilitating the country visits. Special thanks to Barbara Chambers, Chris Barlow, and Richard Markham for their help and advice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Anne Moorhead is a development communication specialist based in Canberra, Australia, working mainly in the Asia-Pacific region, and focusing on natural resource management and sustainable development.

ORCID

Anne Moorhead http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4454-2349

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.

Appendix. Interviews

Fiji

Will Wragg and Alex Garland, Tokoriki Island Resort, Mamanuca Islands, 28 January 2017.

Aisake Batibasaga, Director of Research, Development and Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries, Suva, 30 January 2017.

Tim Pickering, Aquaculture Specialist, Pacific Community (SPC), Suva, 30 January 2017.

Justin Hunter, Commercial Aquaculturist, Suva, 30 January 2017.

Margaret Tabunakawai-Vakalalabure, FLMMA Coordinator, Suva, 31 January 2017.

Esaroma Ledua, member of Giant Clams Project Team 1980s/1990s, Suva, 31 January 2017.

Joeli Veitayaki, School of Marine Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva, 1 February 2017.

Kini Ravonoloa, LMMA Coordinator, Votua Village, 2 February 2017.

Kolinio Mataiyaga, Field Technical Officer, Mamanuca Environment Society, Nadi, 3 February 2017.

Samoa

Magele Etuati Ropeti, Assistant CEO – Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Apia, 6 February 2017.

Sapeti Tiitii, Fisheries Officer, Apia, 6 February 2017.

Unity Roebeck, Fisheries Officer, Apia, 7 February 2017.

Fiauivaa Maa, Community Leader, Safaatoa village, south coast of Upolu, 7 February 2017.

Lemalu Fale, Community Leader, Matautu village, south coast of Upolu, 7 February 2017.

Community members, Savaia village, south coast of Upolu, 7 February 2017.

The Philippines

Wesley Caballa, Hamilo Coast Sports and Recreational Manager, Santelmo Bay, 26 February 2017.

Agapito Perno, Beach Caretaker, Santelmo Bay, 26 February 2017.

Maxine Fabroa, El Nido Resort, Apulit Island, interviewed at Bolinao, 28 February 2017.

Community members, Silaki Island, interviewed at Bolinao, 28 February 2017.

Cecilia Conaco, Deputy Director of Bolinao Marine Laboratory, Bolinao, 1 March 2017.

Patrick Cabaitan, Researcher, Marine Science Institute, Bolinao, 1 March 2017.

Carolina C. Ramirez, Municipal Agriculturist, Department of Agriculture, Bolinao, 1 March 2017.

Jesem Gabatin, President of Bolinao Federation of Fisherfolk, Bolinao, 1 March 2017.

Miguel S. Sison, Tourism Officer, Hundred Islands National Park, Alaminos, 2 March 2017.

Fernando Siringan, Director, University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute (UPMSI), Manila, 3 March 2017.

Annette Menez, Researcher, UPMSI, Manila, 3 March 2017.

Edgardo Gomez, former Director of the Marine Science Institute (retired), Manila, 3 March 2017.

Suzanne Licuanan, former Researcher, Marine Science Institute (retired), Manila, 3 March 2017.

Lisette Perlado, Biodiversity Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Manila, 3 March 2017.