Recently, there was much discussion about the effects of coral harvesting on the island of Fiji and it's economy. We decided that it might be prudent to make a thread of it.
From: Maureen Penjueli
<mpenjuel@dialb.greenpeace.org>
To: coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov <coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Thursday, August 05, 1999 7:30 PM
Bula everyone,
There is currently a huge debate in Fiji with regards to Coral harvesting in Fiji. A paper was commissioned by the Fisheries Department and the industry to address the issue.
Recommendation is to allow the industry to go ahead and there is a lot of concern in the country about the potential damage to the country. However support is divided between those who support the industry and those that don't. Fiji is becoming one of the biggest exporters if not the biggest exporter of coral products and there is concern regarding the damage that is done to the natural environment which has not been adequately dealt with in the report.
We are requesting information/ contacts of scientists who have worked on this issue to help balance the debate here in Fiji....and provide people in Government with the necessary information. We are particularly interested in research conducted in Asia or regions where there has been an impact. We have at least a week to provide individuals with the necessary information. I look forward to information that anyone could provide our office.
Vinaka.
Maureen.
From: Bruce Carlson <carlson@soest.hawaii.edu>
To: Maureen Penjueli <mpenjuel@dialb.greenpeace.org>; coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov
<coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 7:41 AM
Maureen,
I can't help much with analysis, but I think most of us would find it "interesting" to know how many tons of live rock and coral are shipped out of Fiji every week. Are any data presented in the official report or in the media? If so, can you share that with everyone, or is the report accessible via the internet?
Aloha
Bruce Carlson
Carlson quoted Penjueli's entire message in his original message. Review her message or continue.
From: Julian Sprung <JSprung@compuserve.com>
To: Maureen Penjueli <coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov>
Subject: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 9:08 AM
Bula Maureen,
I agree with Bruce, but want to point out some important considerations for interpreting the data.
The figures for live rock and corals must not be lumped together, as that would represent an extreme miscalculation. The live rock harvested from Fiji is composed of and constructed mostly by coralline algae. There is some Montipora, Leptastrea, Psammocora and Porites among it, but the majority throughout is just coralline algae. So, figures of "how many tons of live rock" do not equal how much coral. I would estimate that the rock is not more than 10% coral by weight, probably much less.
On the subject of weight, the live rock is wet, so the weights quoted include quite a bit of water. That should be considered too.
The weight of water may also be a factor in "tonnage" of live corals reported, as they are typically shipped submerged in a bag of water, suspended by a styrofoam float. The figures for live corals should be reported as number of pieces, not weight.
It should be pointed out to concerned parties that the corals harvested are typically fist-sized colonies that represent between six months and two years growth, and they are often but not always fragments found unattached, having broken off of larger colonies. This represents a completely renewable resource and a viable industry for Fiji, provided that no extreme loss of coral to an ENSO event occurs there.
I have seen the kind of Area in Fiji where the live rock is harvested. The areas are vast. It is not taken from "among the corals" as concerned parties might imagine. It occurs in a large region far behind the reefs, where this particular type of coralline algae forms porous lumpy rocks unattached to the bottom, and covered on top with various species of macroalgae. What I do not know is the growth rate of these coralline stones, so I cannot comment on the level of harvest that can be termed sustainable.
Sincerely,
Julian Sprung
From: EricHugo@aol.com <EricHugo@aol.com>
To: carlson@soest.hawaii.edu <carlson@soest.hawaii.edu>; coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov
<coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 10:20 AM
Hi, Bruce and all:
I found this post to be extremely interesting. For the past five months, I have been in communication with both Austin Bowden-Kirby (Fiji) and Andy Bruckner and we have been comparing notes from various sources regarding the numbers of corals coming out of Fiji. It seems clear by general availability in retail and wholesale outlets that Fiji corals have, for a couple years, been a predominant source of scleractinia. Although perhaps this is "visually" deceptive, they seemed to far outpace in number and species diversity those originating from Indonesia, esepecially for certain species which have become far more available than, say, five years ago. Specifically, species of Acropora, Montipora, Merulina, Pectinia, Heliopora, Millepora, Pavona, Hydnophora,Lobophyllia, and many of the Fungiidae have become quite more available. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have happened in substitution for the still overwhelmingly large number of the "old" standbys of Goniopora, Euphyllia, Trachyphyllia and Catalaphyllia that still predominantly originate out of Indonesia. Rather, it has been "in addition to" those other sources.
Perhaps more disturbing is the recent acceptance of shipment of live scleractinia originating in the Philippines despite legislation in both importing and exporting c ountries to prevent this trade. But that is another story.
After reviewing many pertinent reports, especially those various TRAFFIC reports, Bentley, Green, etc., it appears that numbers are still significantly underreported. One of the disturbing aspects in Fiji, for me at least, is the Secretary-allowed exclusion of Tridacnid exports despite legislation prohibiting this trade. As you may know, there are quite a large number of wild Tridacnids originating from this area to the marine aquarium trade. Furthermore, the relatively low amount of protected areas cannot be helping relative rates of exploitation (or overexploitation as the case may be).
I do have the numbers for the Fijian trade by species, disposition, and exact number destined for the US over the past five years. This includes marine fish, invertebrates, corals, live rock, etc. They are quite a bit higher, apparently, than those provided by CITES sources and Fiji sources. They also contrast with sources that related the trade by weight (a very difficult thing to analayze in terms of effect and number of organisms collected, as estimates of coral weight must be made...some of which may be quite a bit off, especially because of differences in skeletal density and in the amount of water present. The numbers are further likely to be underreported because of the inability of USF&W inspectors to examine the masssive numbers of shipments. Consequently, there will be many extra animals entering as the well known "box stuffers." These are typically animals which were "unwanted" by most sources for some reason (unsuitability for captivity?) or were caught in abundance during some period.
I hope that some of the discrepancies in number and type can be resolved soon, and I will be submitting this work for publication in the future. However, to give you an idea, there have been over 1,500,000 live Acropora spp. from Fiji to the US over five years. In 1994, there were 74,000 collected. In 1998, there were 274, 680 collected. The trends for other corals show similar increases. For live rock, 22, 625,666 pieces were reported to enter the US. In 1994, there were 295,568 pieces. In 1998, there were 8,249,458 pieces. This correlates well with what is apparent in retail outlets as Fiji live rock is, to say the least, abundant and cheap.
I hope to be able to provide the rest of the trade data soon for Fiji and other countries, some of which are most...shall we say, unusual, as they do not have coral reefs and yet appear as countries of origin on manifests and reports. This will have to be resolved in light of the other reports already out, as well as for simple clarification.
Eric Borneman
From: EricHugo@aol.com <EricHugo@aol.com>
To: JSprung@compuserve.com <JSprung@compuserve.com>;
coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov <coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 10:49 AM
In a message dated 8/6/99 6:30:24 AM, JSprung@compuserve.com writes:
<< The live rock harvested from Fiji is composed of and constructed mostly by coralline algae. There is some Montipora, Leptastrea, Psammocora and Porites among it, but the majority throughout is just coralline algae. So, figures of "how many tons of live rock" do not equal how much coral. I would estimate that the rock is not more than 10% coral by weight, probably much less. >>
Hi Julian:
The concern I have is not merely for the presence of scleractinia but as a general loss of habitat. This live rock provides important spatial heterogeneity for a huge number of organisms. the number of organisms in 1 cubic meter of "live rock" has been estimated at over 1,000,000 organisms. While "rubble zones" may not provide a good site for the long term survival of juvenile coral settlement, the habitat does provide for both hard and soft substrate flora and fauna which is part of the ecosystem. Scleractinia are typically the focus of ENSO events and are the most "colorful" items to report to media sources. Far fewer studies, if any, are done to assess the impact of collection on, say, various coelobites. Or the relative effects of mass bleaching events or high SST's on photosynthetic subsurface flora and fauna. What discourages me most is the reckless abandon with which such live rock substrate is handled following collection. This has gotten much worse over recent years as availability has increased and prices dropped dramatically. The rock is nearly dry and sits unsubmerged for a week or more before arriving to a facility which then "cures" it - be it wholesale, retail or consumer level. At this point, only a smattering of the original life remains, and even much of the coralline algae is lost. The low prices of this substrate (and, for that matter, wild collected corals and fish) has also put an extreme economic disadvantage to those who are aquaculturing live rock and working towards creating a sustainable industry.
<<On the subject of weight, the live rock is wet, so the weights quoted
include quite a bit of water. That should be considered too.
The weight of water may also be a factor in "tonnage" of live corals reported,
as they are typically shipped submerged in a bag of water, suspended by a styrofoam float.
The figures for live corals should be reported as number of pieces, not weight.>>
The numbers I quoted in the other reponse are by piece and not weight.
<<This represents a completely renewable resource and a viable industry for Fiji,>>
I don't think there is enough data available, especially given the stresses present on reefs today, to accurately assess what comprises "completely renewable", much less "viable."
<<What I do not know is the growth rate of these coralline stones, so I cannot comment on the level of harvest that can be termed sustainable. >>
Given that the rubble zones have material originating from reef zones which are periodically buried and then uncovered, as well as added to as storms break off other pieces of reef material and are acted on by large bioerosive and mechanical forces - and that one must consider the total flora and fauna, not just the growth rate of surface growing crustose corallines, I don't think it likely that sustainable levels will be easily determined. What seems to be a more valid question is the necessity of tons of wild living substrate being virtually killed to provide substrate for aquaria. I am an aquarist, and I even partially earn my income from the hobby through my writings, and clearly recognize the *potential* of the private sector to provide important information in terms of observations and husbandry of marine organisms. However, so long as the economics of mass export of cheap, poorly handled, wild collected material prevents carefully managed, non-destructive and sustainable aquaculture from becoming the source for such large amounts of reef biota, it is very hard to rationalize its continuance. I think viable economic alternatives must be put into place immediately, if not sooner, given the status of the world's reefs.
Eric Borneman
From: Mike and Marelet Kirda <mlkjr@interaccess.com>
To: Maureen Penjueli <mpenjuel@dialb.greenpeace.org>
Cc: coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov <coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 11:46 AM
At 10:33 AM 8/6/99 +0000, you wrote:
>Bula everyone,
>
>There is currently a huge debate in Fiji with regards to Coral
>harvesting in Fiji. A paper was commissioned by the Fisheries
>Department and the industry to address the issue.
>
>Recommendation is to allow the industry to go ahead and there is a
>lot of concern in the country about the potential damage to the
>country. However support is divided between those who support the
>industry and those that don't. Fiji is becoming one of the biggest
>exporters if not the biggest exporter of coral products and there is
>concern regarding the damage that is done to the natural environment
>which has not been adequately dealt with in the report.
Bula, Maureen.
I wanted to add my comments as an informed and concerned hobbyist. There is little doubt that coral collection *could* harm a reef if the collection pressure is high enough. The vast majority of corals coming into the US still seem to be those physically chipped off the reef, as Julian described. My feeling is that 'normal' collection pressure would likely influence species composition, though likely not overall biomass.
What is more disturbing, frankly, is the attitudes of the stores here in the US- As you likely already know, there are alternatives to the collection as outlined above. There is a 'farming' operation in the Solomon Islands where local women go collect some small fragments off the reef itself (i.e. the equivalent of storm damage) and bring them back to mount on small cement disks. These are then grown out in a local lagoon for 3 to 6 months and then harvested.
What is most amazing about these cultured colonies is that their rate of shipping death is amazingly low- typically well under 1%, assuming no delays in shipping. Compare that with chipped off colony corals- I think we are happy to see only a 10% loss, and they are often much higher: 40 to 80% is not that uncommon.
Yet even given the low rate of loss, most retailers will not carry cultured corals. They are 'too small' or 'too expensive': even though wholesale they are but a buck or two higher in cost...
Many of the more informed hobbyists have taken a course of 'no wild caught colonies, period'. My own tank has maybe three colonies- the others are all grown from fragments given to me by other hobbyists, either for cash or trade. However, we are but a few, and seem to have the entire industry against us.
I would love to see countries like Fiji get to the point where they limit wild coral collection to a few thousand colonies a year, or even shut it down completely, but encourage the creation of cultured coral 'farms' as an alternative. I think it would be in everyone's best interests. The US would be forced to import these ecologically sound alternatives, Fijian collectors could become farmers, and the 'industry' would still have access to corals. Everyone wins.
I do hope that this post was helpful to you.
Best regards.
Mike Kirda
From: James M. Cervino <cnidaria@earthlink.net>
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov <coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov>
Subject: Harvesting
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 2:02 PM
Dear Listers interested in coral harvesting:
Coral List Statement: This represents a completely renewable resource and a viable industry for Fiji,
The statement above mentions renewable and viable industry. Viable industry for who? Are corals regrowing as fast as they are collected? Is this a renewable resource at the current method of collection? A resource for middlemen who pay the indigenous peoples to collect corals? US aquarium hobby stores? Shell World? Indigenous peoples? Is this better than tourism (SCUBA , snorkeling etc.) for the peoples of Fiji?
Are the local peoples (indigenous) able to sustain their families well being from the extraction of corals and live rock from the reefs in which they lived and survived on for hundreds of years at the method of collection?
Every person (local collector, not middle men) in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Fiji etc. we spoke to claim they are UNABLE to sustain their families well-being from the extraction of corals, fish, and live rock on a LONG TERM BASIS. Only the middle men waving dollars in front of their faces are profiting from this business. These are the same people who also supply cyanide to the indigenous peoples to collect fish. Local people have been re-locating themselves and their families to new reefs to exploit after a few years. This has been PROVED as an ineffective economic resource to sustain their families well-being over the long term. We don't see peoples starving, families re-locating, and small local economies falling apart from this trade. All the consumer or purchaser of corals for fish tanks in living rooms see is, exotic pretty vibrant colored fish and corals, not the suffering or loss that is involved due to the trade. I will not even mention the extortion, and crime that is involved in this trade.
Why is it that on some boats that collect corals and NaCN caught fish have armed men on boats with machine guns? This trade is corrupt, and needs a drastic overhaul. It needs to be managed properly. Artificial reef restoration (not with tires or sunken ships) needs to be implemented to rebuild reefs damaged from bleaching, diseases, and over exploitation due to harvesting, dynamiting, or NaCN use. The (IMA) International Marine-life Alliance has implemented a method in-which fish are collected with a net, and not with NaCN. Net collection can work if the middle men supplying NaCN stay out of the picture.
Corals can be sold for the hobby trade as long as the surrounding ecosystem is replenished with artificially grown corals that cannot be harvested, Certain areas can be set aside for farming & collection. Corals should only be harvested from these areas. Fish can be collected in these areas using nets because, the small fish will be coming back due to the artificial coral re-growth.
Given the mass bleaching events, disease outbreaks, and anthropogenic sources of pollution, should there not be a ban on WILD collected corals given the state of the reefs today in the tropics? Will this method work that I have suggested?
It has been 32 weeks since the last discussion regarding coral harvesting. I have been keeping track of the imports from one local aquarium store in NY, and we have numbers presented in a paper this fall.
I appreciate Eric's posting, pointing out that a change or revamping in the coral & fish collection industry is germane. As well as pointing out that this is not an EASY renewable resource much less viable.
*******************************
James M. Cervino
Marine Biologist
Global Coral Reef Alliance
University of South Carolina at Aiken
cnidaria@earthlink.net
********************************
From: Mark Taber <mttaber@email.msn.com>
To: Mike and Marelet Kirda <mlkjr@interaccess.com>
Cc: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov <coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov>
Subject: RE: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Saturday, August 07, 1999 9:15 AM
Dear Mike,
I do agree with your reply and thought it was very well worded. We at ReefsUK are trying to promote captive breeding and propagation within the United Kingdom to ensure that we as a country, remove less from the reefs. At the end of the day, the hobby is not helping the reefs and that is something that we as hobbyists have to face up to.
Please visit out WEB site at http://www.reefsuk.org and feel free to comment.
Regards
Mark Taber
ReefsUK
Supporting Reef Conservation
-------------------------
Email: post@reefsuk.org
Web: http://www.reefsuk.org
-------------------------------------------------
Taber quoted Kirda's entire message in his original message. Review Kirda's message or continue.
From: Fabrice POIRAUD-LAMBERT <fpl10@calva.net>
o: coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov <coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Saturday, August 07, 1999 12:08 PM
Hi Maureen & All,
This subject is a major interest and concern for me, as a Diver and Hobbyist (there is clearly a conflict there for me)
You guys in Fiji and in other places with corals reefs, have the choice between :
- stop coral harvesting to protect coral reefs (but there was already debates about how
useful it is to considere coral reefs as LOCAL resources to ensure that LOCAL people take
care).
- Launch Coral farming operations and prevent wild uncontroled harvesting
- Keep the things as they are now
- ?
I fully agree with Mike and I just would like to add that, after my last dives in Fiji, 2 months ago, I saw places that have been shaked by storms, and where you can see a huge number of broken colonies, upside down, lying in the sand and dying, killing unbroken colonies sometimes. So, couldn't it be possible to collect broken small fragments to feed coral frams, and at the same time (same people also) restaure reefs by cleaning broken reefs and taking care of big broken colonies that should remain on the reef ?
I feel that there are two ways of taking care of reefs and reef life : one is to fight against things that are killing the reefs, but it takes a long time.. and during this time, we could help reefs and local people to survive.
Hope it helps
Best Regards
Fabrice POIRAUD-LAMBERT
-------
Poiraud-Lambert quoted Kirda's entire message in his original message. Review Kirda's message or continue.
From: J. Charles Delbeek <delbeek@hawaii.edu>
To: coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov <coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Saturday, August 07, 1999 3:58 PM
As usual the debate over coral harvesting seems to be based more on emotion and gut reactions than any sort of scientific basis rooted in facts. Yes the numbers of corals and live rock collected sound immense but if compared to the total amounts of coral and live rock in Fijian waters, does this represent a significant and more importantly a negative impact on Fijian reefs? Can this rate of collection be sustained without a decline on Fijian reefs? You can quote all the numbers you want to (Eric) but unless you put those numbers into context they mean nothing. It is my understanding that a common practice in Fiji is to vastly over report the number of corals shipped to avoid going over the stated amounted such that the actually number of corals shipped from Fiji is much smaller than that "offically" reported.
Maureen if you are going to state the report recommends the coral trade should continue should you not also mention why the report recommends this? The report recommends a moratorium on the issuance of permits for a two year period while studies and surveys are conducted to ascertain the impacts on the reef of live coral and live rock collection. The goal being to offer guidelines on what sustainable collection can be. It is my understanding that the report you are referring to, which your organization Greenpeace has gotten a hold of, is but a third draft, and not even a final copy. Should you not at least have waited for the final report to be made available before trying to drum up opposition to it? It is also my understanding that there are currently 6 collectors of marine organisms licensed in Fiji and that of these, two collect and export live rock and coral for the aquarium trade. Hardly what one might call a deluge. I would also not be surprised that the report would recommend that the number of permits issued be kept low.
I am not trying to defend the live coral trade since I know there are abuses occuring and that handling practices need to be improved. But I also know that the coral being collected are fist sized-pieces, representing perhaps two years growth, it is the curio coral collectors who are removing the large, breeding population-sized pieces. And even in this case this practice has been going on MUCH longer than the live coral trade and the impacts on the reefs have been negligable, and at worst short term. The live corals are individually wrapped in plastic bags and handled carefully, dead corals are of little use. Not every coral is selected since shape, size and colour must all be considered. Obviously the curio trade makes no such distinctions. When talking of the impacts of coral collection one really needs to distinguish between the live coral trade and the curio trade. Should we not also allow organisations such as the Marine Aquarium Council to get inolved with this issue to help instill some sort of standards for collection, handling and shipping? I wonder how many of the opponents of this trade in Fiji have actually accompanied collectors to observe how they go about their business?
As some have mentioned here, coral farming may be the long term solution, but it takes money to start a farm and it takes time, in the meantime these people need to make a living, if you ban the collection of wild colonies completely how do they do this and how do they get started?
As far as live rock goes, yes some diversity is removed, but what diversity is created by removing these rocks? What moves in to the space created? The same goes for corals, remove a coral and within short time the space is invaded by other organisms and even other corals. Yes there are abuses in live rock collection, yes the method of handling needs to be greatly improved but these are issues that can be addressed and should not by themselves be grounds to ban the practice.
And finally what of the people of Fiji? These are their resources, they are owned by coastal villages .. in the end it is theirs to do with as they please. This is an emerging fishery that puts money into their pockets to build schools and buy supplies for their village. If there is the opportunity to determine if these resources can be utilized in a responsible manner do we not at least owe them the opportunity to find out?
Banning the import of corals into the US will do little to help areas of coral bleaching and only hurts the economies of countries such as Fiji which has escaped massive bleaching. Perhaps a more equitable solution would be to treat a ban on coral imports on a regional basis? Corals from those areas which have experienced extensive bleaching and coral death (e.g. Maldives) would not be allowed to be imported? Just an idea.
Maureen, you said that Fiji was divided on this issue, yet you ask for evidence to balance the field. Perhaps this should be reworded to state that Greenpeace is looking for evidence to halt the coral trade, since their official stance is no resource use is good resource use?
J. Charles Delbeek M.Sc.
In a second message with the subject "My Comments," Delbeek stated the following:
I would just like to state for the record that my comments concerning the live coral trade in Fiji reflect my own opinions and do not reflect those of the Waikiki Aquarium nor the University of Hawaii. I would also like to apologize if my comments came across as arrogant, snarly or sarcastic as this was surely not my intention.
J. Charles Delbeek
From: Maureen Penjueli <mpenjuel@dialb.greenpeace.org>
To: delbeek@hawaii.edu <delbeek@hawaii.edu>; coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov
<coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Sunday, August 08, 1999 9:20 PM
Bula Charles,
Just a few points of clarification - the request I had put forward is not an attempt by Greenpeace to rally support against the industry. It is merely an information seeking exercise. We have been asked to provide information to relevant people in the country and I agreed to do that which is why I turned to the coral list - seeing that this is one of the places to source information and expert advice on the issue. It would also provide the office with relevant materials for our public library. However what I had not intended for the request to do was to create a whole debate about the industry. This is not to say that I do not appreciate debate on the issue. On the contrary, but I am seeking information that I can give to the relevant people and that is the aim of this exercise . However I do acknowledge that it is partly my fault for the wording in my last email re: negative impacts. Let me rephrase...I am seeking information on the industry (scientific reports from around the world/websites that I can look up and reports which I could get copies of). And the information is for the benefit of the people of Fiji .....
We are well aware that the report that was circulated by the fisheries department is not the final report and have been informed by the consultant himself on when the final report would be made available. Our comments will only be made then based on the final report. And no the official stance of the organisation is NOT, no resource use is good resource use. Greenpeace in the Pacific region has been supportive of sustainable uses of natural resources and are working together with local indigenous communities who want to ensure a sustainable use of their resources. I would be more than happy to send information to the relevant people on what the organisation does in the Pacific.
Generation of interest on the issue arises from a cabinet paper which was presented at parliment.
I appreciate comments and look forward to assistance from the list.
Cheers.
Maureen.
From: Clive Wilkinson <c.wilkinson@aims.gov.au>
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 11:18:24 +1000
Subject: Coral Harvesting
Bula
I enter this debate with some hesitancy - but to make one point.
Many people are seeing only the negatives of the trade in live coral - ripping corals off reefs to die in aquariums in USA and Europe etc.
May I suggest that the 'dolphin' argument instead. All the home aquarists with live corals are potential allies in efforts to conserve coral reefs, because they spend hours tying to keep corals alive and eventually will want coral reefs to flourish. Many are very well read about reefs and will assist when asked.
Our goals are dual: supporting development of an industry that provides corals, fish and live rock on a sustainable basis (and hopefully provide communities in developing countries with income) without significant damage to reefs; and conserving coral reefs by minimising collecting and other anthropogenic damage.
So, please, can we invite the aquarium people into the conservation fold as welcome partners.
Cheers
Clive Wilkinson
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ~~~
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
Clive Wilkinson, Coordinator
Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
c/o Australian Institute of Marine Science
Tel: +61 7 4772 4314; Fax: +61 7 4772 2808 or 4772 5852
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< ~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
From: Thomas Heeger <theeger@mangga.usc.edu.ph>
To: coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov <coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: coral harvesting
Date: Sunday, August 08, 1999 10:47 PM
Dear fellow coral friends,
world wide the coral reefs are degrading. The single most important factor pushing that is overfishing. Here in the Philippines (a country with very strict environmental laws, but unfortunately little enforcement) you can at any single day count 30 to 40 dynamite blasts (it is actually ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer) devastating the physical structure of the reefs, killing abundant larvae material and inverts as well as fishes.
Aware of that problem we work since 5 years with fishing communities and found out that they need alternatives to have a stable income. Fishermen so far just exploit their resources with rapid increase in competition over the last decades (population growth, export of marine products). Instead of a mere exploitation of resources the fishermen should adopt the basic principles of farmers who prepare the soil, plant the seedlings, irrigate, take care of parasites and finally harvest their products.
That background in mind we started two years ago with the implementation of a coral farm in Olango Island, Cebu. The basic concept is to provide alternative income to the fisherfolks and at the same time protect/enhance the biodiversity of coral reefs with reef rehabilitation activities.
Since we use cheap materials/labor and natural substrates one hectare reef can be rehabilitated (12.5% cover) for 3.600 US$ including all costs (gathering of fragments, attachment to hard substrate, tending during grow-out phase in the Coral Nursery Units, transportation to reha site and rehabilitation itself). This is by far the cheapest reha method known (please see more specific details in Heeger, T. ,Cashman, M. and F. Sotto 1999: Coral farming as alternative livelihod for sustainable natural resource management and coral reef rehabilitaion. Proc. of Oceanol. Internat. Pacific Rim, Spearhead Exhibitions Ltd., New Malden, Surrey, UK, pp 171-185).
Of course, we can prove that the donor corals (in no case we take more than 50%, usually 10 to 20& of one colony) survive and overgrow the fragmented area within a few weeks (species dependent). According to our results fragmentation increases within a few month the calcified material by factor 2. Mortality in the farm due to predation is below 1 %.
Coral export (live and dead) is banned in the Philippines and according to my information (may not be up-to-date) strictly enforced. Currently we are negotiating with the BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources) for an export permit of live corals for the aquarium trade.
In general we are not against aquarium trade under the condition that the corals are from farms operated by fisher cooperatives. Natural coral extraction done in many tropical countries e.g. Indonesia and Fiji for trade will further decrease coral cover and diversity. Considering how much reef aquarium hobbyists contributed to science and how tremendous public aquariums help to raise the awareness for the important and beautiful ecosystems, aquarium trade on a SUSTAINABLE level where the " resource owners" are benefitted is positive for both sides. On the other hand aquarium trade (we have many expamples documented, e.g. 2 m high piles of sea stars, thousands of 2 ltr. plastic bags some with five baby nurse sharks together, shipped via Manila to the US, seahorses and other protected species) where the fisherfolks get 0.05 cents for each alive fish and the animals are sold for 20 to 50 US$ per head to the consumers, exploitation will be fueled. The money will go to the big dealers and not to the resource owners who are forced to use any means squeezing out their daily food from the more and more impoverishing reefs. A vicious cicle.
We believe that the coral farming concept could be multiplied in other suitable areas to protect the reefs and to promote coral biodiversity.
Best fishes,
Thomas Heeger
Dr. Thomas Heeger
Professor of Marine Biology
University of San Carlos
Marine Biology Section
Cebu City, Cebu
Philippines 6000
Phone: 0063 32 4198764
Fax: 0063 32 3460351
e-mail: theeger@mangga.usc.edu.ph
From: James M. Cervino <cnidaria@earthlink.net>
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov <coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov>
Subject: Coral Harvesting
Date: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 10:06 AM
Coral Harvesting:
POSTING: As usual the debate over coral harvesting seems to be based more on emotion and gut reactions than any sort of scientific basis rooted in facts.
JAMES: I have communicated with Eric regarding his data collection and he is not basing his information on a "GUT REACTION or EMOTION" He is basing his data on FACT. Interviewing aquarium store owners and seeing the faxes and receivable receipts from one store are based on pure fact. Interviewing indigenous peoples from the Philippines and other areas in that region as well as confirming their information by visiting the reefs first hand (where corals are collected) and compiling data is FACT and not a gut reaction. EXAMPLE: Observing collectors collect Plerogyra from a location in Malaysia; they did not just collect a few colonies, they collected the entire patch (about 15 yard radius) without leaving one single fragment behind. Not to mention the trampling and damage to the surrounding corals that are not needed for coral collection. They cannot travel very far for collection, they stay in a particular reef area near their home, which in this case is on a small island, when the corals are gone they have basically depleted some very important species. These corals are sold for pennies, and sold to the middle men who profit a great deal. The corals are then brought to the USA and sold between $30- $100. When I told the collector what they are sold for in the USA, he did not believe me, he looked at me with a shocked look on his face.
POSTING: Yes the numbers of corals and live rock collected sound immense but if compared to the total amounts of coral and live rock in Fijian waters, does this represent a significant and more importantly a negative impact on Fijian reefs? Can this rate of collection be sustained without a decline on Fijian reefs? You can quote all the numbers you want to (Eric) but unless you put those numbers into context they mean nothing.
JAMES: The average person collecting is not making money for the LONG TERM to support his or her family! At the current method. Farming and cutting out the middle men and having the families deal directly with the store owners in the US might be a better idea. Along with a proposed strategy, and eco-system replenishment along with farming.
POSTING: Banning the import of corals into the US will do little to help areas of coral bleaching and only hurts the economies of countries such as Fiji which has escaped massive bleaching. Perhaps a more equitable solution would be to treat a ban on coral imports on a regional basis?
JAMES: Yes Fiji has escaped massive bleaching, this makes us all pleased !! This makes me think preservation & sustainable development, NOT EXPLOITATION & ignoring the real problems !
*******************************
James M. Cervino
Marine Biologist
Global Coral Reef Alliance
University of South Carolina at Aiken
cnidaria@earthlink.net
********************************
From: J. Charles Delbeek <delbeek@hawaii.edu>
To: coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov <coral-list@www.coral.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Harvesting
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 1:33 PM
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, James M. Cervino wrote:
> Coral Harvesting:
>
> JAMES: I have communicated with Eric regarding his data collection and he
> is not basing his information on a "GUT REACTION or EMOTION" He is basing
> his data on FACT. Interviewing aquarium store owners and seeing the faxes
> and receivable receipts from one store are based on pure fact. Interviewing
> indigenous peoples from the Philippines and other areas in that region as
> well as confirming their information by visiting the reefs first hand
> (where corals are collected) and compiling data is FACT and not a gut
> reaction. EXAMPLE: Observing collectors collect Plerogyra from a location
> in Malaysia; they did not just collect a few colonies, they collected the
> entire patch (about 15 yard radius) without leaving one single fragment
> behind. Not to mention the trampling and damage to the surrounding corals
> that are not needed for coral collection. They cannot travel very far for
> collection, they stay in a particular reef area near their home, which in
> this case is on a small island, when the corals are gone they have
> basically depleted some very important species. These corals are sold for
> pennies, and sold to the middle men who profit a great deal. The corals
> are then brought to the USA and sold between $30- $100. When I told the
> collector what they are sold for in the USA, he did not believe me, he
> looked at me with a shocked look on his face.
>
> POSTING: Yes the numbers of corals and live rock collected sound immense
> but if compared to the total amounts of coral and live rock in Fijian
> waters, does this represent a significant and more importantly a negative
> impact on Fijian reefs? Can this rate of collection be sustained without a
> decline on Fijian reefs? You can quote all the numbers you want to (Eric)
> but unless you put those numbers into context they mean nothing.
In refering to the lack of data I did not mean to imply that no numbers of imports had been collected, that would of course not be true as various reports have been published on this in the past, though none that I can remember in a peer reviewed journal (please correct me if wrong). As I stated in the above paragraph, these numbers mean nothing unless taken in context. This is where the emotionalism comes into play .. interpreting those numbers.
I also stated that I know there are abuses going on and I fully agree something needs to be done. But whereas you would want to shut everything down, I would prefer to see solutions worked out that are less drastic.
> JAMES: The average person collecting is not making money for the LONG TERM
> to support his or her family! At the current method. Farming and cutting
> out the middle men and having the families deal directly with the store
> owners in the US might be a better idea. Along with a proposed strategy,
> and eco-system replenishment along with farming.
I couldn't agree with you more.
> JAMES: Yes Fiji has escaped massive bleaching, this makes us all pleased !!
> This makes me think preservation & sustainable development, NOT
> EXPLOITATION & ignoring the real problems !
I do not understand where you are getting the impression that there is exploitation and unsustainable development going on in Fiji when it comes to coral harvesting? Where is the data to show it is exploitive and unsustainable? This is why I think the recommendations of the upcoming report make sense, lets study what is actually going on at the collection level and let the data speak for itself. With the resources of the U. of the S.P. and all its grad students right there, its a perfect opportunity.
Charles
** My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U. of Hawaii or the Waikiki Aq. **
From: Bob Mankin <bob@cadpros.com>
To: coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov <coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 3:36 AM
Greetings all,
When I first started following this thread, I was simply interested. After asking a few questions of the appropriate people, my interest became concern, and now, with each email exchange/phone conversation it is reaching alarm. The numbers as posted in this thread appear to be greatly exaggerated.
Let us hit on a few points raised here:
It is common practice to overreport in this business. There is no penalty for doing so if you show up at the port of entry light or with reduced piece counts. Fiji export permits must be applied for a full week in advance of a shipment. The exporter will ALWAYS estimate high for every given species that he expects to collect for the following week. In the case of Acropora spp. mentioned in this thread, obtaining permits for 300 animals and then shipping only 100 or less is common for Fiji. Happens just about every week and this information was offered to me directly just yesterday. I wanted to suggest that the skew in numbers is due to the original poster looking at permitted numbers versus actual shipped numbers, but even that cannot fully explain the discrepancy.
Other advances in the culturing area might allow coral larvae collection and growout to become the next step for the trade. This idea is just starting to show promise and may become a viable commerical industry within a few years. Managed properly, this could have almost neglible impact to the reefs while providing income for these poor nations. At the same time possibly developing the technologies and understanding for tomorrow when large scale reef replanting may be required.
In closing, since most do not know me here, I own a small retail/wholesale livestock business that involves the import of the very animals in this discussion. Cultured or captive bred livestock is our main focus. Before someone suggests that I am simply covering my own interests, keep in mind this is not my primary source of income and I could easily walk away from my investment in it tomorrow if that were deemed the most responsible thing for all. But to have bans or even increased regulations based on such horribly incorrect data is irresponsible and I suggest some immediate and thorough review. If you are going to affect the livelihood of thousands of people and the economies of dozens of nations with this stuff, I would think discussions with a few more people closer to the 'front lines' of this business(USF&W officials at LAX for example) are in order.
Respectfully,
Bob Mankin
From: Bob Mankin <bob@cadpros.com>
To: coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov <coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Coral Harvesting - Fiji.
Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 1:22 AM
Hello again,
Consider this a sort of informal introduction, but Mr. Walt Smith of Lautoka, Fiji Islands has asked to join the list and you should be seeing him weigh in on this debate shortly. For those that do not know, Walt operates the largest collection station in Fiji and is the point man most responsible for the numbers in question here.
I'm sure he'll welcome any inquiries about figures or about the way the industry operates in general. For those who have any interest in this trade and how it effects the reefs of Fiji, you couldn't get a better opportunity, so don't be afraid to put him on the spot. I've found Walt very willing to discuss interesting aspects of the trade and hopefully he will be able to assist in getting an accurate picture of what is going on with the Fiji collection and export situation.
Regards,
Bob Mankin
From: Tim Tessier <tim@cfh.ca>
To: coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov <coral-list@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Coral Harvesting -Fiji - Cebu
Date: Thursday, September 16, 1999 11:05 AM
Hi All,
I would like to add one point to what Bob said.
There is a company that is "raping" the reefs of Cebu for the curio trade. I have visited this company to purchase beach sand and was shown the "facility". I noticed several large(2.5') heads of tabletop acropora as well as 20+ shelves full of different corals. I have also seen 8" dia. heads of seriatopora histrix. In the back of this facility are large tubs where they bleach the corals. This company is regularly importing several 20ft ship containers of coral per month. I find it sickening that they can seemingly do this legally. They are NOT using a CITES permit, which they could never get, but a MINING permit. They have convinced the Canadian Wildlife Enforcement that the corals are mined. Could other companies be doing the same thing and thus skewing the amount of corals that are actually being exported?
Sincerely,
Tim Tessier
| Coral-List Server Page | Coral Health and Monitoring Program Home Page |
lasted updated 10/07/99
by Monika Gurnée
CHAMP Webmaster