The coral reefs in the Asia Pacific islands are under siege by coastal dwellers using cyanide and dynamite to procure fish. This practice has been vehemently condemned by conservation agencies, scuba diving magazines, dive resorts, NGOs (non governmental organizations) and marine scientists as well as all that have their vested interest in the coral reef environment. If the practice continues, it is estimated by the year 2020, all coral reefs in the region will be destroyed.
Spurred by quick bucks and the demand of aquariums and a live fish trade supplying restaurants throughout the region, unscrupulous traders employ agents / locals to harvest reef fishes with sodium cyanide. According to reports from the WWF, over 6000 cyanide divers squirt an estimated 150,000 kg of dissolved poison on some 33 million coral heads annually. Beside the distinct possibility of causing the extinction of these fish species in the region by such a selective culling process , cyanide is not selective. It also indiscriminately kills coral polyps, symbiotic algae and other small reef organisms required for the sustenance of a healthy reef, which will eventually cause the entire ecosystem of the reef to collapse. During the first eight months of 1995, a total catch of 2.3 million kg of live groupers and humped wrasse worth over US$180 million was exported to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. Another 1.9 million kg of decorative fishes worth US$800,000 was shipped to Europe and North America.
During Ocean N Environment expeditions to Indonesia, I have come to encounter these raiders of the reef. Collectors who expose their life to the risk of cyanide poisoning and decompression sickness due to extended exposure under pressure. They comprise solely of boys from local tribes and sea gypsies. From small collection centres scattered among remote islands each of these outposts gathers an average of 250 tons of Napoleon wrasse and grouper to meet the demand of their middleman in the principal towns of Ujung Pandang and Manado. This selective culling of a species that may live up to 50 years in the wild is considered totally unsustainable by marine scientists. In the short term however, a dinner plate sized Napoleon wrasse which may fetch up to US$800 in a Chinese restaurant in Hong Kong, makes good business acumen for the entrepreneur. Gourmet diners in Hong Kong are willing to part with thousands of dollars for a live fish and will go as far as checking out the freshness of their dinner by viewing swathes of flesh skillfully removed to show the fish's beating heart.
Millions of dollars are invested by numerous environmental agencies mostly donated by the concerned public and corporate sponsors, to research, educate and 'retrain' fisherman to use other forms and methods of fishing. One of these organizations, Haribon Foundation for Conservation of Natural Resources, a leading Philippines NGO has as early as 1990 began a realistic effort to educate local fisherman on the sustainable development of the reef environment by protective netting and methods of collection. Coral Reef Alliance, another conservation agency for the reef, is also promoting retraining as a solution to the cyanide problems.
However, on the other end of the scale, the simple principal of marketing still applies. Whenever there is a demand, someone out there will be sourcing for supply. In Asian culture, consumption of a Napoleon wrasse is not simply a dietary concern, but the status of being able to afford the luxury - to many it is a sign of wealth and status symbol. The South East Asian counties have undoubtedly become a financial power, where a gastronomical feast of Napoleon wrasse and the 'thousand-dollar-a-bowl shark-fin soup mark a successful business transaction. In this regard, the demand for these delicacies is indeed a serious threat to the marine environment.
All governments in the South East Asian countries have excellent laws that declare fishing with both cyanide and dynamite illegal, but implementation and enforcement are two separate issues altogether. Governments in these countries can do nothing to restrict the dietary habits of their own citizens nor a business venture that engages in cyanide fishing by say a Singaporean in Sulawesi, Indonesia for example. In a hypothetical situation, the obvious solution that would inevitably cause the cyanide fishing industry to collapse is for the governments of Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China and even Australia to impose bans on the sale of live Napoleon Wrasse and grouper. If the aquarium trade for ornamental fishes in the USA is causing the degradation of reefs in the Philippines, then ban the tropical fish vendors in that country. Without the demand, there will no call for supply.
In the real world, this is not as simple. When I checked with Dr. Howard Latin, an international conservation law professor from New Jersey, on the possibility of a ban on the sale of live Napoleon wrasse,, his immediate comment was "since the markets for live groupers & Napoleon Wrasse are mainly in Asian countries without strong environmental laws, my analysis wouldn't work and we'd need to find more economical disincentive measures such as boycotts, information disclosure, etc."
Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia and Singapore have a long history of allowing trade in endangered species and it will be unrealistic to expect these importing nations to restrain the businessmen and consumers who want to have these "luxury" fish for consumption. Take Singapore for instance, world renown for law enforcement on its bans on everything from illegal drugs to chewing gum - imposing effective controls would mean the demand of some cyanide free import certificates from merchants and random testing of live fish - the cost and legalities of which may well offend neighboring nations, does not justify the benefits. Singapore does not have much of her own coral reef resources.
In another context, what can these governments offer the poor fishermen who are making considerably higher wages (at the risk of their lives and health) using cyanide to catch a few species in high demand? Take Indonesia as an example. This nation is an archipelago comprised of over 170000 islands, with a population of over 190 million - a high percentage of these people live by and are sustained by the sea and aid is next to non -existent. In our expedition to Tukang Besi, thought to be one of the few remaining untouched coral reef environments we found obvious evidence of frequent dynamite fishing used for the collection of fish to feed the people of it's overpopulated water villages.
A spokesman of Operation Wallacea, told me that they have received over 2 million US dollars in aid from Hong Kong Bank for their research project at Tukang Besi. The operation is charging volunteers up to $3000 to help them document the bio-diversity there in an effort to declare the area a marine reserve. Despite all the good intentions, the crux of the problems has not been addressed. There are simply too many people , and these people need to live. Wouldn't it be much better to spend the 2 million dollars either relocating these people or to help them develop a form of sustainable aqua culture ? In a nut shell, if we were to focus our effort on feeding these people that are practicing dynamite and cyanide fishing, by providing them with resources and skills to improve their quality of life, wouldn't they help us save our reef? The question I posed at my recent presentation on the environment at DEMA Asia in Kuala Lumpur is "What have businesses that profit from the pristineness of coral reefs done for these people whose livelihood has been sustained by the reef's resources?"
The messages scuba and geographical magazines, instruction agencies, resorts and live-aboard vessels promote are environmentally friendly - 'don't touch the reef, don't take anything' . The new breed of divers are a conscious lot. Most divers do little damage to coral reefs, don't remove shells and frown on those who do. One afternoon last year, while on Bunaken island with a group of divers from Australia ,we were approached by a young girl, barely eight years old, carrying a basket of shells to sell. She did not yield a response from any of us. My point to this is simple - while each of us must have paid up to US$150 per day for the privilege of diving in this girl's 'backyard', she did not reap a single cent - while her father was probably out in an outrigger canoe waiting to bring in their next meal.
As long as there are poverty stricken people that are sustained by the sea and as long as there is demand by the rich and wealthy for 'luxury' fish, dynamite and cyanide will continue to send our coral reef to irreversible degradation. We are not ruling out the prospect of having Napoleon wrasse banned from the restaurants of Asia - Pacific countries, but the businesses and responsible divers need to take a closer look at their contribution to the problems. I cite Goodwin's (1996)definition of ecotourism to illustrate my point, as most operators in the diving businesses believe that they provide. " low impact nature tourism which contributes to the maintenance of species and habitats either directly through a contribution to conservation and/or indirectly by providing revenue to the local community sufficient for local people to value, and therefore protect their wildlife heritage area as a source of income. To this end I have not seen many such contributions by either operators or participants, in my last six years of extensive travel. If every operator in the region would start by adopting a village or local community near their operation, providing them with education and a source of income, it shall be a positive start to eliminating dynamite and cyanide off our coral reefs. A boycott by every diver and their friends in Asia from restaurants that serve shark-fin soup and live Napoleon wrasse will also create headlines with the news media. The preservation of the quality of our coral reefs is more than just wearing a Save the Reef T-shirt or sticking a "Responsible Diver" sticker on the family car.
Copyright Michael AW 11/96
Michael AW
Ocean N Environment Ltd
P.O. Box 2138, Carlingford Court Post Office
Carlingford NSW 2118, Australia
Tel / Fax: 61 2 9 686 36 88 also 9686 6838
Mobile: 61 (0) 418 203 238
email: oneocean@comcen.com.au
http://www.OceanNEnvironment.com.au
html-conversion: 9.7.97, Reinhold Leinfelder, German IYOR-Organizing Team