[Coral-List] Mediterranean Red Coral
Georgios Tsounis
Georgios at icm.csic.es
Tue Jan 26 17:16:05 EST 2010
Dear Kerim,
thanks for "putting the finger on the wound" by asking about the lack
of progress in management after 1983 and 1988 FAO expert consultation
meetings.
Let me focus on just one specific example to illustrate where part of
the problem lies, at least according to my experience. When the C.
rubrum catches declined in the late 70s / early 80s, the FAO hosted
consultation meetings. The wealth of information accumulated back
then, as well as the recommendations given, are actually quite
impressive, as the experts did in fact come up with preventive
solutions.
One of the participants was Richard Grigg who in 1976 published a
management program (Seagrant Tech Rep 77-03) for the black coral
Antipathes dichotoma (now re-described as Antipathes griggi). It is
now said to be Hawaii's best managed species. He applied the Beverton-
Holt maximum sustainable yield model to population data of black
coral, and derived the minimum size at which black coral may be
harvested.
By the time the FAO hosted the second meeting in 1988, two spanish
scientists (Mariano Garcia-Rodriguez & Carlos Masso 1986, Bol Inst Esp
Oceanogr) applied the same model to the red coral populations north of
Barcelona (Spain). They calculated that maximum sustainable yield
(MSY) would be obtained if C. rubrum was harvested at an age of at
least 80 years. In reality corals are harvested at a much younger age
of about 11 years or less. The reason is that this corresponds to the
basal diameter to 7 mm, which was the smallest diameter the industry
was interested in. They proposed to increase the minimum size to at
least 8.6 mm. It has never happened.
We applied the Beverton-Holt model to the same populations in 2003,
using more precise growth rate estimates, and found that coral reach
MSY at 98 years, pretty much confirming that the 1986 study was valid.
Our study was commissioned by the local fishery authorities, and we
made it very clear in our report that the minimum size should be
increased to at least what Garcia-Rodriguez & Masso proposed. This was
not implemented though, and red coral is harvested pretty much the
same way it was more than 20 years ago. It can still be legally
harvested in nearly all of the Mediterranean at 7 mm diameter because
this has been traditionally so, in contrast to scientific studies.
The thing is that only a few of the active 16 divers dive to the
depths where larger coral can still be found (talking about Spain). In
contrast, the authorities in Sardinia (Italy) took the correct
measures and banned coral fishing in traditional SCUBA depths of down
to 80 m. They also increased the minimum size limit to 10 mm. This can
be done everywhere by gradually phasing out shallow water fishing as
senior divers retire. New participants can be required to use mixed gas.
But it is not easy to get the actual managers to do this, even though
these are not radical measures at all. The shallow water stocks are so
devastated by overfishing, that a Mediterranean wide application of
the Sardinian example should be considered. This will meet resistance
in some countries... The key lies in convincing all decision-makers,
and I feel this is what we have to start discussing, as CITES
unfortunately does not fulfil this function.
CITES relies on the evaluation of these decision makers to allow
specimens to be exported. So if Corallidae was listed in CITES, any
managed fishery would issue the non-detriment finding required for
export, and we would continue to harvest coral as thin/young as 7 mm,
just as it was done for the last 30 years... Unless of course you
change local management regulations, but there has not been much talk
about how to achieve this. Unfortunately, the managers were not even
present at the workshops last year (except one). Again: these managers
will provide an NDF finding for the coral harvested by their
fisheries, which will lead to CITES export papers.
By mentioning a lack of resources I did not refer to the means to
perform the studies, but to a strong management system that is able to
implement the recommendations from such studies. We have conducted the
type of studies you are planning to do at your coast, but even our
official government reports are not being implemented. The managers
have to represent a variety of interests and know they have a huge
problem on their hands. If however the GFCM provided binding or non-
binding guidelines, the decision-makers would be off the hook as they
would be obliged to implement these changes. In the end, it comes down
to the persons sitting there. In Hawaii there are dedicated scientists
and managers in contact with industry and fishermen, all with the will
to make it work. I am glad to hear about your plans, as your studies
are certainly necessary.
By the way, the reason that FAO and IUCN concluded that the species do
not meet the decline criteria is not just to a lack of data. In fact
it is documented that shallow water populations contained a large
number of old/large colonies in the 1950s. These are all gone. If you
compare historical information with recent studies and anecdotal
observation, we can already speak of a collapse / catastrophic decline
of shallow water populations. This is the reason that the protection
of shallow water populations was agreed upon unisono at the workshop
in Naples, including industry representatives (but will any decision-
maker ever read our report ?). However, populations at depths deeper
than ca. 130 m are practically protected since 1994 (when dredging was
prohibited in the EU), so coral fishing does not affect the whole
population. This is actually an important factor when looking at the
criteria. But we will see what the parties decide in June.
In the meantime, I am grateful for this conversation, and hope we can
identify ways to implement the management changes that the scientific
community recommends. We now have the knowledge to better manage these
species, it is a matter of implementation. Without such an
implementation, CITES will make no difference. I am not criticizing
CITES itself by the way, just pointing out what component is missing
to make it work effectively in the mentioned case, as I am afraid that
after a listing we might forget about this issue, thinking the problem
has been solved.
The minimum size is just the most illustrative example, but there are
others, e.g., the fact that poaching is severe, and that no one
records the size of coral landed. Please excuse me for talking just
about management here, but the scientific data are already published.
Please let me know if anyone needs me to point towards the
publications containing all the information I mentioned.
All the best,
Georgios
Dr. Georgios Tsounis
Institut de Ciències del Mar, CMIMA (CSIC)
Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 37-49
08003 Barcelona, Spain
Phone: 34 932 309 611
Fax: 34 93 2 309 555
E-mail: georgios at icm.csic.es
http://www.icm.csic.es
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Kerim Ben Mustapha wrote:
> Dear all
> Thank you for keeping this issue on the agenda.
>
> As many of you pointed out, there is a lack of local management, and
> this "mis managment" could not be met only by national countries..We
> already know the result of such "initiatives" for the last decades;
> it's a regional issue, and neither FAO or GFCM are able to manage
> the issue.
> We certainly lack reliable statistical figures re. red coralll
> populatioon collapse, for that reasons some experts (even the fao
> panel of experts) do not agree on its listing in annexe 2 of the
> CITES, but what kind of improvment in national management of such
> fisheries can be done? Why it was not done before? do we really can
> rely on such improvment? why we do not succeed till today? How do
> you think a management model could be set up when its related to
> such living resources (exploitation de gisement)? So If the
> statitical figures are lacking and the scientific knowledge did not
> provide sufficient argumentation on the needed management procedure
> why we do not apply the precautionnary approach? Since the meeting
> in Torre del Greco in the late 80's we were spooking about a better
> management for Corallium rubrum population in the mediterranean; we
> are in 2010, and I do not see such improvment neither a clear
> national will.
> From a regional point of view even when the regional and
> international fishing structure's decisison are binding the states
> do not fullfill their obligation (see the BFTuna/ICCAT issue, or the
> BFT/ and the UN (UN agreement on straddling and highly migratory
> stocks , or the whaling issue etc....) so what about non binding
> decisions?
>
> The situation is what it is, and the prices are raising up each
> year....Im confident in a CITES listing (annexe2) , after all, it's
> a matter of improved control system by the scientific body as well
> as the management body of the involved countries; such listing will
> increase their control and will be a strong signal for the natioanl
> scientific and management bodies to act. We from the southern med
> did not lack resources, it's only a matter of will.
> By the way, we are going to start a mapping program of the
> coralligenous habitat (including C.rubrum gisement) this summer,
> with our new hightech SSS "C3D benthos" in the northern tunisian
> coasts. I think that it's really important to knew the geographical
> distribution, the density of the red coral population (may be the
> available bio mass... but did our knowledge will be sufficient to
> calculate such data knowing that differentiated biologica/
> ecological strategies ocurs in deep and cosatal population, as well
> as in exploited and non exploited ones) and one objectif of this
> programm is to study the ecological pathway of the colonies in their
> habitats.
>
> Kerim Ben Mustapha
> INSTM
> Salammbô
> Tunisia
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> On 25 Jan 2010 at 17:15, Georgios Tsounis wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> thanks for raising this question. Excellent replies have already
> been posted, and I especially agree with Prof. Santangelo who
> indicated that the ultimate question we should be asking is: what is
> necessary to effectively manage Corallium rubrum?
> As FAO consultation reports and recent literature demonstrate,
> current management of almost all Mediterranean coral fisheries
> cannot be described as adequate. In 2009 there were two more
> Corallium workshops that accumulated a wealth of recent information,
> and a FAO panel as well as an IUCN/TRAFFIC expert group provided
> recommendations to the CITES conference of Parties (see links below).
> For those of you who are interested in recent information that was
> gathered at these events, please have a look at the respective
> documents:
> http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/38195/icode/
> http://coris.noaa.gov/activities/1st_intl_wkshop/
> http://dsa.uniparthenope.it/rcsmt09/
> http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/CoP14/AnalysesEN/cites_prop_21.pdf
> When discussing whether Corallidae meet the criteria, we should keep
> in mind that FAO and IUCN/TRAFFIC provide advice to CITES CoP, and
> both came to the conclusion that the present data do not meet the
> criteria (see the links provided), -and the panels have been well
> aware of the information cited in the mentioned MEPS paper.
> As Kristian pointed out, local management is the basis for effective
> conservation, but CITES can complement it. Therefo
> karim.benmustapha at instm.rnrt.tn
> kbmtok at yahoo.com.au
> Marine ecologist and biologist
> Expert in sponges and seagrass mapping
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list