[Coral-List] Mediterranean Red Coral

Georgios Tsounis georgios at icm.csic.es
Thu Jan 28 14:43:20 EST 2010


Dear all,

since the question has been posted whether C. rubrum should be listed  
on CITES appendix II, I made some inquiries that I would like to share  
in order to be more specific than in my last email.

To to reiterate, my point was that if a local management plan is  
flawed, a CITES listing may not result in an improvement of  
management. However, maybe I did not give CITES enough credit, since  
in fact Article IX of the Convention specifies that Parties may  
designate any scientific authority they wish, or even several. These  
should be separate and independent from the managing government  
department, so by design a CITES listing may be able to enforce  
scientific recommendations where e.g. fishery departments ignore them.  
Nevertheless, it seems that lines between scientific management  
authorities and management authorities are often blurred, i.e., some  
countries appoint their fisheries research department as scientific  
authorities.

It is therefore possible that a CITES Appendix II listing might indeed  
force the implementation of scientific recommendations, but this would  
depend on the choice of management authority (they are listed on the  
web). Of course, this conservation benefit would be bought at the  
expense of the industry suffering bureaucratic burdens as a result of  
the fishery managers failing to implement scientific recommendations  
since 1986.

If there is one point I am trying to make, it is that this matter is  
more complex than it seems. To be honest, I find it difficult to  
estimate how efficient a listing may be. Among factors such as  
identification etc., you have to consider that borders within the EU  
are not enforced anymore, so it is not straightforward to track the  
items manufactured in Italy and exported outside the EU from there.  
However, I guess the argument that an error on the conservative side  
will be preferable in the long term, is acceptable (i.e., preventive  
measures). The industry claims that a listing would have catastrophic  
effects pushing many companies out of business, but it seems that  
experiences in other cases do not confirm this extreme position. I  
trust that the CoP is able to judge this. But whatever they decide,  
let us not forget that local management urgently needs to progress, as  
CITES and local management are not an "either-or" situation.

I`d love to hear if anyone knows of enlightening case studies.

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 11:16 PM, Georgios Tsounis wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>




More information about the Coral-List mailing list