Malapascua - Video!

And talking of those Pelagic Threshers.

I really did like this.

Monad Shoal close to Malapascua Island is where divers get to experience those Sharks being cleaned, whereas they have been filmed hunting at Pescador Island.

Enjoy!

Sustainable Shark Fisheries in lesser developed Countries?

Devastating - unsustainable small-scale Shark fishing. Source.

So there.

Remember this post?

Back then, it did earn me plenty of flak from the movement - but times have moved on and the concept of sustainable fishing of some (!) species of Sharks is apparently becoming more accepted, to the point that I was very happy to read this really quite excellent post on the Ocean Campus website.

I could not agree more when I read that

... countries are beginning to put measures in place to increase the sustainability of their shark fisheries, and research is constantly being done to further their efficiency. 
In my opinion, it is the development of these biologically based, best practices, concerning reproductive traits and ecology of shark species which hold the greatest potential in minimising shark stock collapses and population declines. Fragmenting the conservation effort by targeting single practices (such as implementing shark finning bans) can obstruct the development of more effective shark management tools.

But of course, there is a big BUT!

From the paper.

Abstract.
(...)
PERMANOVA analysis showed that over-exploited and depleted fisheries employed different sets of measures than fisheries with healthier stocks, and a non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination illustrated that a broad set of regulatory measures typified sustainable fisheries.
SIMPER and regression tree analyses identified that the dissimilarity was most related to enforcement capacity, number of species harvested, fleet (vessel) controls, limited entry controls and rotational closures.

The national Human Development Index was significantly lower in countries with over-exploited and depleted fisheries.
Where possible, managers should limit the number of fishers and vessel size and establish short lists of permissible commercial species in multispecies fisheries. Our findings emphasize an imperative to support the enforcement capacity in low-income countries, in which risk of biodiversity loss is exceptionally high. Solutions for greater resilience of XYZ stocks must be embedded within those for poverty reduction and alternative livelihood options.

Trends in sustainability and exploitation
(...)
Management measures
Enforcement (and compliance) capacity varied greatly among fisheries and tended to be weak in tropical fisheries in low-income countries.(...)
The PERMANOVA contrasts showed that, in terms of variables potentially controllable by the fishery manager, under-exploited, moderately exploited and fully exploited fisheries were similar, but differed significantly from management variables employed in over-exploited and depleted fisheries. The subsequent SIMPER analysis identified that enforcement capacity was the management tool most strongly related to the dissimilarity between unsustainable and sustainable fisheries.
Nonetheless, other management variables were also important and contributed only slightly less to the dissimilarity than enforcement capacity. Specifically, the other management measures important in the majority of difference between sustainable and unsustainable fisheries (in descending order of importance) were the following:

1. fleet (vessel) controls,
2. limited entry controls, 
3. rotational harvest closures, 
4. the total number of species harvested by fishers, 
5. licensing and reporting requirements, and 
6. the number of regulatory measures used by the manager

Discussion

We aimed to relate management measures to sustainability of XYZ fisheries, and our analyses indicate that resilience of social-ecological systems (SESs) of XYZ fisheries will come from strengthening enforcement capacity, allowing only a small number of species to be harvested, applying input controls, reducing the number of fishers per unit of fishing ground and improving the socio-economic state of human communities. (...)
Stocks of commercially valuable species have been depleted at a comparably fast rate over much of their distribution. Many XYZ species face a high risk of extinction through overfishing coupled with inherent biological and ecological vulnerability. Apart from an unlikely reduction in demand from Chinese consumers, we believe that sustainability and resilience of troubled XYZ fisheries will only come from the adoption of radically different approaches to management.

Enforcement drives sustainability 
While marine reserves, international trade agreements and stock assessments may be important tools for sustaining XYZ stocks, our analysis highlights the importance of enforcement capacity in fisheries sustainability.
Indeed, many fisheries struggle with deterring fishers from illegal activities by compliance measures or strict penalties. The SIMPER and RT analyses both indicated that depleted and over-exploited XYZ fisheries predominantly had weak enforcement capacity. Thus, fine-tuning management regulations or developing complex management plans are less likely to succeed in protecting minimum viable populations of XYZ than investment in compliance and enforcement. (...)  

Conclusions

Stocks of commercially valuable species have been depleted at a comparably fast rate over much of their distribution.
Many XYZ species face a high risk of extinction through overfishing coupled with inherent biological and ecological vulnerability. Apart from an unlikely reduction in demand from Chinese consumers, we believe that sustainability and resilience of troubled XYZ fisheries will only come from the adoption of radically different approaches to management.
Recent assertions about improved management of XYZ fisheries have centred on regulatory measures and management actions, marine reserves and international regulations, research, monitoring and harvest strategies.
Our findings reveal that a new paradigm is needed for managing XYZ fisheries; one in which resources are shifted from the development of complex management plans to enforcement and compliance of simple sets of regulations and to tackling the socio-economic challenges of coastal fishers that transcend fisheries. 

The best devised management plans will fail if disincentives to illegal fishing activities are not strong enough and/or if underlying poverty of fishers is not improved. We also conclude that multiple management measures are needed in XYZ fisheries but not so many that they cannot be easily understood and enforced.
In addition to compliance and enforcement, the key regulatory measures appeared to be the following:

1. a small list of permissible species for exploitation, 
2. fleet controls, especially on the size of boats in the fishery, 
3. limited entry controls to restrict the number of fishers, and 
4. licensing and reporting requirements.

Evidence of slow growth, low natural mortality and high longevity in some species underscores the need for more conservative management strategies than in the past and cautions the use of conventional fisheries science underpinned by estimations of maximum sustainable yield.  
The great variation in the scale of fishing activities, management systems and technical capacities of management bodies means that multiple, country or region-specific solutions will be needed to redress the shortcomings in collapsed fisheries.

Operationalizing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (sensu Garcia et al. 2003) requires a greater involvement of stakeholders, consideration of alternative management systems and a higher priority of social science in management institutions.
Resilience in XYZ fisheries will come about only if fishers are part of the management system and can adapt quickly to changes in the resource. In the vast majority of global fisheries, regulations towards sustainability are commonly undermined by political pressures (Mora et al. 2009).

Transformation of the management paradigms currently undermining XYZ stocks, therefore, inevitably needs to be supported by decision-makers resolutely if these animals are to remain valuable to the livelihoods of coastal peoples and provide the eco-services that contribute to healthy marine ecosystems. 

There you have it.

The poorer the countries, the more depleted the stocks.

And if we want to establish sustainable fisheries, we have to develop simple, often country-specific management tools, we have to involve the stakeholders - but we also have to tackle poverty and above all, we have to boost compliance and enforcement.

Chances of the latter eventuating anytime soon?

The paper - have you divined the species XYZ?

It's not at all about Sharks - it is about Sea Cucumbers!

Thing is, when it comes to lesser developed countries in the tropics, I can find plenty of literature about large-scale, industrialized commercial fisheries for pelagic Sharks but nothing about those small-scale artisanal fisheries that are wreaking havoc on the coastal species.

The Sea Cucumber paper is an excellent proxy not only because it sheds a light on those coastal fisheries but also because in places like Fiji, the Sea Cucumber traders are increasingly promoting Shark fins as a high-value alternative for those depleted and ever more rare Sea Cucumbers. Both fisheries supply the same essentially Asian consumer markets, involve the same people and socio-economic issues, and follow the general trend whereby they are equally often not, or badly managed and unsustainable (e.g here), and exploit the same lack of resources (and often lack of determination and/or corruption) and resulting insufficient to nonexistent enforcement by the local authorities.

Solutions?

It's same old same old.

• Legislate Shark Sanctuaries as stop-gap measures.


• Where possible, create alternative livelihoods e.g via tourism or aquaculture.


• Eventually and where adequate, establish science-based and sustainably managed fisheries, however with much smarter, and way cheaper monitoring and enforcement.
  In the case of those small-scale commercial fisheries, monitoring every single fisherman and landing site is mission impossible - the good news being that the bottleneck are the fin traders that are both driving the fisheries and aggregating, processing and exporting the fins. They are relatively few, easy to identify and easy to monitor. Reverse the burden of proof and let them prove that the trade is sustainable and legal, and make it a condition of their license to provide the data required for management.

There you have it - not easy but not impossible, either.

Or am I missing something here?

 

Palau - Proposal for a Marine Sanctuary!

Tommy Remengesau - a visionary?

Wow.

The president of Palau is proposing to declare Palau's entire EEZ a marine sanctuary where any commercial fishing would be banned.

Prima vista, it sounds like a great initiative.

It is undoubtedly so that those distant water fleets are pillaging the Pacific without any regard for sustainability and against totally inadequate compensation - and I'm not only talking about Japan and Taiwan but very much also the USA and Europe! With that in mind, one should really finally tell them to fuck off.

But is a total fishing ban really the best solution?

Would it not be way smarter to start developing a local commercial fleet, to fish sustainably, process the Fish in Palau and then sell it offshore? After all, if managed properly, Fish are a totally renewable resource and truly sustainable fishing does not harm biodiversity - so why deprive the country of this income and the tourists, of their Lobster Thermidor?

Hell, defining and implementing 100% sustainable fishing quotas and techniques with the aid of some reputable NGOs would be a great project and propel Palau right to the top of visionary fishing nations!

Or am I missing something here?

Cristina: non c'è due senza tre!

Cristina doing her thing in the SRMR - stellar pic by Ozzie Sam. Click for detail!

La Zenato has done it again!

Check out her brilliant newest blog post.
Like her previous posts here and here, it ultimately amounts to nothing more than common sense.

Indeed,
In this context, a simplistic approach that calls for stopping fishing all together is not going to work, is not realistic, and is set up for failure.
At some point the need to sustain food sources for a community clashes with the need for ‘ecological sustainability.’

And thus, this is the lesson I learned in Fiji:
Viable protection needs to come from within the place where sharks are located, it needs to be understood and promoted by the local people, and it needs to be presented in a spirit of cooperation and understanding. My personal opinion is that we need to support education and engage in an open conversation with all parties involved, including ourselves, the visitors.

Could not agree more - with one caveat.
With human development having run roughshod over marine resources, there are now too many people wanting to eat too little fish - and if that is true, both sides of that conflicting dichotomy need to be addressed.

There is only one solution, and that is, to achieve real sustainability.
And if so, it means that we must find ways to allow for those depleted fish stocks to recover; but at the same time, we must finally have the courage to speak out about the ultimate cause of the current problem, i.e. human population growth and the growth of the individual ecological footprints.

That is of course an eminently political challenge.
The clash Cristina mentions is real, especially in those developing countries where eating fish is a necessity and not merely a luxury - and I doubt that any amount of education alone will ever be sufficient to achieve the necessary consensus.

Long story short?
What I'm trying to say is that democracy is great - but when times are tough, democratic processes do not always lead to the best solutions.
Right now, what we need is leadership, and consensus will hopefully come at a later stage when the benefits of those bold measures will become apparent to everybody.
Thankfully for Fiji, it appears that we have just that.

Enjoy Cristina's post.

Preaching to the Choir?

 

Love + Action= Public Change
Need + Action= Policy Change 

 

Interesting! But first, watch this. 

 

  

 

Are you impressed? 

Probably you are - but then again, you are reading a Shark diving and Shark conservation blog, meaning that you probably already love nature and the ocean (read it!) and need no convincing anyway! As Kevin points out in this brilliant post, this kind of negative messaging equates preaching to the choir and does not really advance the narrative beyond our circles. Now please watch the following, already mentioned here.

 

 

 

Indeed, that's how you do it - Love not Loss! 

The image at the top is from an interesting document by Futerra, the smart hip sustainability communications agency from the UK. It of course ties in beautifully with Angelo's comment about E.O. Wilson's Biophilia and is inherently absolutely true. 

 

The problem?

The track record sucks! 

Ever since Homo sapiens (and probably its ancestors) graced to walk the planet, his most pervasive legacy has been one of scorched earth and extinction, very much along the lines of Diamond's Third Chimpanzee. Are we now more evolved and smarter, to the point where we will recognize the error of our ways? 

 

Maybe - at least that's the hope! 

But the conundrum lays in trying to match conservation with the needs and aspirations of 7 billion people - and there, I'm not terribly hopeful as the so-called leaders appear fatally mired in the present and lacking any credible vision for the future. 

Like in conservation, the message needs to be Positive - and yet, all I'm really seeing are flawed strategies about how best to manage a process which is being labeled as some kind of gradual retreat. That's certainly not motivating and not the way to ensure that the populace will ever embrace sustainability - and in fact, when asked, they generally do not! 

 

Luckily for us in Shark conservation, thus far, nobody is asking. 

Most of the recent advances have not been democratic processes but instead, the result of the right people talking to the authorities at the right time, sometimes with a bit of outreach/petitions thrown in for good measure. 

So far so good - but only time will tell if those achievements will endure. 

 

Solutions? 

If we ever want to be successful in building a widespread consensus for sustainability, we indeed need to focus on positive messaging, both in conservation and in politics. But at the same time, we need to stop playing little Dutch boy whilst ignoring the root cause, population growth and the growth of individual ecological footprints.  

 

That's the Big Gorilla! 

Ultimately, if we cannot tackle that, this cause is lost - and since we really cannot possibly ask anybody to forgo his aspirations for a better life, the ONLY possible solution is to advocate a substantial (!) reduction in birth rates. 

 

And on this happy note, back to the Sharks! 

 

Onward and Upward!

Behold Beqa Island Trips!

Yes the website needs alot more work, but we have finally opened our second office at the Pearl South Pacific and as of September 1^st, we are running trips to Beqa Lagoon. Once again, our newest ecotourism venture originates with our wish to provide for sustainable livelihoods in cooperation with local stakeholders at the grassroots level.

Our flagship product is Beqa Magic.
This trip takes our customers to Lawaki Beach House on Beqa Island for a day of cultural immersion and marine ecotourism.
The resort is located on the fringes of Naceva Village and sister village Naiseuseu who have reserved a substantial portion of their qoliqoli, or traditional fishing grounds for a Marine Protected Area, for which they will now be able to collect a marine park levy like the one for accessing the SRMR. Much like she has done in Waitabu Marine Park, our friend Helen Sykes of Marine Ecology Consulting has graciously donated her time to train several village youth as snorkeling guides who will take the guests around the MPA and earn an income in the process. Nani has worked with the community who will sell local handicrafts and perform the traditional Fijian meke, whereas Lawaki will serve a delicious lovo and copious amounts of Beqa kava. Like in the SRMR, preserving and defending the MPA will henceforth always generate more income than going fishing there.
I must say, we're mighty proud of this venture and really want to thank the villages, Helen but also Christine and Sam of Lawaki for their wonderful cooperation in making this happen!
Vinaka Vakalevu!

Yanuca Beachcomber is a typical beach picnic & BBQ.
It takes our guests to the pristine beach of Batiluva Beach Resort on Yanuca Island and is ideal for families and the Suva weekend crowd.

Finally, a big thank you to the Uprising family!
The MV Forty Freedom is theirs and trusting us to run her is a testament to years of excellent cooperation and personal friendship.
Vinaka, you shall not be disappointed!


Please click to enlarge.

Shark Diving AND Shark Fishing? Probably not!

Hooked Tiger Shark - from the Sharkbite Charters' Facebook gallery.

This is a difficult one.

~Please help educate these "shark divers." For The Sharks!! >~xo:] x
like a well meaning Shark activist advocates?

The question being, who needs educating.
This is the answer of Karl Callwood to the critics of the Shark fishing video he has posted here. Karl is the Chief of staff, Chief Researcher/Communications Officer/Photographer at Senator Celestino A. White, Sr., from everything I can discern very much the contrary of a brain dead Shark hater.
Please do read it and above all, understand what is being said!

‎1) The shark swallowed the bait and tackle whole. It could not be humanely released. The LAW actually states that an unreleasable shark MUST BE BOATED. To do otherwise would be inhumane and illegal. Alisa...how do you know that we did not even try? You are looking at edited video from three different cameras. The sequencing in the video is not even the order that actual events took place. The video is even longer than the actual harvesting.

2) Would you all have preferred that the mortally wounded shark be wasted or provide natural, organic food for St. John families?

3) The Tiger Shark is not a protected, endangered or threatened species. The video is NOT about a sport fishing trip. That is a legally operating commercial fisherman with all licenses and permits in place. Just this past week both NOAA and DPNR inspected the operation and passed it with flying colors. The shark in the video was a foot and a half larger than minimum take size. There are also no limits to how many tiger sharks can be boated at one time by a commercial fisherman. Threatened and endangered shark species have such limits.

4) I love sharks as a living animal, I photograph them 5 days a week in the wild, I know more about them than most people, and I WILL eat non-threatened species. Oh, I also photograph and love Mahi Mahi, Wahoo, various snappers, Hinds, cows, chickens, goats, lambs, deer, duck, etc. and eat those as well.

5) We live on a 13 mile long island that is barely two miles at its widest point. Our supply line for commercially processed foods is at a minimum 1270 miles of shipping across the ocean. Do you know how huge the carbon footprint is to ship food to the Virgin Islands? Do you know what freighters leave behind in the water during passage? Do you know how much commercially processed food costs here? (On average three times more than you pay for food on the mainland.) Do you now that imported food comes in packaging, much of it PLASTIC, that then has to be processed as waste on this small island? Do you know that much of the disposed of commercially processed food packaging has to be shipped off island for disposal at a high carbon footprint and national taxpayer cost? Fishing that shark was much more environmentally friendly than going to the grocery store to buy dinner.

6) By varying catches among all permitted species using sustainable fishing methods we engage in a much more environmentally sound practice than grocery shopping. Many species have been over fished in the islands (much of it by outside parties raiding our fisheries to sell elsewhere in the world, some done in the past by local fishermen using practices now properly outlawed), however the Tiger Shark is NOT one of the over fished species. It has long been a part of the indigenous diet and is so common that an extensive federal review of our fisheries a little over two years ago saw no need to add restrictions on local commercial fishing of Tiger Sharks.

The arguments everyone presents above are extremely emotional and not based on fact or scientific evidence. Finning has never been a practice of locals and basically the entirety on any catch, shark or otherwise, is utilized. In the states you cut off fish heads. Here we eat them. We cannot afford to waste food like fat America can. Inedible parts of fished creatures wind up as bait or other needed products. We do not export anything from our fisheries. It is all used locally.

There is no way that a main lander, with an easily accessible nutrition supply line, higher standard of living and greater average income can make a comparison to a tiny island 1200 miles at sea. There is not enough arable land for agricultural production of meat product. We rely on a continuous daily train of large freighters loaded with hundreds of 40 foot containers each or we rely on the sea. Or we starve.

A sanctimonious and condescending lecture from a position of 'food luxury' is going to fall on my deaf ears. You all do not know what you are talking about. You truly are not in a position to judge...only to frustrate yourselves.

I love my sharks. I have rescued trapped and injured sharks. I swim with them. I take tourists every weekday to see them and be photographed with them. I also am the first and loudest (as has been occasioned in the past) to publicly and legally jump all over someone engaging in unsustainable hunting or fishing practices. And, of course, I continue to eat my sustainably caught and harvested species...such as Tiger Shark.

You only have your unfounded assumptions and have no scientific basis upon which to change my mind.

I would have to agree - and yes, I'm not anymore so sure!
Tiger Sharks are not acutely threatened. Being aplacental viviparous and contrary to most placental viviparous Carcharhinids that have a two-year breeding cycle, they can reproduce every year and have relatively large litters of up to 100 pups. In fact, many populations of Tiger Sharks are very much on the rebound.
With that in mind the question is, is it OK for people to harvest and eat a Fish if that Fish happens to be a Shark?

Once again, it is a question of sustainability, not ethics.
This is a central theme of this blog - e.g. here and here and here and here.
If the situation in St. John is how Karl describes it, and I have no reason to believe it is not, and if this is happening only sporadically, then harvesting a few Tiger Sharks for food may indeed be both perfectly sustainable and more ecologically sound than the possible alternatives. Then again, Patric's testimony may signify that the stocks in the USVI are just too small for any sustainable harvesting - we just don't know do we.

Do I like it - Hell, no!
Tigers are one of the coolest Sharks and seeing them being killed is terribly sad, especially when this is being publicized in the crude way Karl has chosen to do. Yes I know it's only a fishing video and nobody would have said anything if the Fish were a mere Mahi Mahi or the like - but of course, I love Sharks and it breaks my heart.

Solutions?
In general terms, it is to advocate Shark protection all the way to Shark fishing bans as Shark Defenders suggest. Once again, this cannot happen in a vacuum but must be flanked by all other necessary measures, especially when it comes to emerging economies.

And in this specific case?
From what I can discern, Captain Andy Greaux, a commercial fisherman, is aiming at expanding his Sharkbite Charters into a Shark diving outfit. Shark diving tourism is one of the few proven alternatives to fishing for Sharks and with that in mind, I wish him the very best of success.
But for Working on the scuba gear now. Getting the tanks hydro'd, visualized and filled, having the B.C.'s and regulators and dive computers inspected. Welder still working on the shark cages. to ever become a successful investment, Andy will very likely have to make a choice about what is more important and economically viable for him.

This is the choice.
He can either continue killing those Tigers, or he can showcase them to his clients. Not both.
Doing both will simply not work as apart from the fact that one of his businesses would be depriving the other of its principal attraction and thus assets, the overwhelming majority of divers will simply not book with a dive operator who engages in fishing. No it's absolutely not logical as the same divers will then insist on ordering fresh Fish for dinner - but it is a fact and thus an important economical consideration when setting up his business.
But it's a classical chicken-and-egg conundrum: will Andy have to stop killing Sharks in order to attract Shark divers, or will the Shark divers convince him to stop killing Sharks.

My gut?
This is going to be an economical decision.
The guy is merely trying to make a living and has obviously zero time or patience for "ethical" and as the thread progresses, increasingly strident and moronic lecturing - nor would I in his place!
This is not the proper way to effect change and to save Sharks!

We, too, have a choice.
We can either continue to berate him in public and continue to trigger the reactions we have triggered. Or, we may consider giving him our business and hope that the income and also, some private conversations once we are there and can talk face-to-face may help sway his mind in favor of keeping those Sharks alive.
That is exactly how we were able to reform (as opposed to browbeat) our local fishermen here in Fiji, by providing for sources of alternative income!

Or as Karl says
Boycott tourism thus leaving fishing as the only means by which natives can afford to feed themselves. Boycott Sharkbite Charters forcing Andy to fish even more for a living. Ya gotta love the logic. :)

Think about it.

PS All videos and threads have been removed.
The question being, did this exercise in outrage and abuse (interesting thread here) save one single Shark in the USVI.

Shark Conservation - Posters or Condoms?

I’ve been planning to blog about this for a while now.
Thing is, I have been delaying it because despite of now countless conversations with conservationists, I have no answers and the more I think about it, the more I get depressed – but this is eminently important and we all need to give it some heavy thought.
So without further ado – and yes this is gonna be long!

Lemme start with a few examples first.

Australia.
In New South Wales, a politician is rolling back years of efforts to halt the decline in the number of critically endangered Grey Nurse Sharks. She is the new Fisheries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson, a recreational fisherman who is apparently doing it to keep her pre-election promise to the Fishers and Shooters Party. This is happening in the face of clear evidence that any fishing will harm the sharks even when they are not being targeted but also, in the face of the fact that like other Grey Nurse aggregation sites, South West Rocks is not only a critical habitat but also, a Shark diving hot spot supporting a thriving eco-tourism industry of dive ops and ancillary businesses, and thus contributing substantially to the local economy.
The fishermen couldn’t care less of course – MPAs always harbor more Fishes and despite of the beneficial (incidentally, to them!) spillover effects, they will always try and get their hand directly on the resource, and screw the future and the long term sustainability of their own activity!

The most frustrating aspect?
Here, we got all the elements for successful Shark conservation: irrefutable science, sustainable income from a thriving ecotourism industry and a wealthy country that could afford to put the necessary measures into place. How can we then go to poor countries where people do not fish for fun, but in order to survive, and tell them to protect Sharks if we fail so miserably at home!

Chagos.
Great achievement by the Pew and others in having the islands declared the largest MPA in the Indian Ocean and quite possibly, in the world!
But, Mauritius wants Great Britain to give back the islands and is apparently suing, and the Chagossians want to be allowed to go back, incidentally straight into having to face issues of sea level rise (?).
I believe this to be largely posturing in order to get (even more) compensation – but what will happen to the MPA if they succeed?

Palau.
Once again, great achievement by the always too modest Pew - and yes, by Dermot, too!
And what about the other ghost writers, supporters, petitioners, congratulators etc? Yes, well, hmmm…. – but I’m digressing as always.
Thing is, apart from the ongoing issue of enforcement, what is going to happen down the line? The accolades will cease, President Toribiong’s term will expire, new people will be voted into parliament. Let’s never forget that Shark protection in Palau came to be at the very last minute, when a proposal to allow Shark fishing was defeated and turned into something positive in 2009 – read these blog posts starting with the last one!
What safeguards are there in Palau to prevent that the decision to establish the sanctuary will not be overturned in the future – and incidentally, that this will not happen to any of the recent Shark sanctuaries the Pew has helped to establish?

Fiji?
The SRMR and our other initiatives are a great conservation success and the direct benefits in terms of cash flow, employment etc to the resource owners but also, the indirect benefits to the country and the community at large will always be much higher than the proceeds from fishing. I thus remain hopeful that this specific venture has all the elements for being long-term sustainable as it will always be in the very interest of everybody involved to keep it alive.
But, there are always obscure village politics at play, and possibly, issues of corruption, and there is thus always the possibility that somebody could be taking irrational decisions one day in the future. And, there is always a risk of a Shark bite and of the ensuing backlash all the way to closing us down and thus destroying the source of the cash flow which is a vital component in this specific venture.

And here are some observations.

The countries where people have a lot of children are the poor countries.
Within the communities, the families with a lot of children are the poor families.
Starting with the US Bible Belt, the ignorants are the top breeders: having a lot of children is not only correlated to, and creates poverty, it is highly correlated to lack of education, lack of empowerment of women and yes, often religious bigotry.
And yet, it appears that no one of those in charge is willing, or capable of addressing the issue - especially in those countries that are most affected! Right now, we are approx 7 billion - and the population keeps increasing, once again especially in those countries that can afford it the least.
Have a good, hard look at this link!

And then, there is this.
Remember the images from China 20 years ago? Everybody was wearing an ugly uniform and everybody was riding a bicycle. Now, there are millions of cars and everybody who can afford it owns and peruses a mountain of stuff – and those who cannot are desperately aspiring to attain that status. And not only in China – everywhere on the planet, every single human being is trying to attain a better life which for the majority of people is expressed in being able to increase their ecological footprint, this in terms of owning more stuff and consuming more resources - but also, with the inevitable consequence that they will be creating more pollution in the process.
In general terms, this is currently being defined as Economic Growth - and even should we be able to once stabilize or even reverse population growth, the trend to increase the individual ecological footprints will very likely remain largely unchanged.
Or are we, the rich, going to try and convince the poor that they should please remain poor for our sake, and that of the environment? Or, will we the rich ever be willing to down-scale our comfort for the sake of the common good?

Total heresy – correct?
Indeed, if I look at what is happening, the big thing nowadays seems to be Poverty Alleviation as defined by the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. Yes Goal number 7 mentions the need for ecological sustainability – but how will that ever be achieved if all the other goals aim at improving people’s health and life expectancy, and at having them accumulate more stuff and peruse more resources – all of which inevitably translates into increasing their individual ecological footprints?
The fact is that if everybody had the ecological footprint of a North American, it would consume the resources of not one, but several Planet Earths already!
I’m all for having people attain a better life – but unless somebody starts talking publicly and unequivocally about the problem of population growth and the absolute need not only not to increase, but to drastically shrink those numbers, we are truly and inescapably doomed - and much of this planet along with us!

No I’m not talking about extreme measures à la China.
I’m talking about conducting a robust public conversation aimed at achieving a consensus about the absolute necessity to have fewer babies – and about the absolute necessity to consume fewer resources, and this by everybody everywhere!
Ultimately, this is not a choice – it is the only way forward!

These are the twin 800-Pound conservation Gorillas.
I’ve mentioned them here and added that they are not my fight – but for a while now, I’ve started to wonder.

The fact is that from everything I see, the Conservation movement just doesn’t want to know.
Is it the consequence of the all-pervasive and alas, seemingly inevitable Political Correctness of the big NGOs? Whatever the reasons, the fact is that instead of addressing the causes, we continue to limit our efforts to trying to fight the consequences.

But is this smart and above all, is it long term sustainable?
Right now, we’re the proverbial Dutch boy trying to plug the leak in the dike with his finger – but new leaks keep springing up, there’s only so many heroic little boys, and the resources (Assumption 6) for fixing the dam are limited. With that in mind, should we not instead focus on alleviating the water pressure behind the dike?
Yes I know, total Anathema!

Believe it or not, the above was merely an introduction! :)
What I really want to talk about is this post by the always brilliant CJA Bradshaw, and this article it references. They deal with human ( = population- ) growth and with economic growth ( = largely, under the present terms, the growth of ecological footprints) and I ask you to also read the links and the comments, some of which are brilliant.

Each time environmentalists rally to defend an endangered habitat, and finally win the battle to designate it as a park “forever,” as Nature Conservancy puts it, the economic growth machine turns to surrounding lands and exploits them ever more intensively, causing more species loss than ever before, putting even more lands under threat. For each acre of land that comes under protection, two acres are developed, and 40% of all species lie outside of parks. Nature Conservancy Canada may indeed have “saved” – at least for now – two million acres [my addendum: that's 809371 hectares], but many more millions have been ruined. And the ruin continues, until, once more, on a dozen other fronts, development comes knocking at the door of a forest, or a marsh or a valley that many hold sacred. Once again, environmentalists, fresh from an earlier conflict, drop everything to rally its defence, and once again, if they are lucky, yet another section of land is declared off-limits to logging, mining and exploration.
They are like a fire brigade that never rests, running about, exhausted, trying to extinguish one brush fire after another, year after year, decade after decade, winning battles but losing the war.

Despite occasional setbacks, the growth machine continues more furiously, and finally, even lands which had been set aside “forever” come under pressure.
As development gets closer, the protected land becomes more valuable, and more costly to protect. Then government, under the duress of energy and resource shortages and the dire need for royalties and revenue, caves in to allow industry a foothold, then a chunk, then another. Yosemite Park, Hamber Provincial Park, Steve Irwin Park [my addendum - even the mention of this man is an insult to biodiversity conservation]… the list goes on.

There is no durable sanctuary from economic growth.
Any park that is made by legislation can be unmade by legislation. Governments change and so do circumstances. But growth continues and natural capital [my addendum: see my post on this term and others] shrinks. And things are not even desperate yet.

Now, compare it to the examples on top.

Solutions?
Alas, as I said, I don’t have the answers – apart from the fact that we cannot continue to pretend that it is not happening.
Me, I need not worry: I won’t personally experience the worst consequences, I’m the last of my gene pool with no intention of procreating, my ecological footprint has shrunk by orders of magnitude and even BAD is a pillar of sustainability, this largely thanks to Mangroves for Fiji where we’re about to declare ourselves completely carbon neutral – and we’re already mulling the next big project!

With that in mind, will I get involved and detracted from Shark conservation? Hell, no - it is already plenty difficult, time consuming and often frustrating as it is!
Makes me sometimes wonder why I bother! :)

But you other guys who are genetically invested and are trying to hand down something to the future generations - even if it may be little more than just a modicum of HOPE?

Think about it.
Then, go out and DO something!

David on Shark Conservation!

Great post by David, aka WhySharksMatter - again!
Please read it, and also, please read his post Shark Conservation: The problem, the goal, and how to get there!

You may have noticed that I left a rare comment on the latter.
I obviously stand by what I said there as it very much reflects what this blog has been advocating all along. Being intimately involved in Shark Conservation on the ground, I would however like to add a further caveat.

It's about the need to ensure adequate enforcement.
It's wonderful if some nations declare Shark sanctuaries and others enact better pro-Shark legislation - but for all of that to be deemed a conservation success, it must ultimately reduce the number of Sharks that are being killed. That will only happen if on top of enacting laws, those nations are in a position to enforce them.

Do we believe that to be the case?
Look no further than the situation of the Mediterranean Northern Bluefin fisheries, an excellent proxy for Sharks, and how it is being plagued by rampant cheating and considerable IUU . It's a total mess - and these are wealthy first world countries that one would assume have the means to do a much better job!
But of course, in that specific case, it's not only a matter of resources but of politics - and those are pretty much rotten!

Back to the Sharks.
The bulk of the slaughter does not happen in the first world, it happens offshore or in developing countries.
Even when they have the will to implement Shark protection laws, and an increasing number do, most of those countries largely lack the necessary resources for the implementation. Yes, it's about the money for personnel, computers, vessels, etc to secure the enforcement but also the successful prosecution of perpetrators - but it's also very much about capacity building in terms of training the people tasked with the enforcement, developing effective and efficient structures and procedures, combating corruption and advocating accountability, etc.
This is the short term strategy.

In the long run -and here I agree with David- we will have to develop and roll out awareness and education campaigns to create a national consensus in favor of sustainable livelihoods.
But that's of course the long term strategy - and when it comes to Sharks, we simply do not have that time and must focus on those urgent short term solutions first.

Right now, what I see is much legislation and much awareness.
Both are comparatively easy to achieve and above all, they are comparatively cheap and deliver highly visible and rapid results, making them ideal vehicles for NGOs and their continuous search for donor funding. Great marketing - but let there be no doubt that it's simply not good enough!

Let me repeat: the metrics for success is that less Sharks are being killed.
Yes enforcement is expensive and difficult, and achieving tangible result is bound to be tedious and slow.
But if we convince poor countries to enact pro-Shark laws but then walk away without giving the authorities the means to implement them, and thus task them with what is essentially mission impossible, we're at best naive and at worst, total hypocrites!
Please, think about it.

And then, there's this.
Are we putting into place safeguards to ensure that our achievements can and will not be reversed in some future legislative cycle?
Again, please think about it - but that's another story and the topic of a future post.