skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Invasive species continue to pose problems around the world - from relocated fish and land animals to plants to even infectious diseases. In the oceans, invasive species can prove to be both disruptive to the marine environment and a potential hazard to humans as well.
Two recent scientific studies, one in Emerging Infectious Diseases and the other in Marine Pollution Bulletin, looked at the issue of ballast water that is taken in and released by tankers and freighters in ports all over the globe. This exchange of water to maintain a safe balance to the ship as it loads or unloads its cargo has introduced a variety of unwelcome guests including mussels, seaweeds and algae, and even cholera.
Sometimes the ballast exchange takes place in deep enough water so that its contents are sufficiently dissipated. But in shallower water, pathogens as a product of urbanization and sewage can either come aboard or be expelled and soon brought into shore via swells and currents.
One solution is to treat the ballast water on board the vessel. However, ports and cities are then dependent on the ships having the proper equipment and using the methods effectively to do the job. The other possible approach is to develop an onshore treatment process wherein the ballast water is pumped ashore for treatment and then pumped back to the ship as needed, rather than having the entire ballast exchange take place in open water. A better idea perhaps on paper, but it requires considerable investment in equipment and the design of each port must be carefully studied to determine if and where the systems can be installed.
However, compared to the financial losses incurred by invasive species from disrupted commercial fisheries to clogged water inlet/outlet pipes to disease outbreaks, the costs of advanced onshore treatment systems could prove to be a bargain.
Another study, written up in Conservation Letters, examined the issue of whether consuming an invasive species as a possible food source could prove to be an effective means of populations. Why beat it, just eat it.
This has been the approach taken in areas where the Humboldt squid has moved in, shifting the fishermens catch from local commercial fish stocks to all squid. And in the Caribbean and the eastern Florida coast, where the lionfish population has exploded recently from its accidental introduction several years ago, attempts are being made to develop a taste for the South Pacific reef fish's meat among local sharks and even with the human population (a bit tricky to prepare but, I have been told, quite tasty).
The study, however, notes the dilemma that this approach can cause through the production then of a viable market. An invasive species could turn out to be a commercial success and where there is commercial success there can be the desire to maintain or even expand it. Suddenly, the invasive species becomes a profitable friend to man - at the expense of the marine environment it is affecting. The ultimate insult would be that an effort could be made to protect the species for the sake of its commercial value - a complete reversal of the original concept of reducing or eliminating the population through harvesting.
The introduction of commercial enterprise and consumption in the control of any invasive species must be undertaken with a clear understanding by government and regulatory agencies as to the underlying purpose of taking such a step. Either supported by scientific research or even just the common sense that every invasive species is a Pandora's box of unknown consequences, decisions must be thoughtful and well-informed.
Source: Emerging Infectious Diseases 18(10)
Source: Marine Pollution Bulletin 64(11)
Source: Conservation Letters 5(5)
Shark conservation continues to make progress and continues to run up against serious challenges simultaneously. It's a long road that will need to be traveled to reach the ultimate goal of seeing decimated populations of iconic shark species begin to return to some level of normalcy, but it's a trip worth taking.
One of the biggest challenges the movement faces is demand for shark products, particularly shark fins. The shark fin market is centered in Asia where a long cultural history wrapped around the use of shark fin soup as a past symbol of royalty and prestige, today exists to exemplify new wealth and a growing upper middle class. Asian culture has also been a protective and sometimes isolated one and so outside admonitions, under threats of being labeled "Asia bashing", can often fall on deaf ears.
What has been encouraging is evidence of a slow change taking place within Asia itself. Fueled by conservation messages coming from Asian environmental groups, the press, and international organizations like WildAid, more and more restaurants and hotel resorts in places like Singapore and Kulala Lampur are refusing to serve shark fin soup.
Becoming a more frequent story in the Asian press, as reported by the Singapore-based AsiaOne News, "Sharks are slowly but surely winning the battle to keep their fins as the Chinese traditional dish is no longer a must-have at reunions and wedding dinners. Playing a big part is the Shangri-La chain, which declared that its 72 luxury hotels worldwide would stop serving the controversial dish from this year. [Director of communications for Shangri-La, Rosemarie] Wee said Shangri-La decided to join international efforts to stop the harvesting and trading of shark fins, which had severely depleted the population of the fish."
Addressing market demand, changing a people's taste for shark fin soup - or all shark-related products, for that matter - is a slow process and it must be done very delicately with countries that do not respond well to external pressure or influence as it is often perceived as interference. Public relations campaigns often seem to focus on a younger audience, the next generation of consumers, that seem to be more receptive to new ecological thinking ranging from shark extinctions to over-population to fossil fuels and climate change.
At the other end of the spectrum is another powerful nemesis and that is the economic incentive behind shark products and the tenacity of those involved in the business to keep things as status quo as possible. While recent political advances in anti-shark fin legislation or the designation of shark sanctuaries or protected zones has put some pressure on the commercial shark fishing distribution network, the more these businesses find it difficult to continue legally, the more we will begin to see illegal activities flourish.
According to Israel's Haaertz.com, illegal shark fishing in the Mediterranean is on the rise. With 42% of the 70 shark species found in the Mediterranean to be in danger of extinction, shark fishing is illegal in Israeli waters. The Israel Nature and Parks Authority (INPA) has been apprehending fisherman who were illegally catching sharks and selling them along the Gaza strip and in Tel Aviv. With financial temptation overpowering legality, many are concerned as to whether enforcement will be able to keep up.
Haaertz.com reported, "[INPA supervising director Ohn] Valency says that the authority doesn’t have enough supervisors to stop shark fishing. In recent weeks various organizations have accused European Mediterranean countries of failing to act forcefully to stop shark fishing."
And with Israel we are looking at only a small part of the Mediterranean coastline. There are some major European players working throughout the Mediterranean - countries like Spain, Italy, and Portugal are heavily involved in commercial shark fishing - clearing out sharks at an alarming rate from this nearly closed body of water. (European nations supply a third of all shark fins to Hong Kong, arguably the shark fin processing capital of the world.)
So, progress is being made but we can expect to see a rocky transition as market demand slowly erodes while the industry does all that it can to perpetuate the business. This will push some participants underground and enforcing state, national or international rules and regulations will be put to the test, straining available resources.
Marine biologists often talk about declining fish populations reaching a critical "tipping point' that can signal the total collapse of a population and its ability to recover. As the conservation work continues on behalf of sharks, the commercial shark fishing industry could someday face its own tipping point. Let's hope that happens before the sharks face theirs.
Source: AsiaOne News
Source: Haaretz.com
I have said in the past that shark conservation is a tough sell. Whether it's the public's general uneasiness with sharks thanks to years of over-sensationalized media or an ingrained cultural bias towards shark products (or seafood in general), gaining converts throughout the masses has been challenging. Part of that lies in the difficulty in making a personal connection, making an argument that resonates within the individual - "this will affect me." But sometimes it's the opposition that, unfortunately, is able to accomplish that to their advantage.
Case in point: If you have been reading some of the shark conservation blogs or web sites, you may have read about a recent study that detailed how U.S. scientists were able to use DNA testing to trace the origin of shark fins for sale in Hong Kong. It turned out that 21% of the fins tested came from endangered scalloped hammerhead sharks from the western Atlantic. A ground-breaking study because it established an accurate method for determining the species and geographic source of a shark fin and because it put Hong Kong's lucrative shark fin market on notice.
Those are the basic facts that caught the attention of most shark advocates. But what caught my eye was the response from the shark fin industry's representative. In criticising the study, Mak Ching-po, chairman of the Hong Kong Dried Seafood and Grocery Merchants Association, said, "Shark populations will grow exponentially if we don't keep fishing them. As a result, humans will be in short supply of smaller fish such as garoupa, as sharks will eat them."
Clever. Fiendishly clever because he just made it personal.
Sure, there's a kind of pretzel logic here: if we don't overfish the sharks, we won't be able to overfish the other fish in the sea. But the sinister beauty in what he said is how it will resonate subtly with the Asian people, a population that has been heavily dependent on seafood for centuries: If we can't fish the sharks, you will go hungry.
Or how about the continued use of shark nets at Australian recreational beaches. Despite the number of sharks and other large sea animals not deterred but killed by these nets, their use is still being supported. Why? Because it's personal. Overtly or covertly, the issue becomes: without the nets, you will be eaten.
Regardless of how weak or illogical the argument, if the listener can make a personal connection then the argument will have some traction. This unfortunate aspect of human nature has been exploited in other areas. It's a mainstay of political campaigns. Some who deny the impact of climate change often turn to fanciful Orwellian conspiracy arguments because people are sensitive and distrustful of intrusive government, real or imagined. Climate change proponents will explain ongoing changes that, for many people, are taking place in faraway, remote places; so curiosity, sympathy, or even a few well-meaning baby steps might be achieved but decisive action lies just out of reach - because it hasn't hit home hard enough. It's still very complicated, abstract or nebulous.
That's why you will see more personal connections trying to be made at the Copenhagen Climate Conference that began this week, connections that link climate change to human misery that is happening right now. (A past post of mine cited a UN report that attributed 300,000 deaths annually to climate change.)
But I digress. . . For shark conservation to really have an impact on the general population, the argument needs to be distilled to very personal messages. To say that the loss of reef sharks will disrupt the marine ecology to where we will lose coral or even oxygen is perhaps possible but may be a bit too abstract for most people to embrace. To position sharks as warm and friendly to man, while agreeable to some ardent shark fans, really pushes the envelope beyond what the everyday individual can accept. (Just look at how those "shark huggers" are always portrayed as irresponsible in the media.)
International organizations like CITES, the IUCN, and legislation like the U.S. Senate Bill S850 look after the big picture. We must support these efforts as they set the framework for regulation and, hopefully, enforcement. But to impact the market demand (which can fuel legal and illegal activities), we must make personal connections to win the hearts and minds of the general public.
It's not easy. When I speak with people, I always emphasize the important role sharks play as predators and scavengers; I don't downplay it. But I will try to distill it down to a simple message. In fact my message is the opposite of Mr. Ching-po: without sharks, other fish populations - fish populations that some people depend on - would potentially be less healthy, their numbers would be impacted. Sometimes I see it working, sometimes the light bulbs of recognition turn on - and sometimes not.
Think about personal connections that will resonate with people who are perhaps less committed than you to conserving animals like sharks. Use them and feel free to share them here in this blog.
Asian countries have often been the subject of conservation issues - ranging from illegal wildlife trade to overfishing to market demand for products from threatened or endangered species. And in many Asian nations, the rights of free speech and dissent are sometimes carefully monitored and controlled - and abused in the eyes of some.
Which is why I found this news item in the Australian online paper, Perth Now, interesting. (Read article.) The news was that a Singapore-based conservation organization, Animal Concerns Research & Education Society (ACRES), had recently held an anti-shark finning rally at Speaker's Corner, Singapore's only allowed venue for outdoor assemblies and demonstrations.
It was particularly important because of ACRES's attempt to bring the issue directly to the people where the demand for shark fin products emanates. And it's a challenge because of the strong cultural history behind the use of these products.
"One of ACRES's supporters at the rally, physiotherapist Chng Chye Tuan, said he and his wife-to-be had decided against offering shark fin soup to guests at their wedding next month, despite opposition from both sets of parents."
In reviewing the ACRES web site, I was impressed by the many animal issues the organization was taking on - not on an international level, but focused within Singapore. From animal treatment in zoos to protecting exotic or endangered animals like chimps, sharks, and tigers to even the humane treatment of pets, ACRES is trying to impress animal conservation and protection issues directly upon the Singapore people to change behavior and alter demand.
Bravo and best wishes for lasting success.
