Dive profit at the cost of conservation

[mselenaous]

As some of you know I am involved with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. Among the many things that NOAA provides is a place for Coral Scientists and Conservationists (about 7700 worldwide) to exchange ideas.

The following is a recent exchange between well known scientists in Thailand, Malaysia, UK, and US.
The discussion is about the dive industry in general as a profit center vs the conservation of the resources it uses to generate money. Some of the comments might sound harsh, but I agree it’s time to take the rose colored glasses off.

How many instructors and dive centers do you see/hear mention conservation but do the opposite by their own poor dive habits and by dragging students & subsequently certified divers through the reefs kicking coral, silting everything up?

I have removed the poster's identities but will send them a link and hope they will speak up in this thread as well.

[Coral-List] Reassessing Coral Reefs

-----Original Message-----
From: coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Sent: Thursday, 26 March, 2015 2:54 AM
Subject: [Coral-List] Reassessing Coral Reefs


Dear Listers,
I'm working with others to try and encourage the scuba diving industry to get more proactive with regard to it's policies on coral reef conservation. As you know, there has been no progress within the industry on addressing climate change. That issue is and has been a non-starter for years. Now the question arises as to whether or not to even focus on that concern going forward. Many of you seem to be resigned to the fact that that ship has already sailed. Recent comments seem to indicate a shift in focus from avoidance to mitigation and adjustment to a new reality which envisions coral reefs as a manifestation of the concept of "novel ecosystems". If that is in fact the case, on what issues should the industry be focusing if and when it ever becomes willing to become seriously involved in developing effective measures designed to conserve the reefs of tomorrow whatever their composition may be? Do we shift entirely to land-based pollutants, sedimentation and over-fishing or do we continue to press for action or at least policy objectives related to sustainability and carbon emissions? I need input.
It would certainly be refreshing to witness a free flow of ideas.

Regards,
S

On Mar 29, 2015, at 6:13 AM, J with Reef Check wrote:

S,

From 2000 to 2006 I ran my own small dive centre on Tioman island, off the East coast of Malaysia. The philosophy of the dive centre was "fun, safety, conservation"; we put RM 10 (US$ 3) of the revenue from each customer into a kitty to pay for things that had to be done but weren't being done by others - net removal, etc. Most customers would top it up from their own cash. This way we managed to put aside some cash flow for petrol, etc., instead of having to pay for it all out of day to day cash flow.

At the time, I was completely astounded at the apparent total lack of concern demonstrated by fellow dive operators for the health of the marine environment - and I still pretty much am today. They didn't seem to equate reef health with good future business - and they still don't today. I tried to explain in different ways but failed (eg., if Ford motor company were to stop servicing its main asset - production line - it would quickly stop running; if an airline company were to stop servicing its main asset - planes - they would quickly stop running; so with the dive industry - our main asset is reefs; if we don't look after them, they will "stop running").

No response. But we did what we could and fortunately the local Marine Park authority picked up on some of it (like Crown of Thorns clean ups).

Leaving the island, in 2007 I found myself involved with Reef Check Malaysia, which I now run. After 8 years, I see little difference in attitude of the industry. One or two operators, yes. But most? Not
interested. Money seems to be all that counts. Typical is Perhentian island. They have basically a 6 month season, and they are full every day of that six months. So why bother with conservation? People still come. Why bother setting yourself up as an "environmentally friendly" dive centre (such as Green Fins) when customers are not demanding it - and we are still full every day?

In 2012/13, RCM was involved in a research programme to assess the economic impact on dive tourism of the 2010 bleaching and possible future bleaching events. The programme was run by
A good team.

The project talked to dive operators and relevant institutions in three locations in Malaysia, two in Thailand and three in Indonesia. After listening to some of the results from Malaysia (and I think they were similar elsewhere), some of the conclusions I came to were:

- in most places there had been little economic impact from the bleaching
- in many of these locations a significant part of their business is basic diver certifications; trainees don't know what a reef looks like anyway, so reef condition is not a decider in whether they decide to dive
- the overwhelming attitude seemed to be that if reefs die and get taken over by algae - people will still dive; partly to see what an algae reef looks like, partly because they love to dive.

So the industry sees little to concern themselves. Frustrating, right?

I believe that chasing climate change is a lost cause - certainly here and perhaps other developing markets. There are just so many other priorities (economic development) that are much more important. The message just isn't getting across. We had flooding here early this year - probably partly due to climate change...but no response from government or anyone; no linking it to climate change.

Our focus has turned to resilience type concepts and local impacts. We are working with local authorities to assess local impacts to reefs, in order to meet Aichi target 10 on eliminating anthropogenic (we call them local) impacts. This gets the management authority involved, which is a good thing; it is also a national obligation, which gets some attention; and it allows us to do a lot of work on the ground with various stakeholders - including the dive industry. So we are pushing Green Fins as a way to reduce diver and snorkeler impacts, for example.

(I don't want to get involved in a debate here about whether or not divers and snorkelers have an impact: my own observation tells me they MUST - you only have to go to some islands here and watch up to 500 snorkelers - most of whom can't swim - enter the water and crawl all over the place...fish
feeding...etc. There's an impact.)

Using GF provides a framework for introducing various measures - not just user impacts but sewage treatment, fishing access, etc. It also provides the opportunity to push for improving regulations - requiring resort operators to improve infrastructure, training snorkeling and dive guides in
eco-friendly guiding, etc.

Using resilience I have found is a useful tool in giving local people a simple explanation about reef health - compare to a healthy human, rested, no stress - illness bounces off; but if that person is (like me!) - less healthy, not enough rest...then the illness has a major impact. Same with reefs - healthy, no impacts - bleaching "bounces off" - it's not quite that simple, but that's the gist of it. Talk to them about bleaching - no response - they don't get it; talk to them in terms they can understand, more of a response. It's a starting point. And usually the local communities are responsible for a large proportion of those local impacts.

But at the end of the day, what I am realizing (this may be a developing country issue) is that people STILL won't take action until pressed to do so by government; back to the Aichi targets, which can be used as a bit of a stick at all levels - government signed up for it, there's national pride at stake, so we have to get on and do it.

Sorry for such a long response; but I hope it's useful. I fully support what you are doing, I think the dive industry has been using the oceans for free for far too long without any responsibility for their health, and want to help any way I can. But I think the scuba industry is just in it for the money; they don't really care about conservation (except for individual operators). So for our part of the world, I'm sorry to say I think we are going to need more sticks; hopefully user-friendly ones like the Aichi targets, but sticks nonetheless.

Best regards,

J
Reef Check Malaysia

"The bottom line of the Millenium Assessment findings is that human actions are depleting Earth's natural capital, putting such strain on the environment that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted."

On 31Mar, 2015, at 03:45, AB wrote:

Wow! I’ve been scuba diving since LBJ was in office, and involved in the profession virtually full-time since 1976, and this is the most honest, accurate and lucid assessment of our industry—even here in North America/Caribbean—that I’ve ever seen! It makes me sick to say it, but my own experience is completely consistent with J’s. Whether it’s through true ignorance or insisting the Emperor is, in fact, wearing clothes, the dive industry, in my view, has been lying and/or ignoring the situation for far too long. It’s truly sad that a bright and well-intended individual like Julian is so frustrated that he’s essentially written off dive industry professionals, but I certainly can’t blame him

AB

On Mar 27, 2015, at 9:24 AM, MR> wrote:

Hi J.

As I sit here waiting for our interminable winter to end, I am moved to a very brief comment.

We should heed the evidence of the geologic record. In this case, I refer to the large number of recorded reef extinctions. Most of these were driven by the three horse-people of the reef apocalypse: climate change, sediments and nutrients. The evidence seems to suggest that adaptation has rarely worked in the past. (To those who would argue that reefs in some form have reestablished after catastrophes, I would say: sure. The time lag is generally on the order of 10 million years.)

In order to invoke the possibility of saving reefs by accelerating adaptation, we would have to envisage a scientific and societal commitment on a very large scale for an unproven result. That same effort devoted to mitigation would certainly pay dividends.

M

On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:35 PM, JL wrote:

Dear S,
Regarding whether climate change should be addressed via adaptation versus mitigation, it seems to me that we're already in a state that both are desperately needed.

It's easy to get discouraged, but I was recently reminded by a wise young graduate student that, "It's never too little and never too late." For their sake, and for the sake of future generations, the "oldies" amongst us can't allow ourselves to think or act as if mitigation is impossible.

JL

Hey Team,

I am fully sympathetic to the message. But, it falls far short of addressing the challenge. In 2010 I was in St. Thomas (VI) for NOAA's Coral Reef Task Force meeting. Scientists lined up at the podium to promote the need for "more science." We were in a shore side hotel for which the mangroves had been bulldozed out to create a beach front for the visiting tourist. It was raining and the panoramic windows provided a clear vision of the sediment plumes draining into the bay from the resort being built next door. I commented to the governor's assistant sitting next to me, " we don't need more science, we need to enforce the laws already on the books." With alarm, she responded, "You're not going to say that, it would affect tourism and upset the Governor!" I left the meeting and went diving.


Divers in the water are the smallest part of the problem. The shore side infrastructure to support the divers is the primary part of the problem. Roads, hotels, marinas, airports, etc. are the biggest challenge. Until we address those issues, we are not going to save the reefs.


We need to expand our vision of solving the problem!
QD
Gulf of Mexico

HB in Thailand
Mon Mar 30 21:57:12 EDT 2015
Previous message: [Coral-List] Reassessing Coral Reefs
Dear J,

Well said. As someone who also worked alongside the dive industry in Malaysia while coordinating a community and conservation initiative, I concur with what you’ve stated. In most cases (and there are rare exceptions), it really is starkly apparent that it’s only the ka-ching of the cash register at the dive shops that the industry in general is hearing - and not ‘greenies’ going on about anthropogenic impacts to reefs, least of all climate change.

...

Best wishes,
HB

Thanks for reading this. What are your observations?

 

[Rich Keller]

Unfortunately that is the way the diving industry in general has gone. Profits come first and everything else is a distant second. They talk about safety and conservative but that is just lip service.

 

[KevinNM]

We are currently in the Quaternary glaciation and the "average" climate for the past million years has Chicago under 1000 feet of ice. The last glacial period started about 120,000 years ago (after peak temperatures significantly warmer then now) and ended some 12,000 years ago, so if coral takes 10 million years to recover from dramatic temperature changes how is it we that we have any reefs?

But anyhow, it's obviously in the interests of people who make a living from tourism to not sabotage the very things that bring tourists. What people do sometimes has little connection to what they logically should do.

 

[mselenaous]

One of the things that set me off after I read the above comments, was this photo.



A local instructor, teaching for quite a while, works at a well respected facility, safe reliable instructor, nice guy, and a friend...posted this photo of his DSDs having a grand ol' time.
This is just they way it's always been done and can't see any other way to do it.

I see fins on reef structure, kicked up sand (yes critters live in that sand), silting everything up. Sadly he is just one of many instructors trying to eek out a living at one of many dive ops on this island. I see this day in and day out in most of the scuba photos & videos posted online.

The mantra of "that's the way it's always been done", "we can't afford to do it that way", "meets minimum agency standards", and a few others, I feel are at the heart of this lackadaisical view of our reefs.

 

[tomfcrist]

Where do you draw the line though. Personally I think standing on a coral head is criminal, but standing in the sand? I'm not really that concerned.
I guess the point is that your frame of reference will dictate what you as an individual find to be acceptable behavior. You have to realize that we do not all share the same frame of reference...and we never will.

 

[mselenaous]

Tom, within the Sanctuary there isn't supposed to be ANY contact with reef or bottom except under special permit, like Coral Restoration or mooring repairs.
Our sandy bottoms are full of yellow headed jawfish, blennies, peacock flounder, fragile sea biscuits just under the sand and more life that most never see. This is just as much a part of the ecosystem as the corals themselves. The bazillion OW students kneeling on that sand are not a natural part of that habitat.

And so in your own comment, there in lies part of the problem: each individual's frame of reference.
If all you've ever seen is this, then to you it is acceptable. So how do we all as an industry update & upgrade this personal frame of reference?

 

[tomfcrist]

I think the answer lies in enforcing the rules of the sanctuary. I've been fined by FWC in the past, and I assure you that fine changed my frame of reference as it applies to how to interpret size limits on cobia....

 

[Asteve]

It seem if we reduced the number of people on the earth, these problems would take care of them self, But we are in the mode, lets see how many people we can get on this ball before we destroy every thing.

 

[FishLovingStudent]

We are currently in the Quaternary glaciation and the "average" climate for the past million years has Chicago under 1000 feet of ice. The last glacial period started about 120,000 years ago (after peak temperatures significantly warmer then now) and ended some 12,000 years ago, so if coral takes 10 million years to recover from dramatic temperature changes how is it we that we have any reefs?

Where are you getting all these numbers...also even during Ice Ages the tropics/equatorial regions stay relatively untouched. Even at the Quaternary glaciation maximum the ice sheet only extended partially into the USA.

It has always puzzled me why the worst divers (Vacation divers) are allowed to dive in the most sensitive of dive locations. Cold water divers here stress proper buoyancy and fin skills, more of a matter of life preservation than the local environment. Nonetheless it grinds my gears when people damage cloud sponges. I would probably find myself fuming in tropical locations over everybody clipping coral instead of enjoying myself.

I think it is a matter of bringing training standards back up to par again, so we don't have AOW students dragging their fins through the sand and OW who cant stay off the bottom and look like a yo-yo.

 

[KevinNM]

Where are you getting all these numbers...also even during Ice Ages the tropics/equatorial regions stay relatively untouched. Even at the Quaternary glaciation maximum the ice sheet only extended partially into the USA.

A decent average global temperature graph for the last 400,000 years is here: http://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/legacy/articlefiles/climatechart.pdf
There are arguments about the last few millimeters of the chart on the right (and more about predictions as to where things are going), but the rest is pretty much accepted by everyone. I suspect few people have dived a reef that existed through the last ice age. I certainly haven't. There was dramatic sea level change, so anything at recreational depths today was dry land then.

I'm not sure divers were ever as good as people think they were in the "good old days". But they certainly could be better. I saw a new diver a few months ago who kept touching the coral instead of the rock next to it, it turned out that she had no idea which was which.