|
Who
to Believe?
In
late May a spate of news reports highlighted a
scientific study just published in the prestigious
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. It reported a large decline in
coral cover and the abundance and diversity of reef
fishes on eight study reefs in Kimbe Bay, Papua New
Guinea. Some species were even described as becoming
locally extinct. It sounded as if the reefs in Kimbe Bay
had been devastated.
Kimbe Bay is one of the world's premiere dive
destinations and strangely I had heard nothing of this
in the dive world. Curious, I looked up the actual study
on the National Academy website and downloaded it. The
study however, did not describe exactly what reefs were
studied nor the kind of reef habitats involved. I
wondered if the study reefs might in fact be shallow
areas selected because they had been damaged by recent
bleaching events or sedimentation so that the ongoing
effects of such events could be studied.
I then sent an e-mail to Max Benjamin the
owner/operator of Walindi Plantation Resort in Kimbe Bay
asking his take on the situation and he replied: "The
reefs studied by Geoff Jones are coastal and fringing in
the extreme south west of the bay. There is very little
current movement and several bleaching events and land
clearing adjacent to these reefs at the same time
combined to knock the hell out of them. This is why they
were chosen. Also on his last visit this April, Geoff
reported recovery on all reefs. They are not and never
have been among the portfolio of diving reefs. This area
is very subject to bleaching. In 1983 one reef was
totally killed off, however an REA in 1994 recorded this
reef as having the highest number of coral species (
over 150 ) of all reefs covered by the survey."
I also received this response from Dr. Geoff
Jones, the senior author of the study: "The area
affected extends from Hoskins to Talasea and to reefs up
to 1-2 km offshore. Most of Max's good diving reefs are
still OK, although there is some signs that reef flats
are being affected further offshore. We didn't really
select our sites to monitor because of the potential
impacts... that all just happened while we were
monitoring our reserve areas. We are still hopeful of a
recovery, but not very optimistic."
I thanked Dr. Jones for his prompt response and
said I would be most interested in his assessment of the
general condition of reefs in the bay as a whole and
what portion of them might have suffered the sort of
drastic decline found on the study reefs. To this
question there was no reply and one must assume he
prefers not to moderate the impression of devastation
already achieved.
In many places nearshore reefs occur in areas
where they are particularly vulnerable to storms, floods
and high temperatures. It is common for such reefs to
suffer periodic devastation interspersed with intervals
of recovery whenever a succession of favourable years
permits. It appears from Max Benjamin's description that
such is the case for the extreme southwest of Kimbe Bay.
Sorting out long term trends from short term
fluctuations and human impacts from natural events in
complex dynamic natural communities is difficult and
requires much more long term information than is usually
available. The assumption that short term localized
observations represent long term general conditions
reflects more of our current scientific ignorance of
reefs than it does our knowledge of them.
A report of healthy reefs undergoing natural
and/or short term fluctuations in some remote bay in
Papua New Guinea is of little interest to the world.
However, discovering a serious decline in reef
conditions in a formerly pristine region garners
worldwide media attention, scientific recognition, and
support for further research.
Describing species as having become "locally
extinct" when due to changing conditions they are
temporarily absent from some particular small areas is a
good dramatic touch as well. Not mentioning that they
remain abundant in immediately adjacent areas however,
is misleading. Good drama can be poor science.
We find what we seek and see what we believe. The
currently prevailing climate of eco-alarmism is
generating a blizzard of concerns that threatens to
obscure our ability to discriminate the genuine from
hype and imagination. At the same time science, our best
tool for deriving truth, is being blunted and corroded
by its misuse for advocacy and attention getting. Amidst
all the noise real problems become obscured and receive
little or no attention while we chase the demons of our
imagination.
To close on a more positive note, the Status of
Fisheries of the United States report for 2003 has just
been released by NOAA and it shows considerable progress
was made in 2003 to address excessive fishing rates and
rebuild fish stocks to healthy levels. In 2003, four
more fish stocks were deemed fully rebuilt, a record ten
species were removed from the list of overfished stocks
and overfishing practices were stopped for five species.
Of the 894 federally managed U.S. fish stocks
reported upon only 76 are now classified as overfished
and almost all the overfished ones are rebuilding under
fishery management plans. Plans are also under
development for the few stocks that remain without them.
In view of the recent widely publicized claims of
a 90% reduction in global pelagic fish stocks it is
interesting that less than 10% of U.S. stocks are
considered overfished. It would appear that the world’s
fishes must all be seeking shelter in U.S. waters.
The Status of Fisheries report may be viewed at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/statusostocks03/Report_Text.pdf
Walter Starck
Editor/Publisher
wstarck@goldendolphin.com |