Will seabeds go the way of the birds?

Reprinted from the July 1999 PetLetter of the
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC)

Increased domestic and international attention on coral reefs, and practices that may harm them, has led many in the pet industry to anticipate restrictions that could severely impact trade in coral reef species. Such restrictions would bode badly for public and private aquaria and the pet industry generally. Action by the United States is confirming the fears of those who anticipate government intervention. Indications are that the Wild Bird Conservation Act, which largely shut down imports of birds for the pet trade in this country, could serve as the precursor for similar restrictions on trade in corals, live rock and other marine organisms

While the aquarium trade is a convenient scapegoat for those lamenting loss of coral reefs, and species associated with them, the degree on which focus belongs on the aquarium trade is questionable. Firstly, the decline of coral reefs may be attributed to several diverse causes, including coastal development efforts, deforestation, farming runoff and marine pollution. It is true that, in some instances, destructive practices in the collection of coral and other marine organisms have been a contributing factor to reef degradation. But this is far less true today that it has been in the past. Use of dynamite and cyanide in obtaining reef species has diminished in popularity precisely because of the damage these methods have on coral reefs. And the pet industry has been particularly sensitive to the impact such practices have on the health of the reef ecosystems (and the marine species they support). Establishment of the Marine Aquarium Council (which has enjoyed broad participation by the conservation community and affected parties, including the marine fish trade) was motivated by a desire to promote sustainable collection and best management practices, thereby minimizing adverse impact to marine ecosystems.

Additionally, however, there is debate over the effectiveness of current monitoring and measurement of overall trade. Coral data maintained by CITES may be incomplete for multiple reasons. It is less than comprehensive because it may not include exports from non-member countries. Further, there is no uniform measurement system; some measure by the piece, while others measure by weight. Both methods suffer defects. Finally, there is no definitive data on reproduction and regeneration rates. Certain pieces of coral are known to flourish in aquaria and, as such, are candidates for sustainable use. It is in the pet industries interests to ensure that collection and trade of coral reef and marine species is done in a sustainable fashion; and it is for this reason that PIJAC is promoting effective reef management practices.

Multiple federal agencies, however, spearheaded by the State Department in the international arena, are moving forward with efforts to institute governmental measures. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, composed of senior members of 11 federal agencies as well as representatives of seven states and territories, was established by presidential order last year to "reduce human impacts on coral reefs." A recent meeting of the task force resulted in resolutions which call not only for elimination of destructive fishing practices, but also evaluation of "options to address imports of coral and coral reef species..." Resolutions such as this suggest a perception by federal agencies that effective management practices are inadequate to ensure sustainable use of coral reef systems.

In part, the federal government, and the international community as a whole, desire improved monitoring of collection and trade in coral reef species. And, indeed, valid data is necessary to assure a sound knowledge both in the volume of the trade in and sustainability of coral species, whether for food, aquaria, road construction, or other industries.

Unfortunately, the United States appears to be presuming excessive trade even while conceding adequate data is not available. A task force working group has emphasized the disproportionate share of imports into this country of coral reef species, and asserts that "the destruction of the coral reef ecosystem will continue unless conservation efforts are improved from source reefs through border controls and ultimately to the consumer." Among the solutions proposed? The working group suggests consideration "of draft legislation that would include the ability to prohibit unsustainable imports of coral and coral reef species."

What may constitute "unsustainable imports" is unclear. A definitive analysis published in 1999 by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre determined that "the effects on coral populations of harvesting specimens for the aquarium trade can be profound but are likely to [be] localized and, on a global scale, minimal because the amount of coral harvested is small." Conceding that the level of sustainable use is not specifically known, the report concluded that available data indicates the global coral trade "is a low value business with little long term impact." While trade in coral species is significant to the pet trade, the industry does not harvest substantial quantities of such species in relative terms.

This analysis appears to have had limited impact on action by the federal government, which continues to insist that coral reefs are over-harvested for the aquaculture trade. These types of shrill proclamations are similar to what was touted prior to overly restrictive legislation that resulted in elimination of the trade in wild-caught birds. History repeated itself only last year when hasty action by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to adopt regulations on reptile and amphibian transport resulted in an ill-considered proposal. Intense efforts by PIJAC, with the support of certain affected members of the pet industry, resulted in the eventual withdrawal of the reptile regulations in favor of a consensus process. By bringing FWS and various other interested parties to the table along with PIJAC, agreement was eventually reached on reasonable transport standards. While this exercise demonstrated the potential for an effective process in pursuing regulatory standards, it also served as a warning that similar attempts to regulate various segments of the live animal trade are on the horizon.

PIJAC has learned of efforts underway to introduce a measure similar to the Wild Bird Conservation Act that would be applicable to marine species. Just as the statute has effectively shut down imports of birds into the U.S. for the pet trade (including captive-bred birds) so too would such restrictions devastate the marine aquarium trade. PIJAC will be on the forefront of efforts to head off these restrictions before they are formally introduced. PIJAC's work with MAC, and others, to develop and promote reef management practices that encourage sustainable use will continue, and implementations of methods for effectively evaluating the volume of trade in coral species in the wild, should also prove a valuable resource in challenging over-zealous regulation.

As an industry-wide issue, this will require industry-wide participation. But more, the U.S. action demonstrates a fundamental principle of which the pet trade should be acutely aware. Waiting for government regulation to come down the pike before taking notice of current trends affecting live animal trade is a recipe for industry extinction. Just as the Wild Bird Act signaled the first in a series of efforts to prohibit imports of whole classes of species, so too does this latest move portend bigger things for the future.

Unless the pet industry moves more aggressively toward proactive efforts to protect trade in the species that sustain its industry, it may be forced to sit idly by while the federal government dismantles trade in live animals, piece by piece, and species by species.