Global advances in conservation and management of marine ornamental resources ELIZABETH WOOD Marine Conservation Society, 9 Gloucester Road, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire HR9 5BU, UK Key words: marine, ornamental fish, fisheries ABSTRACT Currently, as many as 30 million coral reef fish belonging to 1,000 species are collected annually to supply private and public aquaria around the world. In addition, over 100 species of invertebrate are used, involving hundreds of thousands or even millions of individuals. The majority of these specimens come from coral reefs and associated habitats, with about 45 countries supplying the ornamental market. Considering the many pressures currently faced by reefs it is vital that ornamental fisheries are investigated and monitored, and management strategies formulated to ensure they are sustainable. This requires research, monitoring, training, use of nondamaging collecting methods and adoption of conservation strategies for controlling catch, such as reserves, quotas and closed seasons. There are also a number of possibilities for enhancing the fishery, such as mariculture and construction of artificial reefs. This paper concentrates on some of the conservation measures that can be taken and discusses their application and effectiveness. Such measures include limiting collecting effort, establishment of species-based or overall quotas, restrictions on rare and/or endemic species, temporary closures and establishment of fishery reserves.

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES

The marine ornamental fishery is a complex one, involving up to 1,000 species of fish and hundreds of species of invertebrate. The estimated number of ornamental fish harvested annually from reefs could be in the region of 30 million individuals (Wood, in press). Of these about 8 million go to the US (Basleer, 1994), 8 million to Europe and the rest to countries such as Japan, Australia and South Africa (Wood, 2001). Invertebrates probably constitute about 20% of trade by value (Sankey, previously Tropical Marine Centre, personal communication), and the number of specimens involved is likely to run into millions. Marine ornamental species come from about 45 countries around the globe, but are by no means evenly split amongst the supplying nations. Probably about one-third come from the Philippines, one-third from Indonesia and one-third from all the others combined (Wood, 2001). This is highly relevant when considering how much of the stock currently comes from well managed fisheries, and what the prospects are for introducing conservation measures. It is difficult, for example, to introduce effective management in the Philippines, where there are about 2,500 collectors (Pajaro, 1993), 45 exporting companies and as many as 6 million fish exported (Barber and Pratt, 1997). In comparison, the Cook Islands has only 6 full-time and 3 part-time collectors, a single export company, and Aquarium Sciences and Conservation 3: 65–77, 2001. © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

66

E. WOOD

exports about 20,000 fish annually (Bertram, 1996), making management an easier prospect. As with any use of natural resources, there are a number of problems and issues of concern relating to the collection of marine ornamental species. The potential environmental and biological impacts of the fishery have been recognised for many years and include: • Overharvesting of fish and invertebrates. • Changes to the ecology of the reef due to collecting. • Degradation of coral reefs due to physical damage inflicted by collectors and their gear. • Degradation of reefs from use of cyanide and other poisons. • Loss of biodiversity due to these factors. There are also various other issues and shortcomings that have to be recognised and addressed as part of any management strategy for the fishery, including: • • • • •

Conflicts with other resource uses (especially recreational diving). Wastage of stock due to post-harvesting mortalities. Low income together with lack of training and incentives for collectors. Lack of scientific information about the resource. Insufficient record-keeping and monitoring of trade.

Nearly all the specimens come from coral reefs. These ecosystems are under considerable stress from a range of direct and indirect human and ‘natural’ impacts including changes to the global climate which have caused widespread coral bleaching and mortality (Brown, 1997; NOAA, 1999). It is vital that ornamental fisheries are investigated and monitored, and management strategies formulated to ensure they are sustainable. This requires research, monitoring, training, adoption of non-damaging collecting methods and introduction of conservation strategies for controlling catch. This paper looks specifically at measures that seek to ensure ornamental resources and the habitats they come from are conserved and managed. Each option is discussed in terms of its aim, how feasible it is to set up and operate, and how effective and widely used it is within the ornamental industry. The following are considered: • • • • • • • •

Use of acceptable gear and collecting methods. Setting of size limits. Limits on the number of collectors. Limits on the volume of exports. Operation of species-based quotas. Protection of rare or key species. Introduction of closed seasons. Establishment of no-take areas.

MARINE ORNAMENTAL RESOURCES

67

USE OF ACCEPTABLE GEAR AND COLLECTING METHODS

In the context of ornamental fisheries, the aim is to ensure that gear causes minimal damage both to stock and habitat, thereby promoting conservation, reducing postharvesting mortalities and maximising economic returns for collecting effort. Collectors use various gears to collect live fish and invertebrates for aquaria, but rely most heavily on hand nets and small barrier nets, with hand collecting for attached or slow-moving animals (Wood, 1985; Randall, 1987; Couchman and Beumer, 1992; Pyle, 1993). Some countries now stipulate the type of net that can be used, for example in Australia and Pacific countries there are restrictions on the mesh size and overall size of the net. The aim of these regulations is to limit the catch, and also the size of individuals caught (see below). In Sri Lanka, use of a small cast net known as a moxy net has been banned, in this case to prevent damage to corals in the shallow reef areas where it is deployed (Rajasuriya, National Aquatic Resources Agency, Sri Lanka, personal communication). There are a number of other collecting methods and gears that can cause damage (e.g. the use of ‘tickler sticks’), but it is important to note that much rests on the competence and attitude of the collectors. Use of the correct gear does not guarantee there will be no damage to the reef or the stock. Currently, collectors tend to learn from each other and there is very little formal instruction on best methods and appropriate use of gear. There are many skilled collectors, but there are others who are not, and some who will go to any lengths to capture an evasive, high value specimen. Training programmes could be very beneficial, and it is especially important for the collectors themselves to recognise the benefits of non-damaging methods. The issue of most concern in relation to capture of fish is the use of sodium cyanide as an ‘anaesthetic’ during collection. It indiscriminately poisons target and non-target species, leading to mortalities both on the reef and in the captured stock (Rubec, 1988; McAllister, 1988; Barber and Pratt, 1997). Every country that exports marine ornamental species outlaws the use of cyanide, and this legislation is backed by a number of programmes that are working with fishing communities to try and get them to switch to other methods of capture. Despite these efforts, cyanide continues to be widely used in both the main supplying countries (Philippines and Indonesia) (Barber and Pratt, 1997). Investigations in the 1980s revealed that about 80–90% of fish exported from the Philippines had been captured using sodium cyanide (Rubec, 1986, 1988), and random tests carried out on ornamental specimens at cyanide testing laboratories in the mid-1990s revealed that about 20% had been caught with cyanide (Barber and Pratt, 1997). This amounts to over 1 million fish (assuming an annual harvest in the Philippines of around 6 million). Approximately the same number of fish are collected annually in Indonesia (Wood, 2001), where cyanide is also used. Assuming that the same proportion are caught using cyanide, this could mean that of the 30 million fish in world trade, about 6% are being caught using an illegal, damaging method.

68

E. WOOD

SETTING OF SIZE LIMITS

The fish side of the marine aquarium trade depends to a significant extent on juveniles. Not only are they popular, but they take up less space and so are cheaper to transport. If pressure on juveniles is relentlessly high, problems could arise because insufficient quantity of the stock will be left to reach breeding size. This is the main concern in commercial food fisheries and is why minimum size limits are applied. Similarly, it is also important not to remove too high a proportion of juveniles for the aquarium trade (see restrictions on numbers below). There is a possibility that, because juveniles of some species have poorly-developed escape responses they are more vulnerable to over-exploitation (Wood, 1985). However, the main reason for setting minimum size limits for aquarium specimens is to ensure that stock is not unnecessarily wasted. Exporters sometimes encourage collection of small juveniles because they are cheaper to transport, but very young fish of some species are easily stressed and high losses can occur when they are kept in captivity (Nelson, Paradise Aquatics, Sri Lanka, personal communication). In these cases the collection of very small individuals is clearly an inefficient and wasteful use of resources. To some extent, size regulations are self-imposed by the industry simply because of the difficulty of keeping juveniles alive. For example, in Sri Lanka, there are no regulations, but some of the exporters will not deal with small juveniles (Wood and Rajasuriya, 1999). In Tonga, capture of juveniles is not permitted (Murray personal communication). The Ocean Voice International – Haribon Foundation project in the Philippines promotes a system of harvesting fish of the correct size and in particular stopping the export of juveniles of any species smaller than 2 cm (Vellejo, 1997). Other countries may stipulate the mesh size that can be used and/or set minimum sizes on capture. It is also important in the marine ornamental fishery to set maximum size limits and so ensure that a sufficient number of breeding fish are left on the reef. One of the few ornamental fisheries to have detailed regulations concerning size of specimens that can be taken is that in the State of Florida, USA. The State has a comprehensive set of regulations (The Marine Life Rule) covering both recreational and commercial ornamental fisheries. This lists all ‘ornamental’ species as ‘restricted’ species, and stipulates sizes that can be collected (Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Regulations, Final Rule, 1997), as shown in Table 1. The other group of ornamentals where there are conservation implications with regard to size of specimens are the corals. Some of the countries involved in collection of corals have set a maximum size limit for harvested specimens on the assumption that initial growth is quite fast and that it is important not to remove mature colonies that have reached reproductive age. For example in Indonesia, corals have been divided into two groups depending on their growth rates. The maximum size for fast growing species (e.g. Acropora) is 25 cm and the maximum size for slow growing species (e.g. Plerogyra, Catalaphyllia) is 15 cm (Indonesia CITES Management Authority, 1999).

MARINE ORNAMENTAL RESOURCES

69

Table 1. Minimum and maximum size limits (total length) for certain marine ornamental fish in the State of Florida, USA Species Grey angelfish French angelfish Blue angelfish Queen angelfish Rock Beauty Butterflyfish

Pomacanthus arcuatus Pomacanthus paru Holacanthus bermudensis Holacanthus ciliaris Holacanthus tricolor all species

Minimum length∗

Maximum length∗

1.75 (4.4 cm) 1.75 (4.4 cm) 2 (5 cm) 2 (5 cm) 2 (5 cm) 1 (2.5 cm)

8 8 8 8 5 4

(20 cm) (20 cm) (20 cm) (20 cm) (13 cm) (10 cm)

Source: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Regulations, Final Rule, 1997. ∗ Lengths are given in inches (cm).

Size regulations can clearly play a part in helping to conserve stocks and prevent over-exploitation, but more research needs to be carried out on life histories, growth rates and natural mortality of different age classes before meaningful limits can be imposed. LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF COLLECTORS

Limiting the number of collectors is a relatively straightforward way of ensuring that collection is maintained at the required level, and can be effective provided that effort is also controlled. One of the countries to have taken this approach is Australia. Initially the number of permits was allowed to rise in line with increasing market demand and the number of collectors in the fishery jumped from 30 in 1986 to 160 in 1990, followed by a gradual reduction (Couchman and Beumer, 1992). In 1992 only 76 permits were issued, and in 1997 it was reduced to 62 (Kung, CRC Reef Research Centre, James Cook University, personal communication). By 1999 the number of permits actually in operation had fallen to 50 (Squire, 1999). Restrictions on net size help to ensure that the collectors do not simply expand their effort to increase the catch. In food fisheries if the fleet is reduced, boats can simply increase their catch by employing increasingly sophisticated, mechanised and efficient gear for locating and capturing fish. Ornamental collectors are limited by the gear they use and so reducing the number of collectors effectively reduces the fishing effort. The Cook Islands, Tonga and a number of other countries, particularly in the Pacific, also use this method of control. It is less easy to introduce in those fisheries where the collectors are more widely dispersed, and works only if there is a mechanism for counting, licensing, approving and monitoring the collectors and their catch. In countries such as the Philippines, collectors are licensed but the provision of licences is not yet used as a method of controlling entry into the fishery. In Sri Lanka, collectors do not have to be registered but many of the established collectors are in favour of some form of licensing system because they realise the fishery can absorb only a certain number of collectors (Wood and Rajasuriya, 1999).

70

E. WOOD

Determining how much collecting pressure an area can sustain depends on socioeconomic as well as biological factors. For many places this information is not available. In these cases it is best to take a precautionary approach and at least to ensure that fisheries are kept at the same level rather than be allowed to expand. LIMITS ON THE VOLUME OF EXPORTS

Most of the countries that have ornamental fisheries export the great majority of the catch. Thus another way of reducing overall collecting pressure or maintaining the status quo is by limiting the amount of stock that can be exported. The Maldives is one of relatively few countries to adopt this method. After initial research in the late 1980s, a blanket quota of 100,000 fish per annum was set for 1988 and 1989 (Edwards, 1988) but these numbers were subsequently adjusted upwards to satisfy demand (Adam, 1995). There are a number of reasons why this approach does not necessarily result in conservation of the ornamental fishery resource. Because of the multi-species nature of the fishery, setting of non-specific quotas is a fairly crude management approach. It can even be counter-productive. Dealers need to be able to offer a wide range of species on their list, but if they are restricted to a limited number of specimens, it makes good business sense to concentrate on the high priced ones. Often it is the expensive specimens whose populations on the reef may be lower. Thus overall quotas can increase rather than solve conservation problems. OPERATION OF SPECIES-BASED QUOTAS

The fishery for ornamental species is highly selective and certain species or family groups (e.g. chaetodontids, pomacanthids) are extremely desirable and eagerly sought after. Some of these are fairly common, widely distributed and can sustain relatively high levels of harvesting. Others are the opposite and may be vulnerable to over-collecting. The aim of species-based quotas is to ensure that harvests are kept at a sustainable level. It is a sensible approach but, given the present level of knowledge, it is not particularly easy to fix meaningful quotas. This is in contrast to the food fishing industry where research on fish stocks and data on landings have been kept for decades. Quotas need to be based on knowledge of the resource and details of current use. Research is required on individual species, which is a difficult task given the number of species involved. Also, most importantly, assessments have to be on a country-by-country basis. Underwater censuses provide valuable information, but there are still difficulties in interpreting the data because populations of fish and invertebrates such as shrimps may undergo significant natural fluctuations, for example due to uneven recruitment. Patterns and variations in recruitment have been the subject of many

MARINE ORNAMENTAL RESOURCES

71

studies, and are discussed in detail by Doherty (1991). Variability adds to the difficulty of setting quotas. Populations of sedentary, fairly slow-growing and longlived organisms such as gorgonians, sponges and corals may be more stable and easier to assess. In the Maldives a species-based quota was set for certain species thought to be over-exploited or close to maximum sustainable levels of exploitation. The quotas were based on a study by Edwards (1988) and included species such as the anemonefish Amphiprion nigripes and the butterflyfish Chaetodon xanthocephalus. However, although these quotas have been in place since 1988, they have not been properly implemented by Customs, largely due to lack of co-ordination among the responsible authorities (Adam, 1995). It has been recommended that a review of the quotas should be undertaken (Adam, 1995). The State of Florida has a management scheme which sets various quotas at species and family level, for example: • For the Caribbean anemone Condylactis gigantea a commercial limit of 400/vessel/day. • For commercial (Harvest for commercial purposes is taking of specimens for purposes of sale or intent to sell.) collection of angelfish a limit of 75/person/day or 150/vessel/day and for butterflyfish a limit of 75 individuals/vessel/day. • There is also a daily recreational (Recreational harvest is specimens taken for personal use and not for sale.) bag limit for fish, invertebrates and plants (no more than 20 individuals of ornamental species and including no more than 5 angelfishes). The existence of a quota does not necessarily mean that appropriate conservation measures are in place. In many cases, insufficient research has been carried out to decide on appropriate quotas (from a conservation point-of-view). For example, the Federal Environmental Agency in Brazil (IBAMA) is reported to give authorisation for companies to export a maximum of 1,000 specimens of each species a week, without any assessments being made of sustainable levels of exploitation (Luiz Alves Rocha, Universidade Federal da Paraiba, Brazil, personal communication). Indonesia has a quota system for corals, monitored through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In 1999, the European Union CITES Scientific Review Group considered that some of these quotas were too high, and placed a ban on the import of the following species: Blastomussa merleti, Cynarina lacrymalis, Trachyphyllia geoffroyi, Euphyllia divisa, Euphyllia glabrescens and Plerogyra simplex. At the same time, consultations were undertaken with Indonesia to see if the quotas could be justified or better information provided to show that this level of harvesting was sustainable. The overall aim was to encourage Indonesia to continue to take and implement positive measures for the use of ornamental resources (Fleming, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK CITES Scientific Authority (Animals) personal communication).

72

E. WOOD

In conclusion, it is clear that quotas could have a role to play in management of scarce or endemic species, and that more effort should be directed at determining suitable levels on a country-by-country basis. PROTECTION OF RARE OR KEY SPECIES

The next step on from quotas is to completely protect certain species if there is evidence that they are rare or play a key role in the ecology and functioning of the reef. In some cases it may be endemics that need protecting from collecting pressure. For example, concern about the exploitation of the clarion angelfish, Holacanthus clarionensis, off the Pacific coast of Mexico led to protective measures being taken. This species, although common, does not have a breeding population anywhere else, and was being subjected to heavy, mostly ‘pirate’ collecting, by collectors in ‘sport fishing boats’ who made the journey from the USA. They were reported to collect at least 1,000 individuals on each trip (Almenara-Roldan and Ketchum, 1994). A visual census before and after the collection trips found a dramatic decrease of up to 95% in the harvested areas (Almenara-Roldan and Ketchum, 1994). In others it may be geographically widespread species that need protecting in certain localities. Populations have to be investigated on a country-by-country basis and regulations applied as appropriate. Usually, regulations cannot be applied universally because a species that is rare in one locality may be common or abundant in another. For example, butterflyfish such as Chaetodon lunula and C. falcula and the angelfish Pygoplites diacanthus are known to be rare around the coast of Sri Lanka and therefore collection inadvisable, whilst in the adjacent Maldives, populations are relatively high (personal observations) and therefore collection a less worrying proposition. Some of these butterflyfish and angelfish species are now protected in Sri Lanka (with agreement of the collectors/exporters) and a further set have been selected for ‘observation’ because their populations are considered to be low (Wood and Rajasuriya, 1996). In Australia, seahorses, seadragons and pipefish (Syngnathidae) and ghost pipefish (Solenostomidae) are now protected because they are considered to be rare and/or threatened with over-exploitation. Under new legislation, exports require permits from January 1998, and these will be granted only for animals derived from approved captive-breeding programmes or management plans. In many countries the collection and export of hard corals is prohibited, mainly because of their pivotal ecological role. There are some countries, however, that continue to supply the trade because they consider that their coral resource is huge and the demands made by the trade tiny in comparison. Thus, for example, in Sri Lanka, all corals are protected (Wood and Rajasuriya, 1996) while in the Pacific large amounts of coral are collected in Fiji, and to a lesser extent in Tonga, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands (Lovell, 2000). An estimated 45,000 pieces of live coral were exported annually from Fiji in the late 1990s, together with a substantial amount of ‘live (reef) rock’ (e.g. the largest exporter shipped 291,837 kg of live rock in the first seven months of 1999) (Lovell, 2000).

MARINE ORNAMENTAL RESOURCES

73

Another group of animals that have been protected in Sri Lanka are the tubedwelling polychaetes (families Sabellidae and Serpulidae). The main reasons for listing were to avoid habitat damage (collection of serpulids usually entails rocks being broken open) and the possibility of over-collection. Tube and fan worms are an important source of food for fish and also help to remove debris from the water through their filtering activities (Wood and Rajasuriya, 1996). Many countries are involved in collection of ornamental species, and in most cases it is not possible to advocate general rules for particular species or groups. Decisions need to be taken on a country-by-country basis. Collaboration with collectors is important because they are generally very knowledgeable about the population status of each species.

INTRODUCTION OF CLOSED SEASONS

Temporary closure could be a useful tool for the ornamental fishing industry, allowing recovery from over-use, or providing protection to the stock at a vulnerable time. Closure during the breeding season is one option, but this is complicated by the fact that different species may breed at different times, and for some species the breeding cycles are unknown. Closure might also be appropriate when there is an influx of new recruits to the area due, for example, to seasonal reproductive patterns. Immature fish are often heavily targeted for the ornamental trade, and closure at this time would ensure that recruits grew beyond the size at which they are normally collected. Thus they would have the chance of reaching maturity and helping to maintain the population. Currently, this method of management appears to be used occasionally by the collectors themselves when the need arises. For example, in Hawaii, the collectors moved to other reef sites if one locality was heavily fished (Randall, 1987). ‘They know they can return to previous sites in a few months and see the reefs replenished from a combination of fishes moving from adjacent sectors into vacated territories and from the settling out of late postlarval stage of fishes from the plankton’ (Randall, 1987). In a number of countries collectors have to move around according to the weather and sea conditions. In Sri Lanka the monsoons force a closed season on the ornamental fishery. In effect, the east coast is closed from April to October and the west coast from May to November. It is likely that this resting period allows time for at least some of the juveniles to progress through to a size at which they are no longer targeted. It also allows adults to reproduce, so increasing the likelihood of populations recovering (Wood, 1985) Temporary closure will only be effective if done at the right time and place. Much more needs to be learnt about the resource and its dynamics, breeding cycles of the targeted species, and time(s) of year that recruitment takes place and subsequent growth rates. The fishery also has to be monitored, for example by recording catch and effort to detect signs of over-exploitation.

74

E. WOOD

ESTABLISHMENT OF NO-TAKE AREAS

Establishment of no-take zones, fishery reserves or replenishment areas is now a widely accepted method of managing commercial marine food-fisheries. An increasing number of these zones are being established, although not necessarily with management of ornamental resources particularly in mind. Potentially these areas have many benefits (Roberts and Polunin, 1993; Russ and Alcala, 1994; Bohnsack, 1996), for example they: • • • • •

Ensure conservation of pristine areas and biodiversity, maintain a sector of the living resources from exploitation, provide undisturbed spawning grounds for these species, boost recruitment to adjacent fished areas through larval dispersal, reduce conflict with other resource users – in particular recreational divers.

This last point has been the driving force behind a number of ornamental fishery sites being closed to collecting. Fish watching and fish collecting are not compatible activities because dive tourism relies on the same resource as the ornamental fishery – plentiful numbers and diversity of colourful coral reef fish, corals and invertebrates. Apart from the possibility of fish numbers being reduced, fish may be more wary and unapproachable on reefs where collecting takes place. This has led to conflicts in places such as the Maldives, where ‘house reefs’ associated with tourist resorts are protected, but popular boat dive sites are sometimes used by collectors. Some of these sites are now designated as marine protected areas, which has reduced conflicts to some extent (Adam, 1995). Probably the only way to resolve the conflict of interest between recreational diving and fish collecting is to physically separate the two activities. In Hawaii, the state legislature passed a bill in 1998, the major thrust of which was to protect a minimum of 30% of the west Hawaii coastline through the establishment of Fish Replenishment Areas – marine reserves where aquarium fish collecting is prohibited (Tissot, 1999). Elsewhere, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is zoned to allow collecting only in certain areas. Similarly, the Florida Marine Sanctuary has a number of designated ‘no-take’ areas. These are part of the Sanctuary’s comprehensive Marine Zoning Plan, implemented in 1997 (Delaney, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, personal communication). The no-take areas are fairly small (0.25 to 9 square nautical miles in area) and protect the most popular shallow reef habitats (Delaney, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, personal communication). The areas mentioned above are apparently quite well enforced, but elsewhere there may only be a few areas that are protected, and the designation may be on paper only, and mean very little. The difficulty of enforcement can probably best be solved by having the reserves run by the collectors themselves. In some cases the most effective strategy is to empower the local community by giving them legal rights – for example to exclude outside fishermen. In the Pacific Ocean,

MARINE ORNAMENTAL RESOURCES

75

reef fisheries have a tradition of management under Customary Marine Tenure systems or Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURFs) in which local families control the fishing rights on reefs close to their villages (Ruddle and Johannes, 1990; Medley et al., 1993). Unfortunately, the countries currently supplying a major proportion of marine ornamental fish (e.g. Indonesia, Philippines, Puerto Rico) do not have a history of traditional conservation management of marine resources, such as is practised in many of the Pacific islands (mainly to manage edible species). However, a number of community-based management schemes are now in operation, especially in the Philippines (e.g. on San Salvador Island; Christie et al., 1990). Experience shows that locally-run reserves can be extremely effective not only in conserving the resource, but increasing awareness and understanding of conservation and management issues and the importance of individual and group responsibility in taking care of the environment. CONCLUSIONS

Australia, various Pacific nations and the American states of Florida and Hawaii have tightly controlled and monitored fisheries. However, a significant proportion of stock that enters the global market is coming from the two major suppliers (Philippines and Indonesia) which do not yet have fully operational management strategies for their ornamental fisheries. There are a number of options for improving management of marine ornamental resource use and promoting conservation, and it must be stressed that the measures discussed in this paper are only part of the solution. Education, training and licensing are equally as important as the technical measures. Strict standards at all stages from collector to consumer are also required. In order to select the most appropriate management strategy, much more needs to be learnt about the resource and its dynamics, breeding cycles of the targeted species, time(s) of year that recruitment takes place and subsequent growth rates. The fishery also has to be monitored, for example by recording catch and effort to detect signs of over-exploitation. Each of the options described above may be relevant to the management of existing or developing ornamental fisheries, but the best option(s) will vary from one country to another. It is vital for countries that supply the ornamental trade to assess their resources and ensure protection if necessary through domestic legislation. Decisions about which species need protecting have to be decided on a country-by-country basis. Establishment of no-take reserves is also a key tool for future ornamental fisheries. REFERENCES Adam, M.S. (1995) Review of the aquarium fish trade of the Maldives. Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, Male, Republic of Maldives. 29 pp.

76

E. WOOD

Almenara-Roldan, S. and Ketchum, J.T. (1994) Forgotten islands of the Mexican Pacific. OFI Journal 9, 12–14. Barber, C.V. and Pratt, V.R. (1997) Sullied Seas: Strategies for combating cyanide fishing in Southeast Asia and Beyond. World Resources Institute and International Marinelife AlliancePhilippines, Washington D.C. Basleer, G. (1994) The international trade in aquarium/ornamental fish. Infofish International. 5(94) 15–17. Bertram, I. (1996) The aquarium fishery in the Cook Islands. Is there a need for management? SPC Live ReefFish Information Bulletin 1, 10–12. Bohnsack, J.A. (1996) Maintenance and recovery of reef fishery productivity. In Reef Fisheries (N.V.C. Polunin and C.M. Roberts, eds.). UK: Chapman & Hall, pp. 283–313. Brown, B.E. (1997) Coral bleaching: Causes and consequences. Coral Reefs 16, 129–138. Christie, P.A., White A.T. and Buhat, D. (1990) San Salvador Island marine conservation project: some lessons in community-based resource management. Tropical Coastal Area Management (ICLARM, Manila) 5(1/2), 7–12. Couchman, D. and Beumer, J.P. (1992) The commercial fishery for the collection of marine aquarium fishes in Queensland: status and management plan. Fisheries Division, Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, Queensland. Doherty, P.J. (1991) Spatial and temporal patterns in recruitment. In The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs (P.F. Sale, ed.). Academic Press, pp. 261–293. Edwards, A.J. (1988) Preliminary report on the aquarium fish trade of the Republic of Maldives. University of Newcastle upon Tyne. 22 pp. Indonesia CITES Management Authority (1999) Pattern of coral reef utilisation in Indonesia. Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops, Republic of Indonesia. 9 pp. Lovell, R. (2000) Status report: marine aquarium products and the curio trade in Fiji. A status report prepared for the World Wide Fund for Nature. McAllister, D.E. (1988) A working bibliography on the toxic effects of cyanide on fishes and corals. Ocean Voice International, Ottawa. 25 pp. Medley, P.A., Gaudian, G. and Wells, S. (1993) Coral reef fisheries stock assessment. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 3, 242–285. NOAA (1999) Coral bleaching hotspots. http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/ climohot.html Pyle, R.L. (1993) Marine aquarium fish. In Nearshore Marine Resources of the South Pacific (Wright, A. and L. Hill, eds.). Itoniara, Solomon Island: Forum Fisheries Agency, pp. 135–176. Pajaro, M. (1993) Alternatives to sodium cyanide use in aquarium fish collection: a community based approach. Sea Wind 6(3), 3–17. Randall, J.E. (1987) Collecting reef fishes for aquaria. In Human Impacts on Coral Reefs: Facts and Recommendations (B. Salvat, ed.). French Polynesia: Antenne Museum EPHE, pp. 29–39. Roberts, C.M. and Polunin N.V.C. (1993) Marine reserves: simple solutions to managing complex fisheries? Ambio 22, 363–368. Rubec, P.J. (1986) The effects of sodium cyanide on coral reefs and marine fish in the Philippines. In The First Asian Fisheries Forum (J.L. Maclean, L.B. Dizon and L.V. Hosillos eds.). Manila, Philippines: Asian Fisheries Society, pp. 297–302. Rubec, P.J. (1988) Cyanide fishing and the International Marinelife Alliance Net-Training Program. Tropical Coastal Area Management 23(1), 11–13. Ruddle K. and Johannes, R.E. (eds.) (1990) Traditional Marine Resource Management in the Pacific Basin: an Anthology, UNESCO-TOTSEA, Jakarta. Russ, G.R. and Alcala, A.C. (1994) Marine reserves: they enhance fisheries, reduce conflicts and protect resources. Naga, ICLARM Quarterly 17(3), 4–7. Squire, L.C. (1999) An overview of the collection, holding facilities and export of marine aquarium fish from Australia and the Philippines. First International Conference of Marine Ornamentals. Hawaii.

MARINE ORNAMENTAL RESOURCES

77

Tissot, B.N. (1999) Adaptive management of aquarium fish collecting in Hawaii. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 6, 16–19. Vallejo, B.V. (1997) Survey and review of the Philippine marine aquarium fish industry. Sea Wind 11(4), 2–16. Wood, E.M. (1985) Exploitation of coral reef fishes for the aquarium trade. Report to the Marine Conservation Society. 121 pp. Wood, E.M. (2001) Collection of coral reef fish for aquaria: global trade, conservation issues and management strategies. Marine Conservation Society, UK. 80 pp. Wood, E.M and Rajasuriya, A. (1996) Handbook of Protected Marine Species in Sri Lanka. Marine Conservation Society and National Aquatic Resources Agency. 25 pp. Wood, E.M. and Rajasuriya, A. (1999) Sri Lanka Marine Aquarium Fishery Conservation and Management Issues. Marine Conservation Society and National Aquatic Resources Agency. 11 pp.

Address for correspondence: E. Wood, Marine Conservation Society, 9 Gloucester Road, Rosson-Wye, Herefordshire HR9 5BU, UK Phone: 44(0)1189 734127; Fax: 44(0)1189 731832; E-mail: [email protected]