Building Resilience for Long Term Reef Health

Resilience? Again?

Yes, those of you who have read my posts before will notice that I have talked about resilience before (here and here). So why am I speaking about it again?

Because I believe that ensuring our reefs – and other marine ecosystems – are resilient is critical to protecting their long-term health and productivity.

And our recently released annual survey report suggests that we are not paying sufficient attention to looking after these important marine resources.

It becomes imperative as signs are showing that there will be a significant mass coral bleaching event sooner than you think.

What is Coral reef resilience?

A brief recap. Ecological resilience refers to the ability of an ecosystem (such as a coral reef) to maintain key functions and processes in the face of external stresses or pressures, by resisting or adapting to change.

Glad we got that sorted out! Put more simply – it determines whether an ecosystem can either shrug off or recover from, an external stressor…or whether the ecosystem declines.

Status of Coral Reef in Malaysia

Reef Check Malaysia’s early survey data for Malaysia demonstrate the resilience of coral reefs. The graph below shows the change in a key reef health indicator, Live Coral Cover (LCC), since we started collecting data.

The status of reef health in Malaysia from 2007 - 2023.

What is coral bleaching?

In 2010, Malaysia (and most of South-East Asia) suffered a major coral bleaching event. Coral bleaching refers to a stress reaction by corals when they expel the tiny algae living in their tissues. Those algae provide the coral with its colour, hence the term “bleached” when they lose the algae, exposing the white calcium carbonate skeleton underneath.

A coral bleached loses its colour.

More importantly, those algae provide the coral with most of its food – so when bleached, they are effectively on a starvation diet. The longer the stressor lasts, the weaker the coral and the greater the possibility that corals will die.

In 2010-2011, our survey data show a major decline in live coral cover (LCC) in Malaysia compared to 2009. Around 7-8% of coral cover was lost. That’s not to say that 7 or 8% of reefs died – other reef components survived. However, the ecosystem as a whole was weakened as a result of hard coral dying due to the bleaching.

Fortunately, reefs recovered very quickly, and LCC was back to its pre-bleaching level within 2-3 years. This demonstrates the natural resilience of reefs – they can recover from an external stressor.

the decline in live coral cover

Sadly, the following years saw a gradual decline in LCC, which we take as a proxy for coral reef health. Between about 2014 and 2019, overall LCC in Malaysia dropped from around 50% to 43%.

The annual decline was too small to garner much attention. But look at it this way: a reduction of seven percentage points over just 5 years is a 14% decline overall. I’m too scared to extrapolate that into the future…

The declining status of reef health in Malaysia from 2014-2019.

We assumed that this decline was at least partly due to growth in tourism globally, as the world slowly emerged from the 2008 financial crash (yes, it took that long!).

We have long been aware of tourism as a major threat to marine ecosystems such as coral reefs due to the wide range of impacts – coastal development, trash, pollution, and physical impacts – that result from large numbers of people in a small place. Again the question: are we managing these ecosystems effectively?

The COVID years

What happened next is a sign that not all is lost – but it also points to the need to manage reefs better, particularly focusing on resilience. And to look again at tourism impacts.

Between 2019 and 2022, there was an increase in LCC. Why? We believe that this was because of the COVID pandemic, which reduced tourism to nearly zero for two years. Remember – there are three main characteristics of resilience:

• Water quality

• Physical impacts

• Herbivores

It doesn’t take much insight to realise that no tourists are going to reduce physical impacts, for sure. And probably see an improvement in water quality – less pollution. Restrictions on fishing during the pandemic might also have improved fish populations, particularly the herbivores that keep algae under control.

There are three main characteristics of resilience water quality, physical impacts, herbivores

So, why coral reef resilience again?

Yes, reefs recovered in the absence of a major local stressor – tourism. But why am I back to resilience?

Because in 2023, our surveys showed another downturn in LCC. We think this is at least partly due to the resurgence in tourism, having the same old negative impacts on reefs.

The old stressors are back, leaving reefs that little bit more vulnerable to an external stressor…

coral Bleaching in 2024?

…an external stressor that we are pretty sure is just around the corner.

All the signs are that there will be a significant mass coral bleaching event this year.

what is mass coral bleaching?

“Mass coral bleaching” means bleaching over a wide area – this will not just affect Malaysia, but as in 2010 it is likely to affect the whole of South East Asia. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is already bleaching and satellite data from NOAA show sea surface temperatures around the region are rising.

As noted above, this is a significant stressor for corals. My colleagues are informing me that sea temperatures are already 2-3°C higher than usual.

That’s pretty scary. And, forecasts from NOAA show that over the next few weeks, temperatures will remain elevated for an extended period. Perhaps enough to cause coral mortality.

A screenshot of NOAA's prediction for March-July 2024

So, it seems our coral reefs – which, let’s not forget, provide a whole range of essential ecosystem services that we rely on – are facing a difficult few months.

What can we do to stop mass coral bleaching?

Unfortunately, there is very little we can do once a bleaching event is happening – we can’t magically improve water quality; it is difficult to replace herbivore fish real quick…and telling tourists not to turn up is obviously a non-starter!

But we can – and should – try to minimise these impacts; at the least, we can protect important reef sites by closing access to tourists – which was done back in 2010.

But the real lesson here, as mentioned in our annual report recommendations, is that we need a long-term effort to build resilience – because this is going to happen again.

What we need is…

• We need to restructure marine resource management across the board so that management involves all stakeholders. Only that way will people buy-in to the necessary solutions.

• We need better sewage treatment systems on the islands.

• We need to control fishing properly.

• We need to manage new developments in sensitive areas.

• We need more education and awareness for tourists. That’s going to take a multi-stakeholder effort.

Coral maintenance with the Kulapuan Marine Conservation Group.

The 2010 bleaching event was difficult to manage because it was unexpected. This time we have some warning, and we might be able to manage the immediate threats more effectively.

But the real story is – are we, as a society, going to do what is necessary to build resilience in the long term? Are we all going to address ways in which we can strengthen marine resource management? Are we all going to make the necessary investments to allow us to protect and conserve these important marine ecosystems?

We need to restructure marine resource management across the board so that management involves all stakeholders. Only that way will people buy-in to the necessary solutions. We need better sewage treatment systems on the islands; we need to control fishing properly; we need to manage new developments in sensitive areas; and we need more education and awareness for tourists. That’s going to take a multi-stakeholder effort.

And while you are here - here is our 2023 annual corporate report for your reading pleasure!!

Is Malaysia Becoming A Mass Tourism Destination?

Overcrowded islands are going to downgrade the tourist experience.

First it was Tioman and the proposal for a new airport. Then there were rumblings about extending the airport at Redang…then we heard about two new resorts at Perhentian Island…and the latest – a proposal for a seaplane facility on Perhentian.

What on earth is going on?

In case I really need to say it again: RCM has never been against development.

We understand that tourism is an important part of the economy. We understand that tourism is important for jobs, particularly local communities in remote areas.

But this upsurge in development proposals post-covid is becoming a concern. I have written separately about my recent experience on Tioman, seeing so many tourists arriving in a small village. If nothing else, the islands are becoming overcrowded; that’s going to downgrade the tourist’s experience. And maybe they won’t come back – and worse, there’s a risk they will tell others of their poor experience.

Picture of overcrowded jetty taken by our team on Tioman island.

And what about that promise of jobs for islanders?

One resort I visited has restaurants, shops, bars, and water sports…tourists don’t need to leave the resort to find these services - which the villagers used to provide. Now, they are being provided in-house. Often by staff brought in from outside.

The locals are now either jobless or having to work for those big resorts…no longer their own bosses, no longer running a family enterprise, no longer in control.

Someone else has come to their island and displaced them.

If Malaysia wants to be a mass-market destination, so be it.

If that is the decision, we respect that. But a decision like that should be very deliberate, it should be carefully thought out – not an accident caused by a lack of controls over resort development and growing tourist numbers.

Are over-crowded beaches and tourism sites what we want?

MOTAC and Tourism Malaysia might be pleased to see increasing visitor numbers. But are the islanders? Are the local communities? And what about the impact of all those visitors on ecosystems? 

Covid provided an opportunity to take another look at tourism, and to ask ourselves: “Who is tourism for?”

It is looking increasingly like it isn’t for local communities who find themselves besieged by huge numbers of tourists. As the islanders on Tioman told us during our consultations on the proposed airport – “enough is enough”.

Is this the direction in which Malaysia wants its tourism to go?

Over-crowded beaches and tourism sites, more and more resort development (“container resorts”, I kid you not – resorts built out of old shipping containers), local islanders left behind by full-service resorts?

Or should we re-visit that post-covid conversation and explore other opportunities – lower volume, higher value tourism that looks for pristine, quiet, peaceful, authentic experiences – which, I have said before, we have plenty of...for now.

Tioman Airport Decision: A Watershed in Biodiversity Conservation?

The decision last week by the Malaysian government to shelve the proposed airport development on Tioman island is both welcome, and timely, for many reasons.

Conserving Tioman’s natural resources

The most immediate and important reason, of course, is that it paves the way for conserving Tioman Island in its current, largely pristine state. This in itself is a good thing considering the island’s abundant biodiversity resources which, as the world is now (belatedly?) realising, need to be protected.

Tioman Island's beautiful coral reef.

This endeavour would be challenging with a new airport bringing more visitors, and all the consequent impacts that would result from more resort development, more roads and infrastructure, more waste…you get the picture.

So, it is a great start.

But perhaps this opens up so many other opportunities to review old decisions, made with old information and out-of-date thinking, that are just not appropriate in the world as it is today.

If that sounds like hyperbole, then consider the following.

Tourism trends in the post-COVID world

Whither tourism? I’ve talked about this before, particularly focusing on the impacts of large numbers of visitors on people and places.

We saw this in Mantanani Island, where visitor numbers increased, over a 10-year period, from around 50 per day to as many as three thousand per day: clearly not sustainable, with huge impacts on ecosystems and the local community.

Numerous industry surveys tell us that “tourists” are now looking for more “authentic” experiences, less crowded, with intact nature, the whole thing. Quiet, private, pristine.

But which “tourists” are those?

Last week I saw a video of an “island” crawling with tourists. All there for the ultimate Instagram Moment – white sand, perfect blue sea, islands in the distance…and with careful camera angles, the 200 other people sharing the sandbank can be kept out of the shot!!

Apparently, when asked about such crowded destinations, many respondents said, “it’s ok, we don’t mind – we are used to it”. So clearly, not all tourists are seeking a “private commune” with nature.

I am probably over-simplifying, but can we really segment the tourism industry in this way?

Can we separate out tourists looking for the quiet, nature-focused getaway and tourists who don’t mind more crowded destinations?

And if we can, what are the characteristics of each group in terms of expectations, duration of stay, and spending, for example? Are people looking for the authentic experience willing to pay more – and if so, how much more?

Such an experience suggests more intensive management efforts and limits on visitor numbers – it’s going to be expensive.

So, the tourist will have to pay for it. Thailand is certainly moving in this direction, away from beach/sea holidays to more nature-based tourism. There must be a value proposition for them.

Tourism in Malaysia

Which leads us to the question: which of the above groups is Malaysia targeting?

Because it seems to me that if the division is real, then targeting one group or the other should be a deliberate choice.

You either cater for small-scale, niche market tourists, with appropriate facilities and infrastructure – and charge accordingly. Or you go large-scale, mass tourism, again with appropriate facilities and infrastructure – and charge accordingly for that, too.

Clearly, there are huge implications in this choice for destinations, and the East Coast islands are among the most popular destinations in Malaysia.

Is the plan to drastically increase tourism numbers? Or is it to target the group looking for an authentic experience? Because islands like Tioman have that – in spades. If the former case, yes, we will probably need new infrastructure, including resorts and transportation. If the latter – maybe less development. 

Who makes the decision? On what basis? What research has been done?

I guess what I’m saying is that now might be a good time for Malaysia to rethink its tourism strategy and decide which of these markets to target. Because I don’t think you can cater to both in the same destination; it has to be a deliberate decision.

After all – from a revenue perspective, a hundred tourists paying RM 1,000 per trip brings in the same revenue as one thousand tourists paying RM 100 per visit…but with different challenges.

Managing Marine Parks

While we are reviewing our approach to tourism, maybe it is an appropriate moment to review the approach to Marine Park management. This is because the islands that are surrounded by Marine Parks are popular tourism destinations, and they have what both groups are looking for.

Under the current regime, the Federal government looks after the Marine Park – the doughnut of water surrounding the island; the State governments are responsible for managing the islands themselves.

Which introduces a conflict situation.

State governments don’t have much incentive to protect the sea because they aren’t responsible for it, so perhaps they want to develop tourism. But the Federal government doesn’t have control of development on the islands that might damage the marine resources in the sea…you can see where that ends up.

Perhaps the time has come to review this system.

How about integrating the management of the Marine Park and the islands? How about inviting State governments to participate in managing the Marine Parks so they also get some benefit from that?

In this way, development on the islands can be coordinated with protecting the marine resources – not to mention the terrestrial resources, too.

And while we are at it – let’s give a seat at the table to the local communities living on the islands, too! There is plenty of evidence that local communities make an important contribution to marine resource management where they have a chance to do so – and our own experience on Tioman reflects this.

The Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG) is made up of local islanders.

Biodiversity financing

The final piece of the jigsaw: financing.

The recently signed Kunming-Montreal Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (the GBF) calls for urgent action to protect biodiversity. Importantly it speaks at length about funding for biodiversity conservation, acknowledging the estimated funding gap of US$ 700 billion per year that has been highlighted as one of the key challenges facing us.

There are emerging biodiversity-based financing mechanisms that could release significant funds for biodiversity conservation from the private sector – funds that government just don’t have themselves.

These so-called “biodiversity credits” could be a game-changer in funding biodiversity conservation. Yes, there are risks, and yes, much work needs to be done to introduce appropriate regulations and standards, but on balance, I would say there are some interesting things happening that we are following very closely.

A catalyst for change

All the above ideas and suggestions are strongly supported by policies in Malaysia.

On a national level, the National Policy on Biological Diversity 2016 – 2025 speaks about Malaysia’s commitment to conserving its biodiversity; the 12th Malaysia Plan includes commitments to safeguard natural capital.

In addition, Malaysia has adopted two international agreements: the Sustainable Development Goals, which call for sustainable management of ecosystems, and the recently-signed Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which includes commitments to increase protected areas and reduce biodiversity loss.

The above agreements and policies talk extensively about funding for conservation and the role of local communities.

And here’s what that made me think.

Looking at through this lens of change I am outlining; the bigger context of the brave decision announced last week by the Environment Minister, YB Nik Nazri, starts to look even more important.

Imagine it leading to this scenario – a new paradigm in which:

• Fewer tourists visit protected areas but bring the same economic value as mass tourism;

• Protected areas are sustainably managed by all stakeholders, including local communities, for long-term conservation goals;

• Private sector funds are invested alongside government funds.

Joined up, collaborative management.

What’s not to like?

Reflections On Ocean Month

World Reef Day is celebrated on the 1st of June every year

The ocean covers over 70% of the planet. It supports humanity’s sustenance and that of every other organism on Earth. The ocean produces at least 50% of the planet’s oxygen; it is home to most of Earth’s biodiversity and is the main source of protein for more than a billion people around the world.

Not to mention, the ocean is key to our economy, with an estimated 40 million people being employed by ocean-based industries by 2030.

Despite providing all these benefits, the ocean is in need of support.

With 90% of big fish populations depleted, and 50% of coral reefs destroyed, we are taking more from the ocean than can be replenished. We need to work together to create a new balance with the ocean that no longer depletes its bounty but instead restores its vibrancy and brings it new life.

June is a busy month for ocean conservation as it sees several “days” related to marine conservation.

World Oceans Day

The best known is, of course, World Oceans Day, which falls on 8 June.

The concept was originally proposed at the Earth Summit in 1992. The Ocean Project started global coordination of World Ocean Day in 2002, and "World Oceans Day" was officially recognised by the United Nations in 2008.

This international “day” aims to foster public interest in the protection of the ocean and the sustainable management of its resources. The WOD website provides information and resources on the importance of the oceans and ocean conservation.

Coral Triangle Day

WOD is followed immediately on 9th June by the less well known “Coral Triangle Day” which celebrates the Coral Triangle (CT). Malaysia is one of six CT countries, alongside Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor Leste (https://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/).  

The coral triangle is home to some 400 million people and is recognized as the global centre of marine biological diversity. It has the highest coral diversity in the world, with 76% (605) of the world’s coral species (798). By comparison, approximately 8% of coral species (61) occur in the Caribbean.

In addition, the region serves as the spawning and juvenile growth area for five species of tuna, comprising the largest tuna fisheries in the world. The biological resources of the Coral Triangle directly sustain the lives of more than 120 million people living within this area, and benefit millions more worldwide.

World Reef Day

More recently, World Reef Day was launched in the US three years ago. Falling on 1st June, WRD helps to create awareness among various communities and the general public about ocean ecosystems.

It is a call to action for consumers, business and organisations to reflect on the fragility of coral reef ecosystems. The day brings together the general public and opinion leaders to encourage active change through education and engagement.

What does all this mean?

There are many signs that the health of the ocean – essential for all life on earth – is declining. Fisheries in decline; the ocean gyres polluted with plastics; hypoxic zones.

Just within our own sphere of activity, the problems facing coral reefs are immense – and they not going away on their own. Pollution from sewage and other land-based activities; physical impacts from growing numbers of tourists; coastal development. Just some of the impacts to coral reefs.

And now climate change.

The coral bleaching we are seeing now is at least partly caused by warming oceans – temperatures are 2-3 degrees centigrade above usual, and this is stressing corals and causing them to lose their colour.

Corals are starting to bleach due to the warm weather we are experiencing

We need policy makers to understand how fragile these ecosystems are – coral reefs and their associated coastal ecosystems, mangroves and seagrass, are critical for livelihoods, food security and coastal protection, among others.

The more people who are aware and talking about these issues, the louder the conversation becomes…maybe to the point where policy makers can’t ignore it any more.

Things have to change. Or nature will change them for us.

The 30x30 Target - The Forgotten Bit

In my previous post, I talked about the recent signing of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, and tried to describe the treaty in its entirety. Now it’s time to look at some of the details – and how we implement the treaty.

That’s where the devil lies.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

In December 2022, Montreal, Canada, was the setting for the 15th Conference of Parties (COP 15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Presided over by China but held in Montreal (hence the name), the nations of the world finally agreed a package of measures to address what many scientists consider to be the dangerous loss of biodiversity that we are living through, not to mention the associated ecosystem services that biodiversity bestows upon society that we could not live without. Some even call it the “sixth great extinction” – the last one being 65.5 million years ago that saw the end of the dinosaurs…and nothing was ever the same again.

The vision of the framework is a world of living in harmony with nature where:

“By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.”

The mission of the framework for the period up to 2030, towards the 2050 vision is: To take urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss to put nature on a path to recovery for the benefit of people and planet by conserving and sustainably using biodiversity, and ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources while providing the necessary means of implementation.

Profound words. But what do they mean in practice? The treaty has four goals and 23 targets, each of which will have indicators, means of verification, etc. But how do we go about implementing such a complex treaty – with topics ranging from protected area expansion through to financing mechanisms.

Let’s start with one target – perhaps the most divisive of them all – target 3, the so-called 30 by 30 target.

Target 3: 30x30

The first thing to note is…it’s long! In the original text, it runs to 8 lines…and it’s all one sentence! To simplify (and any errors in “interpretation” are mine alone), target 3 commits nations to:

• Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 percent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed.

This target has attracted international attention, with NGOs, civil society, academics and other institutions fiercely lobbying for the need to protect more of our natural areas, so as to conserve them in their native state and ensure we continue to benefit from those important ecosystem services. Such as food, clean water, climate regulation…

Just on the marine side, two global coalitions have formed to advocate for adopting this target:

• The High Ambition Coalition (HAC) for Nature and People is an intergovernmental group of more than 100 countries co-chaired by Costa Rica and France and by the United Kingdom as Ocean co-chair. Its central goal is to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean by 2030 with the aim of halting the accelerating loss of species and protecting vital ecosystems that are the source of our economic security.

• The Global Ocean Alliance (GOA) is a 73-country strong alliance, led by the UK. It champions ambitious ocean action within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In particular, the GOA supports the target to protect at least 30% of the global ocean in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) by 2030. This is known as the ’30 by 30 target’.

Remind me…30% of what?

If you have read my earlier posts you will already know that for a time during negotiations of the GBF there was a lack of clarity on just what the target meant. The timescale is clear – by 2030.

But… 30% of what?

Which ecosystems? Did it mean 30% of a participating country’s EEZ? Or 30% of the global oceans?

The 30% is scientifically justifiable: there are plenty of studies out there that suggest that protecting 30% of a particular ecosystem (or set of ecosystems) in a certain geographical area is a good idea (I’m not going to reference them all here…that’s what Google is for). One might call it prudent – like farmers used to put aside one-third of their land; let’s set aside a third of our ecosystems to protect them from harm, so they continue to supply those ecosystem services.

Imagine a cluster of islands off the East coast of Peninsular Malaysia. There are coastal mangroves, intertidal and tidal seagrass meadows, and coral reefs; all in a defined geographical area. Collectively they support community food security and livelihoods, as well as jobs in tourism, coastal protection, and so on. What the science says is that it is prudent to protect one-third of each of those three ecosystems. Hence, 30%. 

What about the scope? 30% of what area, precisely?

In the end, it became clear that the intention of the target was to protect 30% of the global oceans, and that it is a “global ambition”, not a national target. Which is a good thing for Malaysia because as I have argued previously much of our EEZ doesn’t have much in the way of ecosystems, so how much protection should we afford those areas? Surely for a highly biodiverse country like Malaysia, with limited resources, the focus should be on the “areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services”.

And that’s how we arrived at our strategy to map the important coastal ecosystems and then identify which 30% we might want to protect, and then implement management systems to look after them.

30x30…the forgotten bit

And this is where – for me – we come to the crux of target 3. Because most people focus on the bit that talks about the area to protect – the 30%…and miss out on the incredibly important part of the target where it says “effectively conserved and managed...equitably governed…protected areas”. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the gist of it.

Ah. There’s a thing in the conservation world called a “Paper Park” – the legislation is in place, the Park is accordingly recognised by the government, there’s a management agency…but somehow the protected area, or Park, isn’t managed well.

It exists purely on paper. And it is a problem throughout the world. Review the literature and one comes across all sorts of studies on this topic. I’m not saying all Parks are “Paper Parks”, I’m questioning whether we are achieving that important bit of the target: effectively and equitably managed and governed.

Establishing protected areas tends to be the preserve of national governments, or regional collaborations – or even international agreements. And, in most cases, governments are in charge of setting up their protected area estate.

So, it’s difficult for a small NGO like Reef Check Malaysia to talk about establishing Protected Areas ourselves – it’s just not realistic. But where organisations like us can make a difference is in helping to optimise how a Protected Area is managed.

Why?

Because we work with the communities living in these places and, I would be bold enough to suggest, perhaps understand their challenges and needs better than a bureaucratic organisation like a Protected Area management body – particularly if that body is geographically distant with limited local resources.

Full disclosure: we work closely with the managers of Malaysia’s Marine Parks (as they call MPAs here). In Peninsular Malaysia, that’s the Marine Parks Section of the Department of Fisheries; in the State of Sabah it’s Sabah Parks, and the Sarawak Forestry Corporation in the State of Sarawak.

We work with the communities living in the Protected Areas

We are also starting to work with management agencies at state level in Peninsular Malaysia (I know, it’s complicated!) including Terengganu, Johor and Perak. We have teams working on several islands – both inside and outside Marine Parks. This is not intended to be a criticism of those agencies – quite the opposite: given the size of the challenges they face; they’re doing a good job.

But…things could be better.

Every year we survey over 200 coral reef sites around Malaysia (reports are available on-line at www.reefcheck.org.my). Our data over the last few years show a gradual decline in reef health across Malaysia. Local impacts such as marine tourism, coastal development, pollution from sewage and other run-off are all damaging these critical ecosystems

So: this is a plea to strengthen the management of these important ecosystems. And more importantly – to recognise and involve an important stakeholder that has largely been side lined to date – the local communities on the islands. These so called “IPLCs” (Indigenous People and Local Communities) have been strongly recognised by the new treaty, and they are taking a more central role in management.

Next: how to make this actually happen!

Overview of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

So that just happened, back before the holidays. After all the waiting, months – in fact, years – of delays, numerous rounds of meetings, political wrangling (and probably a bit of Machiavellian intrigue and plotting, thrown in for good measure too!!)…at the 11th hour, on the 19th December 2022, the world’s nations finally signed a new treaty to protect and conserve biodiversity for the period 2021-2030.

Now that the dust has settled, and setting aside some suggestions that some nations were unhappy with certain aspects of how the conference was managed and targets were pushed through, I think it appropriate to look at the treaty in its entirety – and in context, to assess what it means for biodiversity in general and Malaysia in particular.

Biodiversity is important to our survival

Say what?

I sometimes get the feeling that many people have the view that “biodiversity” is the preserve of brainiac scientists in white lab coats. Admittedly, for some people it’s a difficult concept to get your head around – I mean, look at the definition of biodiversity:

…the variety of plant and animal life in the world or in a particular habitat, a high level of which is usually considered to be important and desirable.

Wow. Exciting, not. Doesn’t exactly spark a strong emotional reaction – not in the way that, say,  “Save The Tigers” might.

Let’s try again:

Biodiversity is essential for the processes that support all life on Earth, including humans. Without a wide range of animals, plants and microorganisms, we cannot have the healthy ecosystems that we rely on to provide us with the air we breathe and the food we eat. And people also value nature of itself.

Better?

Let’s put it this way: whether we really understand it or not, biodiversity – the very diversity of life on earth – is important to our survival, and we need to get better at protecting it.

So…what’s going wrong?

I’ve used the analogy before, but…Conservation researchers Paul R. and Anne Ehrlich posited in the 1980s that species are to ecosystems what rivets are to a plane’s wing. Losing one might not be a disaster, but each loss adds to the likelihood of a serious problem.

The Living Planet Index looks at over 38,000 populations of more than 5,200 animal species across the globe. In the most comprehensive index to date, tracking the health of nature over 50 years, the data show an average of 69% decline in wildlife populations around the world between 1970 and 2018.

Source: Living Planet Index (https://www.livingplanetindex.org/latest_results)

Quite a lot of rivets going missing…

How important is this treaty?

Conservation International lists 5 reasons why biodiversity is important:

1.       Wildlife support the healthy ecosystems that we rely on.

2.       Keeping biodiverse ecosystems intact helps humans stay healthy.

3.       Biodiversity is an essential part of the solution to climate change.

4.       Biodiversity is good for the economy.

5.       Biodiversity is an integral part of culture and identity.

Could it be any clearer?

Given current rates of biodiversity loss – this treaty is critical. Setting aside delays caused by the Covid pandemic, the post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is intended to pick up from where the previous treaty left off.

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 was adopted in October 2010 by the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). The Aichi Biodiversity Targets (named after the Japanese prefecture hosting the meeting) were part of that treaty and represented an earlier effort to set meaningful targets for biodiversity conservation, ranging from protected areas, through local impacts to biodiversity and on to funding mechanisms.

While most of the targets were not achieved, progress was made in all areas. The Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework aims to build on the earlier targets.

The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework – key points

The framework has four over-arching global goals

1. Maintaining the integrity and connectivity of ecosystems while reducing extinctions and safeguarding genetic diversity

2. Sustainably using, managing and restoring biodiversity and nature’s contribution to people, to support sustainable development by 2050

3. Ensuring the equitable sharing of the benefits of genetic resources, including protecting traditional knowledge

4. Making available adequate resources to implement the goals including finance, capacity building, technical and scientific cooperation and technology.

The specific targets cover a wide range of topics, including:

-          Area-based targets for protecting and restoring ecosystems

-          Reducing biodiversity loss

-          Addressing human impacts such as food waste, pollution and alien invasive species

-          Phasing out harmful subsidies

-          Mobilising capital and increasing financial flows.

Two themes emerged from the negotiations and the eventual treaty that I find particularly encouraging:

-          A greatly increased role in conservation for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs).

We have long advocated for local communities to be more engaged in marine conservation here in Malaysia; the treaty and its various clauses puts IPLCs front and centre in the fight to conserve biodiversity, which is where they should be.

To IPLCs front and centre in the fight to conserve biodiversity

-          Also where they should be – the private sector.

For the first time, companies (specifically large and transnational companies) are required to identify their impacts on biodiversity. Hopefully this will generate momentum similar to that we have seen with companies taking action to reduce their climate exposure. Biodiversity’s next!!

But…

We have a treaty. But…it needs to be implemented.

There is a lack of clarity with some of the targets (30% of what?) that needs to be determined at national level by national agencies. We don’t have all the data we need. There are challenges ahead.

But for sure, we now have something of a roadmap. We look forward to working with local stakeholders to put detail onto that roadmap and making progress.

Malaysia is recognised as one of the 12 “mega-biodiverse countries” in the world. We need to protect our natural capital. Maybe this sounds like hyperbole…but it’s our future we are protecting.

How? I will look at what RCM considers some of the more important targets for marine conservation over the coming weeks and months.

How Serious Are We Really About Protecting Coral Reefs?

Coral reefs are sometimes described as “the rainforests of the sea”, a phrase used to capture the vast biodiversity that they harbour. But at the same time, they are often (mis-)treated as “the invisible ecosystem” because, unlike actual rainforests, they are to all intents and purposes hidden. Few people see coral reefs and fewer still understand the benefits they provide to society. 

Which are many.

Together with coastal mangroves and seagrass meadows, with which they have close ecological links, these marine ecosystems provide a number of important ecosystem services – nature’s bounty that people benefit from. Protection against storms, habitat for juvenile marine species, jobs in tourism – not to mention as a source of food, these marine ecosystems are an intrinsic part of the lives of many people.

People rely on these marine ecosystems for food and jobs. The planet relies on these ecosystems because they filter water and keep it clean, and they protect coastlines from storms and erosion. Businesses need these ecosystems for the seafood they produce and the jobs that creates. Peaceful, inclusive societies value them for their cultural importance.

Ok, you want data?

A report published recently by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (The Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2020) reveals that between 2009 and 2018 there was a progressive loss of about 14% of the coral from the world’s coral reefs.

At that rate it will all be gone in another 70 years or so. It will all be gone if things continue as they are.

According to the Coral Reef Alliance:

• Some scientists predict that 90% of global reefs will experience severe bleaching annually by 2055. The last time there was “severe bleaching” in Malaysia (1998), something like 40% of corals died. Sure, they recovered – after a few years. Imagine bleaching every year; they aren’t going to last long.

• 200 million people depend on coral reefs to protect them from storm surges and waves.

• 48% of fossil fuel emissions are absorbed by the ocean. This makes the more acidic which affects the ability of various marine species to form strong skeletons, making them vulnerable to a number of threats.

In fact, all of the above could be said about all three marine ecosystems (together with mangroves and seagrass meadows): very valuable, very threatened.

Let’s face it.

These ecosystems are not being well managed and we are losing them.

A 2020 report from FRIM estimates that Malaysia lost over 21,000 Ha of mangroves between 1990 and 2017. Scientists say that seagrass meadows are being lost equally quickly. And data from Reef Check surveys show declines in coral reef health between 2014 and 2020. 

Photo from Stop Adani Flickr

Maybe too many business interests combined with insufficient regulation are allowing this degradation? Three recent case studies:

• Reports of a new resort to be constructed on Perhentian Island. Locals tell us that the area is currently pretty much un-spoiled…and we know what happens when land is cleared for development. That’s going to have huge impacts on the reefs around that part of the island - which is one of the best places to see sharks in Perhentian.

• Tioman airport is still an active project, according to some. How can we be serious about protecting biodiversity if we are still even considering that project?

• Just today the media reports that Penang fishermen are warning politicians that they will only vote for candidates that will support their livelihoods. The Penang South Island (PSI) project (I love the way it has been renamed from the original Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project…not quite as sexy!!) will impact the livelihoods of an estimated 6,000 fishermen, and will destroy the very ecosystems on which their livelihoods depend – and everyone else’s food.

SDG 14 calls on nations to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, sea and marine resources for sustainable development.

That is not happening today.

What do we need to do to change this?

Let’s Talk About Management (Part 2)

In an earlier post, I talked about the management of marine resources in Malaysia – what it is we are managing and some of the key challenges. I highlighted what I think are some gaps in management; this article looks at how we can fill some of those gaps.

Defining Marine Ecosystems

RCM has come to focus on three (of many) marine ecosystems: coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves. Individually and collectively they provide a wide variety of ecosystem services that communities rely on (food, flood protection, employment, etc.).

For effective protection of these ecosystems, we need to remember that there are two different aspects to connectivity between these ecosystems: community connectivity (between different communities of the same ecosystem – reefs on different islands are connected) and functional connectivity (movement of species between the different ecosystems at different stages of their lifecycle).

What Exactly Do We Mean by “Managing Marine Resources”?
There are many ways to define “management”.  A simple dictionary definition reads: “the process of dealing with or controlling things or people”.

Simple.

In an office environment, perhaps. But what about in a natural system such as a coral reef, where things are more fluid, where more people are involved and the system is more complex?

Natural resource management deals with managing the way in which people and nature interact – whether in terrestrial or marine areas. It brings together land use planning, water management, biodiversity conservation, and the future sustainability of industries like agriculture, mining, tourism, fisheries and forestry. It recognises that people and their livelihoods rely on the health and productivity of nature. It also acknowledges that their actions as stewards of nature play a critical role in maintaining this health and productivity.

That’s the textbook version. Here’s how RCM thinks about the practice of marine resource management: all relevant stakeholders working together to minimise or eliminate local threats to marine resources so they remain as healthy and productive as possible.

And as highlighted in the previous article, there are two key components to this, namely: integrating the management of different ecosystems and ensuring broad stakeholder participation.

So how are we doing?

The report card would probably read “Could Do Better”

One of the challenges with marine resource management in Malaysia is that the current approach is fragmented and distributed among different government agencies:

• Coral reefs are protected by the Department of Fisheries in Peninsular Malaysia, and state Parks bodies in East Malaysia,

• Mangroves are managed by both state-level and Federal-level bodies,

• Seagrass meadows have no specific protection.

 So there isn’t much integration of the management of these ecosystems – even though they are mutually dependent ecologically. Added to this is the lack of management of the corridors connecting dispersed ecosystems. So, for example, the corridors that transport larvae from the southern islands (Johor islands and Tioman) to the northern islands (Redang, Perhentian) are unprotected.

A second area that is weak is that, overall, there is perhaps too much reliance on the government to solve all the problems…but they can’t realistically be everywhere all the time.

Here’s the gist of a common conversation I have:

Island-based stakeholder: “They don’t do enough to look after the reefs”

Marine Parks officer: “They don’t do enough to help us look after the reefs”

Studies have confirmed the importance of involving local stakeholders in decisions regarding natural resource management.

The Convention on Biological Diversity is calling on governments to strengthen the role of IPLCs (Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities) in the latest round of negotiations to agree on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. The SDGs and our own National Policy on Biological Diversity called for greater participation of stakeholders in decision-making.

But it’s a two-way street: the government has to acknowledge and enable stakeholder participation; stakeholders have to adopt that role sincerely. What we have to do is build the capacity and the institutions to allow that to happen.

RCM and Reef Care – Making It Happen

Building local capacity in conservation and management is something that we have been doing for some time now, but it has taken on a greater role in the last two years. The Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG), launched in 2016, is now carrying out an annual programme of conservation activities to help protect reefs around Tioman (ghost net removal, crown of thorns management, restoration, monitoring). We have a similar programme on Mantanani island and we are introducing it to other areas next year.

So that’s the capacity. What about the institutions?

In 2020, the Department of Fisheries Malaysia introduced the Reef Care programme. The goal was to give local communities in reef areas some responsibility for managing coral reefs near their village. TMCG was appointed as a local partner on Tioman.

Although under-resourced, Reef Care has provided a great vehicle for us to institutionalise what the TMCG is doing on Tioman and we have expanded from just one Reef Care area two years ago to seven today, covering all the villages on the island! We are now working with partners on other islands to help to develop stronger conservation programmes.

We hope to identify conservation leaders on the islands who can take a more central role in managing the marine resources around the islands, in partnership with the Department of Fisheries.

What Else Can Be Done?

As far as “joined up” management goes, steps are already being taken to address this. We are hoping to see a new project launch in the next few months that will look at connectivity between ecosystems off the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia, to protect the “connectivity corridors” between ecosystems. This will require close collaboration between stakeholders.

And who knows, perhaps it could even lead to a new model for marine resource management that introduces a two-tier structure:

•  Seascape-level management of the entire coastal area, integrating the management of the different ecosystems and taking into account the needs of stakeholders ranging from oil and gas operations, transport, tourism and fishing.

• Small scale Marine Protected Areas around islands and important biodiversity areas, managed by local stakeholders and state governments.

 Maybe this is where RCM’s future lies.

 Read the first part of the article here.

Tioman Island, 20 Years Later

I just spent a few days on Tioman island, one of the islands off Malaysia’s East coast (yeah, I know how lucky I am). With me were a couple of old friends who used to dive with me back in the day when I ran a dive centre on the island (yeah, I really do know how lucky I am!!).

It was a bit of a nostalgia trip for all three of us. I’ve been lucky to have been able to visit occasionally, as RCM has a project there. But the other guys haven’t been back for several years, mainly for family reasons. So what did we spend most of our time doing? Reminiscing about the past, of course…and resurrecting a stupid card game called Knickers!

It was 20 years ago that they started visiting regularly, doing weekend dive trips from Singapore, where they were both working at the time. They became regular visitors to the dive centre, coming perhaps six or eight times a year – and both spent long periods on the island during “interruptions” in their careers! One is a PADI instructor, both are tech instructors, and both have logged hundreds of dives – many of them in Tioman.

All of which is to say that they know the island well: they understand its Marine Park status, they know the dive sites, they know what sort of marine life used to be abundant and they know what the water quality used to be like. They were also familiar with the tourism market on the island, relying as it did to a large extent on a mixture of local tourists from Malaysia and Singapore together with some backpackers and a few high-end tourists visiting the small numbers of more exclusive resorts on the island. But overall, medium-high volume tourism, with little emphasis on sustainability or eco-tourism at the time.

As we walked through the island’s main village, Tekek, on our second day both remarked how little it appears to have changed in 20 years. Yes, there is now a bigger school, and yes there are new restaurants – and yes, the road has been improved! But that aside?

Very little physical change – at least in the main village, and no new resorts at all in the last 10 years.

The following day we took a bicycle ride to the neighbouring Air Batang village. ABC, as it is known, remains very much the same as it was 20 years ago – small-scale chalets line the beach along much of its length; only a couple of buildings are more than one storey, and many have been there for years. The following day we took a bike ride the other way, south to Bunut beach, discovering that, apart from the one large resort on the island, little has changed. It looks like Tioman has escaped some of the huge growth in tourism – and resort numbers – that some other islands have seen.

So, what has changed?

Outside the main tourist villages, the story is a little different – but only in some areas. There are new resorts in Juara village, and in Mukut village in the south of the island. There are a couple of new places occupying beaches on the West coast – but nothing large, nothing multi-storey.

Again – the island appears to have escaped over-development. Ok, the water might not be as clear as it used to be – but that could be influenced by sources external to the island – from the mainland, perhaps. And there might not be so many fish. But all in all, the island and its reefs seem to be in fairly good condition.

So how do we maintain that?

And then came the inevitable questions.

What does the future hold for an island like Tioman? What are the development pressures? What happens if the proposed airport development goes ahead, along with talk of quadrupling (yes, increasing by FOUR TIMES) the number of tourists?

What is being done to protect the island?

The best answers I could give to these, and other, questions, were…unsatisfactory.

Despite evidence that sewage contaminates reefs – and is a public health issue – there is still inadequate sewage treatment on the island. Despite evidence that tourism results in physical damage to reefs, there are still no clear guidelines on allowable tourism numbers. Despite evidence that fish populations should recover in a marine protected area…the opposite seems to be happening.

In my opinion, Tioman is a jewel among Malaysia’s islands. Home to intact rainforest, numerous endemic species, and some of the best coral reefs on Malaysia’s East coast - it is a gem worth protecting. And my friends agree.

So how, in the face of slow reef decline, creeping tourism growth, lack of a clear sustainable tourism strategy, and proposals for mega-infrastructure development, how do we go about conserving the island, specifically its marine resources?

My friends expressed two concerns: lack of visible management of the island and no obvious vision for the future. Here’s how we can address those concerns.

First, get the local islanders more involved in protecting the island’s reefs through participatory management and conservation programmes. We are already doing that with the Tioman Marine Conservation Group and the Department of Fisheries’ Reef Care project. Tick that box.

But more than that, we need to look at how we can protect and enhance the resilience of the island’s ecosystems. Resilience is a concept that describes the natural ability of an ecosystem to recover from a disturbance – bleaching, pollution, etc.

There are three key parts to maintaining resilience: good water quality (so let’s improve the sewage treatment), no physical impacts (so let’s look at managing tourists better) and lots of fish to eat the algae (seaweed) that, if not controlled, can smother corals (so let’s improve compliance with fishing regulations).

Not beyond the bounds of possibility.

And finally, let’s develop a long-term vision for the island, one that values its ecosystems in a way that is inclusive, and benefits the islanders, not just a small handful of developers who will make money from building resorts and infrastructure…but who won’t suffer the loss of ecosystem services that are likely to follow.

There are plenty of examples of islands that got over-developed. Let’s not let that happen to Tioman.

Check out our work on Tioman Island at Cintai Tioman.

Managing Marine Resources - Let's Talk About It

Let’s talk about management…of marine resources, that is.

The original idea for this article was to discuss how we are managing Marine Parks in Malaysia. But the scope quickly broadened out to include the question: which marine resources should we be managing?

Are we just talking about the narrow band of water around islands that comprise the Marine Parks in Peninsular Malaysia – mainly home to coral reefs? Or are we talking about other, interconnected marine ecosystems?

Then it somehow moved on to the very subject of management itself – what it is, how do you manage marine resources, and how effectively are they are being managed in Malaysia?

So in this first of two parts, I’ll address the former question – manage what?

I’ll talk about “how”, later.

Three important marine ecosystems in Malaysia

The phrase “marine resources” has many different interpretations.

To a merchant seaman, it could simply mean free and open access to seaways. To a mining company, it could mean undersea resources such as hydrocarbons, precious metals and so on. To a fisheries expert it could mean the stocks of fish on which communities worldwide rely for their main source of dietary protein. To a resort operator – the very attraction that brings people to their door.

So let me start off by saying that when we talk about marine resources at Reef Check Malaysia, we are talking primarily about three marine ecosystems: coral reefs; seagrass beds; and mangroves. Even this definition is somewhat arbitrary. Some might argue that mangroves are coastal; others might argue for the inclusion of mudflats and other similar ecosystems.

All valid questions; I just wanted to be clear on our own particular emphasis.

Reef Check Malaysia started life as a small NGO focusing on coral reef surveys. 15 years ago our survey programme covered just 16 sites around islands off the East coast. Today, our annual survey programme has grown to cover over 200 reef sites around Malaysia, in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak.

In recent years, however (yeah, we are a bit slow like that!) we have come to the realisation that coral reefs don’t exist in isolation. Of course we always knew that – but we never proactively considered how it might affect how we look at “the sea”. Our focus was pretty much on reefs.

But we have come to understand how deeply linked to other marine ecosystems coral reefs are – particularly seagrass beds and mangroves. Some might even say that they are but one habitat – with species moving between them as they move between different stages of their lifecycle. Some move between ecosystems to feed, some to breed, some to mature.

So surely, we should be looking at these ecosystems, or habitats, in a joined up, holistic manner, right?

The 3 marine ecosystems - should we look at them as one?

Joined up management?

Wrong.

In fact, it is only literally this year that we have come to understand just how fragmented management is, and the reality is that there is no holistic management of these critical habitats:

• The National Forestry Act provides protection for mangroves within gazetted forest reserves. However, approximately 1,000 sq km of mangroves are not (yet) gazetted and are put solely under the jurisdiction of State governments.

• The Fisheries Act allows for the establishment of Marine Parks to protect marine resources; but most Marine Parks (at least in Peninsular Malaysia) are in waters surrounding islands that are managed by State governments

• Seagrasses, on the other hand, are not covered by either of the two important legal tools mentioned above. Except where they are located within the boundaries of a Marine Park, in which coral reefs are the main emphasis.

The fragmented marine management

Connectivity

We are now aware of two important axes of biological connectivity between these three ecosystems.

First, there is community connectivity – between different communities of each ecosystem. Taking coral reefs off the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia as an example, research suggests that the reefs in the south are connected to reefs in the north (though I acknowledge that the science isn’t settled).

But taken as is, the research suggests that the distance between “known reefs” (e.g. Tioman island to Tenggol island, some 220km) is too far for coral larvae to travel before they become ready to settle and form a new colony. So the theory goes that there are “stepping stones” along the way – un-surveyed reefs that form a link between distant reefs.

Why is this important?

Well, consider that it is likely (according to the same research) that reefs in the south provide new “seeds” (in the form of coral, fish and other larvae) to reefs in the north, allowing them to recover if badly damaged. But what would happen if the “stepping stones” were disrupted – because we don’t know where they are and so we can’t protect them?

No more larval flow, no more re-supply, with dire consequences for those northern reefs.

And then there is what I will call functional connectivity – whereby one ecosystem plays host to a particular species during different stages of its lifecycle, with the organism moving between them at different periods of its life.

Looking again at the East coast of Peninsular Malaysia, this is “West-East” connectivity, moving from coastal mangroves through near coastal seagrass beds to coral reefs. Disrupt one of the ecosystems and you disrupt the entire life-cycle of the organism, again with dire consequences for populations. 

Understanding biological connectivity

Integrating Management

We have come to the conclusion that it is essential to manage all three ecosystems using an integrated approach that protects both the North-South and the West-East connectivity.

Obvious, really…but not happening yet!

Yes, it’s a big task – it will involve multiple jurisdictions (Federal vs State) and multiple stakeholders (fishermen, local communities, tourism operators, shipping industry, etc).

But imagine we could make it work.

It could potentially improve food security for coastal and urban communities, improve livelihoods, protect biodiversity, provide for coastal protection against the coming challenges of climate change…and even create economic opportunities in new forms of tourism. The challenges are immense, but the potential rewards are worth giving this a close look.

Next time, I will talk more about what it means to manage a marine resource, how we are managing our marine resources, and how we might change that to take into account integrating management of various marine ecosystems.

Stay tuned.

Read the second part of the article here.

The Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) – Where Are We?

Those of you following the news on biodiversity will already be aware of the snail’s pace progress of negotiations for a new Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Meetings in Geneva, Switzerland in March achieved little except to make the situation more complex.

A special session of the working groups was hastily arranged and was held in Nairobi, Kenya just two weeks ago (21-26 June).

But sadly progress remains slow.

From what I have heard, it is coming down to arguing about words – and that is never going to work. Different languages interpret a given word in different ways; so when you end up in an argument about whether the word “protected” or “conserved” should be used, just imagine translating those English words into the native language of the hundred-plus nations involved in the negotiation. And think about how those words will be interpreted in a local context and culture.

You can see the problem.

As my friend Richard is keen to relate, some Western nations are adopting the practice of defining their personal pronouns on things like LinkedIn profiles. Nothing wrong with that. But when you bring that mindset into a region that doesn’t really use personal pronouns…can you see the potential for confusion?

And I think that’s what is happening.

One target seems to be attracting more attention than some of the others. That’s target 3, the so-called “30x30 target”. It calls for protecting (or conserving?) 30% of the world’s land and marine areas (I’m paraphrasing!).

The original target was three lines of text long; it ended up about 20 lines long at the end of the Geneva meetings because so many nations intervened and wanted their own little spin put on it.

Not good

It seems as though the negotiation process has lost sight of its goal: a treaty that can drive biodiversity conservation over the next decade. This is something we are increasingly told is crucial, to avoid further mass extinctions.

I’m not going to get into the details of that, but if – as I am told – the talks are now arguing terminology – do we use the word “oceans” or the word “seas”? – then clearly something is wrong.

The talks are now arguing terminology – do we use the word “oceans” or the word “seas”?

That’s why we are suggesting a different approach to marine conservation in Malaysia. And this will work for other countries, too.

Our proposal has two broad parts:

- First, acknowledge the validity of the target of 30% of land and marine areas in protected areas.

This 30% is scientifically sound there’s plenty of published research suggesting that we should protect at least 30% of our various ecosystems – and some papers suggest it should be more. So as a global aspiration, let’s agree that protecting 30% of …well, pretty much everything, is a good thing.

Let’s just stop having that fight – it’s sucking up energy that is needed elsewhere.

- Second, make a clear statement about what Malaysia (or any other country) will do to contribute to this target being achieved.

We can’t do it on our own, obviously; and different nations have different abilities, needs, capacities…not to mention areas of land and sea. So each has to proceed unto his own.

We recommend a three-stage process:

o 2022-2024: develop a comprehensive map of key marine biodiversity areas

o 2024-2025: identify important areas for protection equivalent to 30% of the total

o 2025-2030: put in place a management system that effectively conserves (or protects) these areas.

Let’s agree that protecting 30% of everything is a good thing.

Why does this work? For two reasons.

First – it is locally appropriate. A good argument can be made that much of Malaysia’s EEZ does not really need much protection because there is not much habitat there. Yes, fisheries need to be managed; but protected areas for habitat conservation? Not so clear.

Secondly – it is achievable. Finding out the important habitats that support livelihoods and food security; then protecting a scientifically valid 30% of those – what’s not to like? These areas will largely be coastal, so easily accessible; and they will have local stakeholders with a vested interest in looking after them, so natural stewards to strengthen management agencies.

Perhaps it’s time for the negotiation process to take a step back and develop a clearer view. At the moment, they don’t seem to be able to see the forest for all the trees in the way.

So Many Days....

On Saturday 11th June, I participated in a beach clean-up organised by one of our long-time sponsors, Sime Darby Foundation. They have been supporting our work on Tioman island for eight years and we are now working to get the island up to speed for accreditation to the IUCN Green List standard.

The event was arranged to coincide with World Environment Day on 5th June – but had to be delayed a week due to a local holiday. Thinking about it that morning, I realised that June 5th was just one “day” in that week. World Ocean Day is on June 8th, and Coral Triangle Day is on June 9th.

And I started to wonder, what have all these “days” achieved in raising awareness about the importance of, and threats to, our ecosystems? Judging by the amount of trash we picked up this morning, not much, is the depressing answer.

Photo credit: Yayasan Sime Darby

140 people joined the effort, and between them they collected 1,074 kg of trash in just one hour. The usual culprits – plastic bottles, diapers (yuck!), cans, food wrappers and so on. Surprisingly few straws, though. Maybe that campaign has had an impact!

But here’s the rub. I can almost guarantee that if I go out to the same location next week I will face the same rubbish-strewn beach and – particularly – mangrove forest.

Photo credit: Yayasan Sime Darby

Because a lot of what we found looked like it was deliberately thrown there. We were pulling out plastic bags full of what I will call “picnic trash” – food wrappers, plastic bottles, cutlery – all nicely packed in a bag…and then carelessly discarded on departure.

Does that sound judgemental? Does it sound like a huge assumption?

Come, visit, I’ll show you, and I am quite sure you will find yourself in agreement.

I acknowledge that some beach trash arrives from the ocean; I get it, and I have seen it in many places. But this was in a mangrove back from the main beach; near the parking lot, and on a road out. I’m sorry, but not all that stuff came from the sea, having been discarded elsewhere. Not to mention all the “picnic trash” that we DID pick up ON the beach.

About 4 years ago, we (Reef Check Malaysia) decided to get more involved in the issue of marine debris, particularly plastic. Because it was becoming such a big problem that beach clean-ups alone weren’t going to solve it. So we started to work with various stakeholders to look at plans to remove single use plastics, move to a circular economy, raise awareness, etc., and maybe, one day, see an end to the need for beach clean-ups.

At the time, our (unofficial) slogan was “no more beach clean-ups in 10 years” – because, to quote a line often attributed to Einstein but which one source attributes to writer Rita Mae Brown, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. And that is what we were doing – lots of beach clean-ups…but nothing seemed to change.

This all became horribly apparent that morning on seeing the mess on the beach but – more particularly – in the mangrove. It was awful, truly awful.

Photo credit: Yayasan Sime Darby

Many of the volunteers were on their first clean-up, and were surprised at the amount of trash in there. And when I talked to them about how mangroves are actually an important source of food and other ecosystem services - you could almost see light bulbs going on. While pulling trash out they were unearthing crabs (squeals!!) and asking “are these edible?”

Connections being made.

They got it.

So why are some of us such inveterate litterers that we just discard all this trash with no thought for the impact it will have – not just on the aesthetics of the place, but on the survival of the ecosystems? And ultimately, us?

I found several mangrove roots that were being strangled inside plastic bags that prevented them from growing properly. And I have seen the same on coral reefs where plastic bags cover corals - blocking off sunlight and killing them.

Photo credit: Yayasan Sime Darby

What do we need to say to get people to change this awful habit? Because like I said, I’m not sure that the message is getting through. I’m not sure we have made any progress – half way into our 10-year timescale. I’m all for raising awareness, which is what all these “days” are for; but it isn’t working and we need to fix it – see quotation above!

One of the participants has just returned from a safari holiday in Tanzania. He was relating to me how, on arrival, you are told “leave all the plastic behind in the airport because it isn’t allowed where you are going”. Strict regulations, emphatically enforced.

Another participant was telling me about a tourist spot outside Kuala Lumpur that is managed by one old man who insists that visitors take their trash with them. Because he cares enough to enforce some common sense guidelines.

We need to find a way to better enforce regulations – it won’t come as a surprise that there were signs all over the beach announcing the fines for littering. Yeah, that’s working.

And we need to find a way to get more people to care.

Photo credit: Yayasan Sime Darby

As David Attenborough said, “No one will protect what they don’t care about; and no one will care about what they have never experienced”.

So let’s keep those “days” coming – but work hard to get more and more people involved, so they can experience nature for themselves, and start to develop a sense of ownership.

Companies, schools, social groups – when you ask “what can we do to help?” the answer is – go organise a clean-up. Bring some people and let them see for themselves how we are trashing the ONE PLACE WE HAVE TO LIVE. Get that awareness raised, and keep doing it until it changes.

Government. Sorry, but things need to improve. Yes, people are littering on beaches. But is it not also true that household segregation and recycling rates are woeful? How many households even bother? And why not? Recycling infrastructure can still be improved, education can still be improved…and how about some enforcement of Act 672?

Photo credit: Yayasan Sime Darby

Shameless plug for our own event – sign up for International Coastal Clean-up Day with us – it’s happening in September - usually the third weekend but that coincides with Malaysia Day so we are having it the weekend before this year.

If you are keen to join, fill in the form here. Contact us for more details here.