MARINE ENVIRONMENT
RESCUING OCEANIC RESOURCES
Janaka Perera explores troubled waters where coral reef destruction is rife
Legislation to protect marine organisms was introduced in Sri Lanka over a century ago. One example is the Chanks Ordinance of 1880 meant to control the collection and export of chanks from the Gulf of Mannar and around the Jaffna Peninsula.
Sri Lanka’s coastal waters are home to 180 species of fish, five species of marine turtles that nest on beaches along the coast and 30 species of marine mammals including endangered species. The denuding of forests in upstream catchment areas causes erosion – unusually large amounts of soil enter rivers and exit through estuaries into the sea eventually. Being living organisms, corals are suffocated by the sediment that settles on them – and they die. Moreover, coral destruction causes the loss of habitat and sources of food for fish.
Coral reefs are vital for our economy. They represent the most biodiverse and productive ecosystem on Earth, occupying only two percent of the ocean yet being home to a quarter of all marine species. More than 4,000 species of fish make coral reefs their home. Corals can only exist within a narrow band of environmental conditions found in tropical and subtropical waters.
The conditions needed for coral survival are found in the seas surrounding Sri Lanka. Yet, the environmental authorities have failed to arrest the destruction of coral reefs in tourist resorts such as Hikkaduwa.
In 2010, the International Business Times ranked Sri Lanka the fifth largest plastic polluter of the ocean with 1.6 million metric tons of plastic or polythene dumped into the sea every year.
Plastic debris is fast becoming the greatest threat to oceans. Marine wildlife species are severely affected as they ingest plastic or are strangled by it. Strangulation by fishing lines and plastic packaging is also a common cause of death among marine animals.
As plastic is not biodegradable, it remains in marine environments for centuries, fragmenting into smaller pieces that accumulate on the sea floor, blocking the exchange of gases and impairing ecosystems. Or plastic detritus travels through the food chain, ultimately ending up in seafood destined for human consumption.
While plastic is the chief contaminant, sewage released into the seas surrounding our isle adds to the pollution. Colombo’s sewage system is probably over 100 years old and the capacity for which it was installed is presently inadequate to counter oceanic pollution. And slum settlements are found around canals, waterways and the seashore. In such locales, land is limited and waste is discarded in the easiest way – into the closest body of water.
National Geographic’s April 2017 edition carries a satellite image showing polluted waters around Sri Lanka. This graphic and irrefutable evidence indicates a possible environmental disaster for the island’s coral reefs.
According to Dr. Stephanie Wear, Senior Scientist and Strategy Advisor for The Nature Conservancy, pollution from untreated sewage is a serious threat to reefs, and the benefits they offer marine life and people.
If this trend is allowed to continue, the consequences might be similar to the fate of beaches in Saint Petersburg in Russia where the Federal Security Service announced in 2008 that no beach was fit for swimming. In 2011, its city council voted to close one of the city’s four sewage plants.
Pollution destroys the recreational value of beaches, which are also a foreign exchange earner. The effect can already be seen in the popular tourist beaches of Mount Lavinia and Negombo. The loss of biodiversity and habitat degradation caused by plastic pollution will affect these popular townships, which generate revenue and employment from tourism.
Meanwhile, coral mining in the sea to produce lime for the construction industry has destroyed most of the fringing reefs along Sri Lanka’s southwestern coast.
The Indian Ocean region in general and Sri Lanka in particular face several environmental problems, which affect the sustainable utilisation of available resources. There have been many claims of overfishing certain species. To date, there’s been little or no bio economic modelling to compute the maximum sustainable yields of critical fish species.
As the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) has stated, Sri Lanka does not have reliable data on the extent of the country’s fisheries resources under threat of overfishing.
There have also been many recent issues related to the sharing of fisheries resources with neighbouring countries – such as the intrusion of Indian fishing trawlers in Sri Lankan waters.
Such issues related to the ocean environment are complex and interrelated. There is no single action that can provide solutions to the multiplicity of problems relating to oceanic resources.
Action has to be taken at sectoral, national, regional and global levels. At the national level, it is important to identify resource gaps in seeking solutions.
Who is taking charge of what? In our country, when it comes to environmental protection, disaster and climate change etc., the authority and lines of coordination are clouded for the doers who can spearhead tasks on same. I guess these are not clear with two similar government authorities overseeing marine life and is sure to end up with ‘ball passing.’ This is a menace and destructive rather than protective.
Apart from the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA), there is another authority called the Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) under the Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment overseeing marine environment protection. Consider the duplication and waste of resources and the country has accomplished nothing with regard to the protection of marine resources around the sea area of Sri Lanka. It is almost shooting in the dark.
When the regulatory authorities seems to be in an overlapped and confused state, this lacks practicality and productivity. Now, when an action is to be prevented beforehand or action to be taken for a problem, neither of these two government authorities will take the initiative. It is the duty of people and organisations to protect our marine environment. Nevertheless, as the doers, their authority lines should be clear for safeguarding strategies to be effective.
Commercial and ecological viability are both important. Much consideration and more attention should have been paid to making the most out of marine resources utilisation and marine conservation – on both these dimensions mentioned at the onset.
The marine environment is a treasure of resources. Sri Lanka shut down such operations during the wartime and now mineral sands from Sri Lanka is a topic that has been shut down. There are mineral sand deposits that can be extracted on a commercial scale such as ilmenite and rutile, which are raw materials for many products. Thus, these are in demand for many uses and high in export value.
Seaweed and fish can be used as raw materials for the production of many pharmaceuticals and healthy food.
At least Sri Lanka should be relieved to not be accused of the improper decommissioning of oil rigs as there have been oil deposits in our seas.
Much of the talk about environment protection has been revolving around the land area within the island and the ocean around it. It is high time that Sri Lanka collaborates with local and international marine biologists and productively works towards the conservation of marine resources.
Many questions would obviously emanate from this topic and the first is what path did the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) take? From the 1880 Chanks Ordinance to the present day destruction of coral reefs, what Sri Lanka has implemented and accomplished so far raises questions. Quality data is the starting point of all plans and even for yardsticks for monitoring.
Since its establishment in 1981, almost after 40 years, NARA has almost no official and reliable data to date, leave alone the study of critical fish species and overfishing. In this setting, NARA’s functionality is doubtful or maybe it’s still in a long sleep like Rip Van Winkle.
Framed by a vast area of sea and marine resources being an island, it is with sadness that we have to admit that Sri Lanka has taken its marine resources for granted. All the ill effects above of human actions destroying coral reefs should have been prevented by acting on sound disciplines and rules.
Had there been regulations on coastal constructions, housing (preventing slums) and commercial buildings (hotels and restaurants), substitutes for coral in construction that are available in the market, if and why these tactics proved to be futile is a definite observation. Also, there would not be poisoning of the food meant for fish especially plankton, which in turns poison us when we consume seafood.
Tourism and fisheries not only provide revenue and support economic growth but are sources of livelihood and food supply. With the destruction of coral, the tourism and leisure industries may become shaky, dwindling their market value. This can burst a ‘bubble’ in the real estate and property sectors.
As for Sri Lanka, the economic shock would be difficult to recover from. Oceanic resources surrounding the Sri Lankan coast keep us alive. The sea we see is not for sheer enjoyment.