Zooxanthellae. It is not a name that trips off the tongue. They are at the bottom of the food chain yet without them, a major food source for some 25 percent of the planet would disappear. So would a substantial part on many countries’ incomes. So would some of the most powerful antibiotics and anti-tumor drugs. So would a massive carbon-sink that absorbs carbon dioxide. And so would 25 percent of the world’s fish species. Reefs, the biggest living ecosystems on the planet, rely on countless quadrillions of them. Only a privileged few have ever seen them, but their presence touches all our lives and we are destroying them and their environment wholesale.
World famous undersea photographer Hagen Schmid has spent over twenty five years observing the corals and the environment off Jeddah. ?The reefs off Jeddah are relatively young, not more than 5 million years old, he says. ?They are, however, particularly important as they are nurseries and habitats for many Red Sea fish and marine animals. The Red Sea, because of its geography, lacks the huge shoals of deepwater fish and the numbers of plankton-feeders found in larger and colder oceans; much of its marine life relies on the reef as habitat. At the top of the food chain, humans rely on the reef as well, though all too often they are entirely unaware of their dependence.
Emerging economies developing coastal facilities frequently use the sea off shore as a dump. Construction waste as well as domestic and industrial sewage pollute the waters, is ingested by marine life and can — and does — end up as a human food source. Recreation, tourism, commercial and spear fishing all take their tolls.
Examples of local irresponsible disposal of waste are often brought to public attention in graphic form. Hundreds of dead fish are washed ashore both north and south of Jeddah; entire reefs in front of smart hotels and private residences are regularly wiped out by irresponsible dumping of building waste. Off shore and out of most people’s minds, entire reefs are devoid of mature fish, spear fishermen having shot all the breeding stock for sport. Even allegedly environmentally concerned people are organizing competitive spear fishing matches.
A seminar organized by the Saudi German Business Group of Jeddah recently brought together experts from the region. Hosted by the German Consul General, Dr. Stephan Keller, the aim was to examine the threats and possibilities of marine conservation and development in the Red Sea. The result was a set of recommendations distilled from the collected expert opinion and in support of the Prince Abdul Majeed ibn Abdul Aziz Campaign for protection of the marine environment. The campaign is partly a result of an increasing awareness among Saudis that the threats to the fragile Red Sea ecosystem are real and that it continues to be abused, it will be lost forever.
“Isn’t the environment a resource to be used?” A reasonable question but the answer varies according to who answers. Generally the answer is “yes” qualified by “sustainably.” Sustainable development requires that a value — usually monetary — be put on the environment, based on the economics of extraction of resources. Re-planting trees that have been cut down is “sustainable development.” But is the removal of breeding stocks of fish for sport — or using the recreational and tourist potential of a seashore by building on top of that shore — “sustainable”?
Dr. Moshira Hassan, Assistant Professor at the American University of Cairo, Coordinator - Reef Check Europe and speaker at the seminar says that corals are extremely valuable in terms of finance, i.e. commercially viable organisms (lobsters and fish) as well as tourism.
“The average global value of a reef in terms of dollars per hectare per year is much higher than for most ecosystems, typically $6000 per hectare; tropical forests are much less valuable. There is therefore a financial as well as an ecological interest in conserving the reefs.”
The problem with “sustainable development” is that the conservation of a resource is only directed at the resource and not at the ramifications. This results from cynicism about the environment, selfishness — it is my resource and I will do what I like with it — or lack of education; perhaps all three. One person’s selfish action thus impacts on all of us.
As a source of potential income, the value of reefs varies from $300 per sq kilometer to $503,000 per sq kilometer because different areas are have different numbers of tourists. Sharm Al-Shaikh, for example, is valued at $300 per square METER. A large proportion of national park funding is supplied from this potential. That kind of money behooves a government to keep its reefs in good shape. Looking at off-shore Jeddah, however, the “value” of the ecosystem is less easy to ascertain. With almost no financial pressure to keep it in good shape and no tourists to speak of, free rein to use it as a one-time resource is the order of the day. Reefs do not fit neatly in the “sustainable development” bracket. They take hundreds of years to grow; many fish need between 12 and 30 years to reach reproductive maturity; they are extremely sensitive to change of temperature, pollution and even light. Without very strict and well-implemented government action, commercial incentives and widespread education, Saudi Arabia will likely end up with a dead sea.
Small algae may be but they are very sensitive and they will be the first to die. Then the polyps they live with will go next. That will cause coral bleaching — the stark white color of dead coral that is becoming all too familiar in the Red Sea. Dead coral means that in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, more than 2500 species of fish which depend on the polyps or reef as a primary or secondary food source will decline and eventually die out. Their disappearance will be quickly followed by the 20 species of marine mammals — eight dolphins, one dugong, four plain whales and seven toothed whales. Algae are the first link in the long chain that anchors the Red Sea ecosystem to the rock of life. Break it and the collapse of the system is a matter of ‘when’ rather than ‘if.’
Abdullah Al-Suhaibany, Lead Specialist-Habitat & Biodiversity Conservation, PERSGA (The Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden), told the seminar. “Land-filling, unplanned and planned development, dredging, pollution and oil-spills are the major threats to the Red Sea.” PERSGA puts great effort into conservation. Al-Suhaibany’s view is that society, through government and non-governmental organizations, must invest in scientists to train regional specialists. “PERSGA has already trained over 350 in specialist conservation activities. Some with interest in coral reefs have now formed a network for exchanging information. It is a step forward.”
But why should anyone bother to conserve the marine environment anyway? Who does it benefit? In the short term, to use it without thought benefits the user. Catch the fish, dump the sewage and tip the rubble into the sea; profits for some and ignore the rest. In the long term however, the air you breathe, the food you eat and everything that sustains you physically will decline in quality and quantity. It is a short-sighted one generational view that takes no account of the future, the financial and recreational potential or the simple pleasure of being part of a beautiful piece of the planet.
Most of all, the absence of a simple unicellular plant living on a polyp in the Red Sea will have an effect on the rest of humanity through the interconnectedness of the global environment. But then, that’s the trouble with algae.