Are all conservation groups 'NeoCON FED' planet destroyers?

Ocean Challenge 2011 Vol 18 Num: 3, page 32 

The Chagos Archipelago - conservation and humanity can go hand in hand 

Richard P. Dunne and Magnus Johnson 

Charles Sheppard argues that the Indian Ocean needs the Chagos ‘intact’ – a euphemism for ‘uninhabited’ – to ensurethe best chance for its survival ‘in good condition’ to benefit the region in per-petuity. We question this proposition on several evidential grounds.The argument that the Chagos is ‘an important larval source and sink for the western Indian Ocean’ is a gross over-statement of the scientific evidence that exists.
The ocean current patterns around the Chagos which would carry these larvae are complex and poorly understood. The known ‘connectivity’ so far is limited to a clustering of coral species similarity for the Chagos–Seychelles–Maldives (Sheppard,1998; Sheppard, 1999) which was interpreted as representing a steppingstone between western Australia and the Red Sea over geological time; the possible dispersion of the goldrim surgeon fish bylarval transport from the eastern IndianOcean to Diego Garcia (Craig, 2008);unpublished reports of genetic similarity inthe crown-of-thorns starfish; indicationsthat the Seychelles may providerecruitment of hawksbill turtles to theChagos (Broderick et al., 1998); and forpopulations of the brown surgeonfish agenetic similarity between the Seychellesand Diego Garcia (Eble et al., 2011).Additionally, the fishes of the Chagos havebeen shown to be most similar to theMaldives but have only 7% of the speciesin common with the wider western IndianOcean (Winterbottom and Anderson,1999). Sheppard suggests that ‘theimportance of this may be immense’ butthe evidence remains very sparse andcontains some contradictions.Furthermore, it still remains to bedetermined whether these genetic linkageswere made in recent times or severalthousands of years ago, and whether theyrepresent ecologically relevant exchangeas opposed to the level to maintain genetichomogeneity (Slatkin, 1993).Secondly, Sheppard highlights one reasonfor the present great biological wealth as a‘lack of overfishing’. If this is indeed thecase, then it is testament to the enforce-ment of fishing licences and conservationin the Chagos over the past decades. TheChagos has had fisheries legislation inplace governing a sea area out to 200 n.m.since 1991. In 2003 this became a moregeneral Environment (Protection andPreservation) Zone. On paper, theprotection is comprehensive, coveringevery marine organism. The more recentdeclaration of the Marine Protected Area(MPA) in April 2010 contains nothing new.The cessation of fishing licences inNovember 2010 was permitted by virtue ofthe earlier legislation. So, if the existingfishery under licence has resulted in thepresent ‘great biological wealth’ at thesame time as feeding people then is therenot a balance to be struck between the twopurposes, one that is not recognised by ablanket ‘no-take’ area? Furthermore, thereis no consideration of whether the Chagos‘no-take’ area may simply result in adisplacement of fishing effort which may bedetrimental to other areas (Hilborn et al.,2004). The resources allocated toenforcement of the new MPA are alsounchanged from what has existed over thelast two decades. What has been losthowever, is the ability to monitor andanalyse catch statistics. Ironically thecomplete ban on licensed fishing in thearea will take away the one source ofinformation that has been available (Fieldet al., 2006). We would like to be able toreport that there is to be a scientificprogramme in the British Indian OceanTerritory to monitor the effect of the new‘no take’ area on the fish stocks, butunfortunately there is none.Thirdly, in relation to the ‘special case ofDiego Garcia’ the reality is that the USMilitary occupy the island – they demand a3

 

n.m exclusion zone around the atoll thatno-one may enter without their permission.They have invested over US$3 billion since1971 (US Department of Defense, 2010),and built what is undoubtedly their mostimportant overseas military base. With aUK/US treaty in force until at least 2036(

Treaty Series No 15 (1967)

), they are notgoing to allow anyone, Chagossian orscientist, to meddle in this state of affairs.Let us also not pretend that Diego Garciais a nature reserve or that it is pristine orunpolluted. Four-and-a-half million cubicmetres of coral reef was blasted andremoved in its construction in the 1970s and ’80s. Massive areas of the island werel evelled and transformed, the lagoon was and continues to be dredged. Millions of gallons of jet fuel have been spilt into the island freshwater lens over the years (for a detailed account of all this see Sand(2009)). Huge military transport ships lie at anchor in the lagoon. Nuclear (SSGN,SSN) submarines dock alongside the USS

Emory S. Land 

, a submarine support-and-repair ship on permanent station. Whilst Chagossian-crewed fishing vessels are nolonger allowed to fish in other parts of the territory, foreigners on Diego Garcia (which they call ‘Fantasy Island’) plunder the seas with an annual catch of 46 tonnes of tuna and reef fish, purely for recreation (Mees etal., 2010).Finally, the Chagossians demand for aright to return to the islands does not make them ‘hostile to the no-take MPA’, andthose that support them are not anti-conservationist. It is not the case that those who think the MPA has been used as a ruse to impede resettlement areconfused, as Sheppard contends. It is an undeniable fact that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office told US Embassy officials in no uncertain terms that it would serve this purpose (US Embassy London,2009). It is equally clear that FCO policy has long been driven by opposition to resettlement and thus denial of the fundamental right of the Chagossians to go home.There are many benefits that may accrue from the Chagos MPA, but let us not inflate its value, or misrepresent the facts in order justify the complete exclusion of Chagossian habitation of any sort whilst tolerating the presence of a foreign powerand of wealthy yacht owners who use the northern islands as their playground. Five years after the last of more than 1150 islanders were deported in 1973, the first environmental survey recorded exceptionally high coral cover and healthy reefs (Sheppard, 1980). Despite 40 years of depopulation, this condition has deteriorated (Sheppard et al., 2008).Furthermore, all Chagossian groups have stated their commitment to conservation of their islands, even whilst in exile. The rights of the Chagossian people need to be recognised and they should be involved in the management decisions regarding the seas surrounding their homeland.


http://hull.academia.edu/MagnusJohnson/Papers/925956/Chagos_-_conservation_and_humanity_can_go_hand_in_hand