---

Luxury goods win in
conflict over marine
resource management

THE ISSUE A federal agency has turned down a recommendation for a temporary ban on collecting black coral.

THOUGH dubbed the "gemstone" of Hawaii, black coral are live organisms much like their pale, less glamorous cousins. Considering the questions about the health of black coral populations here, a temporary ban on commercial harvesting would be reasonable.

However, a federal fishery agency has preliminarily rejected the advice of its scientific panel, approving instead the taking of coral pieces larger than currently allowed -- even though the requested ban would affect only a three-mile segment of ocean between Maui and Lanai.

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council won't make a final decision until next year, but in view of its present intent, the state should consider a ban in waters under its jurisdiction, as the scientific panel also has recommended.

The fishery council reasons that because there are fewer large coral "trees," the divers who cut them from the floor of the Auau Channel likely will be taking smaller numbers, thus allowing younger coral to grow. However, black coral populations develop slowly and take a long time to reach sexual maturity.

Researchers have seen a decrease in regeneration in the channel. Moreover, the assumption that coral colonies continue to thrive in deep areas divers can't reach has been proven wrong. Even there, coral growth has declined, and not only in Hawaii. Severe depletion is evident worldwide.

Collecting might contribute to the decline, but in Hawaii scientists also have seen an invasive coral smothering black coral colonies. That and the smaller numbers in deep waters prompted the proposal for the five-year ban. Researchers want time to explore the problem and possibly find solutions.

Part of the marine ecosystem, black coral has little use outside the ocean other than for sale as ornaments and jewelry. As a desirable luxury in rings, necklaces and decorative displays, its sales are said to bring in between $25 million and $30 million to the state. A ban, industry representatives argue, would shut down a lucrative trade because though only a small percentage of Hawaii coral is used in jewelry, it is in demand due to its superior quality.

They also contend that a ban would hand supply lines to irresponsible foreign collectors who drag the ocean for coral rather than harvest selectively. Be that as it may, that broader issue isn't what the fishery council is addressing.

The four divers who take great risks to bring up about 5,000 pounds of coral a year from the channel would have lost their livelihood had the council approved the ban, and that would please no one. Companies that make and sell black coral products also would suffer.

The dilemma is yet another example of the conflict in managing marine resources responsibly while sustaining an industry. In this case, the council opted for jewelry.

---

---

---