More stories

  • in

    Mexican forest ‘relocated’ in attempt to save iconic monarch butterflies

    Researchers in central Mexico have planted a forest of firs. Now they’re hoping the imperiled Eastern monarch butterflies will come.

    Almost 1,000 oyamel firs

    (Abies religiosa)
    have been transplanted to a mountain in Michoacán, where they are growing at elevations beyond what was considered the species’ upper limit

    1

    . If the trees survive over the next few decades, they could help to shield the migratory eastern population of monarch butterflies (

    Danaus plexippus
    ), which spend the winter roosting in oyamel fir forests, from the impacts of climate change.

    This population of monarchs, which migrates up to 4,500 kilometres from the United States and Canada to Mexico, has declined dramatically since the 1990s, owing to climate change and habitat destruction.

    Part of the butterflies’ remaining habitat — the fir trees in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Michoacán — is slowly shifting upwards as the climate warms. But the firs will eventually “run out of mountain”, says Cuauhtémoc Sáenz-Romero, a forest geneticist at the Michoacan University of Saint Nicholas of Hidalgo in Morelia, Mexico, and the lead author of the study, which was published in

    Frontiers in Forests and Global Change
    this week.

    Relocation project

    To test whether the butterfly habitat could be relocated in the reserve, Sáenz-Romero and his colleagues

    shifted hundreds of seedlings up a mountainside
    by 400 metres several years ago. Since then, they have launched a pilot project on Nevado de Toluca — a nearby mountain that crests roughly 1,000 metres higher than the reserve. Local rangers discovered a new colony of butterflies wintering there in 2019, which suggests that it could be a suitable site to create a new habitat, Sáenz-Romero says.

    Forest geneticist Cuauhtémoc Sáenz-Romero leads a team that have relocated firs in an attempt to save the butterflies.

    Credit: Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times/Getty

    The researchers grew nearly 1,000 oyamel fir saplings, and planted them at four elevations in circles beneath shrubs, which provide shade and protection. They then measured the firs’ survival and growth after three growing seasons.

    The natural elevation limit for the fir was thought to be around 3,550 metres. But the team found that 68% of saplings planted at 3,800 metres survived, as did 44% of those planted at 4,000 metres — the two highest elevations. They did, however, grow more slowly than those planted at the two lower altitudes.

    John Pleasants, an ecologist at Iowa State University in Ames, says that this feasibility study has great significance. It would require lot of effort to plant enough trees to provide refuge for the butterflies, “but that may be the only choice down the road,” he says.

    Growing milkweed (

    Asclepias
    ) and nectar plant species east of the Rocky Mountains and reducing pesticide use are also important for butterflies’ survival, says Sáenz-Romero, but such strategies are “not enough” to save them from climate change. He estimates that at least 5,000 trees would need to reach maturity in central Mexico’s higher elevations by the 2060s to ensure that the eastern monarchs have a winter home. More

  • in

    Global conservation priorities for island plant diversity

    Schrader, J. et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08036-1 (2024).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Losos, J. B. & Ricklefs, R. E. (eds) The Theory of Island Biogeography Revisited (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).
    Google Scholar 
    Kreft, H., Jetz, W., Mutke, J., Kier, G. & Barthlott, W. Ecol. Lett. 11, 116–127 (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Givnish, T. J. & Montgomery, R. A. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132944 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Enbody, E. D. et al. Science 381, eadf6218 (2023).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Whittaker, R. J., Fernández-Palacios, J. M., Matthews, T. J., Borregaard, M. K. & Triantis, K. A. Science 357, eaam8326 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Cámara-Leret, R. et al. Nature 584, 579–583 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Givnish, T. J. Taxon 59, 1326–1366 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ellsworth, L. M., Litton, C. M., Dale, A. P. & Miura, T. Applied Veg. Sci. 17, 680–689 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Medeiros, A. C., von Allmen, E. I. & Chimera, C. G. Pac. Sci. 68, 33–45 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Novotny. V. & Molem, K. Nature 584, 531–533 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Valente, L. et al. Nature 579, 92–96 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Conservation policies must address an overlooked issue: how war affects the environment

    Guerrillas from the FARC movement were involved in a long-running conflict in Colombia, which is one of the world’s most biodiverse countries.Credit: Joaquin Sarmiento/AFP via Getty

    Since Russia’s invasion in 2022, 3 million hectares of Ukraine’s protected areas have been affected by military activities1. For example, our independent analysis of satellite imagery shows that in the Sviati Hory (Holy Mountains) National Nature Park in the east of the country, 16% of forested areas have been physically damaged by fires, shelling and the movements of military vehicles (see ‘Assessing impacts in conflict zones’). Protected areas have lost their staff and equipment, and properties have been damaged or destroyed.Today, more armed conflicts are under way than at any point since the Second World War. Conservationists and others are increasingly investigating the impacts on biodiversity2–4, yet governments and conservation organizations have been reluctant to explicitly address the issue in conservation policy. In 2022, when nearly 200 countries agreed in Montreal, Canada, on the Global Biodiversity Framework — a set of goals intended to prevent catastrophic loss of the world’s biodiversity — armed conflict was left unmentioned.

    Sources: Land cover: ESA/OpenStreetMap; National park boundaries: Emerald Network; Burnt areas: Analysis by D. Weir et al.

    This month, ministers of the environment, conservationists, Indigenous peoples and others are gathering in Cali, Colombia, to help to translate the biodiversity framework into action at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16). Colombia is one of the world’s most biodiverse nations. Since 2016, it has also been facing challenges in implementing a peace agreement signed after five decades of conflict, much of which was between its government and the guerrilla movement FARC.Linking to the experiences of the Colombian people, COP16 organizers have specified that the meeting should be “a COP of the people”, and that it should prioritize “Paz con La Naturaleza” or peace with nature. In doing this, they are encouraging attendees to focus on how the exploitation of natural resources, and the conflict that this brings, can harm biodiversity, as well as on how interventions to protect biodiversity might help to foster peace (see go.nature.com/3y95zgv).We urge world leaders and conservation, humanitarian and other organizations to follow Colombia’s lead and give greater priority to the impact of armed conflict on biodiversity — and to conservation’s role in promoting peacebuilding — in research and policy agendas.What’s knownResearch on the effects of armed conflicts on ecosystems has been limited for obvious reasons. But over the past decade, the use of satellite imagery, the tracking of social media and other open-source intelligence, and the increasing involvement of local communities in research have allowed investigators to improve monitoring of the impact of armed conflicts in settings that are difficult or dangerous to work in.Between 1950 and 2000, more than 80% of armed conflicts took place in 34 recognized biodiversity hotspots5. According to data published in July, 39 countries — including many that are rich in biodiversity, such as Colombia, Myanmar, Brazil and Cameroon — are currently experiencing sustained or escalating levels of conflict (see ‘Far-reaching effects’ and go.nature.com/3btgzrn).

    Source: ACLED Conflict Index 2024

    The impacts go far beyond the direct effects of warfare. Access to small arms and light weapons, such as pistols, rifles and light machine guns, makes it easier for people to kill animals for bushmeat or trade. Indeed, increases in the ownership of small arms following conflict have been implicated in the decline, and in some cases the extinction, of large mammals across the Sahara–Sahel region of Africa6. Conflict can even bring long-term changes in the threats to wildlife. In Cambodia, for example, increased access to weapons through conflict was one factor that allowed an illegal wildlife trade to emerge, one that continues to supply international markets with (among other items) the body parts of Sunda pangolins (Manis javanica; often called scaly anteaters) and gaur (Bos gaurus, a wild cattle species) for traditional medicine, meat and handicrafts7.Several studies have shown that illegal hunting and logging often accelerate during and after conflict — either because governance and institutions are weakened, or because traditional management systems disappear when people are displaced8. Likewise, conflicts can increase people’s dependencies on wood for fuel and thereby drive overharvesting9.
    No basis for claim that 80% of biodiversity is found in Indigenous territories
    The effects of armed conflict on biodiversity can be extremely diverse, depending on the context. In Angola, almost three decades of conflict beginning in the mid-1970s displaced millions of people, which left some areas of the country relatively free of human impacts. Also, the widespread use of landmines (which are still being cleared) prevented people from returning to large areas of wilderness. As a result, certain populations of threatened wildlife species in remote areas of the country, for example in the centre and near the border with Namibia and Zambia, have been able to persist10,11.Conversely, in some areas closer to urban centres, such as the coastal Quiçama National Park near the capital Luanda, widespread hunting during and after conflict has led to declines in many mammal species12 and probably to the local disappearance of some species, including the common eland (Tragelaphus oryx) and roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus). And since the conflict ceased, large mammal populations across Angola’s wilderness and protected areas have declined owing to a breakdown in law enforcement and governance — disruption that began with the conflict but that persists to this day.Alongside studies of the effects of conflict on biodiversity, there has been a growing interest in the use of ‘nature-based solutions’ to support people’s well-being and livelihoods during and after conflict — and to help avoid future conflict. As part of the Kibira Peace Forest project, which was established in Burundi in 2021, for example, a coalition of regional and international organizations and donors engaged the government, private sector and local community — particularly women — in the stewardship of biodiversity. An assessment of the project suggests that it strengthened social cohesion and improved people’s livelihoods, which in turn reduced levels of conflict and deforestation (see go.nature.com/47xztpy).Putting conflict on the tablePromising as these efforts are, much more research is needed — for example, to probe the interactions between biodiversity loss, armed conflict and climate change. There are also questions about whether Indigenous or community-led management of natural resources is more resilient than, say, government management in the face of conflicts. A 2023 study showed that in the world’s biodiversity hotspots, ecosystems on Indigenous peoples’ lands are less degraded than are those on non-Indigenous lands, even though armed conflict is more likely to occur in the former13.

    The Kibira Peace Forest project in Burundi, funded by the United Nations Nature Facility, engaged local people in biodiversity stewardship.Credit: UN Capital Development Fund

    More immediately, changes to some of the instruments that will be used to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework could help countries to mitigate the impacts of conflict on biodiversity, build biodiversity governance and help to restore biodiversity following conflict.The Convention on Biological Diversity is the international treaty that governs the conservation of biodiversity, its sustainable use and the sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources. Since entering into force in 1993, it has been ratified by 196 parties. But it is silent on the issue of conflict. Also, neither the convention’s previous Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its accompanying Aichi targets, nor its current Global Biodiversity Framework — which lays out 23 actions or targets needed to protect and restore biodiversity between now and 2030 — address the relationship between biodiversity and armed conflict.
    Ditching ‘Anthropocene’: why ecologists say the term still matters
    In our view, countries should be urged to incorporate language that explicitly considers the needs and challenges arising in the face of armed conflict — and during peacebuilding — in their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs). These lay out the actions that nations will take to address threats to biodiversity, and so help to achieve the ambitions of the Global Biodiversity Framework. For example, countries could set out how restoration of biodiversity will be used to build and sustain peace. Countries could also include plans to monitor the impact of armed conflict on biodiversity in their NBSAPs. Data on conflicts are already available should governments want to use them, such as the ACLED Conflict Index, which is derived from data on incidents of political violence worldwide.There is little appetite for adding further indicators to the official list of more than 100 that will be used to monitor progress towards the Global Biodiversity Framework’s targets. Yet the development and future inclusion of indicators that help governments, scientists and policymakers to measure and understand the impact of armed conflicts on the environment and biodiversity over time, and hence their effects on countries’ abilities to deliver on their commitments, could bring tremendous value.Crucially, more technical and financial support must be directed towards countries affected by conflict. This is especially important during the early years of recovery following conflict, when continuing insecurity and weak environmental governance can exacerbate deforestation and other threats to biodiversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity and other international conservation agreements, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, represent vehicles for collating expertise, focusing people’s attention and mobilizing funding and technical assistance. These should be harnessed specifically for this purpose.Donors often view conservation projects in conflict areas as too risky or too prone to failure. This can mean that community projects, local non-governmental organizations and front-line staff, such as rangers, go unsupported. As long as those involved ensure that they have an in-depth understanding of the local context, and prioritize the local ownership of projects and resource management, a shift in mindset would enable the growth of sustainable, impactful conservation projects to mitigate the effects of conflict on biodiversity, and to help to foster peace.

    Refugees from Angola who fled the country during its 27-year civil war were able to return after a peace accord was signed in 2002.Credit: Alexander Joe/AFP via Getty

    Influential organizations are beginning to make headway on this front. In 2020, the Global Environment Facility, one of the largest international donors supporting biodiversity projects, reviewed its portfolio of projects in ‘fragile states’ (countries with weak governance, chronic humanitarian crises, persistent social tensions and so on) and in countries dealing with ongoing conflict. It identified that ‘conflict-sensitive’ approaches can help to improve the outcomes of conservation projects, and has since been working to update its practices accordingly14. Elsewhere, partnerships between conservation and peacebuilding organizations, such as between Conservation International in Arlington, Virginia, and the PeaceNexus Foundation near Geneva, Switzerland, are beginning to provide insights that could be applied more broadly to projects in challenging settings15.Ultimately, much greater awareness is needed of the impacts of conflict on biodiversity. Incorporating the issue into the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework would be an effective way to achieve this, particularly because conflict reduces the capacity of countries to gather and collate data on biodiversity. Increased awareness could also create opportunities for other organizations to engage, from United Nations peacekeepers to humanitarian organizations. As an example, organizations that clear landmines, such as Norwegian People’s Aid in Oslo, are already increasingly examining how to mitigate the impact of their activities on sensitive habitats.Following Colombia’s leadThere is now consensus among scientists and most governments that healthy ecosystems are crucial for safeguarding human rights, livelihoods and well-being. Although there will always be limits to the degree of environmental protection that can be achieved in war zones, there are huge opportunities to reduce environmental harm stemming from conflict, to ensure that biodiversity protection in post-conflict recovery efforts becomes mainstream, and to ensure that the environment is integrated into peacebuilding processes.

    An illegal wildlife trade in Cambodia — driven in part by increased access to weapons through conflict — supplies international markets with the body parts of Sunda pangolins (Manis javanica).Credit: Imago/Alamy

    Multiple factors have encouraged Colombia’s COP16 organizers to push the issue at the upcoming meeting. Colombia has endured one of the longest armed conflicts in Latin America, which has been fuelled largely by illicit economies underpinned by natural resources, such as gold and timber, in turn severely harming biodiversity. Even today, ecosystems and local communities, including Indigenous peoples, Afro-Colombians and campesinos (small farmers), are trapped in the middle. And although deforestation in the country was reduced by 36% in 2023 thanks to collaborative work between communities, civil society and the government to protect forests from exploitation, escalating threats to leaders of social and environmental movements could drive rates up again. In the first 9 months of 2024 alone, 117 such leaders were murdered in Colombia.The links between Colombian biodiversity and conflict are so strong that the environment is included in the country’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz; JEP). The JEP is a transitional-justice mechanism that was launched in 2017 as part of the peace agreement between FARC guerrillas and the government. In 2019, the government declared that the environment had been a “silent victim of the conflict” and that it would investigate reparation mechanisms for the damage caused.Against a backdrop of such experiences — which are not unique to Colombia — the country’s two-year presidency of the Convention on Biological Diversity offers an unprecedented opportunity to at last bring attention to the interactions between biodiversity, conflict and peace. More

  • in

    Don’t rush rules for sharing digital genetic-sequence information

    Samples of Colombia’s plant and animal species are housed at the Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute in Bogota. How to equitably share the benefits of digital genetic-sequence information relating to such samples remains unresolved.Credit: Luis Robayo/AFP/Getty

    Next week, national delegates, including scientists, will meet in Cali, Colombia, for the United Nations COP16 meeting on biodiversity. Boosting the low levels of finance available for biodiversity conservation is high on the agenda, as is trying to tie up some unfinished business that goes back more than three decades. The hope is that negotiators will finally reach an agreement on how lower-income countries can better share in the benefits that stem from their resources — including any monetary benefits deriving from non-human genetic data.Yet even at this eleventh hour, an agreement on the sharing of these data is some way from being ready. The principle of equitable benefit-sharing is not in question, but more time is needed to bridge gaps between different perspectives on how to implement it. Those gaps will, in turn, be bridged only if policymakers can commission a programme of research to help answer some crucial questions. Researchers globally fear that rushing to finalize the agreement risks putting barriers in the way of the current practice by which researchers are able to quickly share genetic-sequencing data, which are the lifeblood of many scientific fields and are crucial to public health, particularly during health emergencies.
    Conservation policies must address an overlooked issue: how war affects the environment
    The history of these efforts stretches back to the start of the biodiversity convention, which was signed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 (see go.nature.com/3y0xs7q). A pledge made at that time for more equitable sharing of biological resources eventually led to the Nagoya protocol, which became international law in 2014 (see go.nature.com/3ab4q9g). This obliges researchers at universities and corporations in countries that are party to the UN convention to ensure that they have obtained all the necessary permissions when using non-human genetic material from another country. For companies, there is an added requirement to share profits from any commercial products that arise from such work.But the Nagoya protocol applies only to physical samples. Many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are rich in biodiversity and have been pushing since at least 2016 to expand the definition of non-human genetic material to include digital sequence information (DSI). This is the subject of the 11-page text that is due to be discussed at the Cali meeting (see go.nature.com/3nscyd4).The text’s authors — who include researchers representing governments from different world regions, Indigenous people and representatives of UN organizations — agree on several fundamental principles. These include the need for there to be an agreement on DSI data, as there is for physical samples; for the agreement to respect the rights of Indigenous peoples; and for the agreement to be consistent with the principles of open data and not hinder research and innovation. Moreover, anyone benefiting financially from DSI should contribute a fraction of the benefit to a fund to protect biodiversity.
    The next 20 years of human genomics must be more equitable and more open
    But the document also contains some 200 items in square brackets — meaning that there are around 200 things on which the authors still disagree. Among them are how to define DSI (there is no agreement on whether it covers one or all of DNA, RNA and proteins); whether this information should be deposited in existing or new databases; how to define a sequence’s country of origin, including whether this is even possible; where permission should be obtained from or how benefits should be apportioned if there is no single country of origin; whether payments should be mandatory; and whether all countries or only rich nations should be liable to pay.These are tricky questions, but they are not unanswerable. What is needed to resolve them is dedicated independent research. Such research is thin on the ground (A. H. Scholz et al. Nature Commun. 13, 1086; 2022), and policymakers need to commission it so that they can be better informed about the different options being proposed. A document as incomplete as that due to be discussed at Cali is not one on which good decisions can be made.COP16 delegates will also discuss the lack of progress countries have made in finalizing biodiversity action plans. One reason for this is a lack of finance. Researchers estimate that between US$700 billion and $1 trillion is needed annually. However, in 2022, only around $26 billion went into conserving species and ecosystems, according to a report published last month by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (see go.nature.com/3ub1mqg), a group of wealthy nations. Although some of what is available is in the form of grants, a lot of it comprises loans, which need to be repaid — with interest.
    Global lessons from South Africa’s rooibos compensation agreement
    Some of the DSI agreement’s proponents see it as at least part of the answer to boosting biodiversity financing in the countries that most need it. But it is likely to disappoint — as experience with the Nagoya protocol, a comparatively simpler device, shows. In the decade since it came into force, there are few recorded examples of corporations paying local communities for the use of their biological resources. Although in 2019, tea manufacturers compensated South Africa’s Khoi and San communities for using their knowledge on rooibos tea without acknowledgement, this agreement took years to realize and only happened because the South African government pushed the companies to pay.Next week’s meeting in Cali is important. For delegates from LMICs, such events are among a vanishingly small number of forums where their voices are equal to those of richer, more powerful nations. And the whole world has an interest in the project’s success.The case of the omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus offers a valuable reminder of why some form of benefit sharing from DSI is necessary (R. Viana et al. Nature 603, 679–686; 2022). Researchers in Botswana and South Africa who discovered it rapidly alerted the world and shared its sequence. This knowledge was used in the manufacture of vaccines — vaccines that could have saved many more lives had they not reached many African countries too late. And this example also raises yet another issue — that the discussion at Cali ought to include other international bodies, most notably the World Health Organization.Most importantly, before an agreement is reached on DSI, much more work needs to go into answering the questions contained in those 200-odd sets of square brackets. What no one needs is a rushed mechanism that risks the knowledge sharing on which research and public health depend. More

  • in

    Conflict in New Caledonia endangers one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots

    The French overseas territory of New Caledonia is one of the world’s most important biodiversity hotspots, with more than 3,000 plant species, three-quarters of them endemic (N. Myers et al. Nature 403, 853–858; 2000), and 2% of the world’s threatened animal, plant and fungal species.
    Competing Interests
    The authors declare no competing interests. More

  • in

    Famed lions’ full diet revealed by DNA — and humans were among their prey

    A maneless lion from Kenya. Two maneless lions nicknamed the ‘Man-eaters of Tsavo’ preyed on railway workers in Kenya during the nineteenth century.Credit: Cavan Images/Alamy

    Hair found wedged in the broken teeth of famous lions killed in the nineteenth century offers a glimpse of their diet — which included humans1.Few wild lions (Panthera leo) are as well-known as the ‘Man-eaters of Tsavo’, two large maneless males that terrorized workers constructing the Kenya–Uganda Railway until they were shot by a railway administrator, lieutenant-colonel John Henry Patterson, in 1898. The exact number of their victims is unknown, but they probably killed at least 31 people near the Tsavo River in Kenya2.The Tsavo lions ended up on display at Chicago’s Field Museum in Illinois, and by 2001, thousands of hairs had been extracted from a cavity in one of their teeth. At the time, the best scientists could do was look at the hairs under a microscope.Ancient-DNA advancesHowever, “ancient DNA has come a long way”, says co-author Ripan S. Malhi, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “You no longer need a follicle cell on a hair” to extract and read the DNA. “You can do it from the hair shaft itself.” Using these techniques, Malhi and his colleagues have identified hair from giraffe, oryx, waterbuck, wildebeest, zebra and human in the sample. Their report was published today in Current Biology.The wildebeests were the biggest surprise. There were no wildebeests near the site of the railway worker’s camp, says co-author Alida de Flamingh, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The closest herds were 90 kilometres away. So “either these lions were roaming across larger areas, or, historically, wildebeest did occur in the Tsavo region”, de Flamingh says.

    Hair trapped in the broken tooth (pictured) of one of the Tsavo lions yielded DNA from the great cat’s prey.Credit: Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago

    Although the researchers could do further analyses to uncover more information about the human DNA, they included minimal detail about it in their published paper. The next step will be “working with the local community and the local institutions”, Malhi says. “There are potentially descendants, or a descendant community that may or may not want this type of analysis done, or maybe they do — we just don’t know yet.”Graham Kerley, an ecologist and lion specialist at Nelson Mandela University in Gqeberha, South Africa, says that the list of species whose DNA is lingering in the predator’s teeth isn’t particularly surprising. For him, the real takeaway is the importance of preserving biological specimens so that they can be reanalysed as tools improve over time. “Patterson, when he shot these lions, he had no sense of the incredible information that would emerge a hundred odd years later,” Kerley says.That’s exactly the message that the researchers wanted to send, de Flamingh says. “We hope that other folks will try to apply the methodology that we developed here to study prey ecology or histories of other animals — even extending further back to extinct species.” More

  • in

    ‘Cocaine of the seas’ — how a luxury food is wreaking ecological mayhem

    Zoologist Yolarnie Amepou heard whispers about the fish frenzy when she made her first trip to the Kikori River Delta in the remote reaches of southern Papua New Guinea.It was January 2012, and Amepou was travelling down the delta by dinghy, from village to village, as part of a research project on the vulnerable pig-nosed turtle (Carettochelys insculpta). Amepou heard talk of outsiders appearing across the region offering staggering amounts of cash for swim bladders — an organ cut from some of the delta’s large fish species that helps them to control buoyancy. Consumers in Asia, particularly southern China, know this commodity as fish maw and covet it as a culinary delicacy, a traditional medicine and a symbol of prosperity.The global maw trade has been growing rapidly over the past 25 years1, and market prices now far exceed those of similar dried seafood luxuries such as shark fin and sea cucumber, which are also prized in China. In some low- and middle-income countries where demand for maw is very high, it is sometimes called the cocaine of the seas because it is so lucrative and attracts organized crime interests.Papua New Guinea has become the source of some of the most sought-after maw. In the years since Amepou’s first visit, she’s watched the fish-maw industry in the Kikori delta explode, “like a fisheries gold rush”. Fishers replaced their paddle canoes, lines and hooks with outboard-powered dinghies and commercial nets. The price being offered to delta fishers for dried maw from one prized species — the scaly croaker (Nibea squamosa) — has been recorded at up to US$15,615 per kilogram — potentially the highest price offered to fishers for maw in the world, according to a study by Amepou and her colleagues published earlier this year2.

    The Kikori river delta is the source of some of the most highly prized maw in the world.Credit: Minden Pictures/Alamy

    Revenue from the maw industry is a lifesaver for many delta communities, with some people using it to move away from the coast to escape rapidly rising seas. “Fish maw has alleviated some quite severe poverty issues,” says Michael Grant, a marine biologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia, who researches Papua New Guinea’s sharks and rays in the Kikori delta, one of their last strongholds. Its waterways and mangroves are recognized as a sanctuary of biodiversity and have been nominated for inclusion as a World Heritage Site on the list maintained by the United Nations cultural organization UNESCO.Grant and others fear that the sharp increase in fishing pressure in the Kikori delta and the use of gillnets — which indiscriminately capture many types of fish, dolphin and turtle — could recreate problems that have plagued Mexico, China and parts of Africa, where the maw trade has fished some species into near oblivion. That threat risks damaging the delta’s ecosystems and leaving people worse off, says Grant.The information coming out of Papua New Guinea “is worrying, because it does seem to fit what we’ve seen in other places wherelittle-known species are targeted for the value of their maw”, says Yvonne Sadovy, a Hong Kong fisheries specialist now based in the United Kingdom. Along with Grant and other members of a species-survival commission that is part of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), she contributed to a paper sounding the alarm on the increasing maw trade that was submitted by the United States to a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in July.“There are very few controls and there is very little knowledge, I think, by the government fishery departments about the value, importance and potential threats of this,” says Sadovy. The consequence is “a sort of cowboy frontier”, whereby high prices push fishers to target species that “we hardly know anything about in terms of the science”.Turtle troublesAmepou wasn’t too concerned when she first heard about the fish-maw trade. In her early years in the Kikori region, she was focused on how hunting and habitat changes were threatening the pig-nosed turtle. The work took her to far-flung villages to monitor nesting sites, survey the consumption of turtle meat and eggs, and build community awareness about the vulnerability of the creatures known as piku.By 2019 she was known locally as mama piku, and was the director of a small conservation organization, the Piku Biodiversity Network, which she still runs. Amid the other changes in the region, the fish-maw trade had become yet another threat to the turtle’s survival because the animals were getting tangled in commercial gillnets that seafood companies were supplying to local fishers.

    Rising sea levels have damaged the remote village of Veraibari.Credit: Jo Chandler

    The remoteness and logistical difficulties of working in the Kikori delta — a region with little electrical power, few roads, fragmentary communications and 4–8 metres of rainfall a year — mean that Amepou, Grant and their collaborators are among just a handful of researchers who are active in the area. With support from the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), a multinational organization focused on the region’s natural resources, they collected data on targeted maw species, as well as by-catch. A survey of landings in gillnets reported by fishers from five delta communities over six months to April 2022 found that the hunt for fish maw pulls up huge numbers of non-target fish and mammals3.Elasmobranchs — a subclass of fish that includes sharks and rays — accounted for almost half the catch, whereas target species made up just 22%. Among the other casualties were several species listed as endangered or critically endangered on the IUCN Red List, including three species of hammerhead shark, the giant guitarfish (Glaucostegus typus) and the bottlenose wedgefish (Rhynchobatus australiae), alongside various vulnerable river sharks and critically endangered Indo-Pacific sawfishes (Pristidae)2.Other reports, some unpublished, document declines in two endemic dolphin species that have small local populations and are listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. On one occasion, fishers reported that ten dolphins drowned in a single net, says Amepou. “You’re looking at the very real possibility of a local extinction if nothing is done about the gillnets in the water,” she says.But discussions with local people about curtailing fishing practices for conservation purposes are acutely sensitive given the money flowing into the economically disadvantaged region. “While local fishers acknowledge sustainability concerns, the overarching feeling is everyone is pretty happy for now,” says Grant. “Whether fish-maw money is going back into community and development remains to be seen, and this is our next research focus.”In 2022, the researchers submitted a report to SPREP on the Kikori maw fishery, urging the development of a management plan3. Sources have told Nature that work on a plan has commenced, but Papua New Guinea’s authorities did not respond to questions from Nature on its progress. In 2021, the National Fisheries Authority stopped issuing new fish-maw licences in Gulf Province, where the Kikori delta is located, and in the neighbouring Western Province, owing to increasing illegal, unregulated and unreported activities in the two fisheries.Villages at riskAfter storm surges destroyed many houses in the delta village of Veraibari in 2020, the people formed a relocation committee. They plan to use the windfall maw money to build around 200 homes, a school, a market and churches a short distance inland from the beach where they currently live. The committee estimates that this plan will cost 1,689,000 Papua New Guinean kina (US$431,000). In recent years, waves have damaged and closed the schoolhouse, knocked down freshwater tanks and submerged burial grounds. Abandoned homes decay on their stilts in the shallows alongside the stumps of drowned palm trees.“The land is disappearing, the high land is going down, and then it is very easy for water to enter into the village,” says community and church leader Ara Kouwo. When the big tides come, his family wades into the sea to push away debris that might tip their home off its legs.Kouwo is also the local agent buying maw for one of the six seafood companies, all Asian-led, with licences in Gulf Province. He conducts business at his family table, weighing and trading fish maw, offering 5,000 to 6,000 kina per 100 grams for the finest specimens. He kicked off the relocation fund with his own earnings, urging his neighbours and relatives to provide cash or other contributions. They are lobbying for more government support, but have so far received only sandbags to build a seawall, which soon failed, and some iron roofing, nails and a sawmill to help with the relocation. Money earned from fishing is the only way to save the village, he says, although he recognizes the risks.If there was any other help coming to pay for the new village, “then we would stop these fishing activities”, he says. “We are in fear,” he adds. “When we kill all mothers of the fish, we are in trouble.”

    Maw drying outside in a delta community.Credit: Yolarnie Amepou/Piku Biodiversity Network

    Environmental lawyer Watna Mori at Blue Ocean Law, a firm based in Hagåtña, Guam, is part of a team assisting the people of Veraibari to argue a case for funding from the UN for loss and damages due to climate change. She says that the tension between the slow process of structural, systemic change and the community’s urgent need was heartbreakingly stark when she visited Veraibari in 2022.“You see the contrast of these two activities — trying to adapt to climate change, and then you see this act of fishing for this product that causes so much harm to their biodiversity,” says Mori. “What else can they do?”The maw trade generates a boom-and-bust cycle that fisheries researchers and activists have seen before. The most infamous case is that of the totoaba (Totoaba macdonaldi), which is found only in Mexico’s Gulf of California and was hunted for its maw for much of the twentieth century.Although Mexico banned fishing for totoaba in 1975, the species continues to be fished illegally, with trading of totoaba maw increasing on Facebook and the Chinese social media platform WeChat, according to a report released in February by the Environmental Investigation Agency UK, a non-governmental organization in London (see go.nature.com/4ghoiwr). The gillnets used to catch totoaba also entangle the endemic vaquita (Phocoena sinus), the world’s smallest porpoise. It’s estimated that as few as ten individuals remain.The hunt for maw has left a trail of ecological damage elsewhere, too, including in Africa’s Lake Victoria, where there are concerns that the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) might disappear.Hidden dangerFor years, the global scale of fish-maw operations remained mainly under the radar because the volume of the catch was hidden in a broad commodities category of “dried fish”, says Sadovy. She and others urged authorities in Hong Kong, the global trade hub for maw, to introduce a specific code for fish maw separate from other dried fish, which they did in 2015. Data collected using this new code revealed that between 2015 and 2018, 3,144–3,882 tonnes of dried maw, worth $264 million to $394 million, were imported to Hong Kong every year4. These were shockingly high numbers, Sadovy says, “because you might have 3,000 tonnes of maw, but maw is only 5% of the weight of the animal. So that’s tonnes and tonnes of animal, so you begin to think about the scale of those fisheries”.Her team tracked the maw to 110 source countries and territories, but found that, in most of those nations, hardly anything is known about the trade. “A lot of even local scientists had no idea this trade was going on, it’s quite secretive,” she says.

    Turtles, marine mammals and non-target fish often get caught in nets used by people fishing for species that supply maw.Credit: Amos Ivei/Piku Biodiversity Network

    Her work also exposed the previously unrecognized loss of another species coveted for its maw, the Chinese bahaba (Bahaba taipingensis)5, which can reach 2 metres in length and weigh more than 100 kilograms. Records from the 1930s found specimens in its habitat off the coast of China. Today it is so rare that “it is possible it will become the first marine commercial species to go extinct in recent times in the wild”, Sadovy says.The cycles that have played out with the bahaba, totoaba and Nile perch “illustrate the consequences of escalating prices and lack of management”, including the implications for biodiversity, Sadovy and her colleagues warned in 20194. Concern over the trade has grown in the years since then. In 2021, in response to the high prices being paid for maw in Papua New Guinea, Bangladesh, India and French Guiana, the IUCN adopted a motion urging nations to control and monitor trade in the swim bladders of a group of ray-finned fishes known as big croakers to both protect the target species and reduce by-catch of threatened marine megafauna.“A lot of people are beginning to realize — biologists, fisheries people — that maw is an issue,” says Sadovy. However, she adds that there are also a lot of places where the maw trade operates out of sight. Concerns about the trade are what motivated the drafting of the document submitted by the United States to CITES in July, she says. “It was a first initiative to highlight international maw trade as an issue threatening some species.”
    Rewilding the planet: how seven artificial islands could help a dying Dutch lake
    Sadovy hopes escalating concern will persuade international organizations — in particular, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN — to become more active in documenting the trade. She wants to see the FAO follow Hong Kong’s lead and introduce a commodity code specifically for maw. “There are opportunities to actually seek better benefits for the fishermen themselves,” says Sadovy. “I see a win–win before some species are really pushed too far down.” But it needs to happen soon.Without action at national and international levels, researchers warn that the risks for both vulnerable marine populations and the people who rely on them for income and food are dire. In the dozen years she has been working in the Kikori delta, Amepou has observed how precarious life is in the villages and how much the people there are exposed to the rapidly changing environment. She hears their stories and tries to answer questions about rising seas, changing weather and vanishing species.Amepou likes to take the conversation back to the creature that drew her to the region: the turtle with the snout of a pig, remarkable enough to etch its way into local lore. When she first arrived, the people of the delta told her they had no concerns for its future, because the pig-nosed turtle was like their mother. It would always provide for them.“And I say ‘your mother will provide for you to a certain point. There’s a time in life when you have to take care of your mother’,” Amepou says. “‘And it’s come to that point, where your mother kind of needs your help.’” More

  • in

    Salmon’s moveable feast of nutrients with a side order of contaminants

    Bauer, S. & Hoye, B. J. Science 344, 1242552 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Twining, C. W. et al. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1709–1731 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Walters, D. M., Fritz, K. M. & Otter, R. R. Ecol. Appl. 18, 1835–1841 (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Brandt, J. E. et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/10.1038/s41586-024-07980-2 (2024).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Naiman, R. J., Bilby, R. E., Schindler, D. E. & Helfield, J. M. Ecosystems 5, 399–417 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Krümmel, E. M. et al. Nature 425, 255–256 (2003).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Razavi, N. R. et al. Sci. Total Environ. 499, 36–46 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Ruggerone, G. T. & Irvine, J. R. Mar. Coast. Fish. 10, 152–168 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hale, R. & Swearer, S. E. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20152647 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar  More