The Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the

Red Sea and Gulf of Aden

Survey of the Proposed Marine Protected Area at Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan

PERSGA - ‘The Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden’ is an intergovernmental organisation dedicated to the conservation of the coastal and marine environments in the region.

The Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment (Jeddah Convention) 1982, provides the legal foundation for PERSGA. The Secretariat of the Organization was formally established in Jeddah following the Cairo Declaration of September 1995. The PERSGA member states are Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

PERSGA, P.O. Box 53662, Jeddah 21583, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Tel.: +966-2-657-3224. Fax: +966-2-652-1901. Email: persga@persga.org

This document has been prepared by Dr. J. Kemp, Dr. M. Salem, Rebecca Klaus, Y. Awadalla, and B. Saleh under contract to, and with the cooperation of PERSGA. The work was carried out under the Marine Protected Areas Component of the Strategic Action Programme for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, a GEF funded project executed by PERSGA and implemented by the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.

The comments expressed in this document represent the opinion of the author(s) acting in their own capacities and do not necessarily represent the views of PERSGA or the agencies that assisted with funding the preparation of the report. Any outlines or descriptions presented do not imply the expression of any opinion, on the part of PERSGA or any funding agency, concerning the legal boundaries of any state, territory, city limit, frontier or boundary.

© 2003 PERSGA, P.O. Box 53662, Jeddah 21583, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without the permission of the copyright holders provided that acknowledgement of the source is given. PERSGA would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this material as a source.

This publication may not be copied, or distributed electronically, for resale or other commercial purposes without prior permission, in writing, from PERSGA.

Photographs by Cover photograph:

This publication may be cited as: PERSGA 2003. Survey of the Proposed Marine Protected Area at Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan. PERSGA, Jeddah.

1

Executive Summary The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden contain some of the world’s most diverse and varied tropical marine habitats and communities. The combination of high levels of diversity, great biogeographic complexity, and high levels of endemism found in these bodies of water make the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden a region of global importance for marine biodiversity conservation (CHIFFINGS 1995, PERSGA 2001).

The primary goals of the Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA) include conservation of the marine and coastal environment and wise use of natural resources. The Strategic Action Programme (SAP), being executed by PERSGA, includes several components (PERSGA 1999) one of which, (Component 5), is Development of a Regional Network of Marine Protected Areas. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) act as tools to assist sustainable use of natural resources, economic development, and biodiversity and habitat conservation. The Regional Network will comprise a regionally, and hence globally important tool for in-situ conservation of species and habitats within this unique region.

The Dungonab – Mukkawar area lies on the western shore of the north-central Red Sea, with the southern boundary of the proposed MPA located approximately 140 km north of Port Sudan. The area contains extensive and diverse coral and reef fish communities, very extensive and diverse seagrass beds and spectacular, unspoiled coastal landscapes, a regionally important population of dugong, regionally or globally important nesting areas for marine turtles and seabirds, and seasonal aggregations of whale sharks and manta rays that are unique in the entire western Indian Ocean region.

The objective of the field survey of the Dungonab Bay - Mukkawar area was to identify and map the distribution and diversity of marine and coastal habitats, to establish the current status of resources such fish and benthic communities, and to assess the levels and types of human impacts within the proposed MPA.

The field surveys were designed on a hierarchical structure, and used a range of different survey methods including Rapid Assessment and detailed methods. Site-specific data on resources including abundance, distribution and diversity of species, and human uses and impacts are key inputs to implementing management plans, and establishing an MPA. Rapid Environmental Assessment is a tool increasingly used to provide this information readily on a broad scale without requiring more time-consuming highly detailed disciplinary research. As such its value has been increasingly recognised, and methods developed to ensure valid comparability between regions (PRICE et al. 1988, DE VANTIER et al. 1998, PRICE 2001).

A total of 517 geo-referenced locations were visited during the survey. These included 122 Quick Site Surveys of coastal habitats (including anecdotal information on local features and landmarks), 236 Quick Site Surveys of marine habitats, 58 Rapid Ecological Assessments, 28 Detailed Site Surveys (Fish/Invertebrate Transect and Point Intercept/Video Transects) and 81 fisheries locations for anecdotal information on catches and boats. The remaining sites were Ground Control Points (GCPs) for georectification of the satellite image and other observations. All field survey data have been entered into a GIS database and used to create point maps illustrating the distribution and status of resources at survey sites within the proposed MPA.

The surveys have used remote sensing data from the Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM+) satellite to map the broad distribution of habitats and biotopes throughout the survey area, beyond the site-specific data of the survey sites. The satellite data was used to identify priority survey sites prior to the field surveys, and these were then ground-truthed during the

2

survey phase. Preliminary coastal and marine biotope maps have been created from the ground-truthed field survey data.

It should be noted that the biotope maps have not been fully assessed for accuracy post-classification. This would require another dataset independent from that used to create the initial classification, and fieldwork logistics and other resources available have not enabled such a dataset to be collected.

The mapped area exceeds 4,000 km2; a total of 1,500 km2 of land (including the islands), and 2,700 km2 of sea, most of which is deep water (>20 m). Dungonab Bay covers 284 km2. Not all of the mapped area will be included in the site-specific management plan.

The proposed MPA will include a total of 0.782 km2 of mangrove (measured from coastal classification of the Landsat 7 ETM+ satellite image). An estimated area of 43.96 km2 of mapped coral habitats and 11.68 km2 of seagrasses also lie within the proposed MPA.

The findings of the 2002 survey of the proposed Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island MPA can be summarised as follows:

1. The marine and coastal ecosystems of the entire area are varied, biodiverse, and in generally good condition. Recent changes in resource use patterns threaten to change this situation, as do possible future changes, including even low levels of increased development.

2. The area supports nationally, regionally and globally important populations of several endangered species, particularly turtles (at least three species) and dugong. Populations of the latter are declining and are in urgent need of effective management.

3. Corals and coral reefs are the dominant, shallow, marine communities in the area. The impact of the global coral bleaching mortality event of 1998 is evident throughout most of the area but levels of impact are highly variable. At the largest scale there is a significant difference between the corals inside and outside the Bay. Those within the Bay are almost entirely unaffected by the bleaching event, but many areas outside the Bay have been severely impacted. The main exceptions to this are the corals of some (but not all) of the furthest offshore reefs, and those of Khor Shanaab. Corals at these locations are generally in very good condition. There are scattered pockets of very healthy corals throughout the rest of the survey area. Many impacted areas show good levels of recruitment of new corals, but others show no recovery at all. Management measures can aid the recovery of damaged reefs.

Many of the coral communities of the mainland shore and the islands will be very vulnerable to destruction or damage from inappropriate development or other activities.

4. Mangroves occur at a number of sites throughout the survey area. Three or four sites are particularly important (southern Mukkawar; southern Dungonab peninsula and Mersa Inkefal). Mangroves reported to be located inside Dungonab Bay on the north western edge of the peninsula are probably also significant within the area.

5. Seagrasses are very widespread, and are highly diverse with at least nine different species present.

6. Turtles. The entire area, but particularly the islands and the Dungonab Peninsula, constitutes a nationally and regionally significant turtle nesting area. All species of marine turtle are globally endangered and are CITES listed. The eastern shore of

3

Mukkawar Island is one of the two or three most important turtle nesting sites in the entire Red Sea region. Although completely unrecorded up to now this site is of at least regional (possibly global) conservation significance, and merits immediate protection and the institution of a rigorous monitoring programme.

7. Cetaceans. The area is home to large numbers of cetaceans, including at least two species of dolphin.

8. Birds. The entire area is very significant for birds. Every island visited during the survey, from the largest to the smallest, was a nesting site for at least one, and more usually at least two, species of birds. Accounts from the local communities indicate that all islands and mangrove areas are of even greater importance for bird nesting at other times of the year. Dozens of occupied osprey nests were recorded during the survey, with up to ten osprey nests (about 25-30% occupied) counted on even some of the smaller islands. The occurrence of occupied osprey nests on flat and easily accessible areas of the mainland shore within 500 m of the larger villages provides an indication of the positive attitude of the local communities towards the environment. An important nesting site for the Crab Plover (Dromas ardeola) is found on one of the islands within the Bay. The whole area is internationally recognised as an Important Bird Area, or IBA (FISHPOOL & EVANS 2001).

9. Actually or potentially damaging human impacts and activities occur throughout the survey area, but the overall level of impact is currently very low. This situation may change very rapidly if inappropriate or poorly planned development takes place here.

10. There are indications of severe overfishing of certain groups (large serranids, particularly nagil [Plectropomus]; Kokian [Trochus]; Beche-de-mer [sea cucumbers, Holothuroidea]) (see also the Fisheries Report annex). These ecological observations are confirmed by accounts of changes in fish catches received from the fishing communities throughout the survey area. Of particular concern is the reported intense fishing of spawning and nursery sites for nagil and other fisheries groups. This takes place in several places, most notably at the southern end of Mukkawar Island. If continued this practice will lead to the loss of some of the most important fisheries species from all or part of the area.

Current fisheries practices in the area are, in the long term, unsustainable. Fisheries management measures should include both permanent and seasonal fisheries reserves. These need not cause loss of fisheries productivity to the local fishers, and will ensure the long term sustainability of fishery resources. Gradual introduction of fisheries reserves, to convince the fishing communities of their effectiveness, is recommended.

Effective enforcement is essential, and will require the close involvement and agreement of the local fishing communities.

Industrial fishing in the area is known to have caused damage to habitats and even to some fish stocks, and is a source of great resentment and concern for the local fishing communities. At least one spawning aggregation (probably of snappers, Lutjanus sp.) is reported by local fishing communities to have been removed by a single trawling event several years ago. That aggregation has shown no signs of recovery or return. The often permanent nature of such depletions is an increasingly well known phenomenon in tropical marine fisheries worldwide.

11. The local communities are, on the whole and with only a few reservations, in favour of MPA status and the implementation of management measures, so long as appropriate consultation and participation processes and mechanisms are in place.

4

12. With only a few exceptions (declining dugong population due to use of fixed nets in seagrass areas and on migration routes, heavy overfishing of some areas and some groups, highly unsustainable targeting of important breeding aggregations, some mangrove cutting) current levels and types of usage within the proposed MPA appear to be causing little damage to the environment. This situation however may change very rapidly.

13. Public awareness and education programmes will greatly facilitate both the design and implementation phases of the MPA. The levels of ‘traditional’ environmental awareness within the local communities is high, and this should be consolidated and built upon.

14. The inclusion of a coastal ‘Buffer Zone’ extending inland is essential for the success of any management programme. A failure to include the mainland coast of the area within the management programme will inevitably lead to failure of the MPA in the medium term. This must include the planned improvement of the coastal road. Set-back of that road by at least five kilometres throughout the entire MPA, with a very limited number of side-roads leading directly to the villages, is strongly recommended.

If the road closely follows the coast through the proposed MPA, management will be rendered difficult or in many cases impossible. Rapid degradation and destruction of sensitive sites along the mainland shore will be almost inevitable.

15. The area clearly has huge potential for the development of sustainable and high-value marine tourism. Some of the sites dived by the survey team are among the very best. Inappropriate or insufficiently managed tourism will however lead to rapid degradation of the area.

16. Both marine and coastal areas will need to be managed by the use of zoning if success is to be achieved. Zoning must include a wide range of levels and types of permitted use, including core areas, buffer zones, multiple-use areas, development areas, permanent and seasonal fisheries reserves, and any others as deemed appropriate.

17. Initiation of Protected Area status BEFORE any development or other significant changes in use is essential in order to protect the exceptional and fragile habitats and species which make this an area of regional or global importance.

18. The proposed MPA area includes several closely inter-related ecosystems. Integration of the entire area within a single management programme will be essential.

5

Acknowledgements The surveys were made possible by PERSGA through Mohammed Younis, MPA Lead Specialist. Valuable advice on survey design was provided by Dr Fareed Krupp and Mohammed Younis.

Mahgoub Hassan, the PERSGA SAP National Programme Co-ordinator for Sudan, efficiently and effectively provided support for the team before, during and after the field surveys.

Mohammed Elsirag Fadlalla of the Sudanese Wildlife Conservation Administration was tireless in his co-ordination and effective organisation of logistical support during the field survey, often under very difficult conditions.

Dr Zuheir Mahmoud, carried out the fisheries survey for the proposed MPA at the same time that the ecological survey team was working in the area. In the absence of a socio-economic surveyor he provided much valuable information on these aspects of the survey area.

Andrea Bari and the staff of the Dungonab Pearl Oyster Farm provided information and logistical support, particularly the hire of their large cartamaran for survey of the offshore reefs.

Mohammed A. Raouf (Dungonab security), Adil Faki Hamid (Mohammed Qol security) and Omar A. Ahmed (Mohammed Qol Police) provided much help with the logistical surveys. The use of the security boats for survey of Dungonab Bay and the inshore islands to the south of the bay was an essential and invaluable aid to the survey success. Mr Atef, Marine Security office, Port Sudan, ultimately provided permission for this use.

Eissa Yaqoub Musa, Programme Manager, of the ACCORD Rural-urban linkages programme, provided use of the ACCORD Mohammed Qol camp, which proved to be an extremely effective base for the field surveys.

6

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1.2 THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................. 1.3 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT .........................................................................................................

1.4 THE CULTURAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY ........................................................................................................

3 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................ 3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY METHODS ..........................................................................................................

3.2 SURVEY SITES ...............................................................................................................................................

4 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 THE COASTAL AND MARINE HABITATS AND BIOTOPES OF DUNGONAB BAY-MUKKAWAR. ...................... 27

4.1.1 Coastal Habitats and Biotopes ............................................................................................................ 28 4.1.2 Marine Habitats and Biotopes ............................................................................................................. 30

THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................................ 4.1.3 Coral communities ............................................................................................................................... 36 4.1.4 Seagrasses ........................................................................................................................................... 46 4.1.5 Mangroves ........................................................................................................................................... 48 4.1.6 Fish communities ................................................................................................................................. 50 4.1.7 Turtles .................................................................................................................................................. 54 4.1.8 Birds ..................................................................................................................................................... 56 4.1.9 Marine Mammals ................................................................................................................................. 58 4.1.10 Sharks and Rays .................................................................................................................................. 4.1.11 Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................... 59

4.2 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................... 63 4.2.1 Centres of Population .......................................................................................................................... 63 4.2.2 Tribal Groups and Land Ownership ........................................................................................................ 4.2.3 Fisheries Activities ................................................................................................................................... 4.2.4 Other Major Activities within the proposed MPA ................................................................................ 77 4.2.5 Pollution .............................................................................................................................................. 77

5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 79

6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 79 1

7

INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE GEOGRAPHICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SETTING OF THE DUNGONAB BAY – MUKKAWAR ISLAND PROPOSED MPA

The 750 km long Sudanese coast occupies the north-central area of the western shore of the Red Sea (Figure 1). With a total length of approximately 2200 km the Red Sea reaches a maximum width of over 300 km in the south, between Eritrea and Yemen, while in the Dungonab area at approximately 21oN, the width of the sea is less than 200 km.

Sudan lies within the semi-desert and desert zone of north Africa. The coastal plain is hot and very dry, with only occasional and brief freshwater run-off into the sea during the rainy season in November and December. Annual rainfall around 61 mm per year (ALI et al 1999). There are no natural perennial inputs of fresh water on the Sudanese coast. During the winter period air temperatures may fall as low as 15ºC (FARAH 1982), but summer temperatures regularly reach the mid 40s centigrade or higher (FARAH 1982, SHEPPARD et al. 1992).

Surface water temperatures in the Sudanese Red Sea range from approximately 26ºC to 31ºC and salinity ranges between 35 and 40 ppt.. The semi enclosed and shallow waters of Dungonab Bay are unusual in this respect. The water temperature ranges from 19ºC in winter to 35ºC in summer (FARAH 1982), and salinity may be locally higher. The tidal range never exceeds 50 cm within the bay.

Seawater clarity in the region is generally very high, particularly in deeper water areas and around offshore reefs, where visibility of up to 70 m has been recorded (PERSGA 2001). This is in marked contrast to the situation in the biogeographically and ecologically very different southern Red Sea: a feature of direct relevance to the unusual marine communities of the proposed MPA.

Tidal range throughout the central Red Sea is typically in the region of 55 cm in non-enclosed areas. By contrast, tides within Dungonab Bay are highly variable, being dependant upon wind strength and direction and associated local forcing of surface water movements, although the restricted water exchange between the bay and the open sea means that the true tidal range is probably only a few centimetres. The overall result is irregular and unpredictable tidal patterns within the bay (CROSSLAND 1911). Prevailing surface currents in the region vary seasonally, flowing from north to south in summer (approximately May to October), and reversing during the winter (November to April). Inshore currents tend to follow the prevailing local wind pattern.

The Red Sea is globally unique in that its deep waters maintain temperatures of approximately 21ºC due to the semi-enclosed nature of the sea, and the circulation patterns this creates (for comparison, the deep waters of the global ocean have a temperature of approximately 4ºC). As a consequence, water temperature at 150 m depth in the Port Sudan area is in the region of 23ºC – 26ºC (SHEPPARD & WELLS 1988). Similar conditions can be expected to occur in deep parts of the survey area.

As with most of the tropical Indo-west Pacific, scleractinian corals are a dominant feature of hard substrates in the shallow sublittoral. The deep oligotrophic waters of the northern and central Red Sea, including Sudan, are fringed by almost continuous well developed biogenic coral reefs. In many areas a well-developed offshore barrier reef complex exists, between 1 and 20 km from shore, with a steep drop-off to several hundred metres being found on the seaward side of this

8

barrier reef. Water depths between the mainland and the barrier reefs are typically between 100 m and 400 m.

Sanganeb atoll to the northeast of Port Sudan is the only true atoll structure in the Red Sea, although similarly spectacular deep-water reefs occur in other locations, including the Dungonab bay – Mukkawar survey area. Extensive shallow inshore areas such as those found in the proposed MPA, particularly within Dungonab Bay, (where most of the bay is less than 30 m deep, and the maximum depth is less than 50 m [FARAH 1982]), are uncommon in the northern and central Red Sea. This characteristic, occurring here in combination with the more ‘usual’ very deep waters and reefs of the region, contributes to the high level of ecological and species diversity in the area.

The coasts of Sudan have been the location of much marine biological research, principally in the mid to late 20th century (see overviews in SHEPPARD & WELLS 1988; PERSGA 2001). The marine communities of the Sudanese coast are characteristically dominated by Red Sea species assemblages (KLAUSEWITZ 1972, 1989; WINTERBOTTOM 1985), and the reefs of the Sudan are among the most diverse and spectacular of the entire Red Sea (ORMOND 1976), and by extension of the entire Arabian and north-western Indian Ocean region. The study by NASR (1980) on the coastal plankton fauna of the Red Sea included the Dungonab Bay area.

9

Figure 1: The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden showing the location of four areas proposed for MPA

surveys through the SAP.

10

1.2 THE BIOGEOGRAPHIC SETTING OF THE DUNGONAB BAY – MUKKAWAR AREA The survey area lies in the north-central Red Sea (Figure 1). The Arabian region in general and the Red Sea in particular are well known for complex marine biogeography and high levels of endemism. Levels of endemism in the fauna and flora of the Red Sea are estimated to range from approximately 5% for molluscs, 6% for corals and 9% for benthic algae to 17% for fish species (MASTALLER 1987, SHEPPARD et al. 1992, WALKER 1987, ORMOND & EDWARDS 1987). These characteristics make the Red Sea a region of global importance for biodiversity conservation (BRIGGS 1974, KLAUSEWITZ 1972, 1989, SHEPPARD & WELLS 1988, SHEPPARD et al. 1992, CHIFFINGS 1995).

Even within the Red Sea complex patterns of species distributions occur (ROBERTS et al. 1992). The principal feature internal to the Red Sea is a major discontinuity at approximately 20oN (on the eastern, Saudi, side of the Sea), separating the two very different species assemblages of the north-central Red Sea, and the southern Red Sea (WINTERBOTTOM 1985, BLUM 1989, ROBERTS et al. 1992). On the western (African) shore of the Red Sea this discontinuity appears to lie further south, perhaps even as far south as northern Eritrea, below 18oN (J. KEMP, personal observation).

The entire survey area in Sudan lies within the north-central Red Sea biogeographic region but, as described below, provides important evidence that biogeographic patterns within the Red Sea are maintained by large-scale variation in habitat or environmental characteristics.

1.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DUNGONAB BAY – MUKKAWAR AREA The survey area covers a straight-line distance along the coast of approximately 70 km. The southern edge of the survey area lies 125 km north of Port Sudan (distance by road about 175 km). The complex coastline of the area, which includes the very large bay at Dungonab, together with the large island of Mukkawar, means that the total length of coastline in the survey area exceeds 200 km. Although the island is correctly called Mukkawar and the hill on the island is Jebel Magarsam, the distinction is seldom made locally, and the island as a whole is most commonly referred to as Magarsam or Jebel Magarsam. In addition to Mukkawar Island, there are numerous small islands at the southern end of Dungonab Bay, and to the south of the Bay towards Mukkawar.

The majority of islands within the area are either very low-lying (generally < 1m) sand with halophyte vegetation, overlying biogenic reef rock, or slightly uplifted (1–2 m) flat–topped fossil reef, demonstrating the classic central Red Sea undercut profile. The two notable exceptions are Mukkawar and Mayteb Kebir, both of which are higher rocky islands (about 100 m in the case of Mukkawar, and about 40 m in the case of Mayteb) composed of uplifted sedimentary rocks and fossil reef.

The mainland shore is for the most part backed by a gently sloping coastal plain varying in width from 5 km to the south of Mohammed Qol, to over 30 km north of Dungonab Bay and towards Khor Shanaab. The coastal plain is composed of sandy and gravel deposits, in many places overlying fossil reefs (particularly close to the present day shoreline), and is backed by the Red Sea Hills, that rise to over 1500 m (FARAH 1982). In some areas, particularly south of Mohammed Qol, low raised areas of fossil reef up to 10 or 15 m high extend almost to the waters’ edge, and such raised areas form the edges of some significant features such as Mersa Inkefal.

11

The western edge of Dungonab Bay is formed by the Ras Rawaya Peninsula (referred to in this report as the Dungonab Peninsula), a low-lying sand and gravel peninsula composed of extensive areas of fossil reef, with the low hills of Jebel Abu Shagrab and Jebel Tetwaib at its southern end.

Dungonab Bay is approximately 13 km across at its southern end, and extends 31 km from north to south, enclosing a total area of 284.5 km2 (Figure 2). There are three main large-scale features of the bay:

1. A large southern basin separated from the deeper water outside the bay to the south by a wide shallow sill;

2. An almost circular northern basin partially isolated from the southern by islands and another shallow sill;

3. The long narrow basin of Khor Naitaib (13 km long and 1.5 km wide along most of its length).

Following the example of FARAH (1982), these will be referred to in this report as the Southern Bay, the Northern Bay, and Khor Naitaib, respectively.

The Bay as a whole is one of the most striking features of the survey area, and has been studied in some detail in the past. FARAH (1982) provided a detailed description of physical parameters including bathymetry, temperature, salinity and currents. The entire bay is shallow, averaging 15.9 m in depth, with a maximum depth of less than 45 m. The bay forms a natural evaporation basin and FARAH (1982) found salinities of approximately 40 ppt at the southern edge of the bay. Salinity increased to over 43.3 ppt in the Northern Bay and over 45 ppt at the southern end of Khor Naitaib.

SHEPPARD & WELLS (1988) provide a brief summary of previous biological survey work within the proposed survey area. This was dominated by the work of CROSSLAND (1907, 1911, 1913), VINE & VINE (1980) and MOORE (1985). Coral communities and coral reefs are relatively limited in extent within Dungonab Bay, but studies by VINE & VINE (1982) recorded a number of unusual and interesting coral communities at several locations, including highly unusual monospecific areas of Galaxea.

The survey area outside Dungonab Bay is heavily dominated by well developed coral reefs fringing both mainland and islands, and by very extensive offshore patch reefs and barrier reefs extending approximately 30 km from shore.

The survey area is well known for seasonal aggregations of whale sharks (Rhyncodon typus) over the summer period, and also for aggregations of manta rays (Manta birostris) which are probably more stable throughout the year (SHEPPARD & WELLS 1988). The area has long been known to be of particular significance for birds (COOPER et al. 1984, MOORE & BALZAROTTI 1983, FISHPOOL & EVANS 2001). The area is designated an Important Bird Area (FISHPOOL & EVANS 2001), and is internationally recognised as being a high conservation priority for birds.

Many of the general conclusions of earlier surveys can be updated as a result of the recent PERSGA survey. Some potentially misleading conclusions, such as that of VINE & VINE (1980) that reef fish are relatively rare within the bay must be revised, although their observation of the dominance of Gonochaetodon larvatus (correct name Chaetodon larvatus, Burgess 1978) in the Bay are correct and, as discussed below, are of considerable significance (Section 4.1.6).

12

SHEPPARD & WELLS (1988) identify Dungonab Bay in particular as being a unique marine biotope within the Sudanese Red Sea on account of several features including: the scarcity of coral reefs and of butterflyfishes; the presence of Acanthaster plancii feeding on Xenia soft corals; and the presence of large ‘knolls’ (monospecific areas) of Galaxea. ORMOND (1980) recommended the area of Mukkawar Island and adjacent coast as a biosphere reserve, and indicated that the island itself may be suitable for designation as a wildlife reserve.

1.4 THE CULTURAL & SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT The entire Sudanese coastline is bordered by the Red Sea State. This state has an area of 221,000 km2 (PERSGA 2001) and in 1993 had a population of approximately 685,000 of which about 54% lived in urban areas. The major coastal city of Sudan is Port Sudan, with a population of around 390,000.

The people of the Red Sea State are comparatively poor, with maritime transport being the largest commercial sector in the coastal areas, and artisanal fisheries and nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralism being mainstays of the rural economy on the coastal plains. There are relatively small fisheries and tourism sectors (fisheries, forestry and agriculture combined contributed only 3% to GNP in 1993–94), and little coastal development. Increasing importance is expected to be placed on exploitation of marine resources in the future, including oil exploration, shrimp farming, tourism and fisheries. All of these activities can be expected to have serious deleterious impacts on the marine and coastal environment and biodiversity if management mechanisms for sustainability are not put in place.

Employment providing a living above subsistence level is largely limited to the relatively few urban areas, particularly Port Sudan and, to the south, Tokar. The most recent source of information about major economic activities for the population is the 1993 census (PERSGA 2001). The economically active population of the Red Sea State was 434,000 at the time of that census. The largest proportion of these (33.1%) worked in fisheries and agriculture, while only 7% were employed in the manufacturing sector. Over 20% worked in community and social services, 16% in transport and related industries, and 14% in retail work. A characteristic of rural areas is a high level of self-employment: 60% of rural workers were, in 1993, self-employed.

The Sudanese traditionally have relatively low levels of dependence upon marine resources, although this situation is changing. Fish consumption is relatively low, and deliberate hunting of turtles and dugong is rare or non-existent, although accidental capture of dugong does occur, and such catches are valued for their meat. In addition to fisheries for finfish there are fisheries for lobster, Trochus (local name Kokian), sea cucumbers (bèche-de-mer), Murex, Strombus and Lambis. These latter three gastropods are fished for both their meat (generally for local or subsistence consumption) and for their opercula, which are exported in large numbers to Arabia for use in incense burning.

Sudan has huge potential for the development of sustainable, high-value, marine tourism, particularly SCUBA diving, and is world-renowned among sport divers for the quality and condition of its unspoiled and spectacular coral reefs. The marine tourism sector is currently largely undeveloped.

13

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY A site-specific master-plan for the Dungonab Bay - Mukkawar area will be prepared using information provided by the biological surveys and the resource use survey, as described in the Fisheries Report annex.

Information gathered during the field phase and subsequent data analysis included:

• Types and extent of ecosystems and habitats occurring within the MPA, including open water, coral communities, other subtidal habitats, beaches, rocky shores, sabkha, mangrove and seagrasses

• A broad indicative assessment of the flora and fauna associated with these habitats • An indicative assessment of the health, structure and extent of coral communities • An indicative assessment of the composition of fish assemblages associated with the

coral communities and other benthic communities • The distribution of sea turtles and marine mammals, and of habitats used by these

groups • Seabirds, and the areas used by them for feeding and nesting

Corals in most of the tropical Indo-Pacific and tropical Atlantic oceans were subjected to an unprecedented bleaching event starting in the early summer of 1998. No assessment of the extent or severity of the bleaching event in the Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar Island area, or of subsequent recovery, was carried out prior to 2002, although DEVANTIER et al (2000) described the impact of the bleaching on the Red Sea coral reefs of northern Saudi Arabia, almost directly opposite the Sudan survey area. The impact there was reported to be patchy but in many areas severe. The results of the recent survey provide the first description of the impacts of that bleaching event in the Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar area, in northern Sudan.

14

Figure 2: Map of the survey area, showing the location of principal features and areas

mentioned in the text of this report.

15

3 METHODS

3.1 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY METHODS Detailed descriptions of survey methods are provided in KEMP & KLAUS (2002) and PERSGA (2002). Copies of all survey sheet templates are provided in Appendices 2-8 of this report.

The survey area was initially divided into four sectors (Figure 3) to provide a framework for logistical planning and activities. These sectors were:

Sector 1: The mainland coast and from and including Khor Shanaab at the northern edge of the survey area to the southern point of Dungonab peninsula

Sector 2: The whole of the inside of Dungonab Bay, including the southern bay, the northern bay and Khor Naitaib

Sector 3: The mainland shore and fringing reefs from the southern edge of Dungonab Bay southwards to the southern edge of the survey area at Sheikh Okod

Sector 4: All reefs and islands outside Dungonab Bay, including Mukkawar island; this sector extends over 30 km offshore from the mainland coast.

The Landsat 7 ETM+ satellite image of the survey area (WRS 171/45 and WRS 171/46 4th June 2001) was atmospherically and geometrically corrected in preparation for use in the field (Figures 4 & 5), and unsupervised classification of marine (ETM1-3) areas within the proposed MPA were prepared (Figures 6 & 7). The map was then subsetted as both true-colour and unsupervised classification images (examples Figures 8, 9 & 10) and laminated for use during the field surveys.

The field survey was carried out between the 23rd of January and 17th of February 2002. A survey itinerary is presented in Appendix 9.

A total of 517 geo-referenced locations were visited. These included:

• 58 Rapid Ecological Assessments (Figure 11, and Survey Sheet 1, Appendix 2),

• 28 Detailed Site Surveys (Fish/Invertebrate Transect and Point Intercept/Video Transects, Figure 12 and Survey Sheets 2, 3 & 4, Appendices 3-5),

• 122 Quick Site Surveys of coastal habitats including anecdotal information on local features and landmarks,

• 236 Quick Site Surveys of marine habitats (Figures 12 & 13 and Survey Sheet 5, Appendix 7).

A total of 81 fisheries locations were surveyed as part of the fisheries survey, for anecdotal information on catches and boats. The remaining sites consist of Ground Control Points (GCPs) for georectification of the satellite image, and other miscellaneous observations. The locations of all ecological survey sites (rapid, detailed and quick survey sites) are illustrated in Figures 11 to 14, below.

At the Detailed Sites, (Figure 12), poor weather conditions and equipment problems prevented work of various types at many sites, and consequently only 9 sites include both Fish and Invertebrate Transects, together with either a Point Intercept Transect or Video Transects for

16

coral/substrate assessment. A further 15 video transects were carried out at sites without Fish and Invertebrate Transects. Four sites have fish and/or invertebrate transects but no Point Intercept or Video Transects. Appendix 10 details number and type of survey carried out in the study area.

The results of the field survey from the 517 georeferenced locations around the proposed MPA were entered into Geographical Information System (MapInfo TM Professional v6.0). A list of the GIS data layers created is included in Appendix 14. Data from these surveys were used to identify the main coastal and marine habitats and biotopes. The biotopes were identified using multivariate analysis of the detailed and Quick Site data, using hierarchical agglomerative clustering (Wards Method) and SIMPER analysis (see Appendix 12.2.2). These data were used to perform a supervised classification of the Landsat 7 ETM+ satellite data to identify and map the extent of the coastal and marine biotopes (Appendix 11).

A biotope is defined as the physical habitat together with its associated assemblage of species. As relatively little species information was collected during these surveys the use of the term biotope in this context is fairly loose and for subtidal areas refers to the benthic structure and dominant cover types.

17

Figure 3: The four survey sectors in the Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar Island survey area. Survey site numbers include reference to the sector within which each site is located. For example site number 01/03 refers to Sector 1, Site 3.

18

Figure 4: True colour composite of Landsat 7ETM+ satellite image of (WRS 171/45 and WRS 171/46 4th June 2001) of Dungonab Bay and

Mukkawar Island, Sudan.

19

Figure 5: True colour composite of the georectified, atmospherically corrected Landsat

7ETM+ satellite images (WRS 171/45 and WRS 171/46 4th June 2001) of Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan.

20

Figure 6: Preliminary unsupervised classification of sublittoral areas in the Landsat 7ETM+

satellite images (WRS 171/45 and WRS 171/46 4th June 2001)of Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan showing the subsections (white outlined boxes) which were printed for use in the field surveys.

21

Figure 7: Preliminary unsupervised classification of coastal areas in the Landsat 7ETM+

satellite images (WRS 171/45 and WRS 171/46 4th June 2001)of Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan.

22

Figure 8: A subsection of the true colour composite of the Landsat 7ETM+ satellite images

(WRS 171/45 and WRS 171/46 4th June 2001)of Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan prepared for use during the field surveys.

Figure 9: A subsection of the preliminary unsupervised classification of sublittoral habitats in

the Landsat 7ETM+ satellite images (WRS 171/45 and WRS 171/46 4th June 2001)of Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan prepared for use during the field surveys.

23

Figure 10: A subsection of the preliminary unsupervised classification of coastal habitats in the

Landsat 7ETM+ satellite images (WRS 171/45 and WRS 171/46 4th June 2001)of Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan prepared for use during the field surveys.

24

Figure 11: Locations of Rapid Assessment sites within the Dungonab – Mukkawar survey area.

25

Figure 12: Locations of Detailed survey sites within the Dungonab – Mukkawar survey area.

Logistical and practical constraints, including bad weather, poor in-water visibility, equipment problems and the need to prioritise survey effort as the survey progressed meant that not all detailed survey methods were carried out at all survey sites. The key shows which methods were carried out at which sites.

26

Figure 13: Locations of coastal and marine quick sites within the Dungonab – Mukkawar

survey area.

27

4 RESULTS The detailed results of analysis of field survey substrate transect data are illustrated graphically in Appendix 10 (figures A10.1 – A10.19).

Section 4.1 presents an overview of the results of the supervised classification of marine and coastal biotopes created using the Landsat 7ETM+ satellite image.

In Section 4.2 the results from the site specific field surveys (Rapid, Detailed and Quick Site surveys) and the marine and coastal biotope classification are combined and discussed by major habitat types namely corals, seagrass, mangroves, then fish and other communities. These results are followed by results of Rapid Assessment surveys on the socio-economic environment and human impacts. Detailed analysis and results of surveys of the fisheries of the study area are reported separately in Annex II.

4.1 MARINE AND COASTAL HABITATS AND BIOTOPES OF DUNGONAB BAY –

MUKKAWAR. The Landsat 7ETM+ satellite data for Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island has been analysed, and used to map the distribution and, create preliminary area estimates, on extent of different marine and coastal habitats and biotopes within the proposed MPA, which are described in more detail below. The total area mapped covers 4325km2, which includes 1508km2 of land and 2745km2 of sea.

Major physical features of the coastal area include:

• Khor Shinaab (5.8km long and approximately 1km wide along most of its length)

• Mukkawar island (12km long and 3km wide)

• Maytab Kebir (1km long and 400m wide)

• Dungonab Bay (31km long and 13km wide, excluding Khor Naitaib)

• Khor Naitaib is 13km long and 1.5km wide along most of its length.

The distance offshore of the large number of submerged and offshore reefs and islands throughout the survey area varies from less than one kilometre to over 20km east of the Dungonab Peninsula (i.e. over 30km from the mainland shore). Some of these reef features are very large. The almost continuous reef complex extending from the northern end of Mukkawar Island to the southern end of the bay and to the Dungonab Peninsula is over 16km long and up to 15km wide. The reefs of Shambaya and Mesharifa are each over 8km long and between 1km and 3km wide, as is the reef area surrounding the island of Mayteb.

Table 1 lists the area (km2) of the principal islands, the coastal land and other major features of the survey area.

Limitations of the images. For management and planning purposes the limitations of the remotely sensed images must be recognised.

These images provide an accurate broad indicative assessment of the distribution of principal biotope types throughout the area. The limitations of the fieldwork, already described, combined with some technical limitations of the Landsat images (for example the 30m pixel size) mean

28

that the images have limitations when examined in close detail. For example, the RS analysis of areas not directly visited (as opposed to the site-specific data from Quick Surveys, Rapid Surveys and Detailed Surveys, upon which the analysis of distribution of differences in coral community health are based) does not differentiate between dead coral and live coral with a high degree of resolution.

A degree of caution should thus be exercised by management of the proposed MPA when making management decisions solely on the basis of these images. Decisions about activities that may adversely impact coral communities should only be made on a case-by-case basis, and further site-specific subtidal assessments should be made by experienced observers where necessary, in order to complement these maps. Total reliance on the maps is not recommended for detailed information. Use of the maps to guide larger scale planning of zoning for the MPA is appropriate. Further guidance for such issues should be provided in the Site Specific Master Plan.

Table 1: Area mapped for the survey of the proposed MPA Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island (from the Landsat 7ETM satellite data).

Name Area (km2) Islands within Dungonab Bay

Hysoit 0.28 Um-Tarda Island 0.18

Brasit Kabir 0.24 Um-ar Sheikh 0.04

Islands outside of Dungonab Bay Mukkawar Island 29.71

Maytab Kabir 0.30 Maytab Sarir 0.06

Mishareif 0.04 Total Area Land (islands and mainland) 1580.00 Total Area inside Dungonab Bay 284.50 Total Area Sea 2745.44 Total Area Mapped 4325.45

4.1.1 COASTAL HABITATS AND BIOTOPES

The coastal biotope map of Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island (Figures 14 and A11.16) was created using the site descriptions from the Rapid Assessment surveys and from coastal Quick site observations. Detailed subsections of the coastal biotope map are shown in Appendix 11 (Figures A11.17-A11.23).

Coastal biotopes and landscapes mapped in the survey area fall into broad categories of mud, sabkha, sand / gravel, sedimentary rocks (including fossil reefs), mangroves and halophytes.

The Dungonab Peninsula, and the coastal plain between the peninsula and Khor Shanaab, are dominated by sandy and gravel substrates. The contrast between this area and the rest of the survey area is well illustrated by figures A11.16 – A11.23 (Appendix 11). Vegetation in these sand/gravel areas is sparse, consisting of low cover of halophytes and grasses in scattered

29

locations, but in many areas, particularly on the coastal plain to the north of the peninsula and near to Khor Shanaab there are wide expanses of gravel plain (largely eroding fossil reef) completely devoid of vegetation.

Photograph 1. Wide and flat gravel plain, completely devoid of vegetation, at the northern edge of the survey area.

To the south and east of Dungonab Bay areas of sedimentary rocks extending close to, or in many areas all the way down to the shore, consist primarily of low – lying eroded hills no more than 40m high. In most places these hills are very low-lying eroded sandstone or fossil reef structures between 5 and 10m high. This is particularly the case to the south of Mohammed Qol.

The much higher Red Sea hills (over 1000m high in places) lie several kilometres to the west of the shoreline throughout most of the survey area, but to the north of Dungonab Bay are over 20km inland. These hills were not visited during the survey except at the extreme southern edge of the area, where the road between the survey area and Port Sudan passes through them.

Sandy and gravel areas to the east and south of Dungonab Bay, particularly slightly further inland (1km or more) are frequently dominated by a sparse Acacia community with scattered shrubs and grasses. Scattered examples of this type of community also occur in some lower-lying gullies and small seasonal watercourses to the north of the Bay.

Throughout the entire survey area most of the shoreline is lined by a band of halophytic vegetation, between 5m and 100m wide, and between 1m and 20m behind the beach.

Photograph 2. Halophytes fringing the shore on the western side of Dungonab Bay, south of Dungonab village. This type of habitat is extremely vulnerable to damage and destruction by vehicles travelling off-road.

Photograph 3. Halophytes extending almost to the waters edge on the western side of Mukkawar Island. Many islands of the area have very narrow sand beaches similar to this, with fragile halophyte plant communities immediately behind them. These plants provide shelter for the numerous nesting birds of the islands.

Photograph 4. Well developed and high cover halophytes at Khor Shanaab. Large amounts of litter, almost certainly carelessly discarded by campers, can be seen among these plants.

The relatively few areas of well developed mangrove throughout the survey area are of particular importance. The three most important of these are, in descending order of size, at the southern end of Mukkawar Island; at the southern end of the Dungonab Peninsula; and at Mersa Inkefal. A fourth potentially important area of mangroves, at the northern end of the Dungonab Peninsula (Figure A.11.18) were not visited during the survey due to time constraints, but should be included within any management plan.

30

Photograph 5. Well developed, extensive and healthy mangrove, Avicennia marina, at the southern end of the Dungonab Peninsula (site SUD/01/06).

4.1.2 OVERVIEW OF MARINE HABITATS AND BIOTOPES The sublittoral environment of Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island is extremely complex, as is revealed in part by the results of the cluster and SIMPER analysis. Due to this complexity, and various logistical and practical constraints (see Section 5), not all of the biotopes within the proposed area were fully surveyed, and many were encountered at only one or two sites.

The cluster analysis and SIMPER (Appendix 11) revealed 28 broad marine biotopes (Table 2). The categories of marine biotope identified from the cluster analysis of the ground truth data, together with additional descriptive data from the Rapid site surveys, were used to develop of a set of 58 spectral signatures to enable a supervised classification of the image. Where the signatures for the marine biotopes identified from the cluster multivariate analysis were not separable these were merged. The signature set was then used to conduct a supervised classification of the Landsat 7ETM satellite data (Figure 15).

31

Figure 14: Coastal habitats and biotopes of Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan.

created from the supervised classification of coastal habitats in the Landsat 7ETM+ satellite images (WRS 171/45 and WRS 171/46 4th June 2001).

32

Figure 15: The marine habitats and biotopes of Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan

created from the supervised classification of the Landsat 7ETM+ satellite images (WRS 171/45 and WRS 171/46 4th June 2001). ).

33

Table 2: The marine biotopes identified from the results of the cluster and SIMPER analysis.

Cluster Group Class name

1 Silt

2 Silt and sparse seagrass (<10%)

3 Silt and moderate seagrass (>10% to <50%)

4 Silt and dense seagrass (>50%)

5 Sand

6 Sand and sparse seagrass (<10%)

7 Sand and moderate seagrass (<50%)

8 Sand seagrass (>10% to <50%) and coral

9 Sand and macroalgae (<50%)

10 Sand and sparse hard corals (<10%)

11 Sand and large coral bommies (<10%)

12 Rubble

13 Rubble with soft coral (<30%)

14 Reef flat

15 Reef flat with coralline algae

16 Continuous pavement with a veneer of sand

17 Continuous pavement with sparse macroalgae (<10%)

18 Continuous pavement with moderate macroalgae (>10% to <50%)

19 Continuous pavement with dense macroalgae (>50%)

20 Continuous pavement with turf algae and mussel beds

21 Fore reef slope dominated by Acropora sp.

22 Fore reef slope dominated by Stylophora sp.

23 Fore reef slope dominated by Porites sp.

24 Fore reef slope with Porites and Galaxea dominant

25 Fore reef slope dominated by branching and funnel sponges on sand with Stylophora and Porites

26 Fore reef slope dominated by Galaxea

27 Fore reef slope with soft coral and encrusting coral (bleaching impacted)

28 Sand on rock with mearl beds (50-60%)

34

Table 3: Marine biotopes mapped in the Landsat 7ETM+, the area estimates and the cluster groupings identified from cluster and SIMPER analysis are also shown.

Class Area (km2) Cluster Groups

Water (3 classes) 2601.766 na

Sand and carbonate rock (6 classes) 56.17 5, 12, 13

Carbonate platform 9.54 16

Silt 5.80 1

Seagrass (<50%) on sand / silt 6.10 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

Seagrass (>50%) on sand / silt 5.54 4, 7

Macroalgae (<10%) on sand / carbonate platform 6.29 17, 20

Macroalgae (10-50%) on sand / carbonate platform 6.06 18

Macroalgae (>50%) on sand / carbonate platform 4.19 9, 19

Sohal lawn 1.79

Reef flat (coralline algae and sparse corals ) 6.44 15

Reef flat (sparse Acropora and Pocillopora) 10.50 10, 14

Massive coral community (<10%) on sand (Porites) 4.73 11

Reef slope (Acropora / Stylophora) dominates 5.11 21, 22

Reef slope (Porites / Galaxea) dominated 5.67 23, 24,

Reef slope (Porites / Stylophora) dominated 7.05 25, 26

Reef slope (mixed encrusting corals and soft coral) 2.71 27

35

Table 4: The total area of each marine biotope mapped, and each biotope as a proportion of the total area mapped (2745.46 km2) and of the total area mapped excluding deep water classes (143.56 km2).

Marine Biotope Classification Area (km2)

% of Total Area

Mapped

% of Total Area

(excl. deep water)

Water (3 classes) 2601.766 Sand and carbonate rock (6 classes) 56.17 2.05 39.09 Carbonate platform 9.54 0.35 6.64 Silt 5.8 0.21 4.04 Seagrass (<50%) on sand / silt 6.1 0.22 4.25 Seagrass (>50%) on sand / silt 5.54 0.20 3.86 Macroalgae (<10%) on sand / carbonate platform 4.19 0.15 2.92 Macroalgae (10-50%) on sand / carbonate platform 6.06 0.22 4.22 Macroalgae (>50%) on sand / carbonate platform 6.29 0.23 4.38 Sohal lawn 1.79 0.07 1.25 Reef flat (coralline algae and sparse corals ) 6.44 0.23 4.48 Reef flat (sparse Acropora and Pocillopora) 10.5 0.38 7.31 Massive coral community (<10%) on sand (Porites) 4.73 0.17 3.29 Reef slope (Acropora / Stylophora) dominates 5.11 0.19 3.56 Reef slope (Porites / Galaxea) dominated 5.67 0.21 3.95 Reef slope (Porites / Stylophora dominated) 7.05 0.26 4.91 Reef slope (mixed encrusting corals and soft coral) 2.71 0.10 1.89 Total Area Marine Biotopes (excluding deep water) 143.69 Total Area Marine Biotopes Mapped 2745.46

36

4.1.3 CORAL COMMUNITIES A total of 8 broad coral biotopes were identified and mapped in the satellite image (Figure 15). Figure 16 is a map of the combined areas for all the coral biotopes. The total area of coral habitats estimated from the Landsat 7ETM+ image is 43.96km2. Of this, ‘sparse’ coral habitats , where cover is ~10% (generally either on the reef flats, or on sand or carbonate rock) cover 21.67 km2, and ‘dense’ coral habitats cover an estimated 22.29 km2 (this category generally consists of the combined area of the different coral communities on reef slopes). These figures will be a significant underestimate as many of the reefs, especially around the outer islands, were so steep that their slopes were not visible on the satellite image, which is a vertical view.

A very broad range of coral community types is present in the proposed MPA. Within Dungonab Bay the main coral communities recorded were those of the western shore; the western islands including Umm ar Sheikh; the northern shore and Khor Naitaib. Each of these areas is different form the others, but all have very healthy and high cover corals.

Outside the Bay coral communities are more typical of the northern and central Red Sea. Apart from the area immediately around Mohammed Qol (where monospecific Galaxea communities were found) monospecific coral communities were not recorded. The distribution of healthy and impacted coral communities is very patchy (see below), but many areas remain in good condition.

The broad distribution of coral communities is illustrated in figures 16 – 20, and A.11.25 – A.11-32.

Table 5: The area of coral habitats mapped within the proposed MPA at Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island (estimated from the marine biotope classification of Landsat 7ETM+ data).

Total Area Coral Habitats (km2)

Sand / carbonate platform / reef flat (shown in yellow) 64.26

‘Sparse’ coral habitats (shown in pale pink) 21.67

‘Dense’ coral habitats (shown in bright pink) 22.29

Total area of coral dominated habitats 43.96

Total area of shallow reefal habitats (excluding areas of seagrass) 108.22

4.1.3.1 Coral bleaching impacts and large scale patterns in coral health within the survey area.

Pronounced differences in the health of coral communities was found in different sectors within the Survey Area. Coral communities inside Dungonab Bay were in markedly better condition than those outside (Figs 17 to 20).

Figure 17 summarises the difference. Inside the bay (Sector 2), coral communities (here defined as including both living and recently dead coral) were composed of a higher proportion of living

37

coral than were those communities in Sectors 1, 3 and 4 outside the bay (approximately 70% and 40%, respectively). Apart from those in very exposed locations the majority of dead coral colonies were frequently still in good structural condition (i.e. the coral skeleton was still largely intact), but sufficiently eroded over their surfaces to suggest death three or four years previously.

The distributions of these different degrees of coral health are illustrated in more detail in figures 18 (Detailed Sites) and 19 (Quick Sites). These illustrate that sites surveyed within the bay have, with only one exception, a Coral Health Index (CHI) of 0.5 or higher. At the majority of Quick Sites within the bay the CHI is 0.75 or higher. In contrast, outside the bay a large proportion have a CHI of less than 0.25, and only two have a CHI of over 0.75. The majority of detailed sites have a CHI of less than 0.5 outside the bay, and over 0.5 inside.

Figure 19 shows the distribution of live and dead coral communities on shallow fore-reef slopes at Quick Sites. The condition of the shallow reefs around Mayteb are particularly striking in this figure.

Within site differences.

The difference in coral community health (i.e. living or dead coral) was not only apparent in different sites within the survey area, but also in some cases at different depths or reef zones within the same site. At many sites that had suffered high levels of mortality outside the bay, shallower corals were most seriously affected. This was very apparent at, for example, Site SUD-11, on the reef fringing the mainland shore north of the Dungonab Peninsula and to the south of Khor Shanaab. The reef crest and shallow reef edge corals here had suffered very high mortality but, at depths greater than 2 – 4m coral health was good and coral cover high.

The complexity of the situation is illustrated by the fact that this was not the case at all sites. For example at sites SUD-02 and SUD-24 (Figure 18), both shallow and deep substrate transects show similar CHI values. It should be stressed that the pattern described is a broad generalisation. The mortality event that gave rise to these patterns was very patchy. This is illustrated by the observed occurrence in Sector 3 within 500 metres of each other of very heavily impacted coral communities with almost 100% mortality, and of communities with no apparent mortality.

Probable causes of the between-sector differences in coral health.

During 1997 and 1998 coral communities throughout the tropical seas of much of the northern and southern hemispheres suffered an unprecedented level of mortality as a result of raised Sea Surface Temperature (SST), due to an exceptionally severe El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event (Wilkinson 2000, DeVantier et al. 2000). A recent study estimated that over one third of coral reef communities in the Arabian region, including the African coast of the Red Sea, had been destroyed or severely impacted by the end of 1998, largely as a result of this event (Wilkinson 2000). The observed poor health of coral communities, particularly shallower corals, throughout much of the survey area outside Dungonab Bay is most likely to be a result of the 1998 bleaching event. This mechanism offers two possible explanations for the relatively good health of the coral communities inside Dungonab Bay.

Firstly, due to their location within a shallow semi-enclosed body of water the corals within the bay are likely to be pre-adapted to periodically higher water temperatures than those corals outside the bay. This pre-adaptation is a well known feature of corals in other, similarly stressed

38

environments such as the Arabian Gulf (Sheppard et al. 1993), and may have enabled these corals to remain unaffected by the bleaching event.

Secondly, water within the bay itself may have to some extent escaped the high temperature anomaly due to its relative isolation from the main body of Red Sea water, as the higher temperature water mass progressed northwards during the summer. The particularly severe impact suffered by the very exposed seaward reefs of Mayteb and other areas including the shallow corals of seaward fringing reefs on and to the north of the Dungonab Peninsula, suggests that degree of exposure to the open sea was a factor. In fact, both of these factors (pre-adaptation and degree of exposure) may have played an important role in creating the observed distributions of CHI in the survey area.

4.1.3.2 Crown of Thorns starfish

“The Crown of Thorns starfish (Acanthaster plancii) was described as a conspicuous component of the coral reef community in the Dungonab Bay area in the 1970s and 1980s (Moore, 1985), and very unusually was recorded as feeding on soft corals (Xenia spp.) inside the bay. Abundance of Crown of Thorns (CoT) was so high in the early to mid 1970s that a decline in abundance in the mid to late 1970s was explained as probably being due to CoT-related loss of corals in the bay.

In marked contrast to the earlier surveys of the area (Vine & Vine 1982; Moore 1985) abundance of CoTs was very low throughout the entire area during the 2002 survey. Feeding scars were recorded at a total of eleven sites, with animals only recorded at four sites. At no survey site were more than two animals seen. In contrast to the findings of earlier surveys CoT animals or scars were present at a higher proportion of sites outside the bay (22%) than inside (12.5%). The patterns of damage to coral communities apparent outside the bay indicate that the damage is not due to outbreaks of CoTs but, as described above, due to a bleaching-related mortality event.

Crown of Thorns are currently not causing problems for the coral communities of the proposed MPA. However, monitoring of CoT numbers throughout the MPA and adjacent areas should be included within the Management Plan as a routine component of the monitoring programme for the MPA”

39

Figure 16: The distribution of coral habitats within the proposed MPA. Dense coral habitats

(in bright pink) indicate where the area is dominated by corals. Sparse coral habitats (in pale pink) indicate areas where corals were found in association with other more dominant groups such as macroalgae or turf algae. The back reef or reef flat areas, and areas of sand and carbonate platform are illustrated in yellow.

This figure is reproduced at a larger scale in the Appendices (Fig. A.11.32).

40

Figure 17: Bar chart summarising the extent of coral mortality for sites inside and outside of

Dungonab Bay showing that sites inside the bay suffered lower mortality than sites outside the Bay as a result of the 1997/1998 bleaching event. The relatively greater health of corals inside Dungonab bay, compared with those outside, is obvious, with an average of about 30% more of the total cover being alive inside the bay (p < 0.001, 2-sample t-test).

The Coral Health Index (y-axis) is calculated as live coral cover over the total of live and dead coral cover.

41

Figure 18: The coral health index for detailed survey sites (the locations are offset for sites

where both shallow (S) and deep (D) transects were surveyed).

42

Figure 19: The coral health index for quick survey sites

43

Figure 20. Distribution of live and dead coral communities on fore-reef slopes. The

domination of certain areas, particularly the reefs of Mayteb and a number of other sites outside Dungonab Bay, is noticeable. The fact that this only illustrates a narrow reef section at each site (only the fore reef slope) explains the difference between this and the distributions of CHI in figures 18 and 19. At some sites the shallow exposed corals were disproportionately affected.

44

Photograph 6. Healthy and high cover corals on the reef slope in central Khor Naitaib (site SUD/02/20). The coral communities in this area are dominated by branching corals of several genera, and are extensive and very healthy. Photograph 7. Another view of the corals of site SUD/02/20. Large branching staghorn Acropora are uncommon inside the Bay, this being one of the few sites where they were observed. Photograph 8. Healthy and high cover Acropora dominated coral community in very shallow water. This type of community is common inside the Bay, particularly fringing the islands in the southern, central and western Bay. At sites like this the slightly deeper coral communities tend to be dominated by Porites, as in photograph 9. Photograph 9. A Porites dominated coral community typical of the slightly deeper corals at gently shelving sites within the Bay (2 – 4m). Photograph 10. A mixed Porites and Stylophora community on eroded continuous pavement within Dungonab Bay. This type of coral community is widespread both inside and outside the Bay. Outside the bay it is most commonly found behind the reef crests of well developed, exposed to moderately sheltered coral reefs. In a number of locations, particularly at offshore reefs and among the reefs immediately to the south of Dungonab Peninsula, Tubipora is very common among the other corals. Photograph 11. The fore-reef crest of a typical exposed coral reef to the east of Mukkawar island. The heavily dissected coral reef top is almost entirely covered by filamentous algal ‘lawn’ cultivated by the surgeonfish Acanthurus sohal. Photograph 12. An outcrop of dead coral, among the dead corals in shallow water at the southern edge of Dungonab Bay. This area was severely impacted by the 1998 bleaching event, even though corals just a few hundred meters away inside the bay were unscathed. Photograph 13. A Stylophora coral community at the northern end of Dungonab bay. Similarly low diversity but high cover coral communities occur in places throughout the bay, often in shallow and / or turbid water, and are a highly unusual feature of coral reefs inside the Red Sea. The conservation value of these regionally rare and fragile communities is high. Unfortunately the very extensive monospecific Galaxea coral communities recorded by Vine & Vine (1982) in the area of Mohammed Qol have been very heavily impacted by the 1998 bleaching and are now largely dead.

45

Figure 21: Substrate transect data, Sudan 2002

46

4.1.4 SEAGRASSES Seagrasses are very widespread throughout all mainland survey sectors, occurring at 57%, 75% and 77% of all Rapid Sites in sectors 1, 2 and 3 respectively. In sector 4 seagrasses were only recorded at 19% of Rapid Sites, all at Mukkawar Island. At least seven species of seagrass were recorded (Thalassia sp., Thalassodendron sp., Halophila stipulacea, H. ovalis, Halodule uninervis, Cymodicea sp., Enhalus sp.).

The total area of seagrass estimated from Landsat 7ETM image is 11.68km2: a very substantial area. The extensive seagrass beds are a nationally and regionally important feature of the Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar area, particularly given the probably substantial population of globally endangered dugong found here (see Section 4.1.9).

Figure 22: The distribution and relative abundance of seagrasses at Rapid Site surveys in the

Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island survey area.

47

Figure 23: The distribution of seagrass biotopes around Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island,

Sudan, from the Landsat 7ETM satellite image. A larger scale illustration of major seagrass areas is presented in Figure A.11.32. (Appendix 11).

48

4.1.5 MANGROVES Mangroves visited and recorded within the survey area are illustrated in Figure 24. This includes three substantial areas at:

- At the southern tip the Dungonab Peninsula

- At the southern end of Mukkawar Island;

- On the mainland coast at Mersa Inkefal.

Total area of mangrove growing within the proposed MPA area, as estimated from the coastal habitat maps (Figure 25) is 0.782 km2.

Figure 24: The distribution and relative abundance of mangrove around Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island, Sudan, from the Rapid Site Surveys. The mangrove area reported to be at the northern end of Khor Naitaib was not visited, and so is not shown on this map.

49

The mangroves of the proposed MPA are generally in good condition, with little or no evidence (except at one site) of human impact, although camel grazing is a factor at all the mainland mangrove sites, and may be limiting the further expansion of many of these mangrove areas. The mangrove at the southern end of the Dungonab peninsula, is subject to cutting, probably for animal fodder and / or firewood for the salt works on the peninsula. This activity is moderately severe in some parts of the mangrove.

50

4.1.6 FISH COMMUNITIES Fish communities were surveyed using three different methods. The Rapid Assessment provided a simple combined measure of fish abundance and diversity at each site (Figure 25). More detailed information about abundance and diversity of selected families of fishes was provided by both the ReefCheck belt Transect (Figure 26) and the Reef Fish Community Structure survey (Figure 27).

Figure 25: Relative fish abundance at Rapid Survey Sites. The wide distribution of abundant

and diverse fish communities both inside and outside Dungonab Bay is clear from this figure. This is in contrast to the report of Vine & Vine (1980) that reef fish communities within the pay were of low abundance and diversity.

51

Figure 26: The relative abundance and distribution fish from the transects surveyed by the

ReefCheck Belt transect method. Considerable variation in community structure is apparent. In some cases this is likely to be an indication of heavy fishing pressure selectively removing some groups. Large groupers were conspicuous by their absence throughout the entire survey area. Very few nagil (Plectropomus sp.) over 30cm in length were seen in the water during the field survey, indicating very heavy exploitation pressure on this species.

Pie Charts are graduated in size, according to the total abundance of fish recorded at each site. The position of some pie charts is offset from the survey sites to enable the display of both Shallow (S) and Deep (D) Transects

52

Large scale patterns in fish community structure.

At the largest scale within the survey area a striking difference in the fish communities inside and outside the bay is apparent. This difference resembles biogeographic differences more usually associated with distances of several hundred kilometres (Figure 27). This finding is in agreement with the observations of Vine and Vine (1982) that Chaetodon melapterus is particularly abundant on reefs inside the bay but not outside.

Figure 27 shows the results of a cluster analysis of the butterflyfish and angelfish survey data from the Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island survey, combined with survey data collected using identical survey methods in other regions throughout the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden by J. Kemp between 1996 and 1998. This figure shows the well known biogeographic division of the Red Sea from the Gulf of Aden (Klausewitz 1972, 1989, Blum 1989, Sheppard et al 1992) and the internal division of the Red Sea into north-central and southern biogeographic regions (Winterbottom 1985, Roberts et al 1992).

The striking feature of this analysis is that the butterflyfish and angelfish communities inside Dungonab Bay are firmly within the southern Red Sea group, characteristic of Yemen and central Eritrea several hundred kilometres to the south, while those communities outside the Bay are very much north-central Red Sea communities. So pronounced is this difference that the Bay communities are more similar to those of the Gulf of Aden, over 1000km distant, than they are to those at local sites outside the bay, less than 10km distant.

This result is consistent for both abundance and presence-absence data. A similar analysis cannot be carried out for the other four families of fish, because the wider geographic dataset is not comparable for these families.

The observations of Vine & Vine (1982), and the consistency of this result for both abundance and P/A data confirm that this result is not due to the differences in coral health described above. Kemp (2000) commented on similar, although less pronounced, local differences in fish community structure in the Gulf of Aden, ascribing them to localised differences in environmental conditions, particularly water quality. The differences in water quality and other environmental conditions (temperature, turbidity) inside and outside the bay are likely explanations for this exceptional pattern.

This characteristic of the proposed MPA emphasises the importance of the area for marine biodiversity conservation: the Dungonab bay – Mukkawar area encompasses a variety of fish communities and coral communities more usually separated by several hundred kilometres.

.

53

SD

-OS

D-O

SD

-OS

D-O

SD

-OS

D-O N

SD

-O CS

D-O N N

AQ

AQ

SD

-O AQ

SD

-O AQ N N C N N C

SD

-O AQ

AQ N N N

SD

-OS

D-O

SD

-O C CS

D-O C C C

NG

NG

NG

NG

NG

NG

NG

NG

NG

NG

NG

WG

WG

WG

NG

NG

NG

WG

NG

NG S S S S

SD

-BS

D-B S

SD

-B S S S S S S S S S S S

100

80

60

40

20

0

Figure 27. Cluster analysis of butterflyfish and angelfish communities (abundance, square-root transformed) in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden region, illustrating the contrasting geographic affinities of the fish communities of the survey area inside Dungonab Bay (SD-B) and outside (SD-O). Presence-absence data gives identical clustering results to abundance data.

SD-O = Sudan survey area, outside Dungonab Bay; SD-B = Sudan survey area, inside Dungonab Bay; N = Northern Red Sea (South Sinai, Egypt); AQ = Gulf of Aqaba sites (Dahab and Nuweiba, Sinai, Egypt); C = Central Red Sea sites (Rabigh & Yanbu, Saudi Arabia); S = Southern Red Sea sites (Massawa, Eritrea & Kamaran Islands, Yemen), WG = Western Gulf of Aden sites (Ras Imran, Yemen), NG = Northern Gulf of Aden sites (Hadramaut & Shabwa, Yemen). See main text for detailed description.

54

4.1.7 TURTLES The entire area, but particularly the islands and the Dungonab Peninsula, constitutes a nationally and regionally significant turtle nesting area. The range of different eggs sizes (assessed on the basis of old, empty, shells) at least three species of turtle nest within the survey area.

All species of marine turtle are globally endangered, and are listed on CITES Appendix I or Appendix II. The eastern shore of Mukkawar Island is one of the most important turtle nesting sites in the entire Red Sea region. Although unrecorded up to now this site is of at least regional (possibly global) conservation significance, and merits immediate protection and the institution of a rigorous monitoring programme. It is strongly recommended that detailed surveys of turtle populations throughout the area are carried out as soon as possible, and an effective monitoring programme introduced. This may be an appropriate role for the Habitats and Biodiversity Component of the PERSGA SAP. A community – based turtle management, protection and monitoring programme is strongly recommended for the entire area.

There is no deliberate capture of adult turtles in the proposed MPA. Turtles caught accidentally in fishing nets are generally released unharmed if they have not already drowned, as it is believed that this will bring good luck to the fisherman concerned. Turtle eggs are occasionally taken as food by local people, but this is a small scale activity at a low subsistence or opportunistic level and no trade or exchange in eggs takes place.

It appears that the attitude of the local fishers towards turtles may be conducive to the adoption of a community – based monitoring and management programme. Inclusion of local people in any such scheme should be encouraged and developed fully.

Both Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) and Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) were observed in the water throughout the survey area. Green turtles were particularly widespread, being seen in every sector. Large numbers of green turtles were observed in the very extensive shallow areas of reef flat and sand at the northern end of Mukkawar Island. This may be an area where green turtles gather during the day, waiting for nightfall when nesting takes place on the nesting beaches of the island immediately to the south.

Hawksbill turtles were particularly noticeable at the extreme northern end of Dungonab Bay, where two individuals were seen feeding among shallow Stylophora corals, one at each of two closely adjacent Rapid Sites (SUD/02/06 and SUD/02/09).

The importance of Mukkawar Island as a turtle nesting site. The extensive sandy beaches on the eastern side of Mukkawar are a mass turtle nesting site of regional or perhaps even global significance. This importance had not previously been recognised. At site SUD/04/11 a total of 409 nest pits were counted along 800m of beach (distance measured using a hand-held GPS). This was less than half the total length of that single beach, and that beach is only one of several along that shore of the island. A cursory examination indicated that all or most beaches on this side of the island are likely to be similarly important for turtle nesting, with a total of perhaps several thousands of nest pits along this 8 – 10km stretch of shore. This is a key management feature of the proposed MPA, and stringent protection of this extremely important site is essential.

Photograph 14. View of one of the main turtle nesting beaches on Mukkawar. The beach here is between 30 and 50m wide, and the numerous irregularly spaced depressions covering most of the

55

beach are all turtle nests. Over 300 nest pits were estimated to exist along this 300m stretch of beach, with a similar density of nests along several more kilometres of beach along the same coast.

Photograph 15. A close up view of a recently dug turtle nest pit.

Figure 28: Distribution and abundance of turtle nesting pits at Rapid Sites. Site SUD/04/11 is

the location of one of the most important turtle nesting areas in the Red Sea region.

56

4.1.8 BIRDS Figures 29 and 30 show, respectively, the distribution of bird nesting activity in January – February 2002, and the distribution of other bird observations over the same period.

Figure 29: The distribution of nesting birds at Rapid Site surveys in January – February 2002.

The seasonal nature of bird nesting means that this is NOT an exhaustive account (see comments in the text).

57

Figure 30: The distribution of birds, including non-nesting birds, within the survey area from

Rapid Site surveys in January and February 2002. The entire survey area is very significant for birds, and the whole area is internationally recognised as an Important Bird Area, or IBA (Fishpool & Evans, 2001). Every island visited during the survey, from the largest to the smallest, was a nesting site for at least one, and more usually two, species of birds at the time of the survey. Only two or three species were seen nesting during the survey phase (one or two species of tern, Sterna spp, and osprey Pandion haliaetus), but accounts from the village communities of Dungonab and Mohammed Qol indicate that all islands and mangrove areas are of great importance for nesting by numerous other species, at other times of year. The peak nesting time is apparently the summer. Dozens of occupied osprey nests were recorded during the survey, with up to ten osprey nests (about 25-30% occupied) counted on even some of the smaller islands. The occurrence of occupied osprey

58

nests on flat and easily accessible areas of the mainland shore within 500m of the larger villages provides an indication of the positive attitude of the local communities towards the environment. The density of osprey nests in the survey is quite exceptional.

An important and apparently previously unrecorded nesting site for the Crab Plover (Dromas ardeola) is found on one of the islands (Brasit Island) within the Bay.

Apart from pigeons and crows in the vicinity of the major villages, and a single observation of a number of vultures at a camel carcass, birds other than seabirds (principally terns, gulls, plovers, egrets and herons) and osprey were rarely observed during the survey.

A comprehensive survey of the bird nesting localities of the area should be undertaken as a matter of priority, and the results incorporated into the management plan and practices for the proposed MPA.

4.1.9 MARINE MAMMALS

Dugong. The dugong (Dugon dugon) is a globally threatened species, with the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf being home to the last remaining healthy populations in the western Indian Ocean region. Three dugong sightings were made during the field survey, at three locations:

• Site SUD/02/01 (northern Dungonab Bay)

• Site SUD/03/05 (mainland coast to the north of Sheikh Okod)

• Site SUD/04/10 (southern Mukkawar mangroves)

Given the extremely shy nature of dugongs this is a very large number of sightings for the survey duration. The common occurrence of dugong throughout the survey area, as well as to both the north and south of the survey area was confirmed on numerous occasions by local fishers. The fishing communities of both Mohammed Qol and Dungonab indicated that the numbers of dugong (as represented by the frequency and distribution of their own sightings of the animals) are falling rapidly. This was blamed on the regular but accidental capture and consequent drowning of dugong in fixed fishing nets. The number of sightings during the survey and the accounts of local fishing communities suggest that the proposed MPA may be home to a globally significant dugong population. The very extensive areas of seagrass present will be a crucial factor in this, dugong being herbivores dependent upon seagrasses for their food.

Local fishers described the distribution of dugong as extending throughout the entire survey area and beyond, including Khor Shanaab. Regular sightings were said to occur throughout Dungonab Bay, along the mainland shore to the north and south of the Bay (but more frequently to the south), at Mukkawar and in extensive shallow areas around the offshore reefs. Particular mention was made of concentrations of dugong in the northern Bay, in the area to the north and south of Sheikh Okod, and around Magarsam.

Local inhabitants reported that ‘foreigners’ from the far east who were working in the area for a Sudan – based commercial fishing concern had deliberately killed three dugong some time within the previous two to three years, to the north of Dungonab. The animals killed were two adults and a juvenile.

59

The regional or probably even global importance of the Dungonab – Mukkawar dugong population indicates that management measures should be implemented as a matter of urgency throughout the area of the proposed MPA. Measures should include:

A ban on the use of fixed nets in areas where dugong are most frequently observed, and in areas where they are most often accidentally caught. Such a ban should be discussed with and agreed by the majority of local fishers. The replacement of fixed nets by other methods which do not threaten the dugong population should be facilitated and supported. Examples include the use of cast nets, hook and line, of suitable traps (traps are currently not used in the survey area) are all options. Any fish traps, if that option is implemented, should be carefully designed and made so as to be biodegradable in case of loss, in order to avoid ghost-fishing. Rules for use of traps or any other fishing methods should be agreed with the majority of local fishers, and the local fishers provided with the means and poser to police and enforce any such agreements themselves, in order to maximise sustainability of the method, and minimise habitat or other damage.

A dedicated study of dugong within the entire area, both inside and outside the proposed MPA is strongly recommended. The disastrous recent history of loss and destruction of dugong populations in east Africa means that this population may be the most important remaining on the coast of Africa. Conservation of this population, and of the habitats they require for their continued survival, should be one of the highest priorities of the proposed MPA.

It should be noted that dugong will suffer considerably if large numbers of tourists invade their most important areas. Speedboats, jet-skis and other similar leisure activities will seriously threaten this population if not controlled within any tourism development plan. This should be taken into account at all stages of MPA planning and management, including the development of an appropriate zoning scheme.

Dolphins The survey area is home to at least two species of dolphin. These were bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncata) and common dolphins (Delphinus delphis). Both species were seen most frequently outside the bay (common dolphins only at Shambaya reef, where they are apparently resident, being seen there year round over several years by local boat users from the commercial pearl farm). Only one pair of dolphins, probably a female bottlenose with calf, were seen inside Dungonab Bay, mid-way between Rapid Sites SUD/02/17 and SUD/02/18. There is apparently no deliberate fishing of dolphins, although they are occasionally caught accidentally.

4.1.10 SHARKS AND RAYS Very few sharks were observed in the survey area. A number of small reef sharks (blacktip reef, Carcharhinus melanopterus) were seen at several sites, most notably on the western side of Mukkawar Island and at site SUD/02/17 inside Dungonab Bay. Hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna sp) were seen at the offshore reef at site SUD/04/16). At this and other deep reef drop-off sites these and other sharks are likely to be commonly seen, although any shark fishing effort will remove them very rapidly (just a few days of fishing can severely deplete the shark populations at such sites).

The Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar area is well known as an area where whale sharks (Rhyncodon typus) and manta rays (Manta birostris) aggregate (Sheppard & Wells 1988), although none were

60

observed during the survey period, probably because the survey did not coincide with the aggregation period, reported to be over the summer months (Mr Andrea Bari, personal communication).

Shark fishing is apparently a common occurrence in the survey area, usually carried out by fishers from Port Sudan or elsewhere (including, apparently, occasional visitors from outside Sudan), although sharks were also observed within the catch landed at Mohammed Qol. Evidence of shark fishing was observed in a number of locations, including the sheltered anchorage of Mersa Inkefal. Sharks are one of the most noteworthy attractions for high value international SCUBA diving tourism, adding to the already considerable potential that the deep water reef of Sudan have for development of SCUBA diving tourism.

Ensuring the sustainability of such tourism will be a challenge, and will require very careful planning, and stringent management of the most biologically important dive sites, and the most popular sites. There is a wealth of global and regional experience of such management, which should be incorporated into the Site – specific Management plan for the proposed MPA.

Photograph 17. [SD-o-2-2] Sharks heads of an unidentified species discarded on the beach at Mersa Inkefal.

4.1.11 INVERTEBRATES. Invertebrate animals other than corals are a very conspicuous feature of the survey area, both in the water and out of it. At every site visited abundant evidence of shellfish fisheries was apparent on the shore, in the form of shell middens. The principal species found in these middens were Trochus (local name Kokian), Strombus, Lambis, Murex and to a lesser extent Tridacna. A more detailed account of invertebrate fisheries is provided in section 4.3 below, and in the Fisheries survey report provided as an annex to this ecological survey report.

Photograph 16. A small shell midden, consisting largely of Strombus, on one of the offshore islands.

Figure 31 shows the distribution of living invertebrates within the survey area, as recorded in the Rapid Site assessments. The relatively higher abundance inside Dungonab Bay is well illustrated in this figure. The very high abundance within Khor Naitaib is due in large part to the high abundance of Diadema sea urchins at these sites, and of Tridacna clams (Figure 32). High abundance of Diadema is in some circumstances seen as a management problem, resulting from factors such as overfishing of predator species, or nutrient enrichment/pollution providing them with unusually abundant food. High abundance of Diadema can cause excessive erosion of and mortality to coral communities. However in this case the high abundance is certainly natural. These sites are ecologically and environmentally unusual, with turbid water, high salinity (Farah 1982), and unusual communities of corals, sponges and colonial tunicates. The high abundance of Tridacna is another indication of the ecologically unusual communities found inside parts of the bay, as remarked upon by Vine & Vine (1982).

The high abundance of invertebrates at SD/04/01 is due to the presence of large number of holothurians, or sea cucumbers. This was one of the very few sites where these animals were observed in something approaching natural numbers (see Section 4.3, below).

61

Photograph 17. An unusual community of low diversity corals (almost exclusively Stylophora pistillata) with sponges and colonial tunicates, and very high abundance of Diadema sea urchins, in Khor Naitaib.

Figure 31: Distribution and abundance of invertebrates at Rapid Sites.

62

Figure 32: Abundance and distribution of three of the more common types of benthic

invertebrates recorded in the Invertebrate Transects. The bar charts are offset from the survey sites to enable the display of both Shallow (S) and Deep (D) Transects.

63

4.2 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT The greatest constraint upon the survey of the proposed Dungonab bay – Mukkawar Island MPA, and one that is of great importance to the development of Site – Specific Management Plan, was the lack of a dedicated socio-economic survey. No Socio-economist was present during the survey apart from one visit of less than a day. No consultation between the socio-economist and any of the survey team members occurred because the socio-economist left the area before the ecological or fisheries surveyors were aware of their presence. No effective Socio-economic work relevant to the development of a Marie Protected Area for conservation and sustainable management was carried out during the survey beyond the efforts of the Ecological and Fisheries survey teams. Dr Zuheir Mahmoud in particular was able to undertake some basic information gathering.

The lack of a fully trained and locally experienced socio-economist with an understanding of the requirements of Protected Area design and management means that the type and quantity of socio-economic information gathered during the field survey phase was limited. This situation was exacerbated by the short duration of the field phase, which meant that little time was available for the fisheries or ecological surveyors to devote to wider socio-economic information gathering without seriously compromising their own tasks as defined in their own Terms of Reference.

The agreement, understanding and support of the communities within the MPA will be central to the success of the MPA in the short, medium and long term. This is a central tenet of MPA management worldwide, and its validity has been demonstrated repeatedly. It is essential that the rights and interests of the people of Mohammed Qol, Dungonab and all other settlements within the boundaries of the proposed MPA be respected and protected. This should be protected and supported by law. To this end the institution of communication mechanisms to facilitate the sharing of information should be central to management of the MPA.

Agreement of the local communities should be sought for major management decisions, particularly for zoning of the MPA, and information and environmental education should be provided at all levels within the local communities in support of management decisions.

4.2.1 CENTRES OF POPULATION There are two main centres of population within the proposed MPA, at Dungonab Village on the western shore of Dungonab Bay, and at Mohammed Qol on the mainland shore approximately 10km south of the southern edge of Dungonab Bay. A number of other small settlements are scattered throughout the survey area, with only one exception these are communities based largely upon subsistence level artisanal fishing activity. The exception to this is the population of workers at the Dungonab salt works, on the southern Dungonab Peninsula (location is shown in figure 33). The distribution and approximate relative size of the fishing communities, including the two main villages and the widely spread much smaller communities, is reflected in the distribution of fishing boats illustrated in figure 33. Fisheries are the principal economic activity at all settlements, although the development of fisheries as a coastal activity here is only a few decades old, the older tradition of seasonal and semi-nomadic agriculture and pastoralism having been replaced since the second world war.

Summaries of the socio-economic information gathered about the two main villages is provided here.

64

4.2.1.1 Mohammed Qol

Mohammed Qol is the location of the local headquarters of the principality. Population is approximately 750, in about 115 families. Approximately 40 people here are full time fishers, although others take part in the fisheries on a par time, seasonal or casual basis. There are a total of 14 shops and restaurants, many of which gain a significant proportion of their income from the traffic passing along the coast road, which passes through the village. Two carpenters are involved in making and repairing wooden boats.

Fin fisheries are the most important activity for fishers, but Strombus, Trochus and sea cucumber fisheries also generate some income.

There is one co-educational school with 8 classes and about 130 pupils. The school services smaller outlying settlements as well as Mohammed Qol, and a student residence is provided free to pupils from outside Mohammed Qol.

The village has one inadequately equipped pharmacy run by a medical assistant.

Water is supplied by tanker truck, and electricity is supplied to the mosque, market area and a few of the houses from a generator. The school is provided with electricity from 6.00pm to 10.00pm most evenings.

Women take an active role in the economic life of the village, being involved in owning and running businesses. Women at both Mohammed Qol and Dungonab village generally have the greatest control of the family finances.

The principal concerns expressed by the villagers were:

• An unsustainable agreement for the provision of boats reached with SUSAF, which the villagers feel trapped by (see below).

• Historical grievances against industrial trawl fisheries operating in the area, particularly near to Mukkawar Island.

• A decline in overall fish catches has been observed in recent years. This is partly blamed upon the activities of trawlers, but it was acknowledged that this cannot be the only reason, because trawling has been limited in recent years but the catch has continued to decline.

• Low quality of drinking water

• Poor health services

4.2.1.2 Dungonab village

Population approximately 430, in about 70 families. Approximately 30 people claimed to be full time fishers, although only 16 of these were fishing at the time of the survey. A total of 14 small shops, including 4 tea shops, operate in the village. Four villagers worked for the private Oyster Farm at the time of the survey, and one for the Marine Fisheries Dept.

There is no local administrative centre in Dungonab, the local headquarters being based in Mohammed Qol.

As with Mohammed Qol the principal fishery is for finfish, with sea cucumbers, Trochus and Strombus providing supplementary income. A minor fishery here is for wild oyster shells. A

65

significant seasonal fishery is the sea cucumber fishery that takes place seasonally over the summer.

Almost all families in Dungonab own a few goats and sheep.

There is one school with 8 co-educational classes and a total of about 65 students at the time of the survey. Very few of the students at the school are from outside the village, and there is no student residence provided at the Dungonab village school.

The village has one inadequately equipped pharmacy run by a medical assistant.

The principal concerns expressed by the villagers were:

• An unsustainable agreement for the provision of boats reached with SUSAF, which they feel trapped by (see below).

• Historical grievances against industrial trawl fisheries operating in the area immediately to the south of Dungonab Bay, which are perceived to have severely damaged coral habitats and fish stocks.

• A decline in overall fish catches has been observed in recent years. This is partly blamed upon the activities of trawlers, but it was acknowledged that this cannot be the only reason, because trawling has been limited in recent years but the catch has continued to decline.

• Low quality of drinking water

• Poor health services

• A lack of employment opportunities provided by the outside investors involved in the area, including the privately owned pearl farm, the sea cucumber fishery and the salt works on Dungonab peninsula. All of these concerns were believed to primarily employ people from outside the area, and were perceived as being users of local resources without any concern for the local people, and without contributing adequately to the welfare of those people.

4.2.2 TRIBAL GROUPS, AND LAND OWNERSHIP. There are two main tribal groups in the survey area: the Korbeb, which is more numerous in Mohammed Qol and the south of the area, and the Beshareen, which is more numerous in Dungonab Village and the north of the area. Relations between these groups are generally good, although rivalry can sometimes be intense. Intertribal relations, including the distribution of land rights between tribes, are governed by agreements between the tribal leaders. These agreements are frequently very long-standing, and are inherited between generations.

Land ownership throughout the area is tribally-based, with the Omda in each village being responsible for the allocation of tribal land to individuals, and for particular uses.

There are a number of unresolved disagreements between the groups within the proposed MPA. Although little detail of these disagreements could be determined during the survey phase the generally good relations between the different groups within the MPA mean that interim solutions appear to have been reached. Of particular significance to the MPA is the fact that there is a lack of agreement about the ownership of some of the coastal land between Mohammed Qol and Dungonab. This lack of agreement has been resolved to date by a mutual understanding that this land will not be developed, or exclusively used, by either group. The accessibility, fragility

66

and good condition of coral communities along parts of this stretch of coast mean that any coastal development here should be disallowed, and the current status of the agreement between the villages may facilitate this objective.

It should be noted that the protection of the rights of the local peoples, of all tribes is likely to be of crucial importance to the successful implementation of a management plan. This is particularly relevant to land tenure and ownership. The current methods of traditional land ownership and allocation are effective, and it should be possible to successfully adapt them (although adaptation is certainly needed) to meet the needs of both the local peoples and the proposed MPA. These needs should be considered to be inseparable.

Ownership of little or possibly none of the land in the area is presently centrally registered. The reason for this was repeatedly cited by the peoples of the area as being the cost and the bureaucracy involved, coupled with the presently largely successful management regime. In order to protect the interests of the local inhabitants it is essential that this situation (the lack of registration of ownership) is rectified as soon as possible. The help and support of the Sudanese government will be needed for this, and possible roles of donors and NGOs in this should be investigated as a matter of priority.

4.2.3 FISHERIES ACTIVITIES. A detailed account of fisheries activities within the proposed MPA is provided in the Annex “Basic Fisheries Survey in the Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island Proposed MPA, Sudan”. An additional brief summary and overview of fisheries activity is presented here, with some additional socio-economic information. Refer to the Fisheries Report for further detail.

Figures 33 and 34 (below) illustrate the distribution and relative sizes of fishing communities, as revealed by the distribution and numbers of fishing boats.

All or almost all fishing activity currently taking place in the proposed MPA is artisanal and shore – based or uses small wooden or fibreglass boats. Industrial trawling and experimental trawling has occurred in the area in the past, but is now rare or non-existent.

Fishing was not traditionally an important activity for the communities of the area until the past 30 – 40 years, with fish prior to this time being caught only for immediate food or subsistence requirements. The main activity of the people was previously pastoralism, the change from pastoralism to fisheries happening in the 1960s and 1970s, due to the development of fishing cooperatives, which were encouraged by government policy.

Prior to this development there were alternatives to fishing available for the local communities, principally in the form of pastoralism, some seasonal agriculture, and work for oil and other companies active in the area. The emphasis on fishing in recent decades has removed these alternatives, and the people are now almost entirely dependent upon fishing for their subsistence and for any cash income. This was repeatedly cited as a real worry by the local communities, who expressed their concerns about excessive dependence upon fisheries for their continued well being, with no alternatives. Observed declines in local catches were a particular cause of this concern.

Fin Fisheries. Fin fisheries of the area are typical of tropical reef fisheries in that they are multi-species in the extreme, although there are favoured or more highly valued species which are preferentially

67

targeted. The Fisheries Report provides a partial species list which identifies over 25 species or species groups that are important for the local fishery, from over 20 families. Highly multi-species fisheries such as this are notoriously difficult to manage for long term sustainability and maintenance of biodiversity, and this factor will have to be taken into account in the development of the Site Specific Management Plan.

In addition to issues related to the highly multi-species nature of the fishery are those related to unsustainable practices targeted at single species or species groups. One of the most valued species in the area is nagil (Plectropomus sp.). Although this has historically been a favoured fishery species in the area of the proposed MPA, as it is throughout much of the Red Sea, the deliberate fishing of spawning aggregations of this species began in the proposed MPA in about 1996, with the chance discovery of the main aggregation area at the southern end of Mukkawar. This fishing of spawning aggregations has since developed into a major fishing activity for the local communities, even though there are economic and ecological disincentives for this. These disincentives are, firstly, the price of the fish falls briefly but dramatically during the spawning fishery, due to the temporarily increased supply. These fish are thus removed from the water in a concentrated but relatively low-value ‘burst’, rather than over a longer period at a higher value. This is likely to result in a considerably lower financial benefit for the local fishing community over the course of one or several years. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, the continued fishing of these spawning aggregations is likely to lead to the collapse of the resource not only at spawning time, but throughout the year and over a very considerable area, due to the destruction of reproductive capacity. Local fishers remarked that they have already observed a general reduction in the abundance of nagil throughout the area. This suggests that collapse of the stock is perhaps imminent. The extremely low abundance of nagil seen during the ecological survey (only a very small percentage of the numbers that would normally be expected), and the generally small size of those that were seen, also indicates that this is likely to be the case.

It is essential that these and other spawning areas be protected from fishing. There is ample evidence from around that world that once these stocks are destroyed they typically take decades to recover, or do not recover at all (see Birkeland, 1997; Birkeland & Friedlander 2001).

Industrial trawling for finfish in the area is known to have caused damage to habitats and even to some fish stocks, and is a source of great resentment and concern for the local fishing communities. At least one spawning aggregation (probably of snappers, Lutjanus sp.) is reported by local fishing communities to have been removed by a single trawling event several years ago. That aggregation has shown no signs of recovery or return, and the species is now uncommon in the area, when it was previously common. As mentioned above, the often permanent nature of such depletions is an increasingly well known phenomenon in tropical coastal fisheries worldwide.

Invertebrate fisheries. Invertebrate fisheries are an important source of secondary and / or seasonal income for the coastal communities of the area. The most important fisheries are those for sea cucumbers (Holothuroidea), also termed beche-de-mer, particularly in their processed state; Trochus, and Strombus and, to a much lesser extent Lambis, Murex and Tridacna. A fishery for wild Pinctada is also reported to still exist, although this appears to presently be at a very low level of intensity. These invertebrate fisheries are largely seasonal, taking place mostly over the summer months, and are entirely or almost entirely cash fisheries for export from the area. Buyers for the products

68

of these fisheries are either from Port Sudan or from outside off Sudan altogether, and almost all of the products, with the possible exception of meat from some of the gastropods, are exported from Sudan.

The vast numbers of empty shells of Strombus, Lambis and Murex found at every survey site throughout the entire survey area testify to both the widespread nature and the importance of these fisheries. However, there are indications of overfishing in these and the Trochus and sea cucumber fisheries. Small size of individuals seen, and in-water scarcity of all of these groups suggests that the area is likely to be a sink for larvae, and is probably not capable of restocking itself. The only one of these groups that clearly ahs healthy local populations is Tridacna, and development of any commercial exploitation of these will result in rapid loss of these animals.

The sea cucumber fishers of Dungonab village are supplied with SCUBA equipment by a fisheries company based in Port Sudan (no SCUBA equipment is supplied to the fishers at Mohammed Qol). Without prompting, the local fishers volunteered the information that many shallow areas are now fished out, and they have to move further from the village, and into deeper waters in order to find economically useful numbers of sea cucumbers. This is a strikingly close parallel to the pattern of extreme over-fishing of sea cucumbers which has occurred throughout many areas of the Indian Ocean coast of East Africa, and indicates that there is an urgent need for effective management of this resource, including the designation of fisheries reserves in order to protect reproductive potential. The use of SCUBA equipment should ultimately be phased out for sea cucumber fisheries.

The health and safety of the SCUBA – diving sea cucumber fishers is of real concern. Although the main field survey took place outside the fishing season for this group, the reconnaissance visit in October 2000 took place while the fishing was still taking place, and discussions were held with the fishers. The sea cucumber fishers interviewed then reported symptoms of decompression sickness, particularly joint pains and other typical decompression symptoms, and reported that in some cases symptoms had proved debilitating. This must be investigated as a matter of priority, and if the fishery is to be allowed to continue in spite of its apparent lack of sustainability (a major consideration for the Management Plan), education about safe diving practices MUST be provided. This should be at the expense of the company or individual who provided the SCUBA equipment initially. Provision of the equipment without adequate training was a grossly irresponsible act.

The need for ecosystem based management of fisheries.

There is an urgent need for the development of effective MPA – based fisheries management for sustainability. The results of the recent ecological and fisheries survey suggest that current fisheries practices in the area are, in the long term, almost certainly unsustainable. Some of the practices such as the deliberate targeting of spawning areas, will certainly destroy some of the more important resources of the area unless brought under control. More widely, there are serious concerns about the conflict between certain types of fisheries and very important biodiversity conservation requirements in some areas. This is particularly the case with the use of fixed nets in areas important for dugong. Use of fixed nets in these areas should be phased out, and alternative (but sustainable) practices introduced in their place.

The attitudes of the local fishing communities towards sustainable fishing practices was generally very positive, and with explanation and discussion it is the belief of the surveyors that such management will be fully acceptable to the local fishing communities.

69

The recommendations for implementation of MPA management have broad support among the local inhabitants so long as that management includes adequate and open consultation and involvement of those communities in the planning and implementation process. The need for both more effective and more equitable management was stipulated by local fishers on a number of occasions during the survey.

Fisheries management measures should include both permanent and seasonal fisheries reserves. These need not cause loss of fisheries productivity to the local fishers, and will ensure the long term sustainability of fishery resources. Gradual introduction of permanent fisheries reserves on a trial basis, to convince the fishing communities of their effectiveness, is recommended. The need for seasonal bans on fishing in the areas of spawning aggregations must be strongly proposed and strongly argued for. An increasing degree of acceptance for such ideas on the part of the local fishing community, as a result of discussions during the course of the survey, suggests that the underlying principles are well understood, and that such recommendations will be accepted. Indeed, the main objection to their implementation was the urgent need for short term income to service debts (see next paragraph).

A major cause of concern and bitter resentment in the area is the agreement under which the villagers of both Mohammed Qol and Dungonab are provided with fibreglass boats by a major fish exporting concern based outside the area. The agreement, resembling a hire-purchase arrangement, has apparently left all or most fishers unable to pay off their resultant debts (for purchase or provision of boats), and forces them to sell their fish at low prices to a single concern: the same concern that provided them with the boats. This situation is both the major source of resentment of fishers in the area, as well as the wider communities, and is likely to be inimical to the implementation of sustainable fishing practices, due to the demands it places upon fishers to make short term profits in order to maintain payments on boats, etc. Resolution of this issue, and implementation of a regime which is both fair to the local fishing communities and which promotes sustainable fishing practices, is essential for the establishment of a successful MPA, and for the long term health of the fisheries of the entire area.

70

Figure 33: The distribution of fishing communities, around Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar

Island, as revealed by the number of boats (data from the Fisheries Report).

71

Figure 34: The distribution of different types of fishing boats fisheries around the Dungonab

Bay and Mukkawar Island area (from the Fisheries Report).

72

Figure 35: The distribution of Beche de Mer landing sites and inshore fisheries around

Dungonab Bay and Mukkawar Island (from the Fisheries report). The fishery is apparently widely distributed throughout the entire area, and so this figure illustrates only landing sites and inshore fisheries sites for this group.

73

4.2.4 OTHER MAJOR ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PROPOSED MPA.. At the time of the survey the area of the proposed MPA encompassed a number of other types of economic activity.

The Dungonab salt works.

The salt works on the southern part of the Dungonab Peninsula has been active for several decades, since at least the early years of the 20th century. The salt pans cover a very large area, but with a very low density of human population to work them. The total number of workers at the plant seldom or never exceeds a hundred, and is usually considerably less than this. The salt is exported from the area by truck to port Sudan, these trucks constituting a major part of the traffic passing through Mohammed Qol (the main road by-passes Dungonab village).

Overall the environmental impact of the salt works beyond its own boundaries appears to be minimal, and given that the activity has been carried on for almost a century it is clearly now environmentally sustainable in its present form. Any changes in methods or expansion of its size will however have to be closely monitored, and will need approval from and integration with the MPA management before implementation.

Improvement of transport links between the salt works and Port Sudan will need very carefully management and controlled within a Protected Area system, as such improvements will open up the entire area of the proposed MPA, including the extremely important and sensitive habitats of both north and south Dungonab Bay, the Dungonab Peninsula, and Khor Naitaib to easy and possibly very damaging access. These areas will be particularly sensitive to increased or inappropriate use, and will be one of the key areas of concern for sustainable management and protection within the MPA system.

The private pearl oyster farm.

Figure 36 shows the distribution of the activities of the privately owned oyster farm within Dungonab Bay in early 2002. At the time of the survey the farm was experiencing severe problems with the mass die-off of oysters which has been a feature of repeated attempts at such activities over several decades, and it was uncertain whether the aquaculture would continue inside the bay, move out of the bay into waters near Mukkawar, or cease altogether. This die-of problem ahs already halted the government sponsored farm which used until recently to operate at Dungonab.

The activities of the oyster farm need not conflict with the design, implementation or management of an MPA, and it should be possible for this activity to successfully coexist with an MPA in the long term, provided that it remains the environmentally innocuous activity that it presently appears to be. The exception to this was large amounts of plastic litter throughout the survey area (see Section 4.2.5, below). If oyster farming remains an activity within the MPA it is strongly recommended that:

a) A monitoring programme to include water quality, substrate (coral, algae, invertebrates) monitoring and fish community monitoring be put in place to around the farming activity to identify any adverse impacts that may occur.

b) Close communication is maintained at all times between the MPA management and the farm management. The MPA management should be consulted before any

74

changes in aquaculture activities are implemented, and should have powers of veto over any potentially damaging activities proposed.

c) The local communities should be provided with greater opportunities to become involved in and benefit from such activities.

Figure 36: The distribution of activities of the private oyster farming (red areas) within Dungonab Bay in early 2002. This distribution of activities is likely to have changed considerably before the end of 2002 (Mr. Andrea Bari, Farm Manager, personal communication)

75

4.2.5 POLLUTION. Figures 37 and 38 illustrate the distribution and relative abundance of litter and oil pollution at Rapid Assessment Sites throughout the survey area in early 2002. Litter was very widespread and constitutes a real problem in some areas. The exposed coasts of the eastern side of the Dungonab Peninsula were in places covered in very unsightly glass, metal and plastic litter. This appeared to be almost, but not entirely, the result of drifted litter from the sea. A more serious management issue is the serious litter problem of the beaches at Khor Shanaab, which is clearly the result of camping activities.

Both Mohammed Qol and Dungonab village have large amounts of litter around them, although the problem is more severe at Mohammed Qol. An important source of litter was the oyster farm, with distinctive plastic from the farm found almost everywhere in the area.

Figure 37: Distribution of litter at Rapid Sites in the survey area.

76

Oil pollution in the survey area is relatively scarce, and appears to originate entirely from the sea rather than locally. This situation will need monitoring and may change if further development occurs within the area. Almost all oil pollution was on exposed shores open to the open sea, with only one site inside Dungonab bay having any recorded oiling.

Figure 38: Distribution of oil pollution at Rapid Sites.

77

5 LOGISTICAL AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS UPON THE CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY OF THE DUNGONAB BAY – MUKKAWAR ISLAND AREA.

5.1 WEATHER CONDITIONS The survey design (Kemp, April 2001) identified May / June or September / October as the most appropriate times for the survey, due to weather constraints. High winds, and resultant poor water conditions in particular were identified as a concern during the period October – May. For a variety of reasons the survey was carried out during the windy season, and this had an impact upon the conduct of the surveys. In particular it meant that:

1. Detailed survey methods could not be employed at many sites due to turbidity of the water and to wave action that precluded the effective use of tapes or video transects.

2. The number of boat survey days outside the shelter of Dungonab Bay were curtailed.

These issues were particularly problematic during the first ten days of the survey, and led to an early change in emphasis, away from detailed survey work towards a much greater emphasis on Rapid Assessments.

5.2 LACK OF SUFFICIENT EQUIPMENT , PARTICULARLY TRANSPORT. A lack of sufficient and reliable transport on land and by sea curtained survey work on several ways. Vehicles for land – based work were insufficient and initially unreliable (the issue of reliability was resolved during the second half of the survey period). This contributed to changes in survey strategy made early on in the field survey period, and limited the mobility of the different survey groups (particularly the fisheries surveyors)considerably at times.

A lack of sufficient live-aboard survey time meant that survey of offshore reefs was extremely limited, although enough work could be done in the two days that a boat was available to provide a broad indicative overview. However, detailed work could not be fully effectively carried out during this time.

Particular thanks must be extended to the security police at both Mohammed Qol and Dungonab Village for their magnificent support through the provision of small boats for inshore work during the survey.

.

5.3 DURATION OF FIELDWORK The field survey took place over a 21 day period. Three or four of these days were effectively lost to equipment, weather and transport problems. This period was sufficient to enable the survey teams to obtain a broad indicative assessment of the resources of the area, but meant that, in combination with transport and weather problems, far less detailed work could be carried out that ideally would have been the case. The original survey design required a minimum of six weeks of survey work, including 10 – 14 days of live-aboard work. 5.4 SATELLITE IMAGE PROCESSING The lack of sufficient underwater photography or underwater video, and the problems mentioned regarding the duration of the field surveys discussed above, had implications for the effectiveness of image processing.

78

The limited boat access meant that many of the sites that should have been surveyed from boats were instead surveyed from the shore. As a result GPS positions were in many cases not located directly over the survey site, which meant it was difficult to identify these biotope areas in the satellite image with a very high degree of certainty. This caused some considerable problems in the development of signature sets for the supervised classification. Some problems in developing the signature sets were also due to differences in water quality between the inside and the outside of Dungonab Bay.

As is true for all the areas surveyed using remotely sensed data for the PERSGA SAP MPA programme the marine and coastal habitat maps have not been assessed for accuracy post - processing. This is not fatal to the surveys by any means, but it is recommended that the accuracy of the biotope maps be further assessed at a later date to determine how closely the categories mapped agree with those found in the field. 5.5 THE LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY. Perhaps the greatest constraint upon the survey of the proposed Dungonab bay – Mukkawar Island MPA in terms of importance to the development of a Site – Specific Management Plan, was the lack of a dedicated socio-economic survey. No socio-economist was present during the survey apart from one visit of less than a single day. No effective socio-economic work relevant to the development of a Marine Protected Area for conservation and sustainable management was carried out during the survey beyond the efforts of the Ecological and Fisheries survey teams. Dr Zuheir Mahmoud in particular was able to undertake some basic information gathering.

The lack of a fully trained and locally experienced socio-economist with an understanding of the requirements of Protected Area design and management means that the type and quantity of socio-economic information gathered during the field survey phase was limited. This situation was exacerbated by the short duration of the field phase, which meant that little time was available for the fisheries or ecological surveyors to devote to wider socio-economic information gathering without seriously compromising their own tasks as defined in their own Terms of Reference.

79

6 CONCLUSION Protection of the marine and coastal environment of the Dungonab Bay - Mukkawar area has the potential to provide a strong foundation for marine conservation throughout the mainland coast of Sudan, and has the potential to be a flagship MPA of similar significance to the Gulf of Aqaba protectorates in Egypt. Features which lead to this conclusion include:

• Exceptional and highly varied coral communities. The coral communities present in the area are exceptionally varied, and on the basis of the recent rapid survey appear to represent many of the community types typical of not only the northern Red Sea, but the southern Red Sea as well. The damage inflicted on coral communities in the area by the 1998 coral bleaching event is patchy, and is not as severe as has been reported for other areas of the Red Sea and Indian Ocean (Wilkinson,2000). Corals inside the bay are entirely unimpacted by this event and may in future provide a refuge for corals of the region from similar events.

• Diverse coral reef fish communities, with perhaps unprecedented large variations resembling biogeographic patterns. The remarkable coincidence within the survey area of both north / central Red Sea and southern red Sea fish communities is an indication of the importance of this area. Effective management and conservation of the fish and coral communities of the proposed MPA will contribute to the conservation of a disproportionate range of species and community types.

• One of the most important turtle nesting areas of the Red Sea region. The entire area, and particularly the beaches on the eastern side of Mukkawar Island, are of at least regional and perhaps global importance of turtle nesting. At least three species of marine turtle nest within the boundaries of the proposed MPA.

• Exceptional and already internationally recognised importance for birds. The very large numbers of nesting osprey and terns observed during the survey represent only a part of the breeding bird population, resident and migratory, of the area. The rare endemic the Crab Plover nests in the area, as do numerous other species at seasons outside the survey period.

• Regionally or perhaps globally important aggregations of elasmobranches. There is virtually no scientific information about these aggregations, and research and monitoring is needed.

• Exceptional coastal landscapes. The landscapes of the proposed MPA are of exceptional quality, and are largely unspoiled by development, pollution or litter. These unspoiled coastal landscapes, so characteristic of the region, are both fragile and increasingly rare in the Red Sea, and are worthy of protection in themselves.

• The need for effective ecosystem–based fisheries management for long term sustainability within the entire area of the proposed MPA. This is perhaps the single most important issue facing the management of the MPA in the short to medium term (as well as any other authority with an interest in maintaining the long term productivity of the fisheries of this important area). Failure to implement such management will certainly compromise the biodiversity conservation objectives of the MPA. Given the increasingly extensive evidence

80

for extremely slow recovery (or often complete non-recovery) of heavily overexploited tropical coastal fisheries (see, for examples, Birkeland 1997, Bohnsack 1997, Birkeland & Friedlander 2001) a failure in this respect may result in permanent loss of some or most of the fishery resources of the area. This is of particularly critical relevance to the apparently increasing fishing of spawning aggregations / nursery sites in the waters of the Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar Island area.

• The potential for high value and sustainable marine and coastal tourism. The international and regional surveyors were unanimously of the opinion that the diving at the offshore reefs is among the best in the world.

The beauty, fragility and importance of the Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar area means that development of an integrated management plan, based upon Integrated Coastal Zone Management, will be essential if the benefits from sustainable fisheries, tourism and other significant activities are to be reaped and maintained by and for the local communities and Sudan. There are already indications that unsustainable practices threaten important aspects of the economic and conservation value of the area. Implementation of management must be achieved in advance of significant development.

It should be pointed out here that the development of an improved coastal road is the most significant immediate threat to the integrity, health and biodiversity of the area. Any such road must be carefully designed and set back from the coast if the basic aims of sustainable development and conservation in the area are to be achieved. This will have to be a central recommendation of the Site Specific Management Plan. Bringing the road close to the shore will render effective management and conservation of all or most of the mainland areas and nearshore reefs and islands very expensive, and perhaps impossible, due to the very great ease of access that it will afford to fragile biological communities and resources that are frequently very limited in area, and so are particularly easily degraded and destroyed.

81

7 REFERENCES Ali, O.M.M., Mahmoud, Z.N. & Osman, F.O. (1999). Baseline study of Bashayer Marine Terminal. Greater Nile Petroleum Operation Company, Sudan.83 pp.

Blum, S.D. (1989) Biogeography of the Chaetodontidae: an analysis of allopatry among closely related species. Env. Biol. Fishes 25: 9-31.

Birkeland, C. (1997) Life and Death of Coral Reefs (various chapters). Chapman & Hall, New York. 536pp.

Birkeland, C. & Friedlander, A. (2001). The Importance of Refuges for Reef Fish Replenishment in Hawai’i. Hawaii Audubon Society. 19pp.

Botros, G.A. (1971) Fishes of the Red Sea. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. a. Rev. 9: 221-348.

Burgess, W.E. (1978) Butterflyfishes of the world: a monograph of the family Chaetodontidae. TFH publications. Neptune City. 832pp.

Crossland, C. (1907) Reports on the marine biology of the Sudanese Red Sea. 4. The recent history of the coral reefs of the mid-west shores of the Red Sea. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 31: 14-30.

Crossland, C. (1911) Reports on the marine biology of the Sudanese Red Sea. A physical description of Khor Dungonab. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 31: 265-286.

Crossland, C. (1913) Desert and water gardens of the Red Sea. London.

Dor, M. (1984) CLOFRES. Checklist of the Fishes of the Red Sea. Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem. XXII + 427pp

Farah, O. M. (1982) The bathymetry, oceanography and bottom sediments of Dungonab Bay (Red Sea), Sudan. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Delaware, 1982. 148pp.

Fishpool, L. D. C. & Evans, M. I., eds. (2001) Important Bird Areas in Africa and associated islands: Priority sites for conservation. Newbury and Cambridge, UK: Pisces Publications and BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No 11).

Forsskål, P. (1775) Descriptiones animalium avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, vermium; quae in itinere orientali observavit. Hauinae, Möller. 164pp Klausewitz, W. (1972) The zoogeographical and paleogeographical problem of the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea according to the ichthyofauna of the littoral. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. India 14: 697-706

Klausewitz, W. (1989) Evolutionary history and zoogeography of the Red Sea ichthyofauna. Fauna of Saudi Arabia 10: 310-337.

Mastaller, M. (1987) Molluscs of the Red Sea. In: A.J. Edwards & S.M. Head (eds) Red Sea. Pergamon Press, Oxford. pp194-214.

Nasr, D.H. (1980). Coastal plankton fauna of the Sudanese Red Sea. Proc. Symp. on the Coastal and Marine Environment of the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Tropical Western Indian Ocean, Vol. III: 561-581. University of Khartoum, 9-14 Jan., 1980.

Ormond, R.F.G. (1976) The Red Sea. In: Promotion of the Establishment of Marine Parks and Reserves in the Northern Indian Ocean including the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Meeting held at Tehran, Iran, 6–10 march 1975. IUCN Publications New Series 35: 115-123.

82

Ormond, R. F. G. (1980) Management and Conservation of Red Sea Habitats. Proc. Symp. Coastal and Marine Environment of the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Tropical Western Indian Ocean, Khartoum. 2: 327 – 372.

Ormond, R. F. G. & Campbell, A. C. (1974) Formation and Breakdown of Acanthaster plancii Aggregations in the Red Sea. Proc. 2nd Int. Coral Reef Symp., Brisbane. 1: 595-619.

Ormond, R.F.G. & Edwards, A.J. (1987) Red Sea Fishes. In: A.J. Edwards & S.M. Head (eds) Red Sea. Pergamon Press, Oxford. pp251-287.

Randall, J.E. (1983) Red Sea Reef Fishes. Immel, London. 192pp.

Roberts, C.M., Dawson Shepherd, A.R. & Ormond, R.F.G. (1992) Large-scale variation in assemblage structure of Red Sea butterflyfishes and angelfishes. J.Biogeog. 19: 239-250.

Sheppard, C.R.C., Price, A.R.G. & Roberts, C.M. (1992) Marine ecology of the Arabian region. Academic Press, London and San Diego. 359pp.

Walker, D.I. (1987) Benthic Algae. In: A.J. Edwards & S.M. Head (eds) Red Sea. Pergamon Press, Oxford. pp 153-168.

Winterbottom, R. (1985) Revision of the congrogadid Haliophis (Pisces: Perciformes), with the description of a new species from Indonesia, and comments on the endemic fish fauna of the northern Red Sea. Can. J. Zool. 63: 209-217.