[Coral-List] Conservation versus restoration of coral reefs

William Allison allison.billiam at gmail.com
Sun Feb 24 05:52:53 EST 2008


Dear Tom,
I think I am getting it. It appears that you are using a kind of medical
model in which controls are ethically unacceptable. I am sympathetic to the
intent, but suspect the potential of precipitation technology would be more
easily assessed if a conventional research approach was used and the whole
was more thoroughly explained.

Regards,
Bill

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Thomas Goreau <goreau at bestweb.net> wrote:

> Dear Bill,
> I'm not sure where the wrong information you have came from, as you could
> easily have asked those involved directly in the projects. For some curious
> reason there is flood of deliberate misinformation on these projects spread
> by those who have never seen them.
>
> The breakwater reef was built in 1997, the year before the bleaching, and
> had at least 500 to a thousand corals growing well on it before bleaching.
> Most survived, while almost none of the corals on the surrounding reef did.
> The breakwater reef was built in front of a severely eroding beach, and
> turned it into 50 feet (15 m) of new beach sand growth in a few years. The
> three small electrical reef structures were small enough (only 3 m or so
> high) that we did not bother to mention them.
>
> As mentioned earlier, we used the corals growing in the natural reef all
> around the island as controls, and filmed them extensively before and after
> bleaching. Mortality of the natural reef was around 95% on the outer slope,
> and around 99% on the reef flat, which got much hotter, we measured
> temperatures of 34 degrees C in this habitat (these are visual estimates,
> but exact numbers can be taken from my before and after digital video
> transects in Maldives and Seychelles). Prior to Wolf Hilbertz and myself
> starting the electrical trickle charge work in the Maldives with Azeez
> Hakeem, Azeez had cemented thousands of corals onto bare rock and cement
> blocks of various sizes. We also filmed them as controls. They all died.
>
> We had built uncharged steel reefs in Jamaica in the late 1980s, but they
> quickly rusted and collapsed, so we rescued the corals and put them on the
> electrical structures, because we found from time series photographs that
> the charged corals were growing 3-5 times record rates for those species
> (Porites porites and Acropora cervicornis, photographic data shown in my
> talk at the 1996 ICRS). We quickly realized that, as in a medical study were
> an experimental treatment is so clearly superior to the controls that it
> becomes immoral to continue the control treatment, the only ethical
> treatment is to treat all the patients you can with the best remedy in your
> arsenal. Nevertheless we do have uncharged reefs in several locations in
> Southeast Asia and the Caribbean, only to keep our student's advisors happy,
> and the differences are immediately clear compared to the identical charged
> reefs next to them.
>
> We are now way past the point where there is any justification for killing
> corals as controls, so it is annoying that so many people just want us to
> watch corals die to keep them happy for statistical reasons.  We only want
> to boost the growth of all we can, and see no point whatsoever in prolonging
> coral suffering.  The results of the spectacular growth of corals on our
> projects are visible on hundreds of projects we have done in some 20
> countries, and dying coral reefs are visible in over 100 countries, to serve
> as controls. We now have some 6 independent studies backing our growth rate
> data presented at ICRS 12 years ago, and we find it astonishing to hear
> continued denial from people who seem to believe anything at all they see
> printed on paper, but won''t trust their own lying eyes to look at these
> projects for themselves.
>
> I saw two of the concrete road bed structures, not all 12, so I don't know
> which ones they were, but they were horrifically barren post-industrial
> concrete wastelands. We'd rather just grow  exceptionally fast-growing
> heat-resistant corals swarming with fish schools than waste time propagating
> these sorts of misguided efforts as controls, because anyone can see that
> they hardly work.
>
> I'll be in the field for a while, and unable to respond.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tom
>
> Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
> President
> Global Coral Reef Alliance
> 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
> 617-864-4226
> goreau at bestweb.net
> http://www.globalcoral.org
>
> On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:35 PM, William Allison wrote:
>
> Dear Tom,
>
>
> Thanks for that information. I had discounted the free-standing breakwall
> because until you mentioned it, I had the impression that it had not been
> entirely completed before the 1998 bleaching event. I did not know of the
> three small cones and could not even find them on your website. Despite that
> information gap, I don't think I was completely incorrect – see below.
>
>
> Btw: I'd be pleased to take up your invitation and visit your artificial
> reefs sometime. Perhaps you would suggest it to Azeez. The free-standing
> breakwall function is especially intriguing.
>
>
> Here is my response to your last. Please excuse me if this seems
> elementary but I want to make sure I have got it right. An experiment aims
> to control the effects of all variables other than those under
> investigation. Whatever the other alleged attributes of the technology you
> are employing might be, it seems that stimulation of coral growth and
> resistance to bleaching mortality, produced directly or indirectly by the
> electrical current, is the main effect relevant to this discussion. To test
> this a sufficient number of identical replicate and control
> structures should be randomly dispersed on the reef and transplanted corals
> randomly selected and affixed to the structures, all within a very short
> time interval. If the requirement for identical replicate structures and
> near simultaneous initiation is relaxed, we are still stuck with no controls
> if the effect of electricity is to be evaluated. I hope you will now tell me
> that such structures were in place prior to and during 1998. The general
> point is that until an accessible, clear, precise, description of your
> "experiment" is available, complete with aims, falsifiable hypotheses and
> detailed experimental design, the validity of your stated results cannot be
> critically assessed. From another perspective, because you are promoting
> this approach as a conservation superlative and soliciting money that could
> otherwise be spent on other conservation approaches, the onus is on you to
> provide satisfactory evidence that can be critically reviewed. Until this is
> done it will seem more like snake oil than science. Why hasn't it been set
> out on your website or better still in a peer reviewed article? With regard
> to this aspect, your mention of the artificial reef tests on Galu Faru reef
> is apposite.
>
>
> Your description of an artificial reef project as "…a couple of hundred
> meters of concrete superhighway roadbed…" seems to approximate the one set
> up by Newcastle on Anchorage Reef. I know of no other of that vintage. It
> comprised 12 randomly dispersed units of which nine, each about 7-8 m long
> were vaguely like roadbed and three were somewhat larger and made of one
> meter hollow cubes. These three must have stood out from the rest as
> distinctly unsuperhighway-like, even by SUV standards. That all 360 tons of
> concrete and steel were imported from the UK is not the issue here.
>
>
> With respect to the above-mentioned reef, the assertion that "Thousands of
> corals had been cemented to it, but virtually all of them died BEFORE the
> bleaching." is questionable for several reasons (I assume that the "it" is a
> typo and you meant "them").
> 1). Over the years I have frequently looked in on the Anchorage Reef site.
> Your assertion that most of the corals died before the 1998 bleaching is
> astonishing, but not inexplicable if only a few of the widely dispersed
> sites were visited. Although many units supported flourishing coral carpets,
> some were impoverished, particularly those with low topographic relief (and
> possibly resembling "superhighway roadbed"). Perhaps you were exposed to
> only such units? When, exactly, did you visit the site, or did someone else
> provide you with the video – not necessarily of all of the units?
> 2). Only three of the twelve units bore coral transplants and these
> transplants totaled hundreds, not thousands. The rest of the "thousands of
> corals" you mention seeing got there under their own larval steam, implying
> that if one is compelled to built artificial reefs of any sort,
> transplantation is not only unnecessary, but with its financial and carbon
> costs and largely unquantified effects on the donor reefs, undesirable.
>
>
> Details of the Newcastle project's aims, methods, research design, and
> results are readily accessible (Clark & Edwards, 1994, 1999), as is their
> largely negative assessment of the artificial reef and transplant approach
> for reef rehabilitation (Clark & Edwards, 1999; Edwards & Clark, 1999).
>
>
> References with abstracts appended.
>
>
> Best wishes to you too,
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> References:
> Clark, S. and A. J. Edwards (1994). "Use of artificial reef structures to
> rehabilitate reef flats degraded by coral mining in the Maldives." *Bulletin
> of Marine Science* *55*(2-3): 726-746.
> Abstract
> Three hundred and sixty tons of concrete reef structures have been
> deployed over a 4-ha experimental site on a 1-2 m deep reef flat in the
> Maldives which was mined for coral 20 years ago and still has less than
> 2.5% live coral cover. Colonization of four sets of three, approximately
> 50 m2, artificial reef structures of varying topographic complexity and
> stabilizing effect, and one set of three replicate 50 m2 mined control areas
> has been monitored. All structures were rapidly colonized by fish.
>
>
> Clark, S. and A. J. Edwards (1999). "An evaluation of artificial reef
> structures as tools for marine habitat rehabilitation in the Maldives." *Aquatic
> Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems* *9*(1): 5-21.
> Abstract
> 1. In the Maldives, coral mining for the construction industry has
> resulted in widespread degradation of shallow reef-flat areas. Due to the
> loss of these coastal resources and the associated problems of coastal
> erosion, there is an urgent need to find practical methods for
> rehabilitating mined reefs.  2. The slow rates of natural recovery of
> mined reefs has prompted interest in the potential of artificial reef
> structures to rehabilitate these degraded habitats. An experimental
> artificial reef programme was initiated in 1990 to discover whether it is
> feasible to use a bio-engineering approach to kick-start natural reef
> recovery.  3. The main goals of the project were to restore the capacity
> of degraded reefs for sea defense and their ability to harbour fish species.
> Accordingly, 360 t of concrete structures of varying levels of topographic
> complexity, stabilising effect and cost were deployed on a heavily mined
> study site close to the capital island, Male.  4. Within 1 year of
> deployment, the artificial reef structures had similar or greater species
> richness and densities of reef fish than did control pristine reef flats.
> However, the community structure of the fish populations on the artificial
> reef structures was significantly different to that on unmined reef flats.
> 5. Preliminary results of a monitoring programme indicated that
> substantial coral recruitment had occurred on the larger reef structures
> which were each supporting ca. 500 colonies, some of which were approaching
> 25 cm in diameter after 3.5 years.  An evaluation of the effectiveness of
> the various artificial reef structures is discussed in relation to their
> design features and costs and in line with timescales for the recovery
> processes.
>
>
> Edwards, A. J. and S. Clark (1999). "Coral Transplantation: A Useful
> Management Tool or Misguided Meddling?" *Marine Pollution Bulletin* *37*(08-12):
> 474-487.
> Abstract
> The primary objectives of coral transplantation are to improve reef
> `quality' in terms of live coral cover, biodiversity and topographic
> complexity. Stated reasons for transplanting corals have been to: (1)
> accelerate reef recovery after ship groundings, (2) replace corals killed by
> sewage, thermal effluents or other pollutants, (3) save coral communities or
> locally rare species threatened by pollution, land reclamation or pier
> construction, (4) accelerate recovery of reefs after damage by Crown-of-
> thorns starfish or red tides, (5) aid recovery of reefs following dynamite
> fishing or coral quarrying, (6) mitigate damage caused by tourists engaged
> in water-based recreational activities, and (7) enhance the attractiveness
> of whether the receiving area is failing to recruit naturally.
> The potential benefits and dis-benefits of coral trans- plantation are
> examined in the light of the results of re- search on both coral
> transplantation and recruitment with particular reference to a 4.5 year
> study in the Maldives. We suggest that in general, unless receiving areas
> are failing to recruit juvenile corals, natural recovery processes are
> likely to be sufficient in the medium to long term and that transplantation
> should be viewed as a tool of last resort. We argue that there has been too
> much focus on transplanting fast-growing branching corals, which in general
> naturally recruit well but tend to survive trans- plantation and re-location
> relatively poorly, to create short-term increases in live coral cover, at
> the expense of slow-growing massive corals, which generally survive
> transplantation well but often recruit slowly. In those cases where
> transplantation is justified, we advocate that a reversed stance, which
> focuses on early addition of slowly recruiting massive species to the
> recovering community, rather than a short-term and sometimes short-lived
> increase in coral cover, may be more appropriate in many cases.
>
>
> Edwards, A. J., S. Clark, et al. (2001). "Coral bleaching and mortality on
> artificial and natural reefs in Maldives in 1998, sea surface temperature
> anomalies and initial recovery." *Marine Pollution Bulletin* *42*(1):
> 7-15.
> The bleaching and subsequent mortality of branching and massive corals on
> artificial and natural reefs in the central atolls of Maldives in 1998 are
> examined with respect to sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies. SST
> normally peaks in April-May in Maldives. The UK Meteorological Office's
> Global sea-Ice and SST data set version 2.3b shows that in 1998 monthly
> mean SST was 1.2±4 S.D. above the 1950-1999 average during the warmest
> months (March-June), with the greatest anomaly in May of +2.1°C. Bleaching
> was first reported in mid-April and was severe from late April to mid-May
> with some recovery evident by late-May. At least 98% of branching corals
> (Acroporidae, Pocilloporidae) on artificial structures deployed on a reef
> flat in 1990 died whereas the majority of massive corals (Poritidae,
> Faviidae, Agariciidae) survived the bleaching. The pre-bleaching coral
> community on the artificial reefs in 1994 was 95% branching corals and 5%
> massives (n = 1589); the post-bleaching community was 3% branching corals
> and 97% massives (n = 248). Significant reductions in live coral cover were
> seen at all natural reefs surveyed in the central atolls, with average live
> coral cover decreasing from about 42% to 2%, a 20-fold reduction from
> pre-bleaching levels. A survey of recruitment of juvenile corals to the
> artificial structures 10 months after the bleaching event showed that 67% of
> recruits (>0.5 cm diameter) were acroporids and pocilloporids and 33% were
> from massive families (n = 202) compared to 94% and 6%, respectively, in
> 1990-1994 (n = 3136). Similar post-bleaching dominance of recruitment by
> branching corals was seen on nearby natural reef (78% acroporids and
> pocilloporids; 22% massives). A linear regression of April mean monthly SST
> against year was highly significant (p < 0:001) and suggests a rise of
> 0:16°C per decade. If this trend continues, by 2030 mean April SST in the
> central atolls will normally exceed the anomaly level at which corals appear
> there are susceptible to mass bleaching.
>
>
> On Feb 17, 2008 6:38 PM, Thomas Goreau <goreau at bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear Bill,
> > Your statements about controls and replicates in our project are
> > completely incorrect. I guess you have not seen them yourself? One electric
> > reef structure (roughly 5 m high, 4 m wide at the base) on the fore reef
> > slope had about 16 times higher survival than surrounding reefs, three more
> > smaller projects (each about 3 m high, and 2x2 meters base) in the same
> > habitat had similar results, and one structure on the reef flat (50 m long,
> > 1.5 m high, about 5 m wide) had about 50 times higher survival than
> > surrounding reefs. The larger projects had many hundreds of corals on them,
> > not just a few.  Another large project was done after bleaching, and so has
> > on bearing on bleaching survival. For controls we compared thousands of
> > corals that had previously been cemented on to concrete blocks and dead
> > reef. Even though they were all doing well prior to bleaching, every single
> > one of the control coral transplanted using conventional methods died,
> > i.e. 100% mortality and 0% survival, compared to around 1-5% survival of
> > natural corals on the nearby reef, and 50-80 percent survival on the
> > electric reefs. We have hundreds of photographs and around 50 hours of
> > digital video transects of the electric reefs, natural reefs, and control
> > transplants taken before and after bleaching that document these results.
> > Typical video of all three before during and after were presented at ICRI.
> >
> > I'm not sure if the artificial reef project by the World Bank you are
> > referring to was done before or after the bleaching? If after it has no
> > bearing on survival from bleaching. The only other reef restoration project
> > I looked at in North Male Atoll, was where a couple of hundred meters of
> > concrete superhighway roadbed was laid on a dead reef. Thousands of corals
> > had been cemented to it, but virtually all of them died BEFORE the
> > bleaching. I have video footage of the entire length of these projects, and
> > the contrast with our results on the electric reefs  couldn't possibly be
> > more dramatic. I have not had the money to get back to the Maldives for the
> > last 7 years, but since you live there in the same atoll as both of these
> > projects, you can easily contrast them yourself. I think you will still find
> > the difference extraordinary and look forward to your personal observations
> > of the coral and fish abundance on our projects compared to the concrete
> > planting projects.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >  On Feb 17, 2008, at 6:11 PM, William Allison wrote:
> >
> >  Dear Tom,
> >
> > In your message of Feb 2 (repeated Feb 13) you assert that the major
> > funding agencies are neglecting your product because they have given up on
> > coral reef restoration. Without condoning it, I can think of at least one
> > artificial reef project in Maldives funded by an arm of the World Bank in
> > recent years. Perhaps there is another explanation for your situation.
> >
> > Despite the extraordinary Maldives bleaching results presented in your
> > message, interest may be low because the experimental design cannot sustain
> > the conclusions. In this case there was one experimental unit (a dome made
> > of steel rod grid to which corals were tied and the whole subjected to
> > electrical input). There were no replicates, there were no controls.
> > Proceeding from basic experimental design principles, valid inferences about
> > an experimental effect are not possible from this setup. Perhaps you should
> > work on that aspect.
> >
> > I refer specifically to this segment of your message:
> > >> >> There is only one method known that can keep corals alive under
> > >> >> high temperatures that would ordinarily kill them. In the Maldives
> > >> >> in 1998 the corals we were growing with our electrical trickle
> > >> >> charging method had 16 to 50 times higher survival than
> > >> >> surrounding reefs (Please note that is TIMES higher survival, not
> > >> >> PERCENT. See T. Goreau, W. Hilbertz, & A. Azeez Hakeem, 2000,
> > >> >> Increased Coral and Fish Survival on Mineral Accretion Reef
> > >> >> Structures in the Maldives after the 1998 Bleaching Event,
> > >> >> International Coral Reef Symposium, abstracts p. 263). Our corals
> > >> >> bleached too, because they were exposed to the same temperatures,
> > >> >> but they did not die,
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bill Allison
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2008 10:52 AM, Thomas Goreau <goreau at bestweb.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Dear Dee Von,
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that really works is to stop algae killing reefs is
> > > > to stop polluting the water with nutrients, then the weedy algae
> > > > die back very fast. In one bay in Jamaica that I got cleaned up of
> > > > nutrient sources 10 years ago the weedy algae have not come back,
> > > > and elkhorn is growing again! But we also have to cut out the
> > > > greenhouse gas emissions too and absorb the excess CO2 now in the
> > > > atmosphere.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:46 AM, DeeVon Quirolo wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Well stated Tommy--and the current loss of corals to disease
> > > >> driven by pollution and poor water quality is under-estimated,
> > > >> with some managers actually mistaking white diseases for bleaching
> > > >> to compound the problem.  If we were to put available resources
> > > >> into cleaning up the water, coral reefs would be far more
> > > >> resilient than we ever imagined; above all coral reefs need is
> > > >> clear, clean, nutrient-free waters to thrive.  What a simple
> > > >> concept; yet millions are being spent looking for other answers
> > > >> while ignoring this obvious, to paraphrase it,  "whale in the
> > > room".
> > > >>
> > > >> All the best, DeeVon Quirolo,  Reef Relief
> > >  >>
> > > >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Thomas Goreau
> > > >> <goreau at bestweb.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> From: Thomas Goreau <goreau at bestweb.net>
> > > >> >> Date: February 2, 2008 1:08:20 PM EST
> > > >> >> To: coral-list coral-list <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> > > >> >> Cc: miguel_castrence at fulbrightweb.org
> > > >> >> Subject: Conservation versus restoration of coral reefs
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Dear Miguel,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Too true, as pointed out in the New York Times article you
> > > quote,
> > > >> >> just  letting reefs die as a lost cause is the effective result
> > > of
> > > >> >> the largely unspoken consensus of most of the big conservation
> > > >> >> groups,. governments, and funding agencies. At the UN Climate
> > > >> >> Change Conference in Bali, the future of coral reefs and low
> > > lying
> > > >> >> coasts was deliberately and knowingly sacrificed, by those who
> > > >> >> simply want to continue business as usual and the profits it
> > > >> >> brings them.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Since the models being used to project future temperature and
> > > sea
> > > >> >> level impacts have serious and systematic flaws that cause them
> > > to
> > > >> >> under-estimate future impacts of global warming, the situation
> > > is
> > > >> >> more dire than they realize. The predictions being made by the
> > > >> >> models for the impacts on coral reefs are mere guesses, not only
> > > >> >> do they underestimate the mean rates of increase shown by the
> > > data
> > > >> >> (which will certainly accelerate) but also they also ignore the
> > > >> >> variability of extreme events. An exceptionally hot year or a
> > > big
> > > >> >> storm will wipe these areas out LONG before mean temperature
> > > >> >> change and sea level rise does. No number of papers based on
> > > >> >> models in Science and Nature or wishful thinking from IYOR can
> > > >> >> reverse this.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> The bulk of the "managing resilience" fad now underway has
> > > nothing
> > > >> >> in fact to do with real resilience, in the sense of making
> > > corals
> > > >> >> more capable of withstanding thermal stress. It is instead a
> > > >> >> desperate search for those sites that had less stress to begin
> > > >> >> with, due to local weather or circulation patterns, or had
> > > already
> > > >> >> long lost the stress-sensitive species and therefore
> > > superficially
> > > >> >> seem to appear more stress-tolerant. As thermal stress
> > > increases,
> > > >> >> even those few areas lucky enough to have escaped its serious
> > > >> >> effects so far will succumb, sooner rather than later, for the
> > > >> >> reasons stated above. Nevertheless, after the Indian Ocean
> > > tsunami
> > > >> >> the World Bank Expert Group on Coral Reef Restoration and the
> > > >> >> International Coral Reef Initiative told the countries affected
> > > >> >> that restoration is "neither feasible nor prudent" and that they
> > > >> >> should do nothing at all, they should just wait and the
> > > resilient
> > > >> >> reefs would grow back all by themselves. But almost all of the
> > > >> >> reefs in these places were already long dead for one reason or
> > > >> >> another, and had failed to recover!
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> There is only one method known that can keep corals alive under
> > > >> >> high temperatures that would ordinarily kill them. In the
> > > Maldives
> > > >> >> in 1998 the corals we were growing with our electrical trickle
> > > >> >> charging method had 16 to 50 times higher survival than
> > > >> >> surrounding reefs (Please note that is TIMES higher survival,
> > > not
> > > >> >> PERCENT. See T. Goreau, W. Hilbertz, & A. Azeez Hakeem, 2000,
> > > >> >> Increased Coral and Fish Survival on Mineral Accretion Reef
> > > >> >> Structures in the Maldives after the 1998 Bleaching Event,
> > > >> >> International Coral Reef Symposium, abstracts p. 263). Our
> > > corals
> > > >> >> bleached too, because they were exposed to the same
> > > temperatures,
> > > >> >> but they did not die, because they had more metabolic energy to
> > > >> >> resist stress. Therefore there is a proven way to keep reefs
> > > alive
> > > >> >> where they would otherwise die, and in our Coral Arks in some 20
> > > >> >> countries we are now growing more than 80% of all the coral
> > > genera
> > > >> >> in the world, despite absolutely no funding whatsoever for
> > > serious
> > > >> >> coral reef restoration or adaptation work. This work is entirely
> > > >> >> being done with very small individual donations and in-kind
> > > >> >> funding from concerned locals in poor countries who just want to
> > > >> >> keep their corals and fish alive even though the international
> > > >> >> community and funding agencies have let them know in the most
> > > >> >> tangible possible way that they couldn't care less if they die.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Our work has been widely ridiculed as a futile waste of time by
> > > >> >> those tossing around the big bucks. They say: if you can't save
> > > it
> > > >> >> all, what's the point? Our response is: if we don't save all we
> > > >> >> possibly can, what will we have left? They say: it is very
> > > >> >> dangerous to tell people you can restore reefs because then you
> > > >> >> are encouraging them to go and destroy reefs! We respond: that
> > > is
> > > >> >> like accusing tree planters of causing rainforest destruction!
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> What we can't seem to get these folks to understand is very
> > > >> >> simple. We are already way past the point where conservation
> > > alone
> > > >> >> of what is left can maintain the ecosystem services of coral
> > > >> >> reefs. Every Marine Protected Area I've seen is full of dead and
> > > >> >> dying corals, and no matter how much money is spent setting them
> > > >> >> up and managing them, they are powerless to stop the decline,
> > > much
> > > >> >> less reverse it. If we don't start large scale restoration we
> > > can
> > > >> >> kiss our marine biodiversity, fisheries, tourism,beaches, and
> > > >> >> shore protection goodbye. Large scale restoration is now our
> > > only
> > > >> >> hope. But no decision makers or funders seem to get it. Nor will
> > > >> >> those who predictably respond to this message saying that marine
> > > >> >> protected areas and international campaigns to encourage
> > > >> >> resilience are the answer.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Best wishes,
> > > >> >> Tom
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
> > > >> >> President
> > > >> >> Global Coral Reef Alliance
> > > >> >> 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
> > > >> >> 617-864-4226
> > > >> >> goreau at bestweb.net
> > > >> >> http://www.globalcoral.org
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:00 PM, coral-list-
> > > >> >> request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:31:04 -1000
> > > >> >>> From: Miguel Castrence <miguel_castrence at fulbrightweb.org>
> > > >> >>> Subject: [Coral-List] The Preservation Predicament
> > > >> >>> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> This recent NY Times article caught my attention, especially
> > > this
> > > >> >>> provocative statement:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> "Some conservationists advocate triage, accepting that some
> > > >> >>> ecosystems, like coral reefs, may not survive in a warmer
> > > >> world, and
> > > >> >>> putting their efforts elsewhere."
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> I wonder if such statements could be damaging for our
> > > endeavors.
> > > >> >>> --
> > > >> >>> Miguel Castrence
> > > >> >>> PhD Student | UH-Manoa Geography | www.geography.hawaii.edu
> > > >> >>> Graduate Degree Fellow | East-West Center | eastwestcenter.org
> > > >> >>> Research Assistant | Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology |
> > > >> >>> www.himb.hawaii.edu
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Coral-List mailing list
> > > >> >>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > >> >>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 56, Issue 3
> > > >> >>> *****************************************
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
> > > >> > President
> > > >> > Global Coral Reef Alliance
> > > >> > 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
> > > >> > 617-864-4226
> > > >> > goreau at bestweb.net
> > > >> > http://www.globalcoral.org
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
> > > >> President
> > > >> Global Coral Reef Alliance
> > > >> 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
> > > >> 617-864-4226
> > > >> goreau at bestweb.net
> > > >> http://www.globalcoral.org
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Coral-List mailing list
> > > >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> DeeVon Quirolo, executive director, Reef Relief
> > > >>
> > > >> NOTE: This is a new email address; please change your records.
> > > >>
> > > >> Reef Relief, a global nonprofit organization dedicated to
> > > >> protecting coral reefs (305) 294-3100 fax (305 293-9515
> > > >> www.reefrelief.org Mailing address: Reef Relief, Post Office
> > > >> Box430, Key West, Florida 33041-0430. Key West Headquarters/
> > > >> Environmental Center, 631 Greene Street, Key West, Florida.
> > > >> Bahamas: Captain Roland Roberts House Environmental Center,
> > > >> Parliament Street, New Plymouth, Green Turtle Cay, Abaco, Bahamas
> > > >> tel/fax (242) 365-4014.
> > > >>
> > > >> Do you want to make a difference? With the stroke of your
> > > >> keyboard, you can. Join Reef Relief's free online community at
> > > >> www.reefrelief.org and begin receiving regular updates on coral
> > > >> reef news and opportunities to get involved and take action.
> > >  >
> > > > Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
> > > > President
> > > > Global Coral Reef Alliance
> > > > 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
> > > > 617-864-4226
> > > > goreau at bestweb.net
> > > > http://www.globalcoral.org
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
> > > President
> > > Global Coral Reef Alliance
> > > 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
> > > 617-864-4226
> > > goreau at bestweb.net
> > > http://www.globalcoral.org
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Coral-List mailing list
> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > >
> >
> >
> > Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
> > President
> > Global Coral Reef Alliance
> > 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
> > 617-864-4226
> > goreau at bestweb.net
> > http://www.globalcoral.org
> >
> >
>
>
>



More information about the Coral-List mailing list