[Coral-List] Community consensus on whether or not local efforts are of value to coral reef conservation (Les Kaufman)
Jack Sobel
jsobel at oceanconservancy.org
Fri Nov 3 14:44:06 EST 2006
I was very happy to see Les Kaufman's post on the value of local efforts
to coral reef conservation and strongly put myself in the Option 1 camp
-- "Continue international pressure to resist global climate change, but
focus major resources on the practice of maximally enhancing the
survival and repair potential for coral reef communities" -- though I
would include national and regional efforts in addition to local ones.
I would also stress that such efforts must address fishing impacts in
addition to pollution, other water quality, and global change impacts,
and that arguing that any of these is unimportant, due to the importance
of the others, works against our ability to "maximally enhance the
survival and repair potential for coral reef communities". These
threats are clearly individually important, cumulative, and synergistic.
I also agree with Les's analysis that the Reef Manager's Guide to Coral
Bleaching is a useful and imporant document, despite any identified
shortcomings, and that it will help rather than hurt conservation
efforts.
Jack Sobel, Director
Strategic Conservation Science & Policy
The Ocean Conservancy
2029 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Main Phone: (202)429-5609 ext. 454
Direct Line: (202)351-0454
Mobile/Cell: (202)262-6926
Facsimile: (202)872-0619
Email: jsobel at oceanconservancy.org
Web site: http://www.oceanconservancy.org/
Become an Advocate for Wild, Healthy Oceans
-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of
coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 6:34 AM
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Les Kaufman On Tom Goreau & Jamie Cervino Coral-List Digest,
Vol 41, Issue 6
3. Community consensus on whether or not local efforts are of
value to coral reef conservation. (Les Kaufman)
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:31:40 -0500
From: Les Kaufman <lesk at bu.edu>
Subject: [Coral-List] Community consensus on whether or not local
efforts are of value to coral reef conservation.
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Message-ID: <4C83288F-2C38-477D-89D3-20B7682E49B3 at bu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
format=flowed
Tom and James make highly valid points that are familiar to most of
us. It would be useful to agree on whether or not local efforts are
of any value to coral reef conservation. The answer must not be so
obvious
as suggested in recent posts- i.e., that local efforts are irrelevant
because climate change is global- given that both Tom and James are
involved in aggressive advocacy against land-based nutrient sources,
and Tom has pioneered experiments in local reef restoration (Biorock
installations) that have, ironically, been criticized as pissing in
the wind. We must presume that both Tom and James feel that local
efforts can and do matter, in some way.
The Marshall and Schuttenberg "A Reef manager's Guide to Coral
Bleaching" is actually a very useful educational piece. However, the
authors are strangely mute on those issues of greatest importance to
managers interested in keeping their corals from dying. For example,
in Section 4.3, on page 109, there is a section entitled "Can corals
adapt to climate change?" The possibility of adaptation is raised,
but the question is never answered. The chapter ends, however, by
embracing the inevitability of widespread decline in hard corals and
radical changes in reef ecology. Perhaps that is their answer. The
final chapter of the book is supposed to be about "Enabling
Management" but is actually just about international law and
outreach. Again, an answer- it is hopeless except for diplomacy and
activism that resists global climate change. The appendix on the GBR
coral reef bleaching response plan is all about watching and
carefully documenting the death of corals, and then telling lots of
other people that they have died. So in fact, the book is quite
realistic. It reads a lot like one of those pamphlets you can get at
a doctor's office about this or that terminal disease- there is
excellent advice in them about making final preparations.
Many of us have retracked our research and education efforts to focus
on making local action as effective as possible in enabling
individual coral reef sites to resist and to recover from global
impactors. Intense dedication of this kind does not mean that
anybody has lost their perspective or lessened their participation in
the effort to get the world to wake up to the importance of arresting
and reversing our global atmospheric chemistry experiment. Since the
contributors to this list include some of the wisest and most
experienced professionals in coral reef biology, economics, and
conservation, this life change that so many of us are bound up in
would suggest that we have some reason to expect a modicum of gain
from local management efforts. If this is true, we should be saying
so instead of wasting time arguing over pieces of the elephant. If
it is not true, but simply wishful thinking, and we know that for
fact, then perhaps we really ought to be putting all of our effort
into documenting the death of the wondrous Holocene coral reef
assemblages so that future generations have an easier time with their
palaeontology, and are perhaps even motivated to change the world
once more to make it safe again for coral-dominated reef communities.
The alternative options for action are clear.
1. Continue international pressure to resist global climate change,
but focus major resources on the practice of maximally enhancing the
survival and repair potential for coral reef communities.
2. Put nearly all our efforts into resisting global climate change,
but allocate a small portion of our collective resources to
documenting coral reef decline to provide visuals and data for our
international efforts.
We could be much more effective if we at least had some meta-
awareness of who is allied with Option 1 versus Option 2. Then the
two groups could sort out and we would have something resembling a
battle plan as an academy, with two divisions, each with some chance
of finding its mark.
I happen to be an Option 1 kind of guy. I'd like to know who is on
my team, and very much hope that we have a big team for Option 2 as
well. Then we can do both, and then we are doing everything
possible, and then we can look our kids and grandkids in the eye and
say with conviction that we did our best.
Les
Les Kaufman
Professor of Biology
Boston University Marine Program
and
Senior PI
Marine Management Area Science
Conservation International
?I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.?
George W. Bush
Saginaw, Michigan; September 29, 2000
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:54:44 -0400
From: Paul Hoetjes <phoetjes at cura.net>
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] CO2 and the inconvenient truth
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Message-ID: <4549F8A4.1050300 at cura.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Dear Tom, James,
I think you need to also consider this publication (a guide to
help
local managers respond to the fact of bleaching, and yes,
probably
also handy to find funding) from the viewpoint of the
non-wealthy
nations. In Curacao (Dutch Caribbean) at least, but I suspect in
most
small island developing states, it is very hard to convince
the
decision makers of the need to protect the reefs and the way NOT to
go
about it is to stress the effects of global warming to them, which
is
locally considered a hopeless problem, and about which they are
in
flagrant denial. The fact is that the easy way out for governments
of
such islands is to say, "what's the use of allowing conservation
of
coral reefs to hamstring our economic development if the coral
reefs
are going to be gone anyway due to climate change, against which we
as
a small nation are powerless." It gives them an excuse to not
curb
nutrient and chemical pollution, erosion, uncontrolled
coastal
development, and overfishing of the reefs. This is an attitude we
have
to fight on a daily basis in our islands, basically at the expense
of
being able to also advocate local CO2 reduction
The report you are reviling, finally provides us with ammunition
to
counter this situation. It basically says that of course
climate
change will destroy the reefs if it doesn't stop, but if the
world
does manage to stabilize temperatures at some higher but
not
catastrophic level (which is probably the best we can hope for
since
realistically speaking it is already too late for anything else),
and
you still want to have at least some reefs left, you had better
start
attending to your local problems while the big guys get their
act
together.
This report finally allows us to beat the decision makers over
the
head with (it is pretty heavy)the need to locally reduce
greenhouse
gas emissions, AND to safeguard the reefs by costly/unpopular
but
sustainable solutions for waste water, solid waste, and
coastal
development problems, by providing a framework which acknowledges
that
bleaching is with us to stay (until the wealthy nations - but
let's
not forget Russia, India, and China either) do something about it,
but
then goes on to say that it makes the need to continue addressing
all
the other threats to our coral reefs even more essential because
they
work synergistically with bleaching and will kill off the reefs
even
faster. It may be restating all the things you and I already know,
but
it nicely integrates bleaching with all the other threats in a
way
that can be more easily understood by decision makers.
I assume that this is why all the hundreds of managers from all
around
the world gathered at the ITMEMS meeting (by the way, they were
not
'paid' by the Australian and US governments; travel and lodging
costs
of a number were covered, not only by those governments, but also
by
UNEP, and ICRI, allowing managers who would otherwise not have
the
means to do so, a unique opportunity to network and exchange
knowledge
with their peers) welcomed the publication and did not raise
any
criticism such as you do. It's a shame you could not be at this
forum
uniting protected area managers from around the world to present
your
views there in order to generate some healthy discussion.
Best,
Paul Hoetjes
Thomas Goreau wrote:
/usr/bin/arc: /usr/bin/arc
Dear James,
It's nice to see that somebody is willing to point out that the king
has no clothes! This is just more of the same old stuff. In effect
they are using bleaching as a funding opportunity to push for all the
standard things that, though desirable in themselves, actually have
nothing at all to do with coral bleaching or restoration. Basically
they are saying "don't step on or throw anchors on bleached corals
because they are just not in the mood for it right now! And please
give us more money for monitoring and setting up marine parks", which
are full of dead and dying corals that can't be protected from the
real causes of harm, global warming, new diseases, and land-based
sources of nutrients. All the stuff about resilience and killing
healthy corals by moving them into bad neighbourhoods is silly too.
The funding agency is wasting vast sums on these highly paid
consultants who still don't get it, neither climate change nor new
diseases nor tertiary sewage treatment nor serious coral reef
restoration. This report was handed out to a meeting of hundreds of
marine park managers paid by the Australian and American governments
and international agencies to attend a conference next to dead and
dying reefs in Cozumel as a hired audience for this propaganda. I'm
sure most of them saw right through it.
Best wishes,
Tom
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:41:40 -0500
From: "Dr. James M Cervino" [1]<cnidaria at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Coral-List] CO2 and the inconvenient truth
To: [2]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Message-ID: [3]<a06230901c16e61631b9f@[192.168.1.104]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Dear Coral Ecologists, Physiologists, and Pathologists,
Since this is a discussion forum that focuses on the latest issues
affecting coral reef health I have a consensus question pertaining to
this shocking new report titled NEW CORAL REEF MANAGEMENT GUIDE
PROVIDES STRATEGIES TO CONSERVE WORLD'S CORAL REEFS that was
published on 10-11-2006 by various agencies.
I am giving a presentation tonight in NYC at 4pm focusing on thermal
coral reef bleaching, before the showing of the Al Gore Film titled
'An Inconvenient Truth'. I have a few questions for all of the
dedicated scientists on this list regarding this latest strategy that
is supposed to "increase our understanding of the phenomenon of coral
bleaching".
#1) Knowing that CO2 and other heat trapping gasses produced by the
worlds wealthiest countries are responsible for the massive heat
stroke corals are undergoing in the last 25 years is it honest to
implement at strategy for the world to follow that will simply not
work?
When asked tonight if the 3 following suggestions below will help
save the worlds reefs what shall I say:
The Repor Says:
(1) increase observations of reef condition before, during and after
bleaching to increase information and understanding of impacts and
areas that may be especially resistant to bleaching, (2) reduce
stressors (e.g., pollution, human use) on reefs during severe
bleaching events to help corals survive the event, and (3) design and
implement reef management strategies to support reef recovery and
resilience, including reducing land- based pollution and protecting
coral areas that may resist bleaching and serve as sources of coral
larvae for "reseeding" reefs.
#2) Why are we not speaking out against this report? Is it out fear
of not getting funding from federal agencies? Are we so afraid to
speak the Inconvenient Truth and say that the only way to save corals
from heat stroke is to DRASTICALLY reduce carbon emissions beyond the
Kyoto Protocol? I respect James Hansen (formally at NASA) for
speaking up and telling the real Inconvenient Truth Regarding global
warming! Can the coral reef scientists speak out and say that this
federal report is spurious in nature?
#3) According to strategy#3 of the report : Will the USA begin to
reduce the large amounts of sewage and fertilizers that are spilling
out into the reefs? Can someone point me in the direction of this
new amazing plan that is part of a federally funded program that
begins to implement tertiary treatment in South Florida and the US
Virgin Islands?
Since I was part of a large population that helped fund this federal
report from the tax dollars deducted from our checks it is not honest
to say that if we follow these suggestions from this federally funded
report that it will help corals survive climate change ? We need to
protest this report.
I needed this report to jump start my presentation prep, James
Oct. 11, 2006
NEW CORAL REEF MANAGEMENT GUIDE PROVIDES STRATEGIES TO CONSERVE
WORLD'S CORAL REEFS
Innovative strategies to conserve the world's coral reefs are
included in a new guide released today by NOAA, the Australian Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and The World Conservation Union
(IUCN). "A Reef Manager's Guide to Coral Bleaching" will provide
coral reef managers with the latest scientific information on the
causes of coral bleaching and new management strategies for
responding to this significant threat to coral reef ecosystems.
The reef manager's guide, developed in partnership with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and
other organizations, grew out of a 2002 resolution by the U.S. Coral
Reef Task Force calling for development of information and tools for
coral reef managers to address threats from coral bleaching. The reef
manager's guide can be found online at [4]www.coralreef.noaa.gov and
includes contributions from over 50 experts in coral bleaching and
coral reef management.
"By implementing actions suggested in the guide, coral reef managers
are in a unique position to increase our understanding of the
phenomenon of coral bleaching, to take meaningful action during a
bleaching event, and to develop strategies to support the natural
resilience of reefs in the face of long-term changes in climate,"
said David Kennedy, manager of NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation
Program, which helped produce the guide.
The reef manager's guide reviews management actions that can help
restore and maintain resilience of coral reef ecosystems. This review
draws on a growing body of research on ways to support the ability of
coral reef ecosystems to survive and recover from bleaching events.
The reef manager's guide includes specific guidance and case studies
on how to prepare bleaching response plans, assess impacts from
bleaching, engage the public, manage activities that may impact
reefs during bleaching events, identify resilient reef areas, and
incorporate information regarding reef resilience into marine
protected area design.
The reef manager's guide also supports a major goal of the U.S.
Administration's Climate Change Science Program - to "Understand the
sensitivity and adaptability of different natural and managed
ecosystems and human systems to climate and related global changes" -
by providing managers with options for sustaining and improving
ecological systems and related goods and services, given projected
global changes.
-2-
The guide identifies three key actions reef managers can take to help
reefs survive and recover from mass bleaching events: (1) increase
observations of reef condition before, during and after bleaching to
increase information and understanding of impacts and areas that may
be especially resistant to bleaching, (2) reduce stressors (e.g.,
pollution, human use) on reefs during severe bleaching events to help
corals survive the event, and (3) design and implement reef
management strategies to support reef recovery and resilience,
including reducing land- based pollution and protecting coral areas
that may resist bleaching and serve as sources of coral larvae for
"reseeding" reefs.
--
**************************************************
Dr. James M. Cervino, MS, Ph.D.
Marine Pathology
Department of Biological & Health Sciences
Pace University New York NYC
Phone: (917) 620-5287
Web site: [5]http://www.globalcoral.org
***************************************************
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[6]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[7]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 41, Issue 1
*****************************************
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[8]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[9]http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
References
1. mailto:cnidaria at earthlink.net
2. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
3. mailto:a06230901c16e61631b9f@[192.168.1.104]
4. http://www.coralreef.noaa.gov/
5. http://www.globalcoral.org/
6. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
7. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
8. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
9. http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 41, Issue 6
*****************************************
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list