[Coral-List] Conservation versus restoration of coral reefs

Thomas Goreau goreau at bestweb.net
Fri Feb 22 21:44:37 EST 2008


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