[Coral-List] Chagos MPA - a new perspective

Bill Allison allison.billiam at gmail.com
Thu Dec 9 09:09:24 EST 2010

There should be some archived coral list discussion of this effect wrt

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:14 AM, David Evans <davidjevans1818 at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Regarding the Military as Environmental Stewards...
> Yes... and No...
> I think what Ted said can be boiled down to this very simple reality:
> Exclude Humans and "Nature" takes over.
> The Shadow Effect: create a shadow of a Hawk and the Rabbits don't come and
> eat
> the lettuce.
> Put a fence around it, and you have a preserve.
> It's not rocket science.
> There is a lack of context in much of what Ted says.
> As far as Ulf's statement goes, there is indeed some truth to it.
> First, which military are we talking about?
>        There are certainly some that do a better job than others. Some must
> be
> considered to be dismal.
> Second, which era are we talking about?
>        In the past ten or twenty years, the US has been progressively
> getting
> better at environmental awareness, even among coral reef resources. Whether
> that
> is by pulling teeth and dragging feet or eagerly responding to suggestions
> (new
> regulations), there is one thing about the military: if there is a
> directive,
> they follow it without question once it is in place (there are of course
> exceptions) even turning it to their benefit if there is a chance (ie.,
> good PR,
> exclusion of civilian activities, etc.). That is not to say that the
> military
> are environmentalists. They are not. The military mission and the
> perception of
> national security is the bottom line (eg., the use of harmful sonar despite
> the
> impact to many marine mammals and certain fish species). The environment
> serves
> at the pleasure of the military. It is the balancing of the urgency of the
> military mission and its perception of security risks with environmental
> concerns that is the trick.
> Third, which military operations are we talking about?
>        Of course, active war zones and battlefields (wherever they are) are
> rather destructive. But other operations run the gamut from
> "pristine-looking"
> tracts that act as nature preserves to shattered bombing ranges in various
> habitats (including coral reefs). Within that spectrum, there are
> industrial
> type impacts, residential related impacts, and a variety of other training
> and
> operational impacts (as stated above, more recent regulations have been
> improving environmental behavior - cutting edge in some cases, lacking in
> others).
> Here are examples from my own personal experiences (I won't go into others
> such
> as the Nuclear Bomb Tests in the Pacific and the deserts of the US):
> In Vieques, Puerto Rico the bombing range there has obliterated a coral
> reef in
> a bay and a seagrass bed in another was impacted to a degree. The
> terrestrial
> habitat was severely damaged of course (it was a bombing range!). Other
> training
> activities impacted other habitats to varying lesser degrees. The excluded
> part
> of the island acted somewhat as a preserve, but the "shadow effect" was not
> 100%
> effective on the adjacent reefs. Towards the end (it is now closed),
> training
> exercises were scheduled around turtle hatching times and turtle nests were
> marked off on the beaches. Most significantly, however, the years of
> dropping
> ordnance on the bombing range both on land and in the water, left excessive
> amounts of toxic residues. While these were localized at the bombing range,
> winds and fires on land dispersed them into the wider habitat, extending to
> the
> rest of the island (civilian and military). In the water, leaching from the
> points of source (expended ordnance) dispersed them through the marine
> ecosystem
> and along the food chain. On top of that, a World War II destroyer that
> took
> part in the Nuclear Bomb Tests in the Pacific was used as a target ship for
> about ten years, shedding tons of the steel from its superstructure and
> deck
> (that was most directly exposed to the nuclear fallout) in unaccounted for
> locations (even to this day!) either on land or in the sea. And to finish
> off
> the top, hundreds of 55-gallon drums located at the wreck site near the
> bombing
> range have never been accounted for as to their actual origin (bearing in
> mind
> that government reports about the nuclear test describe 55-gallon drums
> being
> used to store contaminated materials while other sunken test ships contain
> similar barrels with such materials).
> At Guantanamo Bay, Cuba during the Vietnam era (dates not known to me),
> tank
> training occurred on the many rugged scrub desert hills, destroying
> vegetation
> and eroding the underlying earth. The tracks are still visible. The
> activity
> altered the vegetative habitat of the hills. Runoff of sediments readily
> reach
> the nearby coral reef resources, luckily though (in this case) there are
> not a
> lot of rain events at the base. Bombing ranges affect several habitat
> areas, yet
> many other habitats are left pristine-like in the condition of a preserve.
> An
> out of control fire set off by gunnery exercises burned a great extent of
> the
> scrub desert habitat (home to endangered Cuban boa). The Shadow Effect is
> in
> over-drive in regards to the Cuban jutia (banana rat), a species that is
> endangered in wider Cuba, yet was close to over-running the base as a sever
> nuisance requiring pest control. A great extent of mangrove resources were
> dying
> due to an unknown cause. Sea grass beds were very healthy, but the
> condition of
> the harbor is unknown. Sea turtles, here also, have more recently been
> given
> special treatment of conservation including night lighting. Fishing is
> regulated
> to a degree (though not enough). Spear fishing occurs, but in selected
> locations
> (or rather in the allowed and accessible locations). Much of the coral reef
> resources are in excellent condition (relative to the wider Caribbean)
> because
> of the "defacto-preserve" effect, however fleet mooring locations were once
> located in these habitats. Some reef areas are designated as "in-fact
> conservation zones."
> At Pearl Harbor, the body of water was once considered the most polluted
> harbor
> in the United States. Residual contamination still permeates the bed of the
> harbor-estuary. I make note of the great sensitivity regarding the events
> of
> December 7th, 1941, but the pollution of the harbor predated the horrific
> event
> of that day and much was added since then without relation to it (and not
> all of
> it related directly to the military). Within even a somewhat recent frame
> of
> service, there was little regulation regarding the disposal of items and
> materials overboard ships. Fish are abundant and large within the harbor
> and
> near its entrance (fishing is restricted for good reason). Again, more
> recent
> regulations are doing much to improve its condition.
> At Diego Garcia, as has been mentioned before by me and others, the impacts
> are
> what would be expected from a large installation of its sort on a small
> island.
> Improvements in procedures and more recent awareness and regulations have
> been
> put in place. As in other places and in the military in general, previous
> environmental procedures were lax and lacking altogether (as in dynamiting
> the
> algal reef platform for fill material to be used to build up land area in
> the
> lagoon). I do not try to compare military impacts to civilian ones because
> that
> is not the question I am answering. Occasional "industrial" accidents
> happen
> (oil/fuel spills). The base population and activities are not extractive
> because
> the mission does not call for it, but a rather heavy degree of fishing does
> occur in places though regulations have been put in place. Holothurians are
> unaccountably rare in the shallows. As anywhere, there is some poaching and
> rule
> cutting. A conservation "replenishment" zone exists in key areas and scuba
> is
> not allowed. Much of the rest of the lagoon is untouched as a
> "defacto-preserve." However, dredging and mooring chain dragging in large
> areas
> stirs up sediment and sedimentation levels appeared heavy throughout much
> of the
> lagoon.
> I think I have made my point (I hope I have). The reality of military
> "environmentalism" runs the gamut.
> A valid note to make, though, is that the military at DG is not self
> sustaining
> and is mostly non-extractive, relying on shipments of supplies for its
> existence. Environmental regulations and awareness are in place.
> But these things are not exclusive to the military.
> "A population of 4000 souls (no families) on a small island with a level of
> recreational/supplemental fish extraction" describes Diego Garcia.
> As pointed out before, Ted quotes plans of re-settlement which are not
> valid in
> the present.
> There is no reason that a population of 400 to 1000 souls (possibly
> including
> families) could not exist in the wider Chagos under rules of environmental
> expectations alongside and interactive with a successful Chagos MPA.
> (Before
> disregarding this statement outright, please consult a map [look at Google
> Earth
> or googlemaps.com] to get an idea of scale of possible usage density.) If
> there
> IS a good reason, it has not been honestly explored and discussed in good
> faith
> by objective parties as I have said before.
> However, aside from considerations of re-settlement plans, potential
> impacts,
> and quality of MPA's, I finish with this thought: That the very bottom line
> regulating re-settlement of the islands is the military mission at the
> Chagos
> and the Government policy of "requiring" uninhabited islands.
> The closely divided finding of Law Lords of the UK did NOT discount the
> Human
> Rights violations experienced by the Chagossians, but rather it placed the
> perception of Security Risks (military mission) ABOVE the Chagossians
> rights
> (the eminent domain argument).
> So here is my question: Will the Military finally show up "in person" for
> this
> debate OR will it keep letting the Environment take the fall? Can the
> Military
> and the respective Governments step forward and make their case for
> National
> Security face to face with the Chagossians (the "Man Fridays" as they call
> them)
> presenting and listening to the realities and perceptions of both sides?
> Maybe
> then, some level of Mutual Understanding and Human Respect can be achieved
> and
> the cause of Environmental Conservation will not continue to be dragged
> through
> the mud (expletive replaced) of this despicable, reprehensible situation!!!
> David Jeremy Evans
> "Defenseless under the night
> Our world in stupor lies;
> Yet, dotted everywhere,
> Ironic points of light
> Flash out wherever the Just
> Exchange their messages:
> May I, composed like them
> Of Eros and of dust,
> Beleaguered by the same
> Negation and despair,
> Show an affirming flame."
> "September 1, 1939"
> W.H. Auden
> perspective
> ------------------------------
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:27:03 -0700
> From: "Ted Morris" <easy501 at zianet.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Chagos MPA - a new perspective
> To: "'Ulf Erlingsson'" <ceo at lindorm.com>,    "'Coral List'"
>    <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID: <001501cb9727$0a5fcb80$1f1f6280$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
> Dear Ulf,
> In answer to your second question, certainly Chagossians have human rights,
> and as British Citizens they have more than most.  However, I think you may
> have meant "Don't they have the specific human right to return to the
> Chagos?" and the answer is that the question has yet to be resolved.
> British courts have ruled that their expulsion was the equivalent of
> Compulsory Purchase (Imminent Domain as we call it in the States).  Those
> courts have considered whether the islanders received adequate compensation
> and whether they have the right of abode in the Chagos, and have concluded
> that they have, and do not, respectively.  Although some like to quote
> lower
> court rulings permitting resettlement, legal rulings are not compilations
> of
> decisions like opposing scores in a football game.  Instead, only the final
> decision by the highest court stands, and in the case of the Chagossians,
> the Law Lords ruled against their right of abode or return.  Therefore,
> Chagossians have filed a separate case with the European Court of Human
> Rights, which is believed to have jurisdiction over this subject.
> Regardless of the result, Chagossian leaders and advocates state that the
> political battle will continue.  So it certainly appears that the
> Chagossians are exercising their rights as British Citizens unhindered.
> In regard to your fist question about whether one part of mankind can
> exclude another part of mankind from un-touched biological reserves, the
> answer is clearly yes.  It occurs all the time, everywhere in the developed
> world.  Although there are countries and perhaps even large parts of
> continents where such exclusion is not practiced, I believe it should be a
> universal feature of saving the earth's ecosystems.  The continued exile of
> the Chagossians is not a feature of the MPA - instead it is a feature of
> the
> militarization of the archipelago.  However, even if the base were to be
> vacated, I would still advocate that all habitation be restricted to Diego
> Garcia, and extractive industry be prohibited in the Chagos.  Of course
> that
> would be up to the British government, but why Chagossians are excluded
> from
> Diego Garcia is beyond me - and I spent a lot of time on that island.
>  After
> all what is the difference between having British Citizens working on the
> base and living nearby, and the same situation at RAF Mildenhall?  Why do
> certain factions among the Chagossians insist on returning to tiny
> micro-islands, instead of to DG?  If I were cynical, I would say "follow
> the
> money", but I'd best leave that research to others.
> You also have a question about the military base.  No, it is not a
> well-established fact that military operations are among the most
> destructive activities known to mankind when it comes to the environment.
>  I
> would agree that military activities are certainly destructive on
> populations and infrastructure, but I would submit that the logging of the
> tropical rain forests, seabed mining, and overfishing the oceans are much
> more damaging to the environment than all the wars to date.  The condition
> of the former Warsaw Pact nations' environments, or China's today are other
> examples of worse-than-war zones.
> If contrast, today's military reservations in the developed nations are
> among the world's most important biological reserves as well.  Here in the
> States, one need only look at Vandenberg AFB in California, or White Sands
> Missile Range in New Mexico, or the Kennedy Complex in Florida to see that
> in their absence, uncontrolled development would long ago have devastated
> the local environment.  It is the exclusion of people from those and many
> other sites that has preserved the ecologies of the bases virtually intact.
> The same is true now of the Chagos - no matter how Kafka-ish it may sound.
> You may be interested in reviewing some of the existing literature
> concerning the state of the ecology of the Chagos and its value as an
> un-touched reserve to the greater Indian Ocean environment, and thus to the
> populations living in down-stream coastal areas.  May I recommend the
> following?  "The Ecology of the Chagos Archipelago" edited by Drs. Charles
> Sheppard and Mark Seaward; the FCO's 2003 Chagos Conservation Management
> Plan of the BIOT by Drs. Charles Sheppard and Mark Spalding (available
> here:
> http://www.zianet.com/tedmorris/dg/chagos_conservation_management_plan_2003.
> pdf<http://www.zianet.com/tedmorris/dg/chagos_conservation_management_plan_2003.%0Apdf>);
> and the U.S. Navy's 2005 Natural Resources Management Plan (available
> here:  http://www.zianet.com/tedmorris/dg/nrmp.html).  Although the last
> is
> specific to Diego Garcia, I think you'll find that combined with the
> others,
> it may provide a clearer picture of the actual conditions than you may have
> seen to date.
> There are a lot more recent articles, all of which lead to the conclusion
> that the waters of the Chagos are virtually pristine, and that status
> appears to be key to the recovery of the reefs of the archipelago from the
> major bleaching event of 1998.  More importantly, the isolation of the area
> (400 miles from the nearest inhabited island in the Maldives), the
> tertiary-treatment waste-water system on Diego Garcia, the marine discharge
> restrictions in effect in the BIOT (which apply even to the US Navy) and a
> location a long, long way from the nearest undersea drilling or mining
> activities, means that the corals of the Chagos may provide the answers we
> so desperately seek concerning how to modify the pollution and over-harvest
> of those reefs nearer major populations, and perhaps save corals and their
> ecosystems world-wide as we deal with climate change.  This is only
> possible
> if the Chagos remains un-plundered and un-polluted as we study it,
> something
> very iffy if re-occupation requires extraction of food or livelihoods from
> the surrounding waters.
> Finally, you might also find my paper on Chagossian history of interest.
>  It
> is thoroughly documented and details the Chagossian economic experience in
> the islands, as well as the compensation schemes, and the various court
> cases.  It's here:  http://www.zianet.com/tedmorris/dg/chagossians.pdf.
> Sincerely,
> Ted.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Ulf
> Erlingsson
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 9:13 AM
> To: Coral List
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Chagos MPA - a new perspective
> I find several things odd with this debate about Chagos:
> 1. With what justification do some argue that the right of one part
> of mankind to create an "un-touched" biological reserve outweighs the
> rights on another part of mankind to keep living there as they have
> for generations? Don't Chagosians have human rights?
> 2. Why is only the Chagosians discussed, and not the impact of the
> huge military base? Isn't it a well-established fact that military
> operations are among the most destructive activities known to mankind
> when it comes to the environment (totally apart from its effect on
> human rights)?
> This whole debate seems "Kafkaish" to me...
> Ulf
> On 2010-12-08, at 09:46, Richard Dunne wrote:
> > Ted Morris' wish to see the Chagos as a wilderness park (aside from
> > the
> > US Base on Diego Garcia) is admirable but is it realistic or
> > necessary?
> >
> > He fears that a Chagossian right of abode equates to the
> > desecration of
> > the environment. Is this likely to be so?
> >
> > Firstly, the resettlement plan to which he refers was produced in
> > response to the Foreign Office's (FCO) own studies in 2000 and 2002
> > which were never completed, and which were edited by the FCO to align
> > with their policy. All of those earlier studies are now outdated for a
> > variety of reasons, not least because of the MPA.
> >
> > Secondly, a right of abode does not equate to a right to resettle the
> > islands because the land is exclusively owned by the British
> > Government
> > (they bought it in the 1960s from the former plantation company). If
> > anyone is allowed to live on the islands it will be entirely on terms
> > and conditions laid down by the British Government as landowner.
> > Additionally, the British Government has, since 1991, had complete
> > jurisdiction over fisheries out to 200nm, and there are at present
> > numerous conservation areas on land which are highly regulated.
> >
> > In these circumstances, the scenarios that Ted outlines - farms,
> > commercial fishing, tourism - or even a "glorified fish farm" are
> > highly
> > improbable. Whilst we now know that the FCO intended to use the MPA to
> > exclude the Chagossians, and whilst we know the FCO does not have the
> > best track record for honesty, we should not expect them to suddenly
> > grant license to anyone to exploit these islands or their waters.
> >
> > What is equally clear is that additional resources will be needed to
> > enforce this huge MPA (540,000 sq km) over and above a single (slow)
> > Fishery Protection vessel based at Diego Garcia, hundreds of miles
> > from
> > the nearest of the 54 other islands.  What better way than to place
> > and
> > support small communities on strategic islands, some of whom are
> > employed as MPA Wardens.  This would at least stop the poaching of
> > holothurians by Sri Lankan fishermen, provide regulation of any
> > visiting
> > yachts, and allow the shallow waters of the Chagos Bank to be
> > patrolled
> > from smaller vessels. And the FCO should also be willing to reconsider
> > its decision not to establish a marine research station, if we are to
> > maximise the scientific potential of this near pristine area. All
> > these
> > present opportunities for the Chagossians.
> >
> > The solution lies in dialogue, not confrontation, and a willingness to
> > right wrongs that the British Government admits that it did in the
> > past.
> > The initiative has to come from the FCO, and the US Government has to
> > learn to relax its paranoia over security in the Chagos.
> >
> > Richard P Dunne
> >
> > On 07/12/2010 22:20, Ted Morris wrote:
> >> Jim,
> >>
> >> I would like to respond to something Mark said, and hope you will
> >> post this - it does not rely on reference to the not-to-be-named
> >> web information that the USG has banned any discussion of... ;-)
> >>
> >> Here's the posting:
> >>
> >> Mark states "We all know that highly effective MPAs can easily be
> >> established with people in them..."
> >>
> >> This is the primary practical argument used to justify
> >> resettlement of the Chagos ("human rights" being the political
> >> argument, and not the subject of this posting).
> >>
> >> I believe it would be more correct to say that "effective"
> >> inhabited MPAs are only possible when the inhabitants do not
> >> require the MPA for their economy or sustenance, and thus have as
> >> light a footprint as possible on the environment.  Unfortunately,
> >> that is not the resettlement plan for the Chagos.  Instead
> >> advocates propose to fund the return and long-term occupation of
> >> the Chagos by extracting food and economic sustenance from the
> >> environment though mechanisms such as commercial fishing,
> >> conversion of the terrestrial environment into farms of various
> >> kinds, and tourism.  Although advocates propose harvesting only
> >> what is sustainably reproduced, that will result in a managed
> >> ecosystem.
> >>
> >>> From the first appearance of settlers in the Chagos ecosystem,
> >>> they will of necessity begin to harvest everything they require
> >>> to live and succeed economically.  Although someone will place
> >>> regulatory limits on the take, the first "harvest" will begin an
> >>> unending cycle of management, transforming this priceless
> >>> wilderness into a park, at best.  In my opinion, this is not the
> >>> highest and best use of the Chagos for the health of the planet.
> >>
> >> The rationale behind the creation of the Chagos MPA has been
> >> defined variously by different politicians, groups and people.
> >> Basically, these can be divided into those who believe the MPA
> >> should be managed to produce income sufficient to support a
> >> reestablished human population numbering in the thousands, and
> >> those, like me, who believe it should not be managed at all, but
> >> instead protected the way we idealistically attempt to treat
> >> wilderness here in the States - "take nothing but photos, leave
> >> nothing but footprints."
> >>
> >> One need only look at the draft minutes of the recent Chagos
> >> Conservation Trust annual meeting to see that already, just a
> >> month after the expiration of the last commercial fishing permit,
> >> the BIOT government is bemoaning the loss of revenue needed to
> >> administer the Territory.  The seduction of money raised by
> >> licensing and permitting of extractive industry may prove to be
> >> too strong in the long run to preserve the wilderness condition of
> >> the CMPA even if the archipelago is kept uninhabited.  If
> >> resettlement occurs, there can be no doubt that compromises and
> >> concerns for the occupant's economic health will result in the
> >> conversion of the MPA from undersea wilderness into a glorified
> >> fish farm.
> >>
> >> I'd like to point out that this does not mean that a return by the
> >> islanders should be denied entirely; there is the alternative of
> >> returning to Diego Garcia with preference in hiring on the
> >> military base, capitalizing on the existing infrastructure,
> >> observing the current environmental protections which prohibit
> >> economic exploitation of the island and surrounding waters, etc.
> >>
> >> The bottom line is that any resettlement of the "outer islands" of
> >> the Chagos would certainly mutate the MPA into something
> >> "effective" but unnatural, when the true value of the Chagos is as
> >> an unmolested ecosystem.
> >>
> >> I hope the readers of the List will consider this when evaluating
> >> any future postings by Mark or other resettlement advocates.
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> Ted Morris, Jr.
> >> www.zianet.com/tedmorris/dg/
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov<From%3Acoral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> [mailto:
> coral-list-
> >> bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Ofmark at mdspalding.co.uk
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:17 AM
> >> To:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <To%3ACoral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> >> Subject: [Coral-List] Chagos MPA - a new perspective
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     Chagos is an area of reefs and reef islands that should
> >> interest us all - it
> >>     has over 1% of the WORLD's coral reefs and it is the world's
> >> largest no-take
> >>     MPA. The MPA was legally declared in April 2010 and all tuna
> >> fishing ended
> >>     in November. In fact this latter action didn't require MPA
> >> status and the
> >>     site still has no regulations and no legal boundary..
> >> Meanwhile the site's
> >>     declaration is being challenged in the legal system, and the
> >> expulsion of
> >>     the Chagossians from the Chagos is due to come before the
> >> European Court of
> >>     Human Rights soon.
> >>
> >>
> >>     Readers may remember some earlier exchanges in which some of
> >> us suggested
> >>     that setting up an MPA without the special involvement of key
> >> stakeholders
> >>     (the exiled Chagossian people and the nation of Mauritius) was
> >> a mistake,
> >>     with  a  likelihood  of  a  future backfire which might even
> >> undermine
> >>     biodiversity security long-term.
> >>
> >>
> >> <...expletives deleted...>
> >>
> >>
> >>     Some  250,000  people voted in support of the Chagos MPA via
> >> the Avaaz
> >>     network, an internet-based social activist grouping who are
> >> also strong on
> >>     human  rights. I spoke to Avaaz at length when they first put
> >> up their
> >>     petition as it was clear that they were ill-informed about the
> >> human rights
> >>     angle. They assured me that Chagossian interests were fully
> >> taken into
> >>     consideration. They were wrong, and they misled a quarter of a
> >> million
> >>     signatories.
> >>
> >>
> >> <...expletives deleted...>
> >>     These reefs are a
> >>     global treasure and need the most secure future possible. Many
> >> of us have
> >>     argued  that  such  a  future  could  and should have been
> >> built up in
> >>     collaboration with key stakeholders. We all know that highly
> >> effective MPAs
> >>     can  easily  be  established with people in them, so it was
> >> remarkably
> >>     short-sighted to exclude them from discussions. My only hope
> >> now is that the
> >>     many  conservation  organisations  who  have largely
> >> stonewalled these
> >>     stakeholders will give up on the game of politics and see if,
> >> even at this
> >>     late stage, they can build bridges.
> >>
> >>
> >>     A week is a long time in politics, but its scarcely a breath
> >> in trying to
> >>     ensure long-term biodiversity conservation - MPAs on this
> >> scale need to be
> >>     very carefully built.
> >>
> >>
> >>     Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >>     Mark
> >>
> >>
> >>     ____________________________
> >>
> >>     Mark D Spalding, PhD
> >>
> >>     Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology
> >>
> >>     University of Cambridge
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Coral-List mailing list
> >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > 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
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

"reality leaves a lot to the imagination..."  John Lennon

More information about the Coral-List mailing list