[Coral-List] Coral restoration trashing

[Héctor Reyes Bonilla]

saludos generales. I agree with Luiz Rocha general idea and applaud it, but
there are some details to comment from the perspective of a researcher
living in a developing country-

El lun, 21 ago 2023 a las 8:40, Luiz Rocha via Coral-List (<
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>) escribió:

> Alright, I've had it. I am sick and tired of the constant trashing and
> criticism that coral restoration projects and that any science even
> remotely related to restoration are getting. Even though I don't work on it
> (directly or indirectly) I know a lot of scientists working on coral
> restoration. And I also know a lot of restoration projects. Not a single
> one of them has ever said that the solution for the coral reef crysis is
> coral restoration. This is hyperbole created either by the media and the
> critics of coral restoration.
>

In developing countries, where most coral reefs are, unfortunately the
final argument is not true. many (many!) researchers from academia (locals
and foreigners) DO say local people, governments, etc., that their work
will save reefs, and many NGOs affirm the same. The media simply takes
their words and translates the information to the general public (and most
of times, the researchers are happy with that). I think that limited
funding for long-term restoration projects in these countries is the source
of the problem; people need to "demonstrate" that their work is more
important than others, so they can get the resource.



>
> Now more specifically about the critiques to every kind of science related
> to restoration. If we put together all of the dollars that went into coral
> restoration science, in all of human history, that adds up to (very
> graciously) about half a billion dollars. For those that keep saying that
> we can solve the climate crisis with coral restoration dollars, please,
> please, tell me how 500 million dollars would solve climate change. If you
> sit down and really think about it, I hope you realize that climate change
> is not a money problem. We have the money and the solutions to do it. What
> we do not have is the political will.
>

I agree that money is not the solution, but it counts. Governments of
developing countries have very limited resources, and many times because of
the promise to "save the reef" (and not only "the fishery of X species" for
example) they rather invest in restoration of one hectare instead of
monitoring reefs in national parks, conducting fisheries assessments, etc.
This has happened many times in Mexico. I understand that no country has
unlimited funding, but when money is really limited (in Mexico the
government invests on average less than 5 USD/ hectare/year for management
of national parks), it is of the foremost relevance to decide where to
place it. That is the reason why many people criticize the interest that
has been devoted to restoration in developing countries when you compare
the social (not ecological) impact of this activity against the success
(actual or possible) that other actions offer to coastal communities. I am
not saying that restoration does not deserve support; just that
cost-benefit analyses should be done.


>
> And for those that keep saying that corals in air conditioned aquaria are
> not a solution, rhinos in zoos aren't either, so should we kill them all
> and be done with it? The only surviving individuals of unique genetic
> lineages of several species that used to be in Florida are now only alive
> in aquaria. So let's use the few hundreds of thousands of dollars being
> used to keep them alive to convince Ron De Santis and Donald Trump that
> climate change is real. Yeah, that's gonna work. These dollars (even if
> dollars could solve climate change, which they won't) are not competing
> with climate change dollars. That's like asking to stop funding coral
> taxonomy because giving coral species names is only rearranging the chairs
> in the Titanic. That argument can be used for any branch of science that is
> not fighting climate change. And it is not true.
>
>
Again ok, but it is not the same to have a rhino in a zoo than a reef in an
aquarium. The first one is a species that because of its low numbers
already plays very limited ecological roles, and if things go well, as it
happened with condors or wolves, we can eventually return it to nature and
they will do their thing. we can actually restore the population and its
function. the second is an ecosystem that is feeding millions, and that it
is impossible to save just by taking certain corals away from the stress
source. I would rather bet for natural selection than aquaria. And finally:
what developing country can do what it is been done in Florida?



> So, get off your horses, fight climate change the best way you can, and
> keep doing science, even if it's not related to climate change. Because it
> will help.
>

I am with you, but careful planning is needed.

Hector Reyes


>
> Cheers,
>
> Luiz
>
> Luiz A. Rocha, Ph.D.
> Curator and Follett Chair of Ichthyology
> Co-Director, Hope For Reefs Initiative
>
> California Academy of Sciences
>
> p. 415.379.5370
>
> LRocha at calacademy.org
> Academic Website
> <https://www.calacademy.org/staff/ibss/ichthyology/luiz-a-rocha>
>
> 55 Music Concourse Drive
> Golden Gate Park
> San Francisco, CA 94118
>
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/CoralReefFish> | Instagram
> <https://www.instagram.com/coralreeffish/>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>


-- 
Héctor Reyes Bonilla
Departamento Académico de Ciencias Marinas y Costeras
Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur
Carretera al sur km 5.5. Col. El Mezquitito
La Paz, B.C.S., C.P. 23080.
Tel. (52-612) 123-8800, ext. 4814
Fax (52-612) 123-8819.

-- 
El aviso de la privacidad de este correo se puede consultar en 
www.uabcs.mx/transparencia/Privacidad.html 
<http://www.uabcs.mx/transparencia/Privacidad.html>