End of the Road

So it's that time of the year again when the blogging comes to an unwanted end. So here is a song that fits this moment perfectly. 

Oh wow, I have only ever heard the song but never seen the video. This is a bit of a shock. 

But anyway, the song is actually quite symbiotic, as this love affair between the blog and I shouldn't have to end as the video so poignantly states, it's 'unnatural' and 'you belong to me as I belong to you'. It is safe to say that this method of writing has been a breath of fresh air, a nice spearmint scent in fact, and when I have time I hope to continue blogging. It has certainly been enjoyable and I hope you have enjoyed reading it too even at times like this when I have turned slightly weird/mad. But hey, it makes it interesting!

 Anyway, that's enough of that and it brings me to my final conclusions:

• It is clear that the continued creation and existence of coral is vital. They provide important economic, societal, environmental and medicinal benefits through their individual diversity but also collectively when you look at the biodiversity of the whole coral reef ecosystem. In a lot of cases, when corals finally disappear so does the benefit as there is no alternative present. The impact of coral reefs loss is particularly pronounced in island communities where a productive reef is the difference between life or death. It has been interesting to read local examples of the importance of corals to societies on Kate Price's Blog.
• Coral reefs are at the mercy of a number of threats linked to climate change both directly and indirectly. Furthermore, the threats can be from environmental, economic or societal pressures as seen with Blue Ventures (BV). This blog has critically explored these threats and how they impact corals. Beth Evans' Blog and Kate Price's Blog have both tackled the some of threats that I have discussed and agree that they are significant. Therefore, there is no denying that the Anthropocene has had, and will continue to have an impact on this ecosystem.
• Then there are the solutions. This blog has looked at the use of Marine Protection Areas (MPAs), innovative use of social communication in the BV case study and finally Biorock mineral accretion technology. From the information published in each respective post, the solutions do have a beneficial effect. MPAs are useful on a large scale whilst the production of biorock structures is more of an incremental process. MPAs do have their drawbacks but the others seem have few negatives. It is said that doing something is better than doing nothing but that something has to be the right something. For example, what is the point of protecting an area that is not threatened by human influence? None. But if it is done, then this is surely invoking the precautionary principle so it may not actually be a bad idea in the wider context.
• What of the future I ask you. At the moment the future for coral reefs does not look promising. It is all over the media as well as in scientific papers that coral reefs could disappear by 2100, and that figure is optimistic. Ideally, global warming has to be significantly reduced to mitigate the chances of coral reef extinction. Furthermore, the public need educating so that they can understand the benefit of coral reefs. This could be any form but preferably a way which is engaging such as this multimedia art installation by Brooklyn artist, Paul Hunt. Moreover, I implore the various governments around the world to do more as it is often these bodies that hinder progress. 

So that draws me to the end of the blog. I hope that after following this blog you have gained a better understanding of the value of corals. I know I have. Further, I hope that you have made use of the TED videos, news articles at the bottom of the blog and all the video links I have posted from the various sources.

As I can't end with my original sign out, I will use this...

Over and out,

Seb

Benefits of Twitter

I have watched too man episodes of Two and a Half Men so I thought that I would do something that had a bit of purpose.

So I was just on Twitter and saw an interesting tweet. In fact it drew my attention to this radio series with Gaia Vince called 'The Age We Made' that discusses The Anthropocene. Part 2 is particularly relevant to this blog and draws your attention to an acidifying ocean and the impact on coral within this new geological epoch. 

Things to note: 

1) Whilst there has been less total carbon emitted than the analogue of today, it has occurred only within a few decades rather than 5000 years. So concentrated emissions is key.

2) The show ends with the question of whether we can cope with the rate of change that we see around us that leads to a totally liveable Anthropocene climate. End fine, getting there difficult. 

So here's a post to ponder over whilst you are temporarily incapacitated by a food induced coma. 

Cya,

Seb

 

Biorock - Mineral Accretion Technology

HO HO HO,

It's time for another instalment of coral rejuvenation! And this is some cool stuff.

This video outlines everything you need to know about this bioengineering marvel. It focuses on an example in Gili Trawangan and I saw these for myself when I was there in 2011. Truly amazing. The video also expresses the value of coral reefs in monetary terms and ecosystem benefits. Seems like it is time to get serious. 

This article highlights the use of Biorock technology to form the Ihuru Island artificial reef system. Further, it highlights the advantages of this technology and provides a nice diagram to help you visualise what it looks like. 

I have found a powerpoint presentation on the Global Coral Reef Alliance website that illustrates a Biorock restoration project in Bali. It is the longest continuously run coral reef restoration project around and provides some amazing before and after shots as well some information that repeats both the video and the article. 

Happy Holidays,

Seb

The Story of Blue Ventures

Wagwan,

This post focuses on the role Blue Ventures, a World Challenge 2010 Finalist, has had on coral reef preservation in Madagascar. I found this example on the rareconservation.org blog. There are lots of other interesting bits and bobs so it is worth taking a look. 

So briefly, why are reefs here so special? Well the reef system is the 4th largest in the world and contains hundreds of endemic species whose healthy populations are critical in supporting pelagic species. Madagascar, like with many other islands, is home to a semi-nomadic tribespeople. The west coast of the island is home to the Vezo tribe, all 50,000 of them, who rely on the sea for the majority of their food and income as the land is not conducive to farming. This is an example of the close interaction between these two parties. More examples can be found in Kate Price's Blog. 

What are the issues? Apart from the usual problem of overfishing and invasive fishing practices, there are two major threats surrounding the ability to conserve the reef. The first being the absence of fishery management with little to no enforcement of the local fishery laws and the second being the staggering average birth rate of 6.8 that put huge strain on food supplies. 

The solution? Blue Ventures supported the creation of a local management body comprised of 25 Vezo fishing villages. They implemented reserves for specific species as well as encouraged alternative aquaculture of less commonly used organisms. Crucially, BVs introduced a population program to decrease the number of births. A lot of this was achieved using social marketing. I wonder if they used Twitter...

It is interesting for me to see a different kind of causal relationship and subsequently a different method of prevention and conservation. It is encouraging to see that the locals are understand what's going on but it is discouraging to read that those with power i.e. the government, seem to be hindering things.

Well that was nice and generalised,

Seb 

MPAs: Yay or Nay?

I ended the last blog with some key questions: 

1) Are MPAs actually any good at preventing coral loss? 
2) What can they realistically protect against?
3) Are MPAs being established in the right areas where they are needed the most?

Now they shall be answered. 

A paper by Selig and Bruno (2010) examining the global effectiveness of MPAs in preventing coral loss goes some way to answer the first question. Like with the information given in the previous post, this paper highlights that MPAs have been reasonably useful in the rehabilitation of fish and invertebrates that were overharvested. The idea of 'no-take' and what I have termed 'diminished-take' policy, has lead to optimism that reduced fishing has positive indirect effects on corals. This is primarily through the restoration of food webs that can prevent the outbreak of coral predators. Furthermore, more intact food webs limit the coverage of macroalgae due to greater numbers of the grazer population being present and incourages coral growth. A study by Mumby and Harborne (2010) corroborates this and focuses on the use of herbivorous fish species to restore coral reefs after impacts occur. The researchers found that reductions in algal cover due to an increase in the parrotfish population resulted in a faster rate of coral recovery than those areas where fishing was not prohibited. The study shows that the coral recovery was significantly greater inside a Bahamian reserve than outside over a two and half year period. Moreover, the beneficial role of an intact food web is highlighted by the significant negative correlation between algal cover and coral cover. This proves that MPAs in an indirect way can facilitate coral rehabilitation but the process must be an ecosystem-wide solution. 

The direct benefits of MPAs on coral reefs are all mechanical in nature. It prevents destructive fishing techniques, anchor damage and terrestrial runoff. This results in reduced sedimentation and nutrient pollution thereby decreasing the limiting factors that impact coral (these are mentioned earlier on in the blog). Selig and Bruno (2010) state that MPAs can be effective in preventing coral loss. They mention that no change in coral cover over 38 years occurred in reefs within MPAs versus those in unprotected areas which continued to decrease. A key point that needs to be raised from this study is that the effectiveness of MPAs is a function of time. In the Caribbean, the results show that things get worse (14 year decrease after implementation) before they get better indicating a natural lag which is understandable. After X amount of years of coral increase, rates stagnate and level off highlighting that the population recovery reached what they term "saturation point". The study also looked at Indo-Pacific MPAs and the results are different here. They had the same decline as the Caribbean reefs but then increased at 2% per year for 22 years. However, during 1998 there was a strong El Nino which devastated this coral cohort. Despite this, there is a positive message. In older MPAs coral cover change  returned to rates around zero. This highlights increased coral resilience which is extremely positive. 

Now to the second question. I have found that MPAs do not automatically result in positive effects on coral cover. It is safe to say that on a local scale MPAs have the greatest benefit and whilst the evidence above looks good, the sites used have some significant inconsistencies. Coral loss that is determined by regional or global stressors such as climate change or coral disease is unlikely to be protected by MPAs. due to MPAs having only so much control. They cannot prevent the flow of seawater or pathogens and the transfer of heat. This is shown above with the El Nino example and this quote from the BBC article reaffirms this idea...

"And a recent paper on the demise of the Barrier Reef demonstrates that declaring an area protected does not necessarily shield it from distant influences like over-nutrification."


As such, a little perspective is needed. MPAs whilst beneficial cannot protect against everything but they can, as seen above, help to build resilience so that the impact may be less severe next time round. 

Number 3. I get the impression from both academic literature (Selig and Bruno, 2010) and news reports such as the one from the BBC, that whilst MPAs are being introduced at a greater rate and into important areas for conservation, there are a lot of MPAs being declared in areas that do not need them. It almost seems like in some cases they are being implemented for the sake of reaching this target with little thought about where they should be placed. Obviously it is fair enough placing them in areas that have high biodiversity with a number of rare species, but they should also be placed where there are large human populations that have the potential to terminally destroy the reef ecosystem. Focus needs to turn to areas where a large population and high biodiversity exist. More thought and planning is needed by governments it seems as quotes like this from the BBC article are not the most encouraging..."I don't want to knock any of the MPAs but some appear to be easy wins, where you could stick a pin on a map and maybe send a patrol vessel. We need more than that.". 

I hope that these are sufficiently answered and you are able to weigh up the pros and cons of MPAs. It seems that their ability to achieve results must be understood correctly as well as where they should be placed and how they should be enforced. 

A change to the usual sign off!

Seb 

Marine Protected Areas: Part 1

Now that I have finished dazzling you with all those impacts on coral reefs, I am going to start to blog about ways that can reduce the impacts detailed in the previous posts. The first of which being Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). I have been aware of this BBC news article for some time but it is only now that I unleash it on you readers as it seems like the most appropriate moment. This report details that MPAs will increase to 10% of global ocean area by 2020 after a UN meeting in Hyderabad. The figure for MPAs currently stands at 2.3% but the article states that it is highly likely that the above target will be met.  The use of MPAs has become increasingly popular as a means to protect all organisms in a delineated area. For example, The Cook Islands and New Caledonia added 2.5 million sq km of MPAs, whilst Australia added 2.7 million sq km to existing protected areas.

What's the crack on MPAs?

I have found a two-part video that focusses on MPAs in the state of California. It is an extremely informative video that is not too long so please have a watch below. It covers what MPAs are, where they are in California, how they are devised and the issues surrounding them.

 

Below is a more recent video from The Nature Conservancy detailing the rules behind MPA creation.

These rules are generally not too dissimilar to those stated in the previous videos but are more specific in terms of numbers (for Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea). This video also speaks about the role of networks and how they are of benefit for the movement of species. It is encouraging to see that it did work despite the numerous repetition of "we had no idea what we were doing" and "we made it up as we went along".

Whilst this information is useful to know, are MPAs actually any good at preventing coral loss and what can they realistically protect against? Also, are MPAs being established in the right areas where they are needed the most? All will be revealed in good time!

Hang tight,

Seb

What's occurring Belize?

I realise that my examples have been particularly focussed on the Pacific region and more specifically the GBR. Alas, this is no more, and I have found a recent assessment from Belize, which in fact is home to the second largest uninterrupted reef; the first obviously being the GBR. The article states that the reef is near devastation but the damage is not yet terminal. Though, work needs to be done to save those critters.

You can find more up to date examples and stories at the bottom of the blog in the news feed. It's well handy.

Peace out A town down,

Seb