Coral Reef Restoration - A guide to effective rehabilitation techniques - A. Allahgholi - 3 9.2014

Ecological Restoration

Coral Reef Restoration – A guide to effective rehabilitation techniques

Ahmad Allahgholi - [email protected]

U.N. mandated University for Peace in Costa Rica, Master Thesis in Sustainable Natural Resource Management

Received on 3rd of September, 2014; revised on XXXXX; accepted on XXXXX

Advisor: Dr. Marco Quesada


1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Importance of coral reefs ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Products and Services provided by coral reefs ......................................................................................................................................4

2.1.1. Habitat ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................4

2.1.2. Economic Development ...........................................................................................................................................................................5

2.1.3. Food ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................5

2.1.4. Coastal Protection ......................................................................................................................................................................................5

2.1.5. Medicine .......................................................................................................................................................................................................6

2.2 Environmental Services .............................................................................................................................................................................7

2.2.1 Climate Change Mitigation as Carbon Sink ...........................................................................................................................................7

2.3 Financial value .............................................................................................................................................................................................8

2.4 Biodiversity ..................................................................................................................................................................................................8

3 Endangerd Species ............................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Current status ..............................................................................................................................................................................................9

3.2 Local Threats ...............................................................................................................................................................................................9

3.3 Changing climate and ocean chemistry ............................................................................................................................................... 11

3.4 Compounding threats like diseases and invasive species ................................................................................................................. 12

3.5 Future outlook and possible mitigation ............................................................................................................................................... 12

4 Actionplan ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Protection ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18

4.2 Restoration & Rehabilitation ................................................................................................................................................................. 22

4.3 Creation & Reproduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 25

5 Research Methods .............................................................................................................................................................. 27

6 Coral Restoration Techniques ............................................................................................................................................. 27

6.1 Coral gardening & planting .................................................................................................................................................................... 28

6.2 Ceramic structures ................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

6.3 Reefballs & concrete structures ............................................................................................................................................................ 32

6.4 3-D printed structures ............................................................................................................................................................................ 33

6.5 Biorock structures ................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

6.6 Shipwrecks, Oilrigs, Trains and Tanks ................................................................................................................................................ 37

6.7 Rubble, Stones, and Rocks .................................................................................................................................................................... 38

6.8 Scrap & Tires ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 39

7 Direct Comparison ............................................................................................................................................................. 41

8 Measuring Success in Coral Reef Restoration...................................................................................................................... 41

9 Costs of Reef Restoration ................................................................................................................................................... 43

10 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................ 45

11 Acknockledement ............................................................................................................................................................... 46

12 Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 46

13 References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 48

14 Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................... 56

1 ABSTRACT

Coral Reefs are endangered by many threats, primarily anthropogenic actions. As such, they are dy-

ing at a rapid pace. Whether it is unsustainable fishing, ocean and land pollution, or changing climate and

ocean chemistry, the scenario of dead or near dead coastal regions is scary. Unfortunately, it is also becom-

ing the new norm. Over the years, environmental groups have been trying to protect natural regions. In

some areas, restoration is necessary after various impacts destroy the natural habitat of both animals and

humans.

Restoration in the marine environment is not as common as terrestrial. For example, planting trees

to reforest a region where vegetation had been removed is a fairly straightforward and common practice, but

in diverse environments, such as marine ecosystems, different laws apply. Based on the knowledge of resto-

ration on land, various pioneers have tried to restore coral reefs with the best intentions. However, the re-

sults have been mixed and several techniques have evolved. This report will make a case for the importance

of coral reefs, as well as analyze the stressors, remedies, and pros and cons of different coral reef restoration

techniques currently available.

Keywords

Coral Reef Restoration, Climate Change, Mitigation


2 IMPORTANCE OF CORAL REEFS

Often referred to as the rainforests of the sea, coral reefs are some of the most diverse ecosystems

on earth. They deliver a number of goods and services worth up to 375 billion USD per year globally (Cos-

tanza et al., 1997). They are home to thousands of different fish and invertebrate species that can only be

found in the complex and fascinating microcosm of a coral reef. An estimated 8 million undiscovered spe-

cies live in and around coral reefs (Reaka-Kudla, 1997). From a global perspective, coral reefs only cover

about 0.1% of earth’s surface, yet they play a vital role both ecologically and economically (Costanza et al.,

1997). Coral reefs should receive a great amount of attention with respect to climate change; not only can

they mitigate extreme weather events, including tsunamis and hurricanes (Frich et al., 2002, Kunkel et al.,

2006), by acting as wave breakers, but reefs also present a solution for a large percentage of humans facing

food scarcity due disappearing fish stocks in coastal regions. Yet instead of being protected, coral reefs are

experiencing severe damage due to climate change (Hughes, 2003) and other destructive impacts.

2.1 Products and Services provided by coral reefs

2.1.1. Habitat

The complex structure of the marine food web is only possible with the support of healthy coral

reefs. From fish and invertebrates to sponges, algae, etc., every organism plays a vital role that forms the

foundation of the marine environment. Coral Reefs provide protection from larger predators for juvenile

fish, homes for herbivorous animals, and food sources for larger crustaceans, retiles, or mammals living

within or near to coral reefs (Knowelton, N. 2008). Global biodiversity hotspots, such as the coral triangle in

the Indo-west Pacific or the Mesoamerican barrier reef in the Caribbean, are being studied intensively, even

to the extent of genetic bar-coding, in order to better understand the enormous diversity and complex sym-

bioses of coral reefs.

2.1.2. Economic Development

Mankind heavily depends on the goods and services provided by coral reefs. However, there are

many different figures when it comes to placing a monetary value on coral reefs. Costanza et al. include the

following goods and services in their assessment: food production, raw building materials like limestone for

housing and streets, aquarium components, jewelry, and recreation such as tourism and sports activities

around coral reefs (Costanza et al., 1997). Whereas the economic value of 375 billion USD derived by Cos-

tanza might seem small in comparison to the intrinsic value of estuaries, sea grass beds, or shelves, it is the

combination and symbioses of nature’s biodiversity and variety of components that make up the immense

value of coastal resources. Of the global human population, sixty percent lives within 100km of an ocean

coastline, which means the majority of people on earth depend on the resources and benefits derived from

coral reefs (Vitousek et al., 1997). Furthermore, most of people in these coastal regions live in developing

countries which are densely populated and are looking for economic growth in order to meet the standards

of more developed world economies. This results in even more pressure and threat to coral reefs.

2.1.3. Food

Of the vast population that lives close to the oceans, especially in developing countries and in Asia,

the majority is directly dependent on food resources coming from the coastal region. It is estimated that

about 1 billion people rely on fish as their primary animal protein source. For example, while fish provide

slightly over 7 percent of animal protein in North and Central America, in Asia they provide over 26 percent

(FAO, 2010).

2.1.4. Coastal Protection

Coral reefs act as buffers to reduce the energy of waves, surges, storms, and in extreme cases tsuna-

mis. As natural barriers, they protect shorelines by preventing erosion, damage of infrastructure, and loss of

life. They also protect the highly productive and ecologically important wetlands and mangrove forests along

coasts, which play a key role in mitigation against climate change by storing and transforming CO2 (Wil-


kinson & Talbot, 2001). In a time when the effects of climate change are starting to become visible, vulner-

able nations are beginning to evacuate, like in the example of Kiribati which caused a stir by becoming the

first nation on earth to slowly disappear due to rising sea levels and eroding land parts (Rahman 1999, Wat-

son 2000). It is becoming increasingly obvious that coral reefs play a central role in the mitigation and adap-

tation of changing weather patterns and sea level rise.

Figure 1. Ocean energy reduction through coral reefs

2.1.5. Medicine

Aside from the direct use of corals for various medical procedures, for example using limestone for

dental and facial reconstructions, reefs can also provide the pharmaceutical industry with medicinal proper-

ties to cure different diseases. In addition to anti-inflammatory and other medical properties of corals, re-

search for medicines treating HIV and cancer are on-going (Bishop 1996, Sanders 2005). Today, over 50%

of the anti-tumor and anti-infective agents have their origins in natural products of which a large amount

comes from coral reefs.

2.2 Environmental Services

Many corals and sponges are filter feeders. This means they extract matter suspended in the water

and therefore contribute to enhanced quality and clarity of waters around coral reefs (Kaplan 2009). Beyond

this direct service, coral reefs and all its connected components have a lot more to offer when it comes to

keep our planet clean and healthy.

2.2.1 Climate Change Mitigation as Carbon Sink

The discussion concerning coral reefs’ utility as a global carbon sink is an on-going debate. At least

one source states that all corals globally work as a carbon sink, sequestering approximately 111 million tons

C per year, which represents about 2% of the total annual output of anthropogenic CO2 (Kinsey & Hopley

1991). However, other scientists claim that the production of atmospheric CO2 is actually increased when

bicarbonate is precipitated as limestone, the main process in coral reef building, in order to maintain the

ocean’s pH balance (Goreau 2012).

Figure 2. Ocean’s carbon dioxide cycle


Whereas the carbon cycle within earth’s oceans is fully understood (Figure 2), the changes of its

components, especially in the long-term and including the exchange cycles with the deep sea, are still in need

of extensive research. A great example for a mitigation solution is the discovery by Jasper de Goeij which

brings sponges into the spotlight. In his research, Goeij found that the sponge Halisarca caerulea recycles dis-

solved organic carbon by turning it into choynocytes that can be used by other living organisms on coral

reefs as a source of food.

2.3 Financial value

As with many environmental services that nature provides for free, extreme exploitation leads to

putting a price tag on them since either economists want to know the value to be exploited or environmen-

talist need to present numbers when it comes to the protection them. Coral reefs are especially under pres-

sure, since they are largely hidden from the public eye. It is easier to spot a dying forest than a dying coral

reef.

It is estimated that globally, the overall economic benefit of the world’s coral reefs is around 29.8

billion USD per year (Cesar, Burke and Pet-Soede 2003). The main income is created through tourism and

recreation (9.8 billion USD) and coastal protection (9 billion USD). Fisheries account for 5.7 billion USD

and biodiversity for 5.5 billion USD.

Coral reefs are part a system together with mangroves and sea grass beds. To work effectively, all

three need to be healthy and intact. In 2007, Martinez et al. estimated that the total value provided by the

world’s coastal ecosystem services and products (including terrestrial, aquatic, and human transformed eco-

systems) add up to a stunning 25,783 billion USD per year.

2.4 Biodiversity

Humans depend heavily on nature for their well-being, and biodiversity is the basis of healthy eco-

systems and fundamental ecological process. However, its great importance is often underestimated, as it is

difficult to put a price tag on biodiversity. When biodiversity is reduced or destroyed the devastating effects

are felt, especially when monetary losses are recorded. The direct benefits for maintaining the resilience of

the coral reefs worldwide equate to approximately 5.5 billion USD (Cesar, Burke and Pet-Soede 2003),

which means this is the amount of money needed in order to preserve the coral reef’s ability to function and

provide critical services under changing conditions. That in fact this value includes all the billion US$ earned

because of the biodiversity, is self-understanding.

3 ENDANGERD SPECIES

3.1 Current status

The IUCN Red List, a collection of all endangered living beings on earth, shows that 208 coral spe-

cies are threatened and it’s not a shrinking number. The already fragile and rare environment of clear, warm,

and low nutrient waters that is stable in pH, temperature, and salinity is under a high level of stress from

anthropogenic influences. According to the Word Resource Institute, the threats can be broken down into

tree main categories:

Local threats

Changing climate and ocean chemistry

Compounding threats like diseases and invasive species

3.2 Local Threats

Probably the most severe and directly damaging local threats are destructive fishing practices. These

include cyanide fishing, blast or dynamite fishing, bottom trawling, and banging on the reef with sticks to

drive fish into nets. While fishing quotas and mouths to be fed are rising with an ever-growing hunger for

fish and other reef habitants, overfishing presents a dangerous threat to coral reefs. The symbiotic relation-

ship between reef animals and corals is necessary to keep a coral reef healthy and free from destructive para-


sites. High biodiversity is a key resilience factor to fight potential new invaders. On a larger scale, overfishing

will affect the ecological balance of coral reef networks and all life that depend on them.

Furthermore, coastal development and all that comes with it, including urban and industrial pollu-

tion, impacts coral reefs severely. Sewage, trash, agricultural run-off, oil spills, and other waste are poisonous

to ocean habitats and especially dangerous to the fragile environment of coral reefs. Some pollution, such as

chemical fertilizers used in agriculture, leads to increased levels of nitrogen in the seawater, which results in

an overgrowth of algae, cutting coral reefs off from sunlight and oxygen.

With coastal development, forests either directly on the coast (mangroves) or further inland are re-

moved for construction, mining, farming, etc. This leads to erosion of the coastline and sedimentation of

rivers, as forests keep soil from washing away in heavy rainfall. All of the sediments eventually end up in the

oceans and cover coral reefs, leading them to a slow death, again, by cutting them off from sunlight and

oxygen.

Tourism is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, they often bring much needed economic benefits to

the region and can reduce some of the local threats like overfishing or destructive fishing practices. In some

instances fishermen even turn into tourist guides and these practices stop altogether. However, once the

human capacity that a region can bear is passed and sustainable tourism can no longer be practiced, heavy

stress caused by recreational activities like boating, diving, snorkeling and sports fishing leads to people

touching and breaking coral reefs, stirring up sediment, dropping anchors, and causing other types of dam-

age.

Coral mining must also be mentioned. It is a practice where live coral is removed from reefs to be

used as bricks, road-fill or cement in constructions. Coral mining is especially impactful where resources are

scarce, for example in the Maldives (Brown and Dunn 1988).

3.3 Changing climate and ocean chemistry

The earth’s climate is changing and the effects are visible. Extreme weather patterns such as longer

heat waves, heavy thunderstorms, and increased ocean acidification due to excessive greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere result in increased pressure on coral reefs.

Corals cannot survive if water temperatures are too high for a too long of a period. Such an event

results in coral bleaching, which are easily visible when diving and snorkeling since the affected corals are

partially or completely white. The algae that lives within the tissue of corals (and usually makes up the color)

is expelled when exposed to high temperatures for too long, thus resulting in the white, or “bleached” col-

oration (Dove, S.G. and Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 2006). This phenomenon can be caused by natural weather

events such as El-Nino (Marshall, P. and Schuttenberg, H. 2006), but it is also triggered by global warming

and ocean acidification (Johnson, J.E. and Marshall, P.A. 2007, Hoegh-G. O. et al. 2007). Therefore, coral

bleaching is expected to become even more frequent in the future (Schuttenberg, H.Z. 2001; Donner, S.

2009).

The acidification process of the world’s oceans through anthropogenic produced CO2 is a major

threat; 30% of all greenhouse gases are absorbed by the ocean’s surface layers, where a chemical reaction

leads to lower pH levels (Sabine, C. L. 2004). This in turn leads to a scarcity of mineral compounds like cal-

cite and aragonite, which are needed by animals to build their skeletons and especially for the growth of

coral reefs (Hughes, T. P. et al 2007).

Extreme weather patterns and rising ocean levels measured over recent decades (IPCC, Solomon S,

et al. 2007) will also take their toll on the already weakened coral reefs, since the frequency and intensity of

storms will increase (Emanuel, K., R. Sundararajan, and J. Williams. 2008), and therefore more coral reefs

will be destroyed.


3.4 Compounding threats like diseases and invasive species

Natural threats, such as the Crown of Thorns Starfish, and diseases, like the recently discovered par-

asitic worm Amakusaplana aquaporae in the Great Barrier Reef (Hume et al. 2013) pose additional destructive

effects on the already weakened coral reefs worldwide. Yet these impacts are also often related to human

activities. For example, overfishing reduces the natural predators of the Crown of Thorns Starfish, leading

to starfish population booms which are unsustainable and destructive to corals (Dulvy, N. K., Freckleton

R.P. and Polunin, N. V. C. 2004). Outbreaks of crown of thorns starfishes can be devastating events, leav-

ing complete areas of reefs dead behind. Agricultural runoff, which supports larvae growth (Brodie, et al.

2005) leads to increased occurrences of diseases, although such cause and effect processes are still not fully

understood. However research suggests that decreased water quality and warming oceans due to climate

change may lead to higher risks of infection (Harvell, C. D. and Jordán-Dahlgren, E. 2007).

3.5 Future outlook and possible mitigation

Global population is expected to reach 9.6 billion in 2050 and 10.9 billion by 2100, according to the

medium-variant projection (U.N. DESA, 2014). It is estimated that 23% of the world’s population lives

both within 100 km of the coast and <100 m above sea level, and population densities in coastal regions are

about three times higher than the global average (Small and Nicholls, 2003). Therefore, it can be expected

that pressures on coral reefs due to coastal development will continue and that the speed and scale of degra-

dation will increase. On a positive note, destructive fishing techniques may disappear since tourist expecta-

tions of diving and snorkeling areas will force their ban into law and will introduce much needed protection

measures of coral reefs. On the downside, if mass tourism becomes the standard, sustainability and preser-

vation of coral reefs will be difficult if not impossible to implement.

Necessary mitigation strategies include zoning, sustainable planning, and enforcement of regulations.

The implementation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in consensus with the economic and ecologic stra-

tegic planning of the region, the establishment of waste and wastewater treatment plants, and the conserva-

tion of mangrove forests and sea grass beds, will help to define the limits of development (Clark, J., 1997).

Furthermore, environmental restoration practices such as tree planting, coral reef building, reintroduction of

local animal and plant species can be used to restore the areas if necessary.

Further inland, sedimentation build-up, agricultural fertilizer run-off, and livestock waste needs to be

controlled and regulated. Preserving and restoring forests to withstand heavy rainfalls and keep soil in place

to prevent erosion can help enormously when it comes to coral reef preservation. Although global defor-

estation rates are slowing, the practice is still changing the earth’s surface significantly (Hansen, M.C. 2013).

A growing human population increases the need for food, and therefore an increasingly expanded land area

is cleared for agriculture and cattle farming. As a remedy, citizens, policy makers, and economists must value

uncut trees, since the long-term benefits of managed forests will be higher (economically as well as ecologi-

cally) than short-term profits if all losses are included. Payments for Economical Services (PES) must be

continuously improved and implemented, with a focus on re-naturalization and fighting corruption on all

levels. Technology must also be improved to prevent spillovers and run-off from farming, agricultural ferti-

lizer and pesticides, anthropogenic waste, and excavated soil. Continued education on sustainable lifestyles

(veganism, organic farming, etc.) will pay its contribution to saving coral reefs.

Globally, greenhouse gas emissions are still rising, despite efforts of many countries worldwide. With

the preindustrial concentration of greenhouse gases used as a benchmark, current trends do not show the

drastically needed reduction of emissions, but rather a continued increase (Blasing, T.J., 2013). This trend

runs parallel with the major contributor of CO2 output globally: energy production through the burning of

fossil fuels like coal, gas, and oil (IPCC Synthesis Report, 2007). As the global demand for energy is contin-

uously rising, and an immediate switch to renewable sources has not occurred (U.S. Energy Information

Administration, 2010), the oceans will be exposed to greater CO2 levels in both the short- and long-term

future.


Despite the grave consequences of greenhouse gas emissions on the health of the planet, efforts to

change this situation have been lethargic. The problem was not created just within a few years, and therefore

it cannot be solved just with a few easy fixes. Throughout history, economic growth, monetary success, and

wealth have been considered positive goals since the age of industrialization. But things have gotten out of

hand; nature can no longer compensate for the disrupted balance of natural cycles and depletion of natural

resources. Greed, inequality, and detachment from nature have lead mankind to a situation that will require

worldwide efforts to make it right again. Continued efforts on switching to renewable energy production,

sustainable lifestyles, stabilizing world’s population, and using technologies to minimize greenhouse gas out-

puts must receive mankind’s joint efforts. Otherwise, the rather bleak projections of the so-called “cli-fis”

may come true and will have drastic outcomes for every living being on planet earth.

The Food and Agricultural Organization states that 80% of the world’s wild marine fish stocks are

fully exploited or overexploited (FAO Fisheries Aquaculture Dept. 2009). This figure does not even include

the illegal fishing activities on a global scale. It also does not show local trends which directly impact coral

reefs. The demand for exotic and live fish is on the rise; the live reef food market is a growing business, es-

pecially since the buying power of Chinese citizens is rising (Erdmann, M. V. and L. Pet-Soede. 1996). As

the country with the largest population on earth, even slight increases in demand will result in massive in-

crease of fishing amounts, fish imports and has even political consequences, like expanding marine territo-

ries in South East Asia.

As a mitigation strategy, MPAs must continue to increase at a global scale. As of today, only 3%

(UNEP – WCMC, 2013) of the earth’s water surface is protected. Yet efforts to integrate the local popula-

tion show successful projects all around the world, with the potential for further initiatives. The so-called

LMMAs (locally managed marine areas) comprise a network of different zones, including take zones, sea-

sonal take zones, no-take zones, etc. When a carefully prepared concept is implemented with the backing

and continued management of the local community, win-win situations can be achieved in these most cru-

cial areas (UNDP Equator Initiative, 2012, Kereseka, 2014), including:

Increased biomass and diversity

Healthy reefs, sea grass beds and mangroves

More available fish to catch

However, only strict implementation guarantees a positive outcome. In the case of MPAs, 59% of

studied areas were classified as “not ecologically distinguishable from fished sites” (Graham J.E. et al., 2014).

MPAs often fail to reach their full potential due to factors such as illegal harvesting, regulations that legally

allow detrimental harvesting, or emigration of animals outside boundaries because of continuous habitat or

inadequate reserve size (Edgar, G.J., 2011, Mora, C. et al., 2006, Babcock, R.C., 2010).

Concerning mass coral bleaching events, it is important to notice the frequency and severity of oc-

currence. The events are stronger and more frequent (Eakin, C.M., 2009) and there does not seem to be a

trend in the opposite direction (Donner, S., 2009). But again there is no quick solution. A global effort is

needed to successfully stabilize, revitalize, and heal the ocean’s ability to compensate, regulate and neutralize

anthropogenic actions. This starts with the big challenge of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. On a

positive note, latest studies show that coral reefs are developing adaptation processes in response to ocean

acidification and temperature increases (Shamberger, K. E. F., 2014). Against all odds, scientists in American

Samoa have found corals that live in water that reaches up to 35°C for a few hours a day. This phenomenon

is still being studied, but first results and guesses reveal that the trans-generational protection is caused by

epigenetic changes (the changes in genes through chemical reactions), which are passed onto the larvae dur-

ing spawning events (Mascarelli, A. 2014). However, it is important to keep in mind that even though nature

is adapting, she also has her limits.

Finally, regarding compounding threats such as diseases or invasive species, the focus should be on

maintaining or restoring biodiversity of a reef. Crown of Thorns Starfish, for example, have natural preda-


tors like Giant Triggerfish or Wrasses. If these species are overfished from an area, the starfish will over-

populate and cause harm. Also, if a reef is in a healthy condition, diseases are more likely to be neutralized

by the reef’s defense mechanism itself.

As with many forms of environmental degradation, harming coastal zones leads to a downward spi-

ral. Anything that leads to the destabilization of a natural circle will eventually have harmful consequences to

another equilibrium. Humanity needs to relearn to appreciate the true value (not only the economic value)

of all environmental services nature provides, and restore the balance so such services can be used again in a

sustainable manner.

One attempt to protect coastal ecosystems is the blue carbon scheme. Aligned with the REDD+

model, it provides PES (Payments for environmental services). In short, individuals of the local community

will get paid for managing (taking care, not destroying, restoring, etc.) of their local flora and fauna. In the

case of coastal ecosystems, that would be sea grass beds, mangrove forests, salt marshes and coral reefs. So

instead of cutting down mangroves for firewood, a blue carbon mitigation project could involve providing

alternative cooking options parallel to the protection and possible restoration of the CO2 binding capable

mangroves. Financing these projects would be identical to the REDD+ system, meaning that carbon certifi-

cates would be issued on a trading platform where CO2 emitting companies or countries could purchase on

a mandatory or voluntary basis in order to compensate for their output. Learning from the mistakes and

monitoring the on-going controversial discussions about carbon offsetting, improving this idea could help

mitigate the current problems regarding CO2. Here are some of the biggest issues that activists on both sides

are discussing and which must be considered and resolved if Blue Carbon offsetting is to be successful:

Supporting the “Business as usual” mentality by buying oneself out of a problem (Monbiot, G. 2006)

Leakage: geographically displacing the problem, but not solving it

Indigenous people’s rights and land issues, including land grabbing (Lang, C. 2006)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot

Corruption in payments and revenues from managed areas, as well as enforcements and implemen-

tation of legislations (Barr, C., 2010, UNDP 2011)

Battling for a healthier ocean on a sinking ship is difficult, and requires extreme measures to coun-

terbalance earth’s misused ecosystems.

4 ACTIONPLAN

Where to begin? As an individual confronted with all of the negative headlines, one can feel com-

pletely helpless and lost in front of the giant mountain of problems that needs to be resolved if we want our

planet to be healthy and sustainable for future generations.

Globally, one of the most important things that needs to happen is a shift of consciousness, espe-

cially in the Western world. In an unequal world, where 2.8 billion people live on under 2 dollars (USD) per

day (Worldwatch Institute, 2011), and by 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living with water scarcity (World-

watch Institute, 2011), it is unacceptable that the top ten CO2 emitters produce almost 70% of anthropogen-

ic greenhouse gases (PBL Netherland Environmental Assessment Agency, 2008). With global population

still growing, sustainable handling of natural resources is unlikely to happen within the next few decades.

With a continued focus only on economic growth, the depletion of natural resources will continue, therefore

leading to the environment’s decline and eventual collapse.

What the world needs is a multilateral approach in protection, restoration, and creation. Focusing

only on one area will not bring the desired effects in an efficient way. For example, there is no use in restor-

ing a damaged coral reef if the factors that are destroying it are not also taken care of. World leaders in poli-

tics, economy, even religion can create influential paradigm shifts, which are needed to initiate continuous

change that are indoctrinated through legislations. Government organizations, NGOs, NPOs, and individual

role models need to continuously work together on creating sustainable means for everyone around the

globe - whether it is protecting, restoring or creating natural regions, or just making sure that no one needs


to go to bed hungry at night. Every individual must try to make a difference, whether it is in educating one-

self, changing consumer behavior, (re)establishing better equality in the world, (re)introducing the 4 Rs into

their lives (Recycle, Reuse, Repair, Reduce), supporting economic developments that focus on cradle to cra-

dle (C2C) production, which means every byproduct during a production cycle is 100% recyclable or can be

reused 100% in the production cycle itself, as well as (re)connecting with nature’s 4 elements.

Furthermore, the tireless work of researchers, educators, quality managers, observers, auditors, vol-

unteers, etc. must continue in order to make sure that the good intentions of projects reach their full poten-

tial. This includes a mixture of top-down and bottom-up approaches, and a reduction of corruption to an

absolute minimum.

4.1 Protection

There are several philosophies concerning protecting nature. Some believe in solving the symptoms,

some in restraining themselves in any activity, others believe they can shop themselves to sustainability,

while others look to restoration, or economic benefits. However, regardless of the approach, the most im-

portant attributes are awareness, transparency, intention, and communication. From all the mentioned ac-

tions above, protecting an area certainly has a strong impact for the relevant region. Ironically, it used to be

that humans needed to be protected from nature, now it’s humanity that is restricted in certain areas due to

their destructive behavior. Sadly enough, the realization has not come to the point that if things are getting

worse, humanity cannot live without nature, but nature can live without humans. As of now, only 2.8% of

the world’s oceans are covered by MPAs (Marine Protected Areas), as shown in Figure 3 (IUCN and

UNEP-WCMC, 2013). At the last convention on biological diversity, most participating countries agreed on

the target to make this figure 10% by the year 2020. This goal is called the Aichi Target 11 (CBD, 2010), and

it was defined at COP-10 Japan and revised at the proceeding COP meetings.

Figure 4. MPAs global map released at IMPAC 3 (2013)

IUCN further defined different levels of protection and/or usage of the protected areas:

Ia Strict Nature Reserve

“Protected areas that are strictly set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geologi-

cal/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and

limited to ensure protection of the conservation values. Such protected areas can serve as indispen-

sable reference areas for scientific research and monitoring.”

Ib Wilderness Area

“Protected areas that are usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural

character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected

and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.”


II National Park

“Large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with

the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a founda-

tion for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and

visitor opportunities.”

III Natural Monument or Feature

“Protected areas set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea

mount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature such as an an-

cient grove. They are generally quite small protected areas and often have high visitor value.”

IV Habitat/Species Management Area

“Protected areas aim to protect particular species or habitats and management reflects this priority.

Many Category IV protected areas will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements

of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category.”

V Protected Landscape/ Seascape

“A protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of dis-

tinct character with significant, ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguard-

ing the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated na-

ture conservation and other values.”

VI Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources

“Protected areas that conserve ecosystems and habitats, together with associated cultural values and

traditional natural resource management systems. They are generally large, with most of the area in a

natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where

low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one

of the main aims of the area.”

The criteria mentioned above were welcomed and incorporated by the COP meetings (IUCN, 2011)

and became the standard of all protected areas, whether it is a land or marine area. When it comes to the

implementation and governance of MPAs, governments and private institutions (or a combination of the

both) exercise control, but also local communities can manage the specific area. This presents a source of

conflict in quality control, purpose, and aims, as well as surveillance because it is often times unclear or incon-

sistent in terms of who is in charge of managing and protecting the MPAs. While some areas are planning to use

drones and speedboats for surveillance, monitoring and enforcing laws, as it was tested in the country Palau,

which dedicates itself exemplary to marine protection (ABC News Australia, 2013), other regions struggle to

continually uphold a decent level of protection due to lack of funds, commitment, management, infrastruc-

ture, know-how, etc. (Poonian, C.N.S., 2008). In one study conducted by Graham J. Edgar, he and his col-

leagues analyze the effectiveness and benefits of MPAs worldwide and boil the conservation outcomes

down to five key criteria (also combined in the acronym NEOLI), which need to be continuously imple-

mented to guarantee the successful conservation effort:

Fishing regulations (No take zones are the most effective)

Enforcement (surveillance, coast guard efforts, prosecution)

Age (how old the fish are the older the better)

Area (how large the region is the larger the better)

Isolation (accessibility the further away or the more difficult to enter the region, the better)

As mentioned previously, this study found that 59% of the MPAs studied were not ecologically dis-

tinguishable from fished sites.


4.2 Restoration & Rehabilitation

Environmental restoration is a term that is commonly used after a severe environmental disaster,

such as a chemical leakage or oil spill. For example, efforts to restore the Gulf of Mexico after the “Deep-

water Horizon” BP oilrig explosion in 2010 are still ongoing, both to address the damages of the oil spill

itself, as well as the cleanup efforts due to the use of highly toxic corexit oil dispersant, of which long-term

effects are unknown (Biello D., 2010). As destruction of the natural environment is an ongoing process, the

need to restore natural habitats like forests, coastal regions, coral reefs, etc. becomes increasingly apparent.

As early as 1987, John J. Burger defined this practice as: “A process in which a damaged resource is re-

newed. Biologically. Structurally. Functionally”. The society for ecological restoration (SER) expands this

definition to include erosion control, reforestation, usage of genetically local native species, removal of non-

native species and weeds, re-vegetation of disturbed areas, day lighting streams, reintroduction of native

species, as well as habitat and range improvement for targeted species. The term rehabilitation refers to simi-

lar efforts, but not on a full scale. Partially destroyed areas will be supported to regain their full strength as

soon as possible again.

Applying these methods to the restoration efforts for coral reefs presents a new level of challenges

and demands new ideas, as coral reefs are not located in the human natural habitat. Different scenarios of

destruction and degradation call for different actions to restore and rehabilitate coral reefs. The term coral

reef restoration is not yet widely used, although it has been practiced for decades. The general public is gen-

erally unaware of what an active approach to giving life back to shorelines and their inhabitants looks like.

Using an analogy, often it is explained as reef-silviculture (Rinkevich, B. 2008), which is basically the same as

terrestrial forestation. In a controlled environment, a diverse selection of local “reef seedlings” is collected

(which are naturally broken off or actively taken small pieces of coral), grown under optimal conditions (cur-

rent, pH-level, salinity, enough light, no pollution, etc.), and located in a relatively easy to reach area, prefer-

ably close to the restoration site. This accumulation of seedlings together makes up the term “coral garden”

or “coral nursery”, and they come in different forms and shapes, depending on local conditions, materials,

funding, seedling types and size of the project (Figure 4 a - c).

Figure 4. a. Hard Coral on floating ropes (Seychelles) b. Coral seedlings tree (FL, USA) c. Nursery tables in Bora Bora

The seedlings are either tied up with a small rope or plastic zip-tie to the gardening structure, or, as

can be seen in Figure 5c, put onto a bit of epoxy or concrete mixture piece by piece, so they remain in place

even in the event of a severe weather impact. Floating ropes or nets, as well as seedling trees, usually have a

buoy on the surface and are anchored to the sea floor. The location therefore should not be deeper than 5 –

7m. Tidal changes and the structures’ materials also must be taken into consideration. The length of the

ropes holding the structures should be laid out at high tide so the floating device on the surface will always

be visible. For seedling trees, PVC tubes are typically used because they are cheap, light, tough and do not

erode in salt water (Nedimayer, K. 2011).

When applying silviculture, establishing a coral garden is one of the first active steps of the restora-

tion project, as it takes about 8 – 12 months for them to grow to a decent size and become strong enough to

be transplanted to the area where the restoration takes place. Like a terrestrial gardener, it is important to

periodically check on the seedlings in the coral garden, as some pieces of corals might not have survived the

transfer, a sudden disease or harmful algae might be spreading, some structures could have fallen out of

place, and growth rate should be measured. Considerations regarding tagging, numbering, and photo-

graphing, including exact dates of planting and transfer to the restoration site can be helpful, especially when

creating a diverse mixture of different corals species and importantly, different gene pools of corals.


Once part of the coral garden is ready to be transferred to the restoration site, the coral pieces can

be harvested. Pieces that have grown to be 2-3x larger than when initially placed in the coral garden, are

either cut off directly from the rope or only partially so the rest of the coral piece becomes a seedling again.

Occasionally, the whole structure can be transferred to the restoration site if the means are available. It is

important that the harvested coral pieces remain in the water, whether directly in the ocean or at least inside

a container if brought above surface. They can be outside the water for a few minutes but that should be

limited to an absolute minimum, as exposure to air will decrease the survival rate.

The next step is placing the harvested coral pieces onto a 3-D structure. Although these structures

can be anything imaginable, some are more effective in terms of optimizing and facilitating growth since the

success of (re)populating on a flat area is less than an elevated construction (Fox, H.E., 2000). Many differ-

ent structures have been tried and tested, the majority of which are covered in this report. There are differ-

ent approaches with various outcomes and levels of satisfaction regarding aesthetics as well as functionality.

Fish and oyster farming for example have a recreational purpose to attract snorkelers and divers, an envi-

ronmental purpose for providing food and income for the local population, and they can be in the form of

art, such as the underwater museum in Cancun, Mexico. These structures can also secure coastlines from

being washed away, or protect coasts by becoming a wave breaker. All these benefits exist naturally with

coral reefs, but unfortunately many of them have been destroyed and therefore need to be restored. Some

areas have been destroyed so badly that restoration will be called an artificial reef. Here is a list of different

artificial reef techniques:

Fixation of rubble through a net (for example after blast fishing)

Rock piling

Trash piling

Sinking old ships or train wagons

Tire structures (Osborne reef project)

Concrete structures (non-specific form)

Reefballs (specific concrete form)

3-D printed Reef structures

Transfer of coral pieces onto a natural 3-D form and fixate them with epoxy

Ceramic reef structures (through the company Ecoreefs)

Electrical Mineral Accretion (also called Biorock) on an iron rebar structure

Whereas an anchor dropping onto a coral reef destroys a small area, which could be restored with

just a few harvested coral pieces transferred onto the damaged zone, a dynamited area needs to be complete-

ly recreated and 3-dimensionally optimized. Entirely destroyed coastlines require extreme measures to bring

back life to the area. In these situations, a cost effective and large-scale implementable technique must be

used. All of the factors mentioned above can be considered when deciding which technique is best for a

specific restoration project. This report will focus on four case studies including reefball and concrete struc-

tures, direct coral planting, ceramic & 3-D printed reefs, and the Biorock technique.

4.3 Creation & Reproduction

Nature’s resilience – its ability to resist, adapt, restore and create – is often underestimated. When a

coral reef is in a healthy condition, it can bread sexually by releasing eggs and sperm, and sometimes even

hermaphrodite gametes that contain both components (Veron, J.E.N. 2000). These events happen regionally

during the full moon, or sometimes several times a year. If the area around the spawning corals allows the

eggs to settle, a coral reef can expand and therefore create new habitat. However, this is a very slow and

sensitive process. Changing weather patterns and slight changes of environmental factors can disrupt it easi-

ly.

With a changing climate, rising ocean levels, and extreme weather conditions, some coastal areas are

suddenly under threat where there was no danger decades before. As a quick fix, artificial wave breakers are


being implemented to protect the shorelines. These structures are technically artificial reefs, and marine life

will eventually migrate onto them. A similar form of habitat creation, but with the main intention to create

tourist attractions or sometimes a cheaper form of wave breakers, is to sink old ships (or train coaches, old

army tanks, etc.), which eventually become wrecks. Critics say it is just a cheaper way than dismantling and

recycling, but with the outlook of a potential win-win situation, this action can be justified. Aesthetical fac-

tors also come into play, as diving through an underwater junkyard might not attract tourists.

Another proactive approach that is becoming more and more popular in recent years is climate en-

gineering, often referred to as geo-engineering. Geo-engineering is the deliberate intervention in natural cy-

cles to counteract or stabilize climate change (GAO, 2011). With the main focus on atmospheric climate

engineering, there are only a few techniques that have been tried on a small scale in the marine environment.

First, there is “ocean fertilization”, which consist of inducing chemical components into the ocean.

However this is a very touchy subject as the involved parties’ (fisheries, scientists, environmentalists, etc.)

interests might have different intentions. Some argue that iron fertilization, meaning literally introducing

iron dust into the upper ocean layer over a large area to stimulate the phytoplankton growth, will create

more nutrients to support more marine animals, as well as lead to intensified removal of CO2 from the at-

mosphere, as more phytoplankton will result in a quicker carbon cycle explained in figure 2. This is good for

the environment and also will bring economic growth (Boyd, P.W. 2007). Yet whether such an option is

truly viable is another ongoing debate (Buessler, K.O., et al., 2007). Ecological issues are apparent as algal

blooms (also known as red tides) are known to be harmful to the ocean environment as they create hypoxic

conditions, meaning there is insufficient oxygen dissolved in the water resulting in large die offs of animals.

Marine geo-engineering including ocean fertilization is regulated under the amendments of the London pro-

tocol, which was decided on 18 October 2013, during the 35th Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties

to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution at the IMO headquarters.

A second technique currently being researched and discussed to combat ocean acidification is adding

limestone powder to the upper layers of the oceans. In 2008, Lesley Harvey published his work on mitigat-

ing atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification by adding limestone powder to ocean regions where upwelling

occurs. Although theoretically this should bring expected relief by counterbalancing the low pH level, the

effects would be felt only after 50 years, and the efforts, logistics, and funding of producing limestone pow-

der would outrun the benefits when using it in reducing the current global CO2 output.

5 RESEARCH METHODS

To identify articles with sufficient insights and know-how regarding coral reef restoration, a litera-

ture review was conducted using a variety of environmental and marine science databases. Furthermore, I

created an alert account to identify new publications on the topic. Newsfeeds from international, national,

and local NGOs from all over the world covering topics of ocean conservation and restoration helped to

inform this study and ensure my sources were as current and relevant as possible. I also contacted and

communicated with several individuals and organizations that are involved in coral reef restoration, and in

some cases had the opportunity to meet personally during travels through South East Asia between Sep-

tember 2013 and March 2014. I also selected different dive locations in Thailand, the Philippines, and Indo-

nesia, many with restored coral reefs, in order to interview the local population and people in charge of the

restored reefs, and also to dive at the site and take underwater photos. Finally, my decade-long experience as

a scuba dive-instructor with global dive experiences and working for NGOs in coral research, protection,

and restoration has helped me to build knowledge and know-how that was integrated into this work.

6 CORAL RESTORATION TECHNIQUES

As coral reefs are fragile ecosystems, any impact can have severe consequences. Once the damage is

done, it takes decades, if ever, for coral reefs to recover naturally. Depending on the sexual reproduction of

the surviving corals, and the size and severity of the affected area, a reef may recover on its own, but if an


on-going stressor is not removed, chances for recovery are very low. Areas destroyed due to bleaching

events have been completely killed off in the past. Such an event occurred on the Great Barrier Reef in Aus-

tralia in 2006. The good news was that the reef’s resilience made a recovery possible, even in a shorter

amount of time than was expected (Diaz-Pulido, G. et al., 2009). Yet we have to keep in mind that not all

reef stories are like this. Most of the time anthropogenic stress factors are not removed and therefore make

a natural recovery nearly impossible. Other stressors include severe storms or tsunamis, extensive dynamite

fishing, and bottom trawling, which result in the ocean ground becoming flat, which makes it nearly impos-

sible for coral eggs to settle and grow naturally. These are instances where humans should interfere. With

the construction of man-made reef structures, conditions are created for coral reefs to recover and to stimu-

late the re-growth of corals. It is hoped that with these efforts, recovery time will be shortened. Several

techniques have been implemented and tested, the most well known until now being the sinking of ships. In

the meantime, several other techniques have evolved, with varying efficiencies and effectiveness. Some are

more useful in certain areas than others, and some cost more than others to implement.

6.1 Coral gardening & planting

Copying processes from reforestation on land, coral gardening (also called coral farming or coral

aquaculture), harvesting, and transplanting were studied extensively (Auberson, B. 1982; Yap, H.T. &

Gomez, E.D. 1984; Yap et al. 1990 / 1992) after searching for a solution for dynamite fished areas in the

Philippines. In Guam, the United States, and Singapore, Birkeland et al. attempted to restore coral reefs in

1979 that had been destroyed due to the thermal stress of a power plant and water quality decline. Some of

the earliest reports date back to 1974, where Maragos tried to reintroduce lost coral species in Hawaii after

they disappeared due to sewage pollution. As the technique evolved over the years with better tools, tech-

nical improvements, and experience, a case study by Clark, S. and Edwards, A.J. in 1995 in the Maldives

produced four main statements regarding the technique:

Coral species must be carefully chosen, as certain kinds are more amenable than others and result in

lower mortality when transported from the coral farm to the restoration site

The survival rate of transplanting coral colonies is higher than just fragments

Environmental stressors and the intensity of wave and current impacts contribute significantly to the

success or failure of a project

A transplantation project should only be undertaken if natural recovery is unlikely

Coral gardens come in many different forms. Knowledge and experience is often adopted and ex-

changed with professional (and also hobby) aquarium operators and suppliers. The goal is to create an area

(as described in Chapter 4.2) that will serve as a supply stock for restoring damaged coral sites. After decid-

ing which method will be used, coral pieces (either loose ones from natural occurrences or clipped off from

healthy corals) are collected and placed into the garden for growth. Because this is a time consuming pro-

cess, it should be done as early as possible and continuously restocked. A structured organization with clear

and logical labeling (including date of planting and species) will help to optimize processes later on (statistics

on growth speed will predict better timing of project outcome) and increase the very important implementa-

tion and maintenance of biodiversity and diversity of gene pools.

The next phase is harvesting and transporting the planted corals. Depending on the species, the time

from transplant to harvest varies between 8 to 24 months (Rinkevich, B., 2008). The sensitivity of the coral

species often results in seedlings not surviving the harvest and transport. A recent study by Toh T.C. et al.

published in June 2014 suggests a new approach that increases survival rates during the discussed processes.

The research showed that if transplanted stony corals (scleratinian corals) are fed with the highest density of

nauplii (a small crustacean, similar to a tiny shrimp) per liter before changing locations, survival rates in-

crease by up to 63%. Feeding during the growth process in coral gardens also resulted in a size increase of

the coral seedlings. It is very cheap to breed for example Artemia Salina, a very little species of brine shrimp,

of which the first hatched eggs usually can be found after 36 hours.


Figure 5. Transplanted Elkhorn coral fragment in 1999 (a.) and 10 years later (b.) c. Disk staghorn coral fixated with epoxy

The final step includes the actual placement of the harvested coral pieces. Several different methods

have been tried to fix coral to the ocean floor, including zip-ties, regular threads, cement (coral is placed in a

cement bottom which sometimes can be nailed or drilled into a surface area), epoxy (after drilling a hole,

filling it and placing the coral fragment into it), or simply fixating them into an existing hole or crack in the

restoration area. The rest is done by nature itself; it only takes time and monitoring to make sure stressors

are not inhibiting growth. However, the areas to be restored are somewhat limited as it takes enormous

manpower and time under water to carry out the work (Forrester, G.E., 2010). But this technique is a good

way to fill in spots that have been destroyed by an anchor or to increase biodiversity by reintroducing extinct

corals in the specific area. Also, the work does not necessarily need an extensive amount of knowledge. Vol-

unteer divers with decent diving skills can easily carry out the work after receiving a short briefing. Studies

also showed that transplanted coral that underwent the stress of the harvesting, transporting, and planting

seem to have a more resistant nature than naturally grown ones. The study showed that a higher percentage

of nursery-farmed colonies released larvae (spawning event) when sexually reproducing as compared to nat-

urally grown colonies (Horoszowski-Friedman, Y.B., 2011). Therefore, carrying out coral transplantation

can also help support a reef’s resilience against threatening impacts.

6.2 Ceramic structures

Ceramic is often used to create miniature reef structures in aquariums. With this in mind, a company

called Ecoreefs devoted themselves to introducing ceramic structures in the real world to restore destroyed

areas. The term ceramic is a widely used description of a material that can come in many different composi-

tions and also different characteristics. Primarily it is used to withstand heat and is known to be very solid.

The Ecoreef structures involve a 3-D assembly, which looks like a snowflake with a diameter of about 1m.

They are attached to the ground with a long screw, which is threaded through the middle of the structure

and into the ground. The company (and the one scientific report that exists on Ecoreefs) claims that the

material and the structure catalyze reef growth, attracting up to 7 times more fish and invertebrates, and that

the costs are only a third of other coral reef restoration techniques (Apostolakos et al., 2007). As the study

was very limited in data collection, these claims cannot be taken with skepticism. To gain a personal opinion,

I dived in a restored area in Bunaken, Indonesia in 2013. Ecoreefs said the project was done in 2003, but a

local dive shop involved in the project said it was done in 1998 (personal email correspondence). Regardless

of whether it was 10 or 15 years ago, it is a relatively small area, about 100m2, which is still surrounded by

blast fished, dead rubble field areas. The structures do show some coral growth and it is clearly visible which

ones had coral pieces transplanted onto them and which Ecoreef structure did not receive any transplants.

But most of the structures are algae-covered, some are tipped over, and some have broken-off arms. Aes-

thetically, they fit into the area, but still are easily spotted as foreign, artificial objects.


Figure 6. Ecoreef restoration project North West of Bunaken, Sulawesi, Indonesia (author’s photos) after 10 years

6.3 Reefballs & concrete structures

A relatively cheap and globally accessible resource is concrete. Used as building material for all kinds

of constructs, concrete can be found nearly anywhere in the world. Reefballs are a common and globally

widespread technology. They are a dome-like cement objects with holes throughout their spherical shape.

Reefball units are deployed into regions where substrate instability or increased sedimentation makes it diffi-

cult for coral larvae to settle and reefs to recover naturally. Reefballs were used in over 4,000 projects in 59

different countries (Barber et al., 2008). Studies have been done to measure fish population increases (Sher-

man et al., 2002; and Osenberg et al., 2002), but studies have not yet been conducted on coral recruitment

and survival.

Figure 7. Reefball structures during deployment and placed on the ocean ground

They come in different sizes and altered styles (80% of all styles is the standard one, visible in Figure 7, with

these measurements: 1.2m in diameter, 0,9m in height, ~1000kg and a surface area of about 7m2). Often

silica is added to the cement to roughen the surface, which facilitates larvae to settle.

Critics of this coral reef restoration technique say that pH levels of cement does harm to the envi-

ronment, although it is usually washed out after about 1 week (pers. Comm. Chad Scott). To support and

speed up coral growth, holes are being drilled into the structure and harvested corals placed on them with

epoxy. It is also important to have different sizes and shapes for biodiversity to be supported since different

fish and invertebrates like different environments to hide and reproduce (pers. Comm. Chad Scott).

One major issue with reefballs and concrete structures in general is the weight. On one hand, heavi-

ness can be a positive aspect since it creates stable structures for corals to grow on, prevents bottom-

trawling fishers from doing as much damage, and can create artificial barriers against currents to reduce

shorelines from being washed away. However on the downside, the deployment process becomes very labor

intensive, machinery dependent, and costly. The Reefball Company promotes floating devices to bring the

structures into place, which increases installation time. Furthermore, if deployed on a non-rocky bottom, the

structures are in danger of sinking and disappearing completely.

Overall, reefball and concrete structures had been proven to support rehabilitation of degraded reef

areas, especially when coral pieces are transplanted onto the structures. Nevertheless, it must be mentioned

that any suitable material where coral can settle on can be used for coral reef restoration, as long as larval

abundance is high and water quality is satisfactory (Bachtiar, I. 2010).

6.4 3-D printed structures

Research and innovation have led to new technologies in recent years. The 3-D printer might still be

in its early stages, but it is predicted to be a standard of every modern household in the future. The company

Monolite created the d-shape 3-D printer, which is one of the largest of its kind so far. Together with the

environmental organization Reef Arabia in Bahrain, a concept of printing a construct in the shape of a reef


became reality. The material is sandstone, which has a better carbon footprint than concrete, and it takes

about one day to print structures of 1m3, which weigh about 550kg. The surface is very rough and optimal

for coral larvae to settle on. Whether this technique is revolutionizing environmental efforts or not, it is mis-

leading to think that a coral reef just simply can be printed. Even if it does look real and aesthetically pleas-

ing, it is still just a structure for corals to grow on and fish to hide. It will take more than just deploying 3-D

printed structures to create or restore a coral reef ecosystem. Time will tell how beneficial they are when

corals are either planted or settled naturally on them. From an aesthetic point of view, they certainly come

very close to natural rock formations.

Figure 8. First of its kind 3-D printed reef structures deployed by Reef Arabia in Bahrain in 2012

6.5 Biorock structures

Apart from other restoration techniques, biorock technology differs in many ways and should not be

put into the category of artificial reefs or structures. Biorock technology was invented and patented in 1979

by Professor Wolf Hilberz, a German marine scientist who had a flair for innovation and futuristic architec-

ture. The process, also called electrical accretion, involves growth of limestone on a manmade structure of

iron wires that is supplied with a low voltage electrical current, while used as the anode. The cathode is

placed nearby on the ocean ground and initiates an electrical reaction on the surface of the structure, which

will cause calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide to grow. These chemical compounds form the base

of every natural coral reef, and since the iron structure will be completely overgrown after a few years, the

term “artificial coral reef” is misleading. In a last step, harvested or collected coral fragments will be attached

to the metal structure where they can continue to grow. The following infographic in Figure 9 explains this

process.

Figure 9. Infographic on the biorock process

The electricity (usually 12V, 6A) normally comes from a solar panel that is either placed on a buoy, a

stable pole sticking out of the water, or transferred through wires coming from the shore, and should be

continuously flowing to ensure and stable growth. Even after years of being connected, it is very important

to maintain the electrical supply to guarantee a positive outcome of growth, and resistance towards envi-

ronmental stress factors like lower pH levels, detoxification or long periods of high temperature (Goreau,


T.J. 2012). In the past, electricity failure has been the critical factor for why biorock projects did not deliver

the promised results. Furthermore and especially outstanding is the fact that through the electrolysis the

growth rate can be up to five times higher (Goreau, T.J. 2012 / personal observation). This offers a truly

outstanding source of hope in the age of climate change, where oceans and especially shorelines suffer

enormously. The steel base structures are cheap, globally attainable and can easily be constructed by local

craftsmen after a short instruction on shore. Transported with floating devices to the area to be restored,

sunk and attached on the ocean ground, it takes very little time to cover both small and large areas. The in-

put of technical knowhow for placing the solar panels, attaching the wires, placing the cathode and monitor-

ing the electrical flow does require an initial involvement of the company Biorock Inc. They are also the

holder of the patent, therefore larger projects become more cost-efficient.

Figure 10. a. Initial placement of coral fragments on a new biorock structure b. Overgrown structure after 2 years

Projects have been initiated in over 20 countries, including the largest restoration site in Permuteran

Bay, Bali, Indonesia, where a complete bay had been dynamite fished 15 years ago. With the involvement of

the local population, the determination of individuals that share know-how, and the addition of the biorock

technology, this is a prime example that coral reef restoration can work and is the way to go into the future.

The Permuteran Bay is now nearly fully restored, and fishermen catch more fish than ever and local busi-

nesses are flourishing (pers. comm. with Rani Morrow & personal observation).

6.6 Shipwrecks, Oilrigs, Trains and Tanks

Wrecks create mysterious underwater environments and are popular for many divers. Ships that

sunk in the past due to an accident or military impacts became prime examples of artificial reefs. Divers and

researchers often found an abundance of underwater life in and around wrecks. Obviously, they create habi-

tats and protection for many animals that are interconnected with coral reefs. This led to the idea of pur-

posely sinking unused ships, trains, tanks, etc., also called scuttling, to create or restore an artificial reef since

iron, but also wood, is a good surface for coral eggs to settle and grow. The motivation to create a wreck is

most likely an economical one, since continuing to use outdated vessels might be too expensive, not to men-

tion taking apart and recycling them. After all elements that pose an environmental hazard are removed

from the bodies (oil, wires, paint, weapons, etc.) they are lifted into the water in a selected area. Future

wrecks are usually flooded with seawater in preparation of a controlled demolition. With the help of dyna-

mite, holes are blasted into the hull in order to send the ship below the surface.

Figure 11. a. Wreck in Curaçao b. Former military tank in the Chuuk Atoll, Micronesia

The Rigs-to-Reefs initiative aims to reuse discontinued oil platforms by either cutting the foundation

and tipping it over, or breaking it down into smaller parts and sinking them. Nevertheless, the goal is to get

the old structure onto the ocean floor. Environmental groups are concerned with potential oil leakages, es-

pecially after the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, but if all safety measures are followed carefully, the de-

commissioning of old oil platforms can create habitats and a safe environment for many fish. Even the En-


vironmental Defense Fund (EDF) is in support of creating artificial reefs and leaving sunken rigs in place

(Sterne, J. 2012) in order to support all stakeholders, including commercial and sports fishermen as well as

the oil industry itself.

After decades in salt water, wrecks are starting to rust away (if not painted with antifouling paint like

TBT), and eventually they disappear behind the cover of different animals and plants. In equatorial regions,

a rusty surface is not optimal for corals to grow on; it can be seen that already-rusted parts of wrecks are

usually not covered with corals. Even many decades after the wreck, corals have not completely taken over,

exhibiting only moderate growth. The HMS Scylla (F71), which was deliberately sunk off the south west

coast of England in 2004, took only one year to be covered with sea urchins, starfish, anemones and sea

squirts on parts that were not treated with TBT (Tributyltin). Those that were treated, still remain un-

changed.

6.7 Rubble, Stones, and Rocks

Whereas it is clear what stones and rocks are, rubble needs to be defined. Gwilym Rowlands from

the National Coral Reef Institute at NSU, FL states: “Reef rubble describes corals and reef structure that

have died, broken, or toppled from their growth position and fragmented. Coral rubble can be indicative of

a degraded or damaged reef.” Rubble can be found throughout most of degraded coral reef areas due to

dynamite fishing, ship groundings, and intense storms. Reefs are more prone to breakage after they have

been weakened due to a bleaching event (Scoffin, T.P., 1993; Blanchon et al. 1997; Riegl, B. & Luke, K.E.,

1998). As this can be part of a slow natural expansion, the mentioned impacts usually make it impossible for

a coral reef to regenerate itself. Nature has its own remedies to recover from such disturbances. However,

the problem is that it can take up to 100 or even 150 years for coral reefs to grow back again (Cook, C.B. et

al, 1994). Microorganisms like algae, sea grass, and sponges will first stabilize the loose rubble by covering

the destroyed area with a film of species (Wulff 1984; Piller & Rasser 1996). At a later stage, marine phreatic

and vadose diagenetic cementation, as well as crustose coralline algae overgrowth, will occur, resulting in

rigid binding and the creation of the necessary stable surface for coral eggs to settle (Lighty, R.G., 1985;

Macintyre, I.G., 1997). In the hope of speeding this process, human intervention has tried to imitate the

fixation of coral reef rubble with a thin mesh drawn over the affected area and therefore artificially creating

stability and 3-dimensional structures (see Figure 12b). Additionally, large stones and complete rocks can be

transported into the area to recreate the initial environment and position of a growing coral reef.

Figure 12. a. Coral reef rubble in the Philippines b. Stabilization of rubble at Apo Island Marine Sanctuary, Negros, Philippines

6.8 Scrap & Tires

Discarding tires or unwanted trash that is difficult to recycle seems like a perfect material to create

an environment that would be overgrown with corals and create hiding and breeding places for fish. Under

false assumptions and promises of helping the marine habitat, tires are often wired together and dumped

into the ocean or bulky junk sunk onto the ground. However, there are several consequences to this prac-

tice. First, tires release chemicals that are toxic to marine life and are unfit for corals to settle on due to the

material and the slick surface. They create a breeding place for weedy organisms that will never turn into a

typical coral reef community. Furthermore, tires have a large surface area and very little weight so they are

easily moved by storm waves, especially in a hurricane zone. The Osborne reef off the coast of Fort

Lauderdale, FL, USA is a prime example of using tires with supposedly good intentions but that yielded

terrible problems. The environmental disaster (Siegel, R. 2006) occurred with hurricane Opal in 1995 and


hurricane Bonnie in 1998, as these storms managed to spread thousands of tires as far as North Carolina

(Fleshler, D. 2003).

Figure 13. Osborne Reef in Florida, USA before cleanup

Broward County in Florida, with the support of the US Navy, is still in the process of a very costly

effort to remove rubber tires. Although the issue is still controversial, as even the clean-up project received

criticism since the rubber tire reefs do provide a habitat and shelter for fish after all these years.

In the end, the Osborne reef is a perfect example that basically anything can be used to create habi-

tat for fish, but judged upon the outcome of the intended action, it was a failure. Numerous other organiza-

tions that implemented projects, for example off the coast of Nagasaki, Japan still claim it to be a success

since the conditions of fish habitat increased. Apart from the terrible aesthetic factors, common sense

should be enough to fully understand, that neither disused tires nor scrap should be reside in our oceans.

7 DIRECT COMPARISON

small areas

large areas

Costs per hectare

Deployment time per hectare

Growth time

Environmental Impact

Aesthetics

Know How / Tech-nology based

Coral Gardening & Planting

+++ -

+++ + ++ ++ ++ +++

Ceramic structures

++ ++ + + + + + ++

Reefball & Concrete structures

+ ++ +* + + + + +

3D Printed struc-tures

+ ++ + + + + +++ -

Biorock structures

++ +++ +++** ++ +++ +++ +++ +

Wrecks

- ++ + + + + + -

Rubble, stones and rocks

- - ++ + - - - ++

Scrap & Tires

- - ++ + - - - ++

* large projects become more expensive

** larger projects become more cost efficient

8 MEASURING SUCCESS IN CORAL REEF RESTORATION

Humans want to see development, milestones, and growth in order to eventually receive satisfaction

for work we have done as individuals, in teams, within a company or an organization. The efforts done in

environmental protection and restoration are often hard to measure, especially since today instant gratifica-

tion and financial results are the standard in the economically driven world. Nature has its own rhythm. Re-

gions that are protected or restored need time to heal, grow, and prosper. Failure seems to never to be an

option either. Due to pressure and expectations of sponsors, interest groups, governments, or overly ambi-

tious goals, those in the field often face pressure to avoid admitting that a project is a failure. If an underwa-

ter structure is placed in a completely destroyed area where coral and marine animals were symbiotically

flourishing, obviously some forms or living beings will cover it after a while, and fish will look for shelter in

and around it. To call that a success would be overshooting the mark, since it doesn’t really have any resem-

blance to what the reef looked like before it was destroyed. Time is a crucial factor, not only when deciding


whether or not it is a successful outcome, but also in relation to how projects are planned with a long-term

strategy. One-time efforts that seem to deliver quick results might be useless if they are not maintained over

years and are designed to sustain themselves. A last point to be mentioned is unhealthy competition. Top

down approaches versus grassroots movements rarely use the same methodologies or budgets. Good inten-

tions are often not implemented since competition, pointing fingers at other projects’ weaknesses, and self-

ish profiling of so-called “project managers” will make it difficult, or sometimes impossible to reach desired

goals since a transparent and organized cooperation amongst organizations or in collaboration with the

economy, cannot be achieved.

Creating clearly defined criteria on how to measure success must be established in order to effective-

ly manage resources, time, and funds. The Society of Ecological Restoration (SER) has defined different

measures to determine success in the categories of diversity, vegetation structure, and ecological processes

(Ruiz-Jaen, M.C. & Aide, T.M. 2005). A literature review on defining success in restoration projects resulted

in the following focus points:

Vegetation characteristics (Walters 2000, Wilkins et al. 2003)

Species diversity (Passell 2000, McCoy & Mushinsky 2002)

Ecosystem processes (Rhoades et al. 1998)

Based on this knowledge, SER established a guide that provides a list of nine ecosystem attributes that need

to be met in order to call it a success:

1. Similar diversity and community structure in comparison with reference sites

2. Presence of indigenous species

3. Presence of functional groups necessary for long-term stability

4. Capacity of the physical environment to sustain reproducing populations

5. Normal functioning

6. Elimination of potential threats

7. Resilience to natural disturbances

8. Integration with the landscape

9. Self-sustainability

Regarding coral reef restoration projects, these factors can be easily applied. Periodically, regional

surveys need to be done in order to count the species of corals and fish. These numbers need to match an

example region that is still untouched and is similar in terms of geographical, geological, and environmental

factors. Biodiversity is the crucial factor in order to achieve the first 3 guidelines. This includes bringing in

endemic species in case they are extinct.

To achieve points 4 and 5, it is strictly necessary to abolish the local stress factors that are causing

the damage to the reef. Point 6 is part of this, but on a larger scale. If burning fossil fuels will continue to

surpass nature’s capacity to adapt, no coral reef will be safe from destruction. The 7th point directly depends

on the technique used to restore coral reefs. Stable constructions are key, especially in the starting phase, to

survive severe weather events, such as a typhoon or a tsunami.

Regarding integration into the landscape, aesthetic evaluations will quickly determine if a restored

reef is popular should the restoration project be done for recreational diving purposes.

Last but not least, self-sustainability, meaning to be financially independent, rests mostly on the

management structure of a NGO. If the purpose is to help locals to be able to help themselves and to con-

tinue existing without the help of a donor, then this point can be achieved as well.

9 COSTS OF REEF RESTORATION

Budgeting a coral reef restoration project is a complicated undertaking. The general opinion is that

there are very high costs involved. A number of surveyed restoration projects revealed that it can vary be-

tween $13,000 USD up to over 100 million USD per hectare, depending on the technology, location, and

overall size of the project. These numbers are difficult to compare, especially when it comes to estimations.


Furthermore, what might have been a really expensive project 25 years ago could be a lot cheaper today. As

technology improves and awareness raises, funding can more easily be found and costs can be reduced as

synergies create opportunities.

When putting together the costs for a project, the components can be split into capital costs, opera-

tional costs, and labor costs (Spurgeon, J.P.G. and Lindahl, U. 2000).

Capital costs include both pre-construction and construction costs. Pre-construction costs include

initial feasibility studies, site surveys, objective setting, and planning and design of the restoration. Construc-

tion costs are those needed to carry out the main restoration scheme itself and include costs for substrate

preparation, equipment, labor, materials, stock and transport. Therefore large areas will become significantly

more expensive for concrete structures, since heavy machinery will be needed, whereas the costs for biorock

structures will increase moderately or even decline with effective economies of scale, when projects become

larger.

Operational costs refer to management, maintenance and monitoring. To be restored, an area needs

to be protected from any potential destructive impacts discussed earlier in this paper. Managing this is labor-

intense work. Also, maintaining a coral garden or restored reef structures that need fixing due to wear-and-

tear will create expenses. The monitoring of developing coral structures will be the third element of the op-

erational costs. That mostly includes logistics (rent and fuel for cars, boats, diving equipment, filming

equipment, etc.).

Labor costs involve supervision, training, and actually undertaking the restoration. Individuals in-

volved can range from expensive experienced professional personnel, to fishermen and voluntary recrea-

tional divers or students who may accept minimal or no payment.

10 SUMMARY

Many different coral restoration techniques exist, with some being more effective than others. De-

pending on budgets, intentions, and environmental factors, even the smallest coral reef restoration project is

probably better than doing nothing. In addition to that, results are often times presented in a way as if

somebody just saved the world, especially when donors are in expectations of results. Basically, the place-

ment of nearly anything under water that is 3-dimensional will have some sort of result regarding growth of

corals and/or fish habitat. This does not mean however that a restoration project is a success. Most of the

techniques use a placement of such a structure and, if the project is well designed, a transfer of harvested

coral pieces from a coral garden. This will result in a better (in terms of biodiversity and time efficiency)

project outcome. Nonetheless, if a stressor (debris, plastic, destructive fishing, climate change, etc.) is not

removed, failure is almost certain and a restoration project is a waste of money and time. If a region is to be

restored it must be constantly maintained and supervised in order for the desired results to be achieved.

Outstanding from all the techniques is the biorock technique, as this is the only one that proactively speeds

up the growth process, shows higher resistance against negative environmental impacts, and can be applied

to larger regions without a huge budget.


11 ACKNOCKLEDEMENT

Marco Quesada, Conservation International, for inspiring, teaching and advising me at University for Peace, Costa Rica.

Thomas Goreau, Global Coral Reef Alliance, for his great insights into the biorock technology, knowledge and efforts

on coral reef protection and restoration and introducing me to his partners worldwide.

Rani Morrow, Biorock Center Permuteran, for her insights and efforts on reef restoration on Bali, Indonesia

Chad Scott, New Heaven Reef Conservation Program, for his insights and efforts on reef restoration on Koh Tao, Thai-

land.

Scott Countryman, Coral Triangle Conservancy, for his insights and efforts on reef restoration in South East Asia.

Michael Moore, Ecoreefs, for his insights and efforts on reef restoration in Bunaken, Indonesia

12 ABBREVIATIONS

COPXX : “Conference of the Parties” whereas XX stands for the year held

CBD : “Convention on Biological Diversity”

Cli-Fi : “Climate-Fiction”

C2C : “Cradle to Cradle”

DESA : “Department of Economic and Social Affairs”

FAO : “Food & Agricultural Organization”

IMO : “International Maritime Organization”

IMPAC : “International Marine Protected Areas Conference”

IPCC : “International Panel on Climate Change”

IUCN : “International Union for Conservation Nature”

LMMA : “Locally managed marine areas”

MPA : ”Marine Protected Areas”

NEOLI : “No-Take, Enforced, Old, Large and Isolated” in relation to MPAs

NGO : “Non-Governmental Organization”

NPO : “Non for Profit Organization”

PES : “Payment for Environmental Services”

PVC : “Polyvinyl chloride”

REDD : “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation”

REDD+: “The “+” stands for improving biodiversity, water quality, and other vital environmental services.

SER : “Society for Environmental Restoration”

TBT : “Tributyltin”

UN : “United Nations”

UNDP : “United Nations Development Program”

UNEP : “United Nation Environmental Program”

WCMC : “World Conservation Monitoring Centre”

WDPA : “World Database on Protected Areas”


13 REFERENCES

Apostolakos, D., Estradivari, Banut, R., Pinela, S., Bervoets, T., 2007. Renew the reefs of Bukanen National Park, Indonesia: A

multi-criteria analysis of reef restoration techniques. Project Report. ahabibi.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/renew-reefs-bnp.pdf.

Auberson, B., 1982. Coral transplantation: an approach to the reestablishment of damaged reefs. Katikasan, Philipp J Biol 11: 158-

172

Babcock, R. C. et al., 2010. Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of change in direct and indirect effects. Proc.

Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18256–18261

Bachtiar, I., 2010. Coral recruitment on reefball modules at the Benete bay, Sumbawa Island, Indonesia, Journal of Coastal Devel-

opment ISSN : 1410-5217 Volume 13, Number 2, February 2010 : 119-125

Barber, T., J. Krumholz, J.C. Walch, C. Jadot, L.E. Harris, T. Maher., 2008. A step-by-step guide for grassroots efforts to reef

rehabilitation. Poster presentation material, 11th Int. Coral Reef Sym., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008, Session number

XXIV, p. 541.

Barr, C.; Dermawan, A.; Purnomo, H.; Komarudin, H., 2010. Financial governance and Indonesia’s Reforestation Fund during

the Soeharto and post-Soeharto periods, 1989–2009, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. ISBN: 978-602-8693-13-4

Biello, David, 2010. Is Using Dispersants on the BP Gulf Oil Spill Fighting Pollution with Pollution?, SCI. AM. (June 18, 2010),

available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-using-dispersants-fighting-pollutionwith-pollution. Toxicity

information on these dispersants can be found in Anita George-Ares & James R. Clark, Aquatic Toxicity of Two Corexit Disper-

sants, 40 CHEMOSPHERE 897

Birkeland C, Randall RH, Grim G (1979) Three methods of coral transplantation for the purpose of reestablishing a coral com-

munity in the thermal effluent area of the Tanguisson Power Plant. Univ. Guam Mar Lab Tech Rep 60

Bishop, J.F. et al 1996. A randomized study of high-dose cytarabine in induction in acute myeloid leukemia. Australian Leukemia

Study Group, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne, Australia. PMID: 8634416

Blanchon P, Jones P, Kalbfleisch W (1997) Anatomyof a fringing reef around Grand Cayman: storm rubble, not coral framework.

J Sediment Res 67:1–16

Blasing, T.J. (February 2013), Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations, doi:10.3334/CDIAC/atg.032

Boyd, P.W., et al.; Jickells, T; Law, CS; Blain, S; Boyle, EA; Buesseler, KO; Coale, KH; Cullen, JJ; De Baar, HJ; Follows, M; Har-

vey, M.; Lancelot, C.; Levasseur, M.; Owens, N. P. J.; Pollard, R.; Rivkin, R. B.; Sarmiento, J.; Schoemann, V.; Smetacek, V.;

http://www.cifor.org/online-library/search/publication-search-by-author/search/Barr%2C%20C..html

http://www.cifor.org/online-library/search/publication-search-by-author/search/Dermawan%2C%20A..html

http://www.cifor.org/online-library/search/publication-search-by-author/search/Purnomo%2C%20H..html

http://www.cifor.org/online-library/search/publication-search-by-author/search/Komarudin%2C%20H.html

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier

http://dx.doi.org/10.3334%2FCDIAC%2Fatg.032

Takeda, S.; Tsuda, A.; Turner, S.; Watson, A. J. (2007). "Mesoscale Iron Enrichment Experiments 1993-2005: Synthesis and Fu-

ture Directions". Science 315 (5812): 612–7. Bibcode:2007Sci...315..612B. doi:10.1126/science.1131669. PMID 17272712.

Brodie, J., K. Fabricius, G. De’ath, and K. Okaji. 2005. “Are Increased Nutrient Inputs Responsible for More Outbreaks of

Crown-of-Thorns Starfish? An Appraisal of the Evidence.”Marine Pollution Bulletin 51: 266.

Brown, B. E. and Dunne, R. P., 1988. The Environmental Impact of Coral Mining on Coral Reefs in the Maldives. Environmental

Conservation, 15, pp 159-165. doi:10.1017/S0376892900028976.

Buesseler, K.O., et al.; Doney, SC; Karl, DM; Boyd, PW; Caldeira, K; Chai, F; Coale, KH; De Baar, HJ; Falkowski, PG; Johnson,

KS; Lampitt, R. S.; Michaels, A. F.; Naqvi, S. W. A.; Smetacek, V.; Takeda, S.; Watson, A. J., 2008. "ENVIRONMENT: Ocean

Iron Fertilization—Moving Forward in a Sea of Uncertainty". Science 319 (5860): 162. doi:10.1126/science.1154305.

PMID 18187642

Cesar, H.J.S., Burke, L., and Pet-Soede, L., 2003. The Economics of Worldwide Coral Reef Degradation, Cesar Environmental

Economics Consulting, Arnhem, and WWF-Netherlands, Zeist, The Netherlands. 23 pp.

China now no. 1 in CO2 emissions; USA in second position. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Retrieved 2007-06-

22

Clark, J. 1997. “Coastal Zone Management for the New Century.” Ocean and Coastal Management 37: 191–216

Cook C.B., Dodge R.E., Smith S.R., 1994. Fifty years of impacts on coral reefs in Bermuda. In: Ginsburg RN (ed) Proc Colloqui-

um on Global Aspects of Coral Reefs: Health, Hazards and History. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Mi-

ami, pp 161–166

Costanza, R. et al., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260 (1997)

De Goeij, J. M., 2009. Cell kinetics of the marine sponge Halisarca caerulea reveal rapid cell turnover and Shedding. The Journal

of Experimental Biology 212, 3892-3900. The Company of Biologists 2009 doi:10.1242/jeb.034561

Diaz-Pulido G., McCook L.J., Dove S., Berkelmans R., Roff G., et al., 2009. Doom and Boom on a Resilient Reef: Climate

Change, Algal Overgrowth and Coral Recovery. PLoS ONE 4(4): e5239. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005239

Donner, S. 2009. “Coping with Commitment: Projected Thermal Stress on Coral Reefs under Different Future Scenarios.” PLoS

ONE 4: e5712

http://marine.rutgers.edu/ebme/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week8b/Boyd_et_al_Science_2007.pdf

http://marine.rutgers.edu/ebme/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week8b/Boyd_et_al_Science_2007.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Sci...315..612B


http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1131669

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17272712

http://marine.rutgers.edu/ebme/papers/Buesseler_et_al_Science_319_Jan_2008.pdf

http://marine.rutgers.edu/ebme/papers/Buesseler_et_al_Science_319_Jan_2008.pdf



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18187642

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/redirect.html?newURL=http://assets.panda.org/downloads/cesardegradationreport100203.pdf


Donner, S. 2009. “Coping with Commitment: Projected Thermal Stress on Coral Reefs under Different Future Scenarios.” PLoS

ONE 4: e5712.

Dove S.G., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 2006. "Coral bleaching can be caused by stress. The cell physiology of coral bleaching". In Ove

Hoegh-Guldberg; Jonathan T. Phinney; William Skirving; Joanie Kleypas. Coral Reefs and Climate Change: Science and Manage-

ment. [Washington]: American Geophysical Union. pp. 1–18. ISBN 0-87590-359-2

Dulvy, N. K., R. P. Freckleton, and N. V. C. Polunin, 2004. “Coral Reef Cascades and the Indirect Effects of Predator Removal

by Exploitation.” Ecology Letters 7: 410–416

Eakin, C. M., J. M. Lough, and S. F. Heron., 2009. “Climate Variability and Change: Monitoring Data and Evidence for Increased

Coral Bleaching Stress.” In M. J. H. Oppen and J. M. Lough, eds. Coral Bleaching. Vol. 205, Ecological Studies. Heidelberg,

Germany: Springer.

Edgar, G. J., 2011. Does the global network of marine protected areas provide an adequate safety net for marine biodiversity?

Aquat. Conserv. 21, 313–316 (2011)

Edgar, J.E. et al., 2014. “Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features”, Nature, 506 pp.

216-220. doi:10.1038/nature13022 ISSN 0028-0836 (2014)

Erdmann, M. V., and L. Pet-Soede. 1996. “How Fresh Is Too Fresh? The Live Reef Food Fish Trade in Eastern Indonesia.”

NAGA, the ICLARM quarterly 19: 4–8.

FAO Fisheries Aquaculture Dept. 2009. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: 2008. Rome: FAO

Fleshler, David, 2003. "States attempt to clean up after failed artificial reef" (Reprint). South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauder-

dale, Florida, US: Tribune Company). ISSN 0744-8139. Archived from the original on 2008-05-14. Retrieved 2008-06-11

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) yearbook 2010, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. www.fao.org, ISSN 2070-6057

Forrester, G.E., 2010. Evaluating Methods for Transplanting Endangered Elkhorn Corals in the Virgin Islands. Society for Eco-

logical Restoration International., doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00664.x

Fox, H.E., 2000. “Coral reef restoration after blast fishing in Indonesia”, Proceedings 9th International Coral Reef Symposium,

Bali, Indonesia 23-27 October 2000, Vol.2

Frich, P. et al., 2002. Observed coherent changes in climatic extremes during the second half of the twentieth century. Climate

Research Vol. 19: 193–212, 2002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-87590-359-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13022

http://web.archive.org/web/20080514084203/http:/www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/southflorida/news/artificialreef2003.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Florida_Sun-Sentinel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lauderdale,_Florida

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lauderdale,_Florida

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_Company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Serial_Number

https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0744-8139

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/southflorida/news/artificialreef2003.html

http://www.fao.org/

Goreau, T.J. 2010, Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration, CRC Press, December 4, 2012

Goreau, T.J. 2012. Marine Electrolysis for Building Materials and Environmental Restoration, http://www.intechopen.com, doi:

10.5772/48783

Graham J. Edgar, Rick D. Stuart-Smith, Trevor J. Willis, Stuart Kininmonth, Susan C. Baker, Stuart Banks, 2014. “Global conser-

vation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features”. Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/nature13022

Hansen, M.C., 2013. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st Century Forest Cover Change Science 15 November 2013: Vol. 342

no. 6160 pp. 850-853 DOI: 10.1126/science.1244693

Harvell, C. D., and E. Jordán-Dahlgren, 2007. “Coral Disease, Environmental Drivers, and the Balance between Coral and Mi-

crobial Associates.” Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 20: 58–81

Harvey, L. D. D., 2008. Mitigating the atmospheric CO2 increase and ocean acidification by adding limestone powder to upwelling

regions, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C04028, doi:10.1029/2007JC004373.

Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, et al., 2007. "Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification". Science

318 (5857): 1737–42. doi:10.1126/science.1152509

Horoszowski-Fridman, Y.B., 2011. “Engineering of coral reef larval supply through transplantation of nursery-farmed gravid

colonies”. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. Volume 399, Issue 2, 1 April 2011, Pages 162–166. DOI:

10.1016/j.jembe.2011.01.005

Hughes, T. P., M. J. Rodrigues, D. R. Bellwood, D. Ceccarelli, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, L. McCook, N. Moltschaniwskyj, M. S.

Pratchett, R. S. Steneck, and B. Willis, 2007. “Phase Shifts, Herbivory, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs to Climate Change.”

Current Biology 17: 360–365

Hughes, T.P. et al., 2003. Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs. Science Magazine, Vol. 301, 2003

Hume, Benjamin C., Cecilia D’Angelo, Anna Cunnington, Edward G. Smith, Jörg Wiedenmann, 2013. The corallivorous flat-

worm Amakusaplana acroporae: an invasive species threat to coral reefs? Coral Reefs, 2013; 33 (1): 267 DOI: 10.1007/s00338-

013-1101-6

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Solomon S, et al., 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

(Cambridge press, New York, NY)

http://www.intechopen.com/

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18079392



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098111000086?np=y

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00220981

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00220981/399/2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00338-013-1101-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00338-013-1101-6


IPCC Synthesis Report, 2007. “Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov-

ernmental Panel on Climate Change”. Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

pp 104

IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, 2013. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) Cambridge, UK: UNEP- WCMC ABC

News, Australia, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-05/palau-to-use-drones-to-deter-illegal-fishing/5000552 C.N.S.

Poonian1,2, M.D. Hauzer2, C. Moussa Iboura. 2008. “Challenges for effective and sustainable co-managed Marine Protected

Areas: a case study from the Comoros Islands“. Community Centred Conservation (C3), London UK

IUCN, Lausche, B., 2011. Guidelines for protected areas legislation. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 81

Johnson, Johanna E., Marshall, Paul A., 2007. Climate change and the Great Barrier Reef: a vulnerability assessment. Townsville,

Qld.: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. ISBN 978-1-876945-61-9

Kaplan, M., 2009. How the sponge stays slim. Nature, doi:10.1038/news.2009.1088

Kereseka, J., 2014. Parks, IUCN, March 2014 Vol.20.1

Kinsey, D.W. & Hopley, D., 1991. The significance of coral reefs as global carbon sinks - response to greenhouse. Palaeogeogra-

phy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 89, Issue 4, March 1991, Pages 363–377

Knowlton, N., 2008. Coral reefs. Current Biology 18: R18-R21

Kunkel, M.K. et al., 2006. Coral reefs reduce tsunami impact in model simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33,

L23612, doi:10.1029/2006GL027892, 2006

Lang, Chris; Timothy Byakola, 2006. "A funny place to store carbon: UWA-FACE Foundation's tree planting project in Mount

Elgon National Park, Uganda" (PDF). World Rainforest Movement. Retrieved 2007

Lighty, R.G., 1985. Preservation of internal reef porosityand diagenetic sealing of submerged early Holocene barrier reef, south-

east Florida shelf. Soc Econ Paleontol Mineral Spec Publ. 36:123–152

Macintyre, I.G., 1997. Reevaluating the role of crustose coralline algae in the construction of coral reefs. Proc 8th Int Coral Reef

Symp 1:725–730

Maragos, J.E., 1974. Coral transplantation: a method to create, preserve and manage coral reefs. Univ Hawaii Sea Grant Prog AR

74-03

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-05/palau-to-use-drones-to-deter-illegal-fishing/5000552


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-876945-61-9

http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Uganda/Place_Store_Carbon.pdf

http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Uganda/Place_Store_Carbon.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Rainforest_Movement

Martínez, M.L., Intralawan, A., Vázquez, G., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Sutton, P. and Landgrave, R., 2007. The coasts of our world:

Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecological Economics, Volume 63: 254–272.

Mascarelli, A., 2014. „Designer Reefs“. Nature. Vol. 508, 24. 4.2014. Macmillan Publishers Limited

McCoy, E. D., and H. R. Mushinsky, 2002. Measuring the success of wildlife community restoration. Ecological Applications

12:1861– 1871.

Monbiot, G., 2006. "Selling Indulgences". Monbiot.com. Retrieved 2010-08-10. "The trade in carbon offsets is an excuse for

business as usual."

Mora, C. et al., 2006. Coral reefs and the global network of Marine Protected Areas. Science 312, 1750–1751

Nedimayer, K., 2011. “Coral Tree Nursery©: An innovative approach to growing corals in an ocean-based field nursery”. AACL

Bioflux, Coral Restoration Foundation, FL, USA

Osenberg, C.W., C.M. St. Mary, J.A. Wilson, W.J. Lindberg, 2002. A quantitative framework to evaluate the attraction–production

controversy. J. Mar. Sci. 59: S214–S221.

Passell, H. D., 2000. Recovery of bird species in minimally restored Indonesian thin strips mines. Restoration Ecology 8:112–118.

Rahman, A., 1999. Climate change and violent conflicts, in Suliman, M., (Ed), Ecology, Politics and Violent Conflict. Zed Books,

London and New York, 181-210

Reaka-Kudla, M. L., 1997. The global biodiversity of coral reefs: A comparison with rainforests. Biodiversity II: Understanding

and Protecting Our Natural Resources, pp. 83-108. Joseph Henry/National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

Rhoades, C. C., G. E. Eckert, and D. C. Coleman., 1998. Effect of pastures trees on soil nitrogen and organic matter: implications

for tropical montane forest restoration. Restoration Ecology 6:262–270.

Riegl, B., Luke, K.E., 1998. Ecological parameters of dynamited reefs in the northern Red Sea and their relevance to reef rehabili-

tation. Mar Pollut Bull 37(8–12):488–498

Rinkevich, B., 2008. “Management of coral reefs: We have gone wrong when neglecting active reef restoration“. Marine Pollution

Bulleti 56 (2008) 1821–1824

Rivera-Posada, J., 2013. Lethal doses of oxbile, peptones and thiosulfate-citrate-bile-sucrose agar (TCBS) for Acanthaster planci;

exploring alternative population control Options, Marine Pollution Bulletin, DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.053

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/19/selling-indulgences/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.053


Ruiz-Jaen, M.C. & Aide, T.M., 2005, “Restoration Success: How is it being measured?”, Restoration Ecology, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.

569-577

Sanders, J.M., 2005. Reefing the benefits. Research the Horizons, gtresearchnews.gatech.edu, 2005

Schuttenberg H.Z., 2001. Coral Bleaching: Causes, Consequences and Response. Selected papers presented at the 9th Internation-

al Coral Reef Symposium on “Coral Bleaching: Assessing and Linking Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts, Future Trends and

Mitigation Planning.” Coastal Management Report #2230, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, p 102

Scoffin, T.P., 1993. The geological effects of hurricanes on coral reefs and the interpretation of storm deposits. Coral Reefs

12:203– 221

Sherman, R.L., D.S. Gilliam, R.E. Spieler, 2002. Artificial reef design: void space, complexity, and attractants. J. Mar. Sci. 59:

S196–S200

Siegel, R., 2006. "Throwing In the Towel on Florida's Tire Reef" (streaming audio). All Things Considered (NPR). Retrieved

2008-06-11

Small, C. and Nicholls, R.J., 2003 A Global Analysis of Human Settlement in Coastal Zones, Journal of Coastal Research

Spurgeon, J.P.G. and Lindahl, U., 2000. Economics of coral reef restoration. Pp. 125-136 in Cesar, H.S.J. (ed.) Collected Essays

on the Economics of Coral Reefs. CORDIO, Sweden. ISBN 91-973959-0-0

Sterne, J., 2012. "EDF stands with fishermen in calling for suspension of rig removal policy", EDF Oceans, 24 Apr. 2012

The Worldwatch Institute, 2011. “State of the World - Innovations that nourish the world”. W. W. Norton & Company, London.

ISBN 978-0-393-33880-5

Toh T.C., Ng C.S.L., Peh J.W.K., Toh K.B., Chou L.M., 2014. Augmenting the Post-Transplantation Growth and Survivorship of

Juvenile Scleractinian Corals viaNutritional Enhancement. PLoS ONE 9(6): e98529. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098529

UNDP, 2011, “Staying on track: tackling corruption in climate change”, United Nation’s Development Program, Revised edition

September 2011

UNDP. 2012. Fiji Locally-Managed Marine Area Network, Fiji. Equator Initiative Case Study Series. New York, NY.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Siegel

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6112016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Things_Considered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio

http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=6307

http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=6307

http://blogs.edf.org/edfish/2012/04/24/edf-stands-with-fishermen-in-calling-for-suspension-of-rig-removal-policy/

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2014. World Population Prospects: The 2012

Revision, Methodology of the United Nations Population Estimates and Projections. ESA/P/WP.235.

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), July 2011. Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions,

and Potential Responses (Report). Center for Science, Technology, and Engineering. p. 3. Retrieved 2011-12-01

Veron, J.E.N., 2000. Corals of the World. Vol. 3 (3rd ed.). Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Sciences and CRR Qld Pty

Ltd. ISBN 0-642-32236-8

Vitousek, P.M., 1997. Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science Magazine, Vol. 277, 1997

Vos, J. and de la Rosa, N., 1980. Manual on artemia production in salt ponds in the Philippines. FAO/UNDP-BFAR Brackish

water Aquaculture Demonstration and Training Project PHI/75/005

Walters, B. B., 2000. Local mangrove planting in the Philippines: are fisher folk and fishpond owners effective restorationists?

Restoration Ecology 8:237–246.

Watson, R., 2000. Presentation of the Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the Sixth Conference of Parties

of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. November 13, Geneva. http://www.ipcc.ch

Wilkins, S., D. A. Keith, and P. Adam, 2003. Measuring success: evaluating the restoration of a grassy eucalypt woodland on the

Cumberland Plain, Sydney, Australia. Restoration Ecology 11:489–503.

Wilkinson, C. & Talbot, F., 2001. Coral Reefs, Mangroves and Sea grasses: A Sourcebook for Managers. Australian Institute of

Marine Science, ISBN 0 642 32208 2

Yap, H.T., Alifio, P.M., Gomez, E.D., 1992. Trends in growth and mortality of three coral species (Anthozoa: Scleractinia), in-

cluding effects of transplantation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 83:91-101

Yap, H.T., Gomez, E.D., 1984. Growth of Acropora pulchra II. Responses of natural and transplanted colonies to temperature

and day length. Mar Biol 81:209-215

Yap, H.T., Licuanan, W.Y., Gomez, E.D., 1990. Studies on coral recovery and coral transplantation in the northern Philippines:

aspects relevant to management and conservation. In: Yap HT (ed) Proc 1st ASEAMS Syrup Southeast Asian Marine Science and

Environmental Protection. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies 116, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, pp

117-127

http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Methodology.pdf

http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Methodology.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-642-32236-8

http://www.ipcc.ch/


14 FIGURES

Title page: Courtesy of Global Coral Reef Alliance

1. Ferrario, F., M.W. Beck, C.D. Storlazzi, F. Micheli, C.C. Shepard, L. Airoldi. 2014. The Effectiveness of Coral Rees for

Coastal Hazard Risk Reduction and Adaptation. Nature Communications. Doi: 10.1038/ncomms4794

2. Image Credit: Amanda Camp, http://secoora.org/node/428

3. IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (Oct 2013). The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Available at

www.protectedplanet.net

4. a. Nature Seychelles NGO, Seychelles. Available at www.natureseychelles.org

b. Reefbuilders / Coral Restoration Organisation, FL USA. reefbuilders.com / coralrestoration.org

c. Courtesy of Michelle Singh. www.thirtysixthousand.com

5. a. /b. Garrison, V.H., Ward, G. 2012. Transplantation of storm-generated coral fragments for coral conservation: A suc-

cessful method but not the solution. Revista Biologia Tropical (Int. J. Trop. Biol) 60 (Suppl. 1): 59-70.

c. Disk staghorn outplant” Coral Reef Foundation, Tim Grollimund. www.coralrestoration.org

6. Pictures by the author

7. Courtesy of Reefballs.org

8. Courtesy of Reefarabia.com

9. Courtesy of Global Coral Reef Alliance, globalcoral.org

10. Courtesy of Global Coral Reef Alliance, globalcoral.org

11. a. With permission of picture owner Ty Sawyer, www.tysawyer.com

b. Disused Tank photographed by gh0stdot, https://secure.flickr.com/photos/gh0st/5519818712/sizes/l/

12. a. WWF, Philippines. www.wwf.org.ph

b. Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation (CCEF), Philippines, www.coast.ph, Apo Island Marine Sanctuary:

Steps to Recovery from Storm Damage

13. Osborne Reef, William Nuckols, W.H. Nuckols Consulting and Terry Gray, T.A.G. Resource Recovery

http://www.protectedplanet.net/

http://www.natureseychelles.org/

http://reefbuilders.com/

http://www.coralrestoration.org/

http://www.thirtysixthousand.com/

http://www.tysawyer.com/

http://www.coast.ph/

Coral Reef Restoration - A guide to effective rehabilitation techniques - A. Allahgholi - 3 9.2014

Documents