Target 10: Vulnerable ecosystems (coral reefs) · SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Chapter 10 DO NOT CITE 1 1 Target 10: Vulnerable ecosystems (coral reefs) 2 3

SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Chapter 10 DO NOT CITE

1

Target 10: Vulnerable ecosystems (coral reefs) 1

2

By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable 3

ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to 4

maintain their integrity and functioning. 5 6 7

Preface 8 9

This analysis evaluates trends in indicators of coral reef health and the implications of these 10

trends for biodiversity in 2020 and 2050. It discusses progress towards increasing the area of 11

coral reefs under full protection, but also the challenges involved in curbing the effects of 12

rising human populations and climate change. Although this chapter focuses on shallow 13

water corals, it is recognised that deep water corals are also highly threatened by 14

anthropogenic activities and climate change (Roberts and Cairns 2014). 15

16

The level of human dependence on coral reefs is high. Approximately 850 million people live 17

within 100 km of coral reefs and are dependent on reefs either for food, livelihood, coastal 18

protection, or amenity. Of these, 275 million people live in the direct vicinity of coral reefs 19

(Burke et al. 2011). People living on small-island states tend to be the most reef-dependent, 20

in part because of paucity of alternative livelihoods. More than 94 countries and territories 21

provide reef-based tourism which accounts for more than 15% of gross domestic product in 22

23 countries. 23

24

Most of the ecosystem functions of reefs, such as the provision of productive fisheries, 25

tourism appeal, and coastal protection from storms, are founded on having a complex reef 26

structure that keeps accreting (growing). A structurally complex reef provides habitat (and 27

hiding places) to support high levels of biodiversity (Gratwicke and Speight 2005), which 28

span a diversity of fishes and invertebrates, many of which remain poorly documented. If a 29

reef is to continue functioning then it must at least have net growth – i.e., that the 30

deposition of a carbonate skeleton by corals and calcareous algae must exceed the rate at 31

which the skeleton is removed by physical damage and the erosion caused by a host of taxa 32

including burrowing algae, sponges, and worms. The balance of reef construction and 33

erosion is known as a carbonate budget (Stearn et al. 1977). Perhaps that greatest threat to 34

coral reef biodiversity is the long-term loss of reef habitat that could occur if carbonate 35

budgets become persistently negative (erosive). 36

37

38

1. Are we on track to achieve the 2015 target? 39

40

1.a. Status and trends 41

42

1.a.i. Local threats 43

44

Vulnerable habitats like tropical coral reefs are threatened by both local and global stressors. 45

These threats affect not only the corals, but also coral reef associated communities that form 46

the reef ecosystem. Local stressors include over-harvesting of fisheries (McManus 1997), 47


2

destructive fishing methods (e.g., explosives, cyanide), marine-based pollution and damage 1

(e.g., oil and gas installations, shipping and anchor damage), watershed-based pollution 2

(e.g., nutrients and fertilizer runoff, Richmond et al. 2007), and coastal development (e.g., 3

sewage discharge, dredging), and marine recreation (e.g., diving and boating). Global 4

stressors are principally rising sea temperatures, which reduce coral calcification and can 5

elicit coral bleaching events, and ocean acidification, which has a variety of deleterious 6

impacts on reef systems (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). Superimposed upon these threats are 7

natural perturbations such as cyclones (Rogers 1993). According to the Reefs at Risk 8

Revisited report, the percentage of reef area rated as threatened increased by 30% in the 9

decade from 1997 to 2007 (Burke et al. 2011). Threat levels were estimated by integrating 10

indicators of local and global threats within a geographic information system (GIS). Much of 11

the elevated increase (80%) was driven by rising threats from fishing in the Indian and Pacific 12

Oceans, largely because of elevated density of coastal populations (Burke et al. 2011). The 13

main conclusions about current local anthropogenic impacts include: 1) More than 60% of 14

the world’s coral reefs are under immediate and direct threat from one or more local 15

stressors; 2) Of local stressors, fishing is the most pervasive threat, affecting more than 55% 16

of reefs. Coastal development and watershed-based pollution each threaten about 25% of 17

reefs. Marine-based pollution threatens about 10% of reefs; 3) Local pressures are most 18

severe in Southeast Asia, where nearly 95% of reefs are threatened and 50% are in the ‘high’ 19

or ‘very high’ threat category (Fig 10.1, Table 10.1). Indonesia has the largest area of 20

threatened reef followed by the Philippines (Burke et al. 2011). Although much of this threat 21

stems from fishing, it should be noted that land based activities also impact heavily upon the 22

reef (e.g., Brodie et al. 2012, see Box 10.2), and these cumulative impacts need to be 23

addressed through sound coastal zone management. 24

25

26 Figure 10.1. Distribution of coral reefs classified by human threat level. Red represents very high; 27 orange – high; yellow – medium; and blue – low threat (Source: Burke et al. 2011). 28

29 Table 10.1. Geographic trends in reef threat from Reefs at Risk Revisited 30

Region Source of threat Percentage of reefs

By threat category

Threatened* High / Very high

Southeast Asia

Main threat is from overfishing and destructive fishing 95% 50%

Atlantic Ocean

Multiple threats, Bahamas have largest reef area at low threat

75% 30%


3

Indian Ocean

Fishing most widespread threat 65% 35%

Middle East

Multiple threats. Exceptions include Chagos Archipelago, Maldives, Seychelles

65% 20%

Wider Pacific

French Polynesia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Hawaii and the Marshall Islands have some of the lowest sources of local stress.

50% 20%

Australia Least threatened globally** 14% 1% * Includes 4 local threats (coastal development, watershed-based pollution, marine-based pollution and damage – such as 1 oil exploration and shipping – and fishing impacts) and 1 global threat (historical coral bleaching events in last 10 years). 2 ** Although Australian reefs were considered to be the least threatened globally in 2011, new analyses of long-term 3 monitoring and survey data have revealed that coral cover has decreased dramatically from a mean of 28% to 14% between 4 1985 and 2012 (De'ath et al. 2012). The causes of such decline were attributed to cyclones (48%), coral predation by crown-5 of-thorns starfish (42%), and coral bleaching (10%). Of these, only coral predation is likely to be caused by local human 6 impacts (principally high nutrient runoff). 7 8

In addition, international market demand for reef resources, such as aquarium fish and 9

corals, directly affect the integrity of reef ecosystems through the removal of reef organisms 10

and modifying habitat. This reinforces the need for national as well as international 11

legislation that not only focuses on reducing fishing pressure, but also regulates trade in reef 12

organisms. In the past decade, there has been an overall declining trend in the trade of wild 13

corals (Fig. 10.2); however, it should be noted that while coral rock and dead coral trade is 14

declining, the trade in live coral is increasing (Wood et al. 2012). 15

16

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Qu

an

tity

tra

de

d (

ton

ne

s)

17 Figure 10.2. Trend in the trade of wild corals 2002-2011, as reported by exporter countries. Source: 18 CITES trade data. 19

20

1.a.ii. Global threats 21

22

Reefs are principally impacted by two processes at the global scale (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 23

2007, Pandolfi et al. 2011, Frieler et al. 2012). The first is rising sea surface temperatures, 24

that are currently increasing at rates of 0.2°C decade-1 in SE Asia (Penaflor et al. 2009) and up 25

to 0.5°C decade-1 in the Caribbean (Chollett et al. 2012). Long-term rising sea temperatures 26

can be a chronic stressor that reduces the calcification rate of corals (Carricart-Ganivet et al. 27

2012). Higher temperature also predisposes corals to ‘coral bleaching’ which is a serious 28

disruption of the symbiosis between the coral host and the dinoflagellate algae that live 29

within its tissues. Recent ENSO (El niño-Southern Oscillation) events have caused massive 30

coral bleaching, often followed by extensive mortality, at regional and global scales. The 31


4

most severe global event occurred in 1998, but other events have occurred at regional scales 1

in 2005 and 2010 (Eakin et al. 2010) and their frequency is expected to increase under global 2

warming (Frieler et al. 2012). A global representation of bleaching events and severe thermal 3

stress is given in Fig. 10.3. 4

5

6 Figure 10.3. Thermal stress on coral reefs (1998-2007) 7

8

The second major stressor is ocean acidification (OA) which occurs as atmospheric carbon 9

dioxide continues to be absorbed by the ocean. OA can impede the rate of calcification and 10

interfere with a range of biological processes, including the sensory capabilities of fish 11

(Munday et al. 2009) and corals (Doropoulos et al. 2012), and the competitive interactions 12

between algae and coral (Diaz-Pulido et al. 2011). Although these two global stressors are 13

unavoidable and cannot be directly mitigated in the near term, it is still essential to take 14

international actions to diminish climate change impacts, even if results from these actions 15

may only manifest in the long term. 16

17

Management action is hampered by a lack of understanding about whether the effect of 18

multiple global and local stressors is synergistic or not (Gurney et al. 2013). It is likely that 19

multiple stressors can act synergistically, though the outcomes will vary according to the 20

stressors involved. For instance, studies of fishing and bleaching impacts on Kenyan corals 21

found no evidence of synergisms (Darling et al. 2010) whereas the dual impacts of rising sea 22

temperature – chronic reductions in coral calcification and more frequent bleaching – are 23

predicted to have synergistic impacts on coral reef resilience (Bozec and Mumby 2014). 24

25

1.a.iii. Trends in reef health 26

27

Overall trends of reef health, measured by the cover of living coral, are generally strongly 28

negative. For example, average Caribbean coral cover has declined, on average, from around 29

50% in the 1970s to approximately 10% by 2000 (Fig. 10.4, (Gardner et al. 2003). Bruno and 30

Selig (2007) analysed coral cover from various data sets across the Indian and Pacific Oceans 31

and found an overall average loss of 0.72% y-1. However, both studies show marked intra-32

regional variability in these overall trends. For example, the Caribbean still includes countries 33

where coral cover can exceed 50%, such as Bonaire. Much of the net loss appears to be 34

attributable to the severe global bleaching event of 1998. 35

36


5

1 Figure 10.4. Average trends of coral cover in the Caribbean, showing a fall from around 50% in the 2 1970s to 10% in 2002 (after Gardner et al 2003). 3

4

It is insightful to examine cases where corals still have the resilience required to bounce back 5

after disturbance. In 1997, Connell (1997) found marked evidence of recovery in the Indo-6

Pacific but little in the Caribbean. Revisiting this question, Roff and Mumby (2012) found 7

only a single recovery trajectory in the Caribbean, whereas striking coral recovery is still 8

reported from many sites in the Indo-Pacific (e.g., Adjeroud et al. 2009, Halford and Caley 9

2009). It seems that reef resilience is particularly impaired in the Caribbean, in part because 10

of few fast-growing coral species, relatively few herbivorous fish species, and a 11

predisposition of seaweed to bloom (Roff and Mumby 2012). But even relatively well-12

managed systems in the Pacific can show a net “ratcheting down” of coral cover as they 13

experience repeated disturbance over a short period of time. A recent report concluded that 14

the average state of the Great Barrier Reef has declined by around 50% of living coral over 15

the last 25 years (De'ath et al. 2012). 16

17

Here, we attempted to estimate the degree to which global change (rising sea temperature 18

and OA) may have affected coral communities (Wolff et al. in review). This study suggests 19

there have been increasing levels of climate stress from the 1970s to 2000 (Fig. 10.5). 20

Present levels of stress vary markedly around the world, being relatively low in Australia, the 21

south Pacific, north Asia, and the tropical Western Atlantic. 22

23


6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Figure 10.5. Models global of climate-related stress upon corals in 2000, 2025, and 2050 based on 29 AR4 SRES A2, from which AR5 RCP8.5 was derived (Wolff et al in review). 30

31

1.a.iv. What has been done to protect reefs? 32

33

Marine protected areas (MPAs), if well enforced and integrated with coastal watershed 34

management, can mitigate the multiple local anthropogenic stressors on coral reefs, thereby 35

increasing the resilience of reefs and making them less susceptible to environmental and 36

climate stressors such as coral bleaching. For instance, no-take MPAs have been used 37

effectively to rebuild fish stocks (Russ et al. 2008) on coral reefs and even help corals recover 38

after bleaching (Mumby and Harborne 2010). Approximately 27% of the world’s reefs are 39

located inside MPAs. However, many MPAs turn out to be ‘paper parks’ due to lack of 40

enforcement capacity; an analysis of effectiveness concluded that only about 15% of 41

reserves have reduced the threat from fishing (Burke et al. 2011). Nevertheless, many new 42

coral reef MPAs are now being planned (Fig. 10.6), although it should be noted that the 43

coverage of many large MPAs was found to be strongly biased away from areas of greatest 44

threat. 45


7

1 Figure 10.6. Map of recently established large-scale MPAs or MPA initiatives. Red numbers indicate 2 regional MPA initiatives involving more than one country; bold numbers indicate MPAs that are 3 pending establishment; * indicates MPAs that are less than 500 000 km2 in size; ** indicates MPAs 4 that are larger than 500 000 km2 in size; and ^ indicates regional initiatives for which MPA area is not 5 specified. See Appendix 10.1 for more details. Note that locations of MPAs are indicative of general 6 area only, and not precise. 7

8

1.b. Projecting forward to 2020 9

10

Target 10 is one of the few Aichi 2020 targets with a goal for 2015 rather than 2020. While it 11

is possible that non-linear responses of coral reefs to stress and disturbance might cause 12

sudden flips to degraded states (Mumby et al. 2013), it is difficult to see how current trends 13

as described in section 1.a. will substantially change by 2015 compared to our analysis of 14

current trends; therefore, we focus this analysis on trends out to 2020. Human population 15

in coral-reef countries is expected to increase by nearly 15% between 2010 and 2020 (UN 16

Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2004). Thus, while it is difficult to project future 17

changes in local threats, recent trends and the expanding human population suggest that 18

threat levels will continue to increase. Sectors which impact upon coral reefs, such as 19

marine tourism and agricultural development, also show increasing trends. For instance, the 20

area of industrial oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia has grown continuously since 1990, 21

with greatest growth since 2007, and it is expected that this growth trend will continue to 22

2030 (Miettinen et al. 2012). Further, global tourism is projected to grow at an average rate 23

of 4.1% to 2020 (UNWTO 2001). This has implications for reef biodiversity hotspots, such as 24

the Coral Triangle, where coastal and marine tourism growth has been strong (Crabtree 25

2007). While marine ecotourism can potentially be a sustainable alternative to fishing for 26

coastal communities (Fabinyi 2010), mass tourism that is not within the physical limits of the 27

environment may further degrade reef and coastal habitats (Teh and Cabanban 2007). 28

International trade is another factor that can likely impact coral reef biodiversity, with trade 29


8

in wild corals projected to increase to 2020 (Fig. 10.7).(note that this extrapolation is likely to be 1

revised) 2

3

4 Fig 10.7. Statistical extrapolation of the increase in the trade of wild corals to 2020. Long dashes 5 represent extrapolation period. Short dashes represent 95% confidence bounds. Horizontal dashed 6 grey line represents model-estimated 2010 value for indicator. Extrapolation assumes underlying 7 processes remain constant. Data from CITES trade database. 8 9

Studies of recent rises in the sea temperature in coral reef areas (post 1985) find striking 10

regional variability. In SE Asia, for example, mean rates of warming are 0.2°C/decade but 11

some areas in southern Asia have actually net cooling (Penaflor et al. 2009). Similarly, 12

average rates of recent warming are 0.29°C/decade in the Caribbean, but warming is most 13

intensive in the south and net cooling occurred around parts of Florida (Chollett et al. 2012). 14

Temporal trends in ocean acidification during this period are generally unclear, though 15

intensification has been predicted for the northern Caribbean, where data are available 16

(Gledhill et al. 2008). 17

18

Despite the anticipated increase in threat and ineffectiveness of many MPAs, the designation 19

of protected area status continues to increase. Some countries, including the United States, 20

Kiribati, Australia, and the United Kingdom have declared massive MPAs over coral reef 21

regions (Fig. 10.6). In addition, several regions, including the Caribbean and Micronesia, 22

have signed up to ambitious targets to protect large areas of coast within the next decade or 23

two (Fig. 10.6). Not all areas are intended to become no-take marine reserves, but the 24

increased level of protection should increase the efficacy of management and reduce the 25

probability of destructive activities. 26

27

28


9

1.c. Country actions and commitments1 1

2

Relatively few countries have established national targets, or similar elements, related to this 3

Aichi Biodiversity Target. (Note, however that a number of National Biodiversity Strategies 4

and Action Plans (NBSAPS) examined are from countries which do not have coral reefs). 5

Many countries note the growing role of climate change as a main driver of biodiversity loss 6

in their NBSAP. Those national targets that have been established are generally in line with 7

the Aichi Biodiversity Target. However there tends to be a general emphasis on building 8

resiliency to climate change. 9

10

Few targets explicitly refer to reducing anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs. Similarly, few 11

targets explicitly refer to reducing anthropogenic pressures on ecosystems which are 12

vulnerable to climate change. Two examples which are counter to this trend are Finland and 13

Brazil which have both established national targets which refer to reducing anthropogenic 14

pressures on vulnerable ecosystems. 15

16

17

2. What needs to be done to reach the Aichi Target? 18

19

2.a. Actions 20

21

While there are a number of regional initiatives aiming to protect coral reefs and associated 22

ecosystems (such as mangroves and seagrass systems), multiple stressors, including both 23

global stressors (e.g., rising sea temperature, the effects of tropical storms and rising sea 24

levels, as well as ocean acidification,) and local stressors (e.g., overfishing, destructive 25

fishing practices, nutrient runoff, land-based and sea-based pollution, coastal development, 26

tourism and recreational use, etc.), continue to impact these ecosystems. Therefore, there is 27

an increasingly urgent need for countries and relevant organizations to consolidate and 28

further strengthen current efforts at local, national, regional and global levels to manage 29

coral reefs as socio-ecological systems undergoing change. The target will not be met by 30

2015. Against this background, possible key actions to achieve this target at the earliest 31

possibility and before 2020 include: 32

33

(a) Reducing the impacts of multiple stressors, in particular by addressing those 34

stressors that are more tractable at the regional, national and local levels; i.e.: 35

36

(i) Sustainably manage fisheries on coral reefs and closely associated 37

ecosystems (such as mangroves and seagrass systems), including by 38

empowering local and indigenous communities and individuals 39

involved in local fisheries (Targets 6); 40

1 This assessment is based on an examination of the national biodiversity strategies and action plans from the following

countries: Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, England, The European Union, Finland, France, Ireland, Japan, Malta, Myanmar, Serbia, Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, Timor Leste, Tuvalu and Venezuela. In addition it considers the set of national targets developed by Brazil. This assessment will be further updated and refined to account for additional NBSAPS and as such these initial findings should be considered as preliminary and were relevant a level of confidence has been associated with the main statements. This assessment focuses on the national targets, objectives, priority actions and similar elements included in the NBSAPs in relation to the international commitments made through the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.


10

(ii) Managing land-based and sea-based sources of nutrients and 1

pollution (Target 8); 2

3

(iii) Increasing the spatial coverage and effectiveness of marine and 4

coastal protected and managed areas in coral reefs and closely 5

associated ecosystems (Targets 11); and 6

7

(iv) Managing coastal development to ensure that the health and 8

resilience of coral reef ecosystems are not adversely impacted and 9

promoting sustainable coral reef tourism, including through the use 10

of guidelines for tourists and tour operators. 11

12

(b) Enhancing the resilience of coral reefs and closely associated ecosystems 13

through ecosystem-based adaptation to enable the continued provisioning of goods and 14

services (Target 14)); 15

16

(c) Maintaining sustainable livelihoods and food security in reef-dependent 17

coastal communities and provide for viable alternative livelihoods, where appropriate 18

(Target 14). 19

20

Further, there is a need for action at the national level to identify other ecosystems that are 21

vulnerable to climate change and related impacts and to implement measures to improve 22

their resilience. Such ecosystems include mountain ecosystems (e.g.: cloud forests, páramo), 23

and other ecosystems particularly vulnerable to changes in temperature and precipitation 24

patterns as well as low lying ecosystems vulnerable to sea-level rise. 25

The programme of work on marine and coastal biodiversity (decision VII/5) provides the 26

main guidance for this target concerning coral reefs and associated ecosystems. Paragraph 8 27

of decision X/33, on biodiversity and climate change, provides relevant guidance on this 28

target applicable to all ecosystems. 29

30

To reduce the level of anthropogenic stressors on coral reefs to a point where losses of reef 31

function are minimised, it is necessary to maintain net reef accretion (i.e., a positive 32

carbonate budget). This is not a biodiversity target per se (though it does require moderately 33

healthy food web structure) but is likely the most effective single indicator to maintain the 34

habitat quality on which much biodiversity depends (see next section for further details). 35

36

Some immediate actions that can be taken to reduce local human pressure upon coral reefs 37

and maintain habitat quality include: 38

1) Reducing fishing effort in a manner that will be supported and complied with by 39

fishing communities. Community involvement in the decision making process and 40

MPA monitoring is a key element to achieving this, as demonstrated by the 41

management of a Locally Managed Marine Area network in Fiji (Weeks and Jupiter 42

2013); 43

44

2) Implementing integrated coastal zone and watershed management to mitigate 45

pollutants and other impacts of land based activities on coral reefs (e.g., Jakobsen et 46

al. 2007; Brodie et al. 2012); 47


11

3) Shift from mass tourism to the development of marine ecotourism that is within the 1

limits of acceptable change (e.g., Teh and Cabanban 2007); 2

3

A recent study modelled the trajectories of Caribbean coral reefs under various management 4

scenarios on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels (business as usual and low carbon 5

economy), and evaluated their expected carbonate budgets (Kennedy et al. 2013). The study 6

found that positive carbonate budgets could be maintained at least towards the end of this 7

century but only if compelling action is taken to reduce GHG emissions (to the most 8

optimistic scenarios being considered by the IPCC) and if local threats including overfishing 9

and water quality are managed (Fig. 10.8). Thus, the achievement of Target 10 requires a 10

strong global commitment to reducing GHG emissions, ideally following Representative 11

Concentration Pathway 2.6. 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Figure 10.8. Projected carbonate budgets of a Caribbean reef under climate change and ocean 31 acidification with and without local protection of herbivores under scenarios of realistic GHG 32 emissions (top) and aggressive reduction (bottom). Initial conditions of reefs are either degraded 33 with 10% coral cover (A, B, E, and F) or healthier with 20% coral (C, D, G, and H). Herbivorous fish are 34 either overfished or fully protected (denoted with parrotfish symbols). Each plot displays 20 35 simulations, with outputs generated at 6 month intervals and run for years 2010–2080. Vertical blue 36 bars indicate point at which the projected budget becomes negative (<–0.1 kg for >5 years). Source: 37 Kennedy et al (2013). 38

39

The exploitation of herbivorous fish can lead to an increase in fleshy seaweeds (macroalgae) 40

that pre-empt space for coral settlement and then compete with those corals that do 41

manage to settle (Williams and Polunin 2000, Hughes et al. 2007, Mumby et al. 2007). 42

Herbivores are usually protected inside no-take marine reserves but, while useful, this step 43

fails to address concerns over the loss of reef habitat quality in areas subjected to 44

exploitation. Seascape-wide management of herbivory requires fishery regulations including 45

reductions in the use of fish traps (Hawkins et al. 2007) and species-level catch limits or 46

bans. For example, herbivore fisheries have been prohibited in Belize, Bermuda and Bonaire. 47

48

49


12

Begin Box 10.1 - Reducing local threats through private coral reef management 1

Local anthropogenic threats pose the greatest risk to coral reefs in Southeast Asia. However, 2

reef management in the region is often limited by lack of funds and resources. One approach 3

for overcoming this challenge is the use of private sector resources for coral reef 4

conservation. The establishment of the Sugud Islands Marine Conservation Area (SIMCA) in 5

Sabah, Malaysia was initiated by owners of the sole dive resort situated within SIMCA, for 6

the purpose of protecting the area’s coral reefs and marine environment. The SIMCA was 7

officially declared an IUCN category II conservation area in 2001. Reef Guardian, a 8

conservation organisation, manages conservation activities to reduce local threats to the 9

coral reefs within SIMCA. These include enforcement patrols to regulate illegal fishing, turtle 10

monitoring and conservation, coral reef and environmental monitoring, sewage and 11

wastewater treatment, removal of coral predators (crown of thorns), and conducting 12

education programmes for school children to raise awareness about marine conservation. 13

Reef Guardian’s conservation work is funded by conservation fees charged to visitors to the 14

dive resort, donations, and grants. This private management approach has helped to 15

mitigate the impacts of tourism and fishing on SIMCA’s reefs, resulting in improved 16

biodiversity conditions. For instance, coral cover and fish abundance is greater within SIMCA 17

compared to fished areas, and the number of turtle nestings shows an increasing trend 18

through time. See www.reef-guardian.org. Reference: Teh et al. (2008). 19

End Box 10.1 20

21

MPAs are now being planned with multiple stressors in mind. Designation of an MPA will not 22

reduce impacts of climate change or OA, but it is possible to identify regions of the ocean 23

that have a more benign physical environment (West and Salm 2003, McLeod et al. 2012). 24

For example, Mumby et al. (2011) used a climatology of satellite-derived sea surface 25

temperature (SST) measurements to identify those areas where corals are likely to be best 26

acclimated to stress and subjected to relatively mild acute bleaching events (Fig. 10.9). In 27

principle, locating MPAs in the most benign areas allows for a targeted reduction in 28

biological stresses (e.g., restored food webs and less competition from algae) in areas that 29

have relatively low physical stress. 30

31

The local stressors modelled by Kennedy et al (2013) included the exploitation of 32

herbivorous fish and nitrification of watersheds. Nutrient and sediment runoff can be 33

reduced by cutting back on the use of fertilizer, stabilizing soils by keeping riparian 34

watersheds forested, and maintaining estuarine habitats including mangroves and 35

marshlands. 36

37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

http://www.reef-guardian.org/


13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Figure 10.9. Stratification of coral reefs of the Bahamas based on their thermal characteristics. Two 19 aspects of thermal stress are recognised - chronic stress that represents usual summer temperatures 20 - and acute stress that occurs during episodic bleaching events. Ordering all four environments from 21 the most benign to stressful gives A, C, B, and D respectively. After Mumby et al. (2011). 22

23

Begin Box 10.2. - Reducing land based threats to coral reefs 24

Agricultural run-off has increased levels of sediments, nutrients, and pesticides on the Great 25

Barrier Reef (GBR), leading to degraded water quality. This has detrimental long term 26

impacts on reef health, as pollutants change the environmental conditions for reef species 27

and ecosystems. In response, the Australian and Queensland governments have introduced 28

several policy initiatives and regulations. The Reef Plan, introduced in 2003, aims to stop and 29

reverse the decline in GBR water quality by reducing source pollutant loads and 30

rehabilitating reef catchment areas that play a role in removing water borne pollutants. A 31

component of the Reef Plan was Reef Rescue, an AUD 200 million investment by the 32

Australian Government to fund voluntary programmes for on the ground work, monitoring, 33

and research. Land management activities funded by Reef Rescue mainly targeted the 34

sugarcane and grazing industries; projects included introduction of new farming practices, 35

fencing along streams for cattle management, modification to fertiliser and pesticide 36

application gears, and modifying cultivation and tillage equipment and practices. In 2009, 37

the Queensland Government introduced the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Act, 38

which provides for the implementation of fertiliser, pesticide and erosion management 39

regulations for the GBR. Despite these useful management actions, it is expected that 40

improvements to water quality and reef health may not be detectable for several decades. 41

Source: Brodie et al. 2012. For more information see www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-42

reef/declining-water-quality 43

End Box 10.2. 44

45

46

47

48

49

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/declining-water-quality

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/declining-water-quality


14

2.b. Costs and Cost-benefit analysis 1

2

Mitigating anthropogenic threats to coral reefs require cost-effective land and marine based 3

conservation actions. A study by Klein et al (2010) calculated the rate of return on investing 4

in two conservation actions to mitigate high impact threats for the 16 ecoregions in the 5

Coral Triangle. The analysis involved estimating the cost of effectively managing coral reefs 6

and terrestrial protected areas, based on the assumption that protection linearly reduced 7

the threat in each ecoregion. Depending on ecoregion, estimated annual management costs 8

for coral reefs ranged from US$15 300/km2 to US$383 500/km2. An earlier study modelled 9

the change in coral cover in Montego Bay, Jamaica, arising from different interventions (e.g. 10

sediment traps, building a large scale waste treatment facility, solid waste collection, 11

Ruitenbeek et al. 1999). Costs associated with mitigating actions that increased coral 12

abundance by up to 20% had a present value of US$153 million over 25 years. Achieving a 13

10% increase in coral abundance had a present value cost of US$12 million. The study 14

showed that the optimal intervention may depend on targeted coral quality levels, such that 15

the lowest cost management intervention may not be the most optimal. While these studies 16

focused on the cost-effectiveness of protecting coral reefs, it is also important to consider 17

that conservation actions which reduce fishing effort will impose substantial costs on fishers’ 18

livelihoods and food security in the short term. The Higher Level Panel estimates that 19

achieving Target 10 will require an initial investment of US$ 600 - 900 million, with average 20

annual expenditures of US$ 80 - 130 million to for the period 2013 - 2020, and recurrent 21

expenditures of US$ 6 – 10 million. Despite an immediate cost, conservation makes 22

economic sense because of the potential future benefits it generates. For instance, reef 23

conservation in the Caribbean was estimated to avert potential annual services losses 24

ranging between US$ 350 – 870 million (Burke et al. 2008). 25

26

Economic valuation of coral reef goods and services in different countries have provided a 27

wide range of estimates, mainly due to the different services and time frames that are used 28

in the valuation process (Table 10.2). Nevertheless, based on these studies, it is reasonable 29

to conclude that the global net present value of coral reefs reaches billions of US$. While the 30

economic values presented here are unlikely to reflect potential non-monetary costs arising 31

from the cascading effects of reef habitat and ecosystem loss, they are nonetheless 32

important for demonstrating the magnitude of economic benefits derived from coral reef 33

ecosystems. 34 35 Table 10.2. Economic valuation of coral reef goods and services in different countries. Compiled by 36 the Higher Level Panel report. 37

Country Value Services/Value Source

Sri Lanka NPV of US$ 14 – 750 million/ ha over 20 years

Multiple services, especially tourism and erosion control

Berg et al. (1998)

Phi Phi Islands, Thailand

US$497 million / year, including $205 million recreational values

Use and non use values

Seenprachawong (2003)

Great Barrier Reef, Australia

NPV of US $53 billion (100yrs, 2.65% discount rate)

Range of values, especially tourism, non-use and coastal protection

Oxford Economics (2009)


15

Belize US$ 268-370 / km2/ year

Tourism, fisheries, shoreline protection

Burke et al. (2008)

Northern Marianas US$ 0.8 million / km2 Multiple goods and services

van Beukering et al. (2006)

Pacific Islands US $506 – 17,873 / ha/ year

Tourism, coastal protection, fisheries and other services

Various

Caribbean US $3.1 - 4.6 billion p.a.

Shoreline protection, tourism and fisheries

Burke et al. (2008)

1

2

3. What are the implications of not reaching the Target for biodiversity in 2015? 3

4

The direct impact of anthropogenic impacts tends to be either a loss of coral species or a 5

shift in species composition to one able to tolerate more stressful conditions. Coral 6

bleaching commonly leads to an immediate loss of the most thermally-sensitive corals 7

(Edwards et al. 2001). A long-term study found that a major bleaching event led to an 8

immediate loss of coral species richness (van Woesik et al. 2011). However, while total 9

richness recovered after 10 years, the assemblage of corals changed. Ascertaining exactly 10

how coral assemblages will change in the long-term is challenging but a shift towards 11

thermally-tolerant species and those that are able to recover from partial mortality is likely 12

(van Woesik and Jordan-Garza 2011), as is an overall reduction in coral species richness and 13

abundance. 14

15

Other forms of local impact, such as sedimentation, have a fairly predictable impact on coral 16

assemblages as it tends to favour a particular subset of species, such as Turbinaria 17

mesentaria (Anthony 2006) that can tolerate higher sediment and make greater use of 18

heterotrophy. The impacts of climate change on non-coral invertebrates have been under-19

studied (Przeslawski et al. 2008), making it difficult to make predictions at this stage. The 20

impacts of a loss of living coral and habitat complexity are fairly profound on coral reef fish, 21

particularly those of smaller size that are more vulnerable to predation (Wilson et al. 2006). 22

A bleaching event and plague of crown-of-thorns starfish in Papua New Guinea led to a vast 23

loss of coral from around 65% to 20% over 8 years (Jones et al. 2004). Over 75% of fish 24

species declined in abundance with 50% declined to less than half their original abundance 25

(Fig. 10.10). Similar events were also reported from French Polynesia (Kayal et al. 2012). 26

Elsewhere, many studies have quantified a strong negative relationship between the 27

structural complexity of reefs and fish species richness (Luckhurst and Luckhurst 1978, 28

Graham et al. 2006). 29

30

31


16

1 Figure 10.10. Loss of coral cover and reef fish species richness from Kimbe Bay. Species richness 2 calculated for the fish families Acanthuridae, Chaetodonidae, Labridae, and Pomacentridae (Jones et 3 al 2004). 4

5

6

4. What do scenarios suggest for 2050 and what are the implications for biodiversity? 7

8

In coral reef countries, total human population is set to increase by 27% between 2010 and 9

2050 (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2004). It is likely that anthropogenic 10

impacts will at least increase from current baselines, perhaps strongly given the increased 11

pressure on coastal resources. Rising sea temperatures are expected to cause more intense 12

and frequent bleaching. Using a consortium of global circulation models, Frieler et al (2012) 13

estimate that damaging bleaching conditions would affect approximately >90% of the 14

world's reefs under RCP8.5 and 60% of reefs under the more optimistic GHG emissions 15

scenario, RCP3PD. Damaging bleaching conditions were defined as occurring when events 16

exceed 2°C heating months with a return time < 5 years. Ocean acidification will continue 17

and affect the biology and ecology of reef ecosystems, though the precise consequences are 18

difficult to estimate for 2050 because many experimental studies simulate environments 19

further into the future. 20

21

The consequences for coral reef biodiversity are, of course, uncertain by 2050 but are likely 22

to be highly influenced by the trajectory taken for GHG emissions. It is even more difficult to 23

estimate the potential consequences on other non-coral vulnerable ecosystems which are 24

relatively less documented. Maintenance of positive carbonate budgets is possible with 25

aggressive action on emissions and effective local management (Kennedy et al. 2013). Of 26

significant concern is how changes in reef state and ecological processes will affect functions 27

like fisheries productivity and coastal protection (Pratchett et al. 2011). At this point, few 28

quantitative predictions have been made for future coral reef ecosystem function. A recent 29


17

study predicted that a loss of coral reef habitat complexity (i.e., flat reefs), which would 1

occur if carbonate budgets remained strongly negative, would reduce the productivity of 2

Caribbean reef fisheries by at least 3-fold (Rogers et al. 2014). 3

4

If climate change and ocean acidification continue to follow current trajectories then the 5

outlook for coral reefs is poor (e.g. Fig. 10.8). Local conservation actions to manage fisheries 6

and water quality will remain fundamentally important in reducing rates of reef decline and 7

helping build recovery capacity. Even the least resilient reefs – those of the Caribbean – are 8

projected to fare better if managed locally, possibly buying a few decades for more assertive 9

action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Edwards et al. 2011, Kennedy et al. 2013). 10

However, if coral cover continues to decline, particularly under frequent coral bleaching, 11

then there is a very real risk that carbonate budgets might become negative. Recent 12

evidence from the Caribbean suggests that at least 10% coral cover is needed to maintain 13

positive reef growth (Perry et al. 2013). The longer-term outcome of this is a flattening of 14

reef structures and a decline in key ecosystem services (Pratchett et al. 2014). The first 15

services to be affected will be reef fisheries production and biodiversity because both 16

respond rapidly to a loss of habitat structure (Graham et al 2006). In the longer term, the 17

ability of reefs to provide shoreline protection from storms will also decline. 18

19

Finally, while coral reefs have been chosen as the vulnerable ecosystem of focus in this 20

report, the threats and actions described in this chapter are equally relevant for other 21

vulnerable ecosystems, particularly of those that are relatively less well documented. A case 22

study on identifying vulnerable seamounts for conservation is provided in Box 10.3. 23

24

Begin Box 10.3 - Identifying vulnerable marine ecosystems for conservation 25

Conservation of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems of the deep sea, including cold-water coral 26

(CWC) aggregations and sponge fields, is a global priority (FAO 2009). Cold-water coral 27

ecosystems have been identified as biodiversity hotspots (Watling et al. 2011), and are of 28

significant ecological and economic value (Foley et al. 2010). In contrast to tropical reefs, the 29

cold temperatures and inconstant food supply found on the deep-sea floor implies that most 30

of its sessile inhabitants have reduced growth rates, long reproductive cycles and low rates 31

of recruitment. Such life history characteristics imply that cold-water ecosystems have a 32

reduced capacity to recover from any disturbance events (Williams et al. 2010). 33

Anthropogenic activities such as bottom fishing and hydrocarbon drilling are among the 34

major threats to these fragile ecosystems (Davies et al. 2007; Roberts et al. 2009). Cold water 35

reefs or gardens are found mainly on seamounts slopes (Genin et al., 1986). To conserve 36

these vulnerable ecosystems, a framework for locating potential ecologically or biologically 37

significant seamount areas based on the best information currently available was developed 38

(Taranto et al., 2012, Fig. 10.11). This framework combines the likelihood of a seamount 39

constituting an ecologically or biologically significant area (EBSA) and its level of human 40

impact, and can be used to locate priority areas for seamount conservation at global, 41

regional and local scales. This framework will also allow the identification of ecologically or 42

biologically significant seamount areas with high data uncertainty and is thus in urgent need 43

of research. If this knowledge is translated into policy action, the methodology may 44

constitute an important step forward in the implementation of conservation measures in 45

deep sea habitats and open ocean waters and help to fulfill the international commitments 46

signed under the Convention on Biological Diversity. 47


18

1

1 2 3 4 5

1

2

3

4

5

Threat Score

EB

SA

likelih

ood s

core

2 Fig. 10.11. Seamount EBSA portfolio plot based on EBSA likelihood scores and threat scores for eight 3 case studies (left) and for the whole dataset (right). The upper right seamounts (red) are very high 4 and high EBSAs with very high and high threats, while the upper left seamounts (green) are very high 5 and high EBSAs with medium and low threats. In the bottom are the medium and low EBSAs with low 6 (blue) and high (yellow) threats. Error bars represent the data uncertainty index (see methods) 7 proportional to data availability and quality. Text and figure provided by Telmo Morato (see Taranto 8 et al. 2012) 9

End Box 10.3 10

11

12

5. Uncertainties and data requirements/ gaps 13

14

There are many uncertainties in projecting the future biodiversity and functioning of coral 15

reefs (Mumby and Van Woesik 2014). First, there are uncertainties in the level of stress 16

experienced by reefs. For example, global circulation models (GCMs) need to be downscaled 17

and there remains significant uncertainty over how ocean chemistry is modified in coastal 18

environments. In particular, the metabolism of reef organisms can modify the 19

biogeochemical environment substantially (Kleypas et al. 2011, Anthony et al. 2013). In 20

other words, natural daily fluctuations in sea water chemistry might be equivalent to the 21

projected impacts of climate change on mean oceanic conditions over many decades. While 22

a process like ocean acidification will slowly reduce the mean oceanic saturation states of 23

aragonite and calcite, it is not clear how such changes influence the dynamic environment 24

experienced by most corals. 25

26

A second source of uncertainty is the response of reefs and organisms to a changing 27

environment (Pandolfi et al. 2011). The response of individual species to stress varies 28

dramatically (Comeau et al. 2013) and while there may be an overall negative trend (Chan 29

and Connolly 2013), the outcome can be highly variable from one ecological community to 30

another. Moreover, in addition to there being no theoretical impediment to evolution of 31

corals to bleaching (Day et al. 2008), some have argued that the high rate of somatic 32

mutation in organisms like corals provides a greater opportunity for genetic adaption than 33

has been previously considered (van Oppen et al. 2011). 34


19

Third, many physiological studies of climate change response use treatments that simulate 1

environments far into the future. Thus, the response of animals and plants to conditions 2

expected in 2020 and 2050 are difficult to evaluate. One reason for this is the existence of 3

trans-generational plasticity (Franks and Hoffmann 2012). Most studies of coral reef 4

organismal response to climate change have been undertaken for a single generation. Yet, 5

multi-generational studies are finding considerable scope for altered fitness, possibly 6

through epigenetic effects (Miller et al. 2012). 7

8

Fourth, although it seems likely that some reefs will slip into net erosive structures (negative 9

carbonate budgets), a loss of reef structure and complexity is not instantaneous. Yet, there 10

has been virtually no attempt to predict the actual rate at which reef structures will erode, 11

particularly in environments with more erosive chemistry (OA). Moreover, changes in reef 12

structure and the emergence of novel reef communities (Yakob and Mumby 2011) could 13

have surprising ecological outcomes. For example, habitat structure can mediate predator-14

prey interactions of reef fish (Hixon and Beets 1993, Syms and Jones 2000). But habitat 15

complexity could change in surprising ways through a combination of net reef erosion and a 16

shift in coral species composition. How such uncertain shifts might then influence the 17

multitude of fish species' interactions is almost impossible to predict at this stage. Moreover, 18

some coral reef communities are predicted to experience alternate attractors, such that a 19

small increase in stress (e.g., bleaching mortality, nutrients, fishing) could result in a drastic 20

and undesirable change in community structure, including a loss of species, that resists 21

management efforts to reverse the decline (Mumby et al. 2013). 22

23

24

7. Dashboard – Progress towards Target 25

26

Element Current Status Comments Confidence

Multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning

Pressures such as land-based pollution, uncontrolled tourism still increasing, although new marine protected areas may ease overfishing in some reef regions

High

Multiple anthropogenic pressures on other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning

Not evaluated Insufficient information was available to evaluate the target for other vulnerable ecosystems including seagrass habitats, mangroves and mountains

27

28

Compiled by: Peter J Mumby and Louise Teh. 29

NBSAPs and National Reports: Kieran Mooney / CBD Secretariat 30

Dashboard: Tim Hirsch 31

32

Version history: 24 Nov 2013 PM, 15 Dec 2013 PL, 18 Dec CBK, 9 Jan 2014 PJM, 17 Feb LT 33 34 35

36


20

7. References cited 1

2 Adjeroud, M., F. Michonneau, P. J. Edmunds, Y. Chancerelle, T. L. de Loma, L. Penin, L. Thibaut, J. Vidal-Dupiol, 3

B. Salvat, and R. Galzin. 2009. Recurrent disturbances, recovery trajectories, and resilience of coral 4 assemblages on a South Central Pacific reef. Coral Reefs 28:775-780. 5

Anthony, K. R. N. 2006. Enhanced energy status of corals on coastal, high-turbidity reefs. Marine Ecology 6 Progress Series 319:111-116. 7

Anthony, K. R. N., G. Diaz-Pulido, N. Verlinden, B. Tilbrook, and A. J. Andersson. 2013. Benthic buffers and 8 boosters of ocean acidification on coral reefs. Biogeosciences 10:4897-4909. 9

Berg, H., Ohman, M.C., Troeng, S., Linden, O. 1998. Environmental economics of coral reef destruction in Sri 10 Lanka. Ambio 27: 627-634. 11

Bozec, Y. M. and P. J. Mumby. 2014. Synergistic impacts of global warming on coral reef resilience. Philosophical 12 Transactions of the Royal Society B in press. 13

Brodie, J.E., Kroon, F.J., Schaffelke, B., et al. 2012. Terrestrial pollutant runoff to the Great Barrier Reef: An 14 update of issues, priorities and management responses. Marine Pollution Bulletin 65: 81-100. 15

Bruno, J. F. and E. R. Selig. 2007. Regional decline of coral cover in the Indo-Pacific: Timing, extent, and 16 subregional comparisons. Plos One 8:e711. 17

Burke, L., K. Reytar, M. D. Spalding, and A. Perry. 2011. Reefs at risk revisited. World Resources Institute, 18 Washington DC. 19

Burke, L., Bood, N. 2008. Belize’s coastal capital. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. 20 Burke, L., Maidens, J. 2008. Coastal capital: economic valuation of coral reefs in Tobago and St. Lucia. World 21

Resources Institute, Washington DC. 22 Carricart-Ganivet, J. P., N. Cabanillas-Teran, I. Cruz-Ortega, and P. Blanchon. 2012. Sensitivity of calcification to 23

thermal stress varies among genera of massive reef-building corals. Plos One 7:e32859. 24 Chan, N. C. and S. R. Connolly. 2013. Sensitivity of coral calcification to ocean acidification: a meta-analysis. 25

Global Change Biology 19:282-290. 26 Chollett, I., F. E. Mueller-Karger, S. F. Heron, W. Skirving, and P. J. Mumby. 2012. Seasonal and spatial 27

heterogeneity of recent sea surface temperature trends in the Caribbean Sea and southeast Gulf of 28 Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64:956-965. 29

Comeau, S., P. J. Edmunds, N. B. Spindel, and R. C. Carpenter. 2013. The responses of eight coral reef calcifiers 30 to increasing partial pressure of CO2 do not exhibit a tipping point. Limnology and Oceanography 58:388-31 398. 32

Crabtree, A. 2007. Coastal marine tourism trends in the Coral Triangle and strategies for sustainable 33 development interventions. Center on Ecotourism and Sustainable Development, Stanford University and 34 Washington DC. 35

Darling, E. S., T. R. McClanahan, and I. M. Côté. 2010. Combined effects of two stressors on Kenyan coral reefs 36 are additive or antagonistic, not synergistic. Conservation Letters 3:122-130. 37

Day, T., L. Nagel, M. J. H. Van Oppen, and M. J. Caley. 2008. Factors affecting the evolution of bleaching 38 resistance in corals. American Naturalist 171:E72-E88. 39

De'ath, G., K. E. Fabricius, H. Sweatman, and M. Puotinen. 2012. The 27-year decline of coral cover on the Great 40 Barrier Reef and its causes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 41 America 109:17995-17999. 42

Diaz-Pulido, G., M. Gouezo, B. Tilbrook, S. Dove, and K. R. N. Anthony. 2011. High CO2 enhances the 43 competitive strength of seaweeds over corals. Ecology Letters 14:156-162. 44

Doropoulos, C., S. Ward, G. Diaz-Pulido, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and P. J. Mumby. 2012. Ocean acidification reduces 45 coral recruitment by disrupting intimate larval-algal settlement interactions. Ecology Letters 15:338-346. 46

Eakin, C. M., J. A. Morgan, S. F. Heron, T. B. Smith, G. Liu, L. Alvarez-Filip, B. Baca, E. Bartels, C. Bastidas, C. 47 Bouchon, M. Brandt, A. W. Bruckner, L. Bunkley-Williams, A. Cameron, B. D. Causey, M. Chiappone, T. R. L. 48 Christensen, M. J. C. Crabbe, O. Day, E. de la Guardia, G. Diaz-Pulido, D. DiResta, D. L. Gil-Agudelo, D. S. 49 Gilliam, R. N. Ginsburg, S. Gore, H. M. Guzman, J. C. Hendee, E. A. Hernandez-Delgado, E. Husain, C. F. G. 50 Jeffrey, R. J. Jones, E. Jordan-Dahlgren, L. S. Kaufman, D. I. Kline, P. A. Kramer, J. C. Lang, D. Lirman, J. 51 Mallela, C. Manfrino, J. P. Marechal, K. Marks, J. Mihaly, W. J. Miller, E. M. Mueller, E. M. Muller, C. A. O. 52 Toro, H. A. Oxenford, D. Ponce-Taylor, N. Quinn, K. B. Ritchie, S. Rodriguez, A. R. Ramirez, S. Romano, J. F. 53 Samhouri, J. A. Sanchez, G. P. Schmahl, B. V. Shank, W. J. Skirving, S. C. C. Steiner, E. Villamizar, S. M. Walsh, 54 C. Walter, E. Weil, E. H. Williams, K. W. Roberson, and Y. Yusuf. 2010. Caribbean Corals in Crisis: Record 55 Thermal Stress, Bleaching, and Mortality in 2005. Plos One 5. 56


21

Edwards, A. J., S. Clark, H. Zahir, A. Rajasuriya, A. Naseer, and J. Rubens. 2001. Coral bleaching and mortality on 1 artificial and natural reefs in Maldives in 1998: Sea surface temperature anomalies and initial recovery. 2 Marine Pollution Bulletin 42:7-15. 3

Edwards, H. J., I. A. Elliott, C. M. Eakin, A. Irikawa, J. S. Madin, M. McField, J. A. Morgan, R. van Woesik, and P. J. 4 Mumby. 2011. How much time can herbivore protection buy for coral reefs under realistic regimes of 5 hurricanes and coral bleaching? Global Change Biology 17:2033-2048. 6

Fabinyi, M. 2010. The intensification of fishing and the rise of tourism: competing coastal livelihoods in the 7 Calamianes Islands, Philippines. Human Ecology 38: 415-427. 8

FAO. (2009) Report of the Technical Consultation on International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea 9 Fisheries in the High Seas, Rome. 4–8 February and 25–29 August 2008, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture 10 Report, 881. 86 pp. 11

Foley N.S., van Rensburg, T.M., Armstrong, C.W. (2010) The ecological and economic value of cold-water coral 12 ecosystems. Ocean and Coastal Management 53: 313-326. 13

Franks, S. J. and A. A. Hoffmann. 2012. Genetics of Climate Change Adaptation. Pages 185-208 in B. L. Bassler, 14 editor. Annual Review of Genetics, Vol 46. 15

Frieler, K., M. Meinshausen, A. Golly, M. Mengel, K. Lebek, S. D. Donner, and O. Hoegh-Guldberg. 2012. Limiting 16 global warming to 2C is unlikely to save most coral reefs. Nature Climate Change 3:165-170. 17

Gardner, T. A., I. M. Cote, J. A. Gill, A. Grant, and A. R. Watkinson. 2003. Long-term region-wide declines in 18 Caribbean corals. Science 301:958-960. 19

Genin, A., Dayton, P.K., Lonsdale P.F., Spiess F.N. 1986. Corals on seamount peaks provide evidence of current 20

acceleration over deep-sea topography. Nature 322: 59-61. 21

Gledhill, D. K., R. Wanninkhof, F. J. Millero, and C. M. Eakin. 2008. Ocean acidification of the Greater Caribbean 22 Region 1996-2006. Journal of Geophysical Research 113:doi:10.1029/2007JC004629. 23

Graham, N. A. J., S. K. Wilson, S. Jennings, N. V. C. Polunin, J. P. Bijoux, and J. Robinson. 2006. Dynamic fragility 24 of oceanic coral reef ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 25 America 103:8425-8429. 26

Gratwicke, B. and M. R. Speight. 2005. The relationship between fish species richness, abundance and habitat 27 complexity in a range of shallow tropical marine habitats. Journal of Fish Biology 66:650-667. 28

Gurney, G.G., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Geronimo, R.C., Alino, P.M., Johnson, C.R. 2013. Modelling coral reef 29 futures to inform management: can reducing local-scale stressors conserve reefs under climate change? 30 PLoS ONE 8: e80137. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080137 31

Halford, A. R. and M. J. Caley. 2009. Towards an understanding of resilience in isolated coral reefs. Global 32 Change Biology 15:3031-3045. 33

Hawkins, J. P., C. M. Roberts, F. R. Gell, and C. Dytham. 2007. Effects of trap fishing on reef fish communities. 34 Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 17:111-132. 35

Hixon, M. A. and J. P. Beets. 1993. Predation, Prey Refuges, and the Structure of Coral-Reef Fish Assemblages. 36 Ecological Monographs 63:77-101. 37

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. 38 J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and 39 M. E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318:1737-40 1742. 41

Hughes, T. P., M. J. Rodrigues, D. R. Bellwood, D. Ceccarelli, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, L. McCook, N. Moltschaniwskyj, 42 M. S. Pratchett, R. S. Steneck, and B. Willis. 2007. Phase shifts, herbivory, and the resilience of coral reefs 43 to climate change. Current Biology 17:360-365. 44

Jakobsen, F., Hartstein, N., Frachisse, J., Golingi, T. 2007. Sabah shoreline management plan (Borneo, Malaysia): 45 Ecosystems and pollution. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 84-102. 46

Jones, G. P., M. I. McCormick, M. Srinivasan, and J. V. Eagle. 2004. Coral decline threatens fish biodiversity in 47 marine reserves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 48 101:8251-8253. 49

Kayal, M., J. Vercelloni, T. L. de Loma, P. Bosserelle, Y. Chancerelle, S. Geoffroy, C. Stievenart, F. Michonneau, L. 50 Penin, S. Planes, and M. Adjeroud. 2012. Predator Crown-of-Thorns Starfish (Acanthaster planci) Outbreak, 51 Mass Mortality of Corals, and Cascading Effects on Reef Fish and Benthic Communities. Plos One 7. 52

Kennedy, E. V., C. T. Perry, P. R. Halloran, R. Iglesias-Prieto, C. H. Schonberg, M. Wisshak, A. U. Form, J. P. 53 Carricart-Ganivet, M. Fine, C. M. Eakin, and P. J. Mumby. 2013. Avoiding coral reef functional collapse 54 requires local and global action. Current Biology 23:912-918. 55


22

Klein, C.J., Ban, N.C., Halpern, B.S., et al. 2010. Prioritizing land and sea conservation investments to protect 1 coral reefs. PLoSONE 5(8): e12431. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012431. 2

Kleypas, J. A., K. R. N. Anthony, and J.-P. Gattuso. 2011. Coral reefs modify their seawater carbon chemistry - 3 case study from a barrier reef (Moorea, French Polynesia). Global Change Biology 17:3667-3678. 4

Luckhurst, B. E. and K. Luckhurst. 1978. Analysis of the influence of substrate variables on coral reef fish 5 communities. Marine Biology 49:317-323. 6

McLeod, E., A. Green, E. Game, K. Anthony, J. Cinner, S. F. Heron, J. Kleypas, C. E. Lovelock, J. M. Pandolfi, R. L. 7 Pressey, R. Salm, S. Schill, and C. Woodroffe. 2012. Integrating Climate and Ocean Change Vulnerability into 8 Conservation Planning. Coastal Management 40:651-672. 9

McManus, J. W. 1997. Tropical marine fisheries and the future of coral reefs: a brief review with emphasis on 10 Southeast Asia. Coral Reefs 16:S121-S127. 11

Miettinen, J., Hooijer, A., Tollenaar, D., Page, S., Malins, C., Vernimmen, R., Shi, C, Liew, S.C. 2012. Historical 12 analysis and projectin of oil palm plantation expansion on peatland in Southeast Asia. White Paper No. 17. 13 The International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington DC. 14

Miller, G. M., S.-A. Watson, J. M. Donelson, M. I. McCormick, and P. L. Munday. 2012. Parental environment 15 mediates impacts of increased carbon dioxide on a coral reef fish. Nature Climate Change 2:858-861. 16

Mumby, P. J., I. A. Elliott, C. M. Eakin, W. Skirving, C. B. Paris, H. J. Edwards, S. Enriquez, R. Iglesias-Prieto, L. M. 17 Cherubin, and J. R. Stevens. 2011. Reserve design for uncertain responses of coral reefs to climate change. 18 Ecology Letters 14:132-140. 19

Mumby, P. J. and A. R. Harborne. 2010. Marine reserves enhance the recovery of corals on Caribbean reefs. 20 Plos One 5:e8657. 21

Mumby, P. J., A. R. Harborne, J. Williams, C. V. Kappel, D. R. Brumbaugh, F. Micheli, K. E. Holmes, C. P. Dahlgren, 22 C. B. Paris, and P. G. Blackwell. 2007. Trophic cascade facilitates coral recruitment in a marine reserve. 23 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:8362-8367. 24

Mumby, P. J., R. S. Steneck, and A. Hastings. 2013. Evidence for and against the existence of alternate attractors 25 on coral reefs. Oikos 122:481-491. 26

Mumby, P. J. and R. Van Woesik. 2014. Consequences of ecological, evolutionary, and biogeochemical 27 uncertainty on the response of coral reefs to climatic stress. Current Biology in press. 28

Munday, P. L., D. L. Dixson, J. M. Donelson, G. P. Jones, M. S. Pratchett, G. V. Devitsina, and K. B. Doving. 2009. 29 Ocean acidification impairs olfactory discrimination and homing ability of a marine fish. Proceedings of the 30 National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:1848-1852. 31

Oxford Economics. 2009. Valuing the effects of Great Barrier Reef bleaching. Great Barrier Reef Foundation, 32 Queensland. 95 pp. 33

Pandolfi, J. M., S. R. Connolly, D. J. Marshall, and A. L. Cohen. 2011. Projecting coral reef futures under global 34 warming and ocean acidification. Science 333:418-422. 35

Penaflor, E. L., W. J. Skirving, A. E. Strong, S. F. Heron, and L. T. David. 2009. Sea-surface temperature and 36 thermal stress in the Coral Triangle over the past two decades. Coral Reefs 28:841-850. 37

Perry, C. T., G. N. Murphy, P. S. Kench, S. G. Smithers, E. N. Edinger, R. S. Steneck, and P. J. Mumby. 2013. 38 Caribbean-wide decline in carbonate production threatens coral reef growth. Nature Communications 39 4:1402. 40

Pratchett, M. S., A. S. Hoey, and S. K. Wilson. 2014. Reef degradation and the loss of critical ecosystem goods 41 and services provided by coral reef fishes. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 7:37-43. 42

Pratchett, M. S., P. L. Munday, N. A. J. Graham, M. Kronen, S. Pinca, K. Friedman, T. D. Brewer, J. D. Bell, S. K. 43 Wilson, J. E. Cinner, J. P. Kinch, R. J. Lawton, A. J. Williams, L. Chapman, F. Magron, and A. Webb. 2011. 44 Vulnerability of coastal fisheries in the tropical Pacific to climate change. Pages 493-576 in J. D. Bell, J. E. 45 Johnson, and A. J. Hobday, editors. Vulnerability of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate 46 change. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. 47

Przeslawski, R., S. Ahyong, M. Byrne, G. Woerheide, and P. Hutchings. 2008. Beyond corals and fish: the effects 48 of climate change on noncoral benthic invertebrates of tropical reefs. Global Change Biology 14:2773-2795. 49

Richmond, R. H., T. Rongo, Y. Golbuu, S. Victor, N. Idechong, G. Davis, W. Kostka, L. Neth, M. Hamnett, and E. 50 Wolanski. 2007. Watersheds and coral reefs: Conservation science, policy, and implementation. Bioscience 51 57:598-607. 52

Roberts, J.M., Wheeler, A., Freiwald A., Cairns S. 2009. Cold-Water Corals: The Biology and Geology of Deep-Sea 53 Coral Habitats, Cambridge University Press, UK. 54

Roff, G. and P. J. Mumby. 2012. Global disparity in the resilience of coral reefs. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 55 27:404-413. 56


23

Rogers, A., J. L. Blanchard, and P. J. Mumby. 2014. Vulnerability of coral reef fisheries to a loss of structural 1 complexity. Current Biology in press. 2

Rogers, C. S. 1993. Hurricanes and coral reefs: the intermediate disturbance hypothesis revisited. Coral Reefs 3 12:127-137. 4

Ruitenbeek, J., M. Ridgley, S. Dollar and R. Huber. 1999. Optimization of economic policies and investment 5 projects using a fuzzy logic based cost-effectiveness model of coral reef quality: empirical results for 6 Montego Bay, Jamaica. Coral Reefs 18:381-39. 7

Russ, G. R., A. J. Cheal, A. M. Dolman, M. J. Emslie, R. D. Evans, I. Miller, H. Sweatman, and D. H. Williamson. 8 2008. Rapid increase in fish numbers follows creation of world's largest marine reserve network. Curr Biol 9 18:R514-515. 10

Seenprachawong, U. 2003. Economic valuation of coral reefs at Phi Phi Islands, Thailand. International Journal 11 of Global Environmental Issues 3: 104-114. 12

Stearn, C. W., T. P. Scoffin, and W. Martindale. 1977. Calcium carbonate budget of a fringing reef on the west 13 coast of Barbados. Part I - Zonation and productivity. Bulletin of Marine Science 27:479-510. 14

Syms, C. and G. P. Jones. 2000. Disturbance, habitat structure, and the dynamics of a coral- reef fish 15 community. Ecology 81:2714-2729. 16

Taranto G.H., Kvile K.Ø., Pitcher T.J., Morato T. 2012. An ecosystem evaluation framework for global seamount 17 conservation and management. PLoS ONE 7(8): e42950 18

Teh, L., Cabanban, A.S. 2007. Planning for sustainable tourism in southern Pulau Banggi: An assessment of 19 biophysical conditions and their implications for future tourism development. Journal of Environmental 20 Management 85:999-1008. 21

Teh L.C.L., Teh L.S.L., Chung F.C. 2008. A private management approach to coral reef conservation in Sabah, 22 Malaysia. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 3061-3077. 23

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2004. World population to 2300. ST/ESA/SER.A/236. United 24 Nations, New York. 25

UNWTO (World Tourism Organisation) 2001. Tourism 2020 Vision. Volume 7: Global forecast and profiles of 26 market segments. 123 pp. 27

van Oppen, M. J. H., P. Souter, E. J. Howells, A. J. Heyward, and R. Berkelmans. 2011. Novel genetic diversity 28 through somatic mutations: Fuel for adaptations of reef corals? Diversity 3:405-423. 29

Van Beukering, P., Haider, W., Wolfs, E., et al. 2006. The economic value of the coral reefs of Saipan, 30 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. US Department of Commerce, NOAA, Coral Reef 31 Conservation Program. 32

van Woesik, R. and A. G. Jordan-Garza. 2011. Coral populations in a rapidly changing environment. Journal of 33 Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 408:11-20. 34

van Woesik, R., K. Sakai, A. Ganase, and Y. Loya. 2011. Revisiting the winners and the losers a decade after coral 35 bleaching. Marine Ecology Progress Series 434:67-76. 36

Watling L.S., France C., Pante E., Simpson A. 2011. Biology of deep-water octocorals. Advances in Marine 37 Biology 60: 41-123. 38

Weeks, R., Jupiter S.D. 2013. Adaptive comanagement of a Marine Protected Area Network in Fiji. Conservation 39 Biology 27:1234-1244. 40

West, J. M. and R. V. Salm. 2003. Resistance and resilience to coral bleaching: implications for coral reef 41 conservation and management. Conservation Biology 17:956-957. 42

Williams, A.T., Schlacher, A., Rowden A., Althaus F., Clark M.R., Bowden D.A.,Stewart R., Bax N.J., Consalvey M., 43 Kloser R.J. 2010. Seamount megabenthic assemblages fail to recover from trawling impacts. Marine 44 Ecology-an Evolutionary Perspective 31: 183-199. 45

Williams, I. D. and N. V. C. Polunin. 2000. Large-scale associations between macroalgal cover and grazer 46 biomass on mid-depth reefs in the Caribbean. Coral Reefs 19:358-366. 47

Wilson, S. K., N. A. J. Graham, M. S. Pratchett, G. P. Jones, and N. V. C. Polunin. 2006. Multiple disturbances and 48 the global degradation of coral reefs: are reef fishes at risk or resilient? Global Change Biology 12:2220-49 2234. 50

Wood, E., Malsch, K., Miller, J. 2012. International trade in hard corals: review of management, sustainability 51 and trends. In: Yellowlees, D., and Hughes, T.P. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 12

th International Coral Reef 52

Symposium. 9-13 July 2012 Cairns, Australia. 53 Yakob, L. and P. J. Mumby. 2011. Climate change induces demographic resistance to disease in novel coral 54

assemblages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:1967-55 1969. 56

57

58


24

Appendix 10.1 1

2 Table 10. Recent initiatives to increase the area of coral reefs under protection. 3

INITIATIVE TIME FRAME

DESCRIPTION/GOAL AREA PROTECTED

OUTCOME OF INITIATIVE

TYPE of INITIATIVE

Micronesia Challenge (Established)

2006 – 2020

Effectively conserve at least 30% of near shore marine resources

Not specified

MPAs and regional trust fund for providing sustainable revenue stream

Regional – FSM, Marshall Islands, Palau, Guam, CNMI

Caribbean Challenge (Established)

2007-2020

Protect at least 20% of the near-shore marine and coastal habitats by establishing a network of 20 million acres of marine parks across the territorial waters of at least 10 countries.

20 million acres (80,397 km2)

National systems of protected areas and sustainable financing tools

Regional- The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda as well as Saint Kitts and Nevis. Endorsed by 5

Coral Triangle Initiative (Established)

2009-2020

Place 20% of each major marine and coastal habitat under protected status by 2020

Not specified Effectively managed linked network of multiple use MPAs, sustainable financing plan

Regional – Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Timor-Leste, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea

Western Indian Ocean Coastal Challenge (Pending)

Declared in 2012, Target 2032

Commit to island conservation and sustainable livelihoods, including responding to climate change threats

Not yet determined

Not yet determined

Regional - Comoros, Reunion, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Zanzibar


25




TYPE of INITIATIVE

Fiji (Established)

2005-2020

Effectively manage and finance at least 30% of inshore areas by 2020

30% of ~ 30,000 km2 (high water mark to outer barrier reef)

Locally managed marine areas (multiple use)

National - Fiji

Papahanaumok-uakea Marine National Monument (Established)

2006 Ecosystem protection, and preserve ecosystem function, key processes, recover resources where necessary

362,075 km2 World Heritage Site – no take marine reserve

National - USA

Phoenix Islands Protected Area (Established)

2008 Biodiversity conservation while allowing for sustainable economic opportunities

408,250 km2 UNESCO World Heritage Site

National - Kiribati

Marine National Monuments - Pacific Remote Islands, Marianas Trench, Rose Atoll (Established)

2009 Protect and conserve biodiversity

Pacific Remote Islands (199,480 km2

), Marianas Trench (250,487 km2), Rose Atoll (34,800 km2)

No-take marine reserve

National - USA

Chagos Marine Reserve (Established)

2010 Biodiversity conservation

640,000 km2 No-take marine reserve

National - UK

Australian Commonwealth Marine Reserves (Established)

2012 Add to Australia’s existing system of marine reserves managed primarily for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in some areas

2.3 million km2 – Reserves with coral habitats: Coral Sea (989,482 km2), North (157,483 km2), and North-west (335,437 km2)

Marine reserve with multiple use zones

National - Australia

Indonesia (Established)

2012-2020

Establish and effectively manage 20 million ha of

20 million ha (200,000 km2 )

MPA network (multiple use)

National - Indonesia


26




TYPE of INITIATIVE

MPAs by 2020 Primeiras and Segundas Marine Protected Area (Pending)

Declared 2012

Protect marine biodiversity and manage marine resources for sustainable future

10,409 km2 MPA (multiple use?)

National - Mozambique

Cook Islands Marine Protected Area (Pending)

Proposed 2012

Proposal to protect around 50% of country’s EEZ as a multiple use marine park

1,065,000 km2 Multiple use marine park and establishment of trust fund

National - Cook Islands

New Caledonia Marine Protected Area (Pending)

Declared 2012

Commitment to create MPA under Pacific Oceanscape Programme

1.4 million km2 Marine Protected Area (multiple use?)

National – New Caledonia

Maldives (Pending)

2013-2017

Pledge for entire country and EEZ to be a Biosphere Reserve by 2017

Size of Maldives EEZ is ~90,000 km2

(coral reefs and lagoons ~21,300km2)

UNESCO Biosphere Reserve

National - Maldives

1

Documents

Target 10: Vulnerable ecosystems (coral reefs) · SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Chapter 10 DO NOT CITE 1 1 Target 10: Vulnerable ecosystems (coral reefs) 2 3