Coral protection zones in the wrong place

Wow. Several news articles regarding NTA zones, global climate change, and coral reef conservation appeared today (and yesterday) - although they all seem to have emerged from a same basic source. They all mention a study that was published in the science journal PLoS ONE.

First of all, for the one's who don't know, NTA zones, or no-take area zones (redundant?), prohibit people from fishing in those areas. It was meant to be a policy that would (mainly) comabat the overfishing in coral reefs and to stop boats from destroying the reef's skeletal structures.

The articles about NTA zones:
here
here
here
here

One article, claims that "conservation zones in the Indian Ocean... are not preventing coral reefs from collapsing due to warmer temperatures or helping to speed their recovery..." Marine biologists (like the one the article cited from Newcastle University) have commented on this problem by saying that the reason behind this is because most of the "non-fishing areas are located in warmer waters where coral reefs have a harder time surviving when temperatures rise suddenly".

Also, apparently fishing limits that used to keep boats and people out of fragile areas do not protect coral the way many scientists had thought.

When I first read the article I thought that their conclusion was to stop concentrating on reefs that are failing and to concentrate on the ones that are recovering. I was confused by this and thought that maybe I had not read it very carefully, because I didn't think just concentrating on the recovering ones and leaving the failing ones to die was a very well thought out idea. However, the second article gave me a better understanding on what the study wanted to do.

According to the (better-written, in my opinion) second article, coral reefs need to be protected and managed on a global scale (which i agree with).

"They concluded that while existing conservation zones should not be removed, new zones are urgently needed to protect coral reefs and to aid their recovery from mass die-offs caused by rising temperatures." [An excerpt.]

So the basic idea is that NTA zones are in the wrong place.

However, what confused me from the first article is reworded here:

"New protected zones are needed that focus on areas identified as escaping or recovering well from climate change impacts. But a major focus needs to be shifted towards increasing the resilience of the system as a whole - that means reducing as many other locally derived threats as possible."

Which seems to make more sense than what the other article insinuated. And, more clarification from the article:

"We are not suggesting that we scrap the existing NTAs - in terms of protecting fish stocks they have been quite successful. But they are not effective against global warming - and in order to ensure the long-term survival of this rich marine community that is what we need to address."

...the third article seems to just reinforce the second one.

Oh and the fourth article offers very slightly different information.
A quote: "Advanced wastewater and storm-water treatment, reduction of sedimentation and runoff from agricultural areas, and no discharge zones for boater sewage are all ways to ensure that corals can survive," Quirolo says. "Merely expanding protected areas without cleaning up the water will not."

My advice is to check out the second article and the fourth article to learn more.

Guess it goes to show that it is always a good idea to cross-reference information.

posted by Sage @ 8/28/2008 05:34:00 AM Comments: 0