Melanie McField mcfield@healthyreefs.org via coral.aoml.noaa.gov

The Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (HRI) recently released its
2015 Report Card for the Mesoamerican Reef, recording an improvement in
reef health for this important reef system encompassing 248 study sites
across the 100 km of coast in Mexico, Belize, Guatemala and Honduras. You
can download the report from and view a 5 min video version right from our
homepage: *www.healthyreefs.org *

The simultaneous launch events in the 4 MAR countries garnered over 70
media stories and celebrated important conservation wins, such as the full
protection of parrotfish in Guatemala (jointing Belize and the Bay Islands
of Honduras in their previous full protection of these key herbivores). In
the next couple of weeks we will launch the full database behind this
report, also from our website. Thanks to the 65 partner organizations that
comprise this collaborative effort!

Major findings include:

– The overall 2015 MAR Reef Health Index score was ‘fair’ (2.8), on a
scale of ‘critical’ (1) to ‘very good’ (5), with encouraging improvements
over the last report.

– Corals – the architects of the reef – have improved since 2006,
increasing from 10%-16% cover; although fleshy macroalgae, the main
competitors with corals for open reef space, have also increased.

– Commercial fish have increased in biomass – an important success –
although large groupers are quite rare (only 4% of the 700 groupers counted
were >40cm long) and are mainly found in fully protected zones of marine
protected areas (MPAs).

– Fully protected areas had 10 times more snapper and grouper biomass
than those within general use areas of designated MPAs or reefs with no
protection. Collaborative efforts to rebuild fish populations through
replenishment (=fully protected) areas are working.
—
Melanie McField, PhD
Director, Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative, Smithsonian Institution
1648 NE 47th St, Ft Lauderdale FL 33334
Cell: 754 610 9311 Tel: 954 990 8842
email: mcfield@healthyreefs.org
www.healthyreefs.org

Join the International Society for Reef Studies
www.fit.edu/isrs/
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List@coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2015/06/great-barrier-reef-keeps-world-heritage-site-status?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&utm_src=email

ScienceInsider–Breaking news and analysis from the world of science policy

By Leigh Dayton 1 June 2015 11:00 am 2 Comments

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA—A threat by a key U.N. agency to list Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) as “in danger” has been averted—for now. A draft decision announced on 29 May by a working group of the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture’s World Heritage Committee allows the GBR to keep its current World Heritage Area status but requires Australia to report on progress to safeguard the iconic reef from further decline by 1 December 2016. If “anticipated progress” is not demonstrated, an “in danger” listing will be reconsidered in 2017. Australia will also have to report in 2020 on whether the nation’s Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan is meeting its targets.

Demonstrating progress by the end of next year is “a real challenge given the enormity of the reef and the short time-line,” says Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Townsville. He is critical of the Reef 2050 plan. When it was released in March, he told ScienceInsider it “virtually ignores climate change.”

The World Heritage Committee working group “notes with concern” that the overall outlook for the reef is “poor,” and that climate change, poor water quality, and impacts from coastal development are major threats to its health and have been degrading key habitats, species, and ecosystem processes in the central and southern inshore areas.

The draft decision will be approved—or amended—by the full committee when it meets in Bonn, Germany, later this month. The Australian government lobbied hard to avoid an embarrassing “in danger” listing—spending an estimated AU$76,500 visiting the committee’s 21 delegations in their home countries. That is no guarantee members will accept the draft or the government’s assurances. In recent years, the committee has often amended draft decisions.

Scientists and environmental groups remain skeptical about governmental promises. They argue that the government’s pledge of AU$1.53 billion over 10 years is insufficient to meet its planned targets, and point to state and federal support for development of a complex of coal mines in central Queensland, including the world’s largest thermal coal project. Hughes notes that the “unprecedented expansion” of mines and ports will see the number of coal ships crossing the GBR grow from 1600 in 2012 to more than 4000 by 2020. Greenpeace says the draft decision should not be viewed as a reprieve, calling it in a statement “a big red flag.”