Building Resilience for Long Term Reef Health

Resilience? Again?

Yes, those of you who have read my posts before will notice that I have talked about resilience before (here and here). So why am I speaking about it again?

Because I believe that ensuring our reefs – and other marine ecosystems – are resilient is critical to protecting their long-term health and productivity.

And our recently released annual survey report suggests that we are not paying sufficient attention to looking after these important marine resources.

It becomes imperative as signs are showing that there will be a significant mass coral bleaching event sooner than you think.

What is Coral reef resilience?

A brief recap. Ecological resilience refers to the ability of an ecosystem (such as a coral reef) to maintain key functions and processes in the face of external stresses or pressures, by resisting or adapting to change.

Glad we got that sorted out! Put more simply – it determines whether an ecosystem can either shrug off or recover from, an external stressor…or whether the ecosystem declines.

Status of Coral Reef in Malaysia

Reef Check Malaysia’s early survey data for Malaysia demonstrate the resilience of coral reefs. The graph below shows the change in a key reef health indicator, Live Coral Cover (LCC), since we started collecting data.

The status of reef health in Malaysia from 2007 - 2023.

What is coral bleaching?

In 2010, Malaysia (and most of South-East Asia) suffered a major coral bleaching event. Coral bleaching refers to a stress reaction by corals when they expel the tiny algae living in their tissues. Those algae provide the coral with its colour, hence the term “bleached” when they lose the algae, exposing the white calcium carbonate skeleton underneath.

A coral bleached loses its colour.

More importantly, those algae provide the coral with most of its food – so when bleached, they are effectively on a starvation diet. The longer the stressor lasts, the weaker the coral and the greater the possibility that corals will die.

In 2010-2011, our survey data show a major decline in live coral cover (LCC) in Malaysia compared to 2009. Around 7-8% of coral cover was lost. That’s not to say that 7 or 8% of reefs died – other reef components survived. However, the ecosystem as a whole was weakened as a result of hard coral dying due to the bleaching.

Fortunately, reefs recovered very quickly, and LCC was back to its pre-bleaching level within 2-3 years. This demonstrates the natural resilience of reefs – they can recover from an external stressor.

the decline in live coral cover

Sadly, the following years saw a gradual decline in LCC, which we take as a proxy for coral reef health. Between about 2014 and 2019, overall LCC in Malaysia dropped from around 50% to 43%.

The annual decline was too small to garner much attention. But look at it this way: a reduction of seven percentage points over just 5 years is a 14% decline overall. I’m too scared to extrapolate that into the future…

The declining status of reef health in Malaysia from 2014-2019.

We assumed that this decline was at least partly due to growth in tourism globally, as the world slowly emerged from the 2008 financial crash (yes, it took that long!).

We have long been aware of tourism as a major threat to marine ecosystems such as coral reefs due to the wide range of impacts – coastal development, trash, pollution, and physical impacts – that result from large numbers of people in a small place. Again the question: are we managing these ecosystems effectively?

The COVID years

What happened next is a sign that not all is lost – but it also points to the need to manage reefs better, particularly focusing on resilience. And to look again at tourism impacts.

Between 2019 and 2022, there was an increase in LCC. Why? We believe that this was because of the COVID pandemic, which reduced tourism to nearly zero for two years. Remember – there are three main characteristics of resilience:

• Water quality

• Physical impacts

• Herbivores

It doesn’t take much insight to realise that no tourists are going to reduce physical impacts, for sure. And probably see an improvement in water quality – less pollution. Restrictions on fishing during the pandemic might also have improved fish populations, particularly the herbivores that keep algae under control.

There are three main characteristics of resilience water quality, physical impacts, herbivores

So, why coral reef resilience again?

Yes, reefs recovered in the absence of a major local stressor – tourism. But why am I back to resilience?

Because in 2023, our surveys showed another downturn in LCC. We think this is at least partly due to the resurgence in tourism, having the same old negative impacts on reefs.

The old stressors are back, leaving reefs that little bit more vulnerable to an external stressor…

coral Bleaching in 2024?

…an external stressor that we are pretty sure is just around the corner.

All the signs are that there will be a significant mass coral bleaching event this year.

what is mass coral bleaching?

“Mass coral bleaching” means bleaching over a wide area – this will not just affect Malaysia, but as in 2010 it is likely to affect the whole of South East Asia. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is already bleaching and satellite data from NOAA show sea surface temperatures around the region are rising.

As noted above, this is a significant stressor for corals. My colleagues are informing me that sea temperatures are already 2-3°C higher than usual.

That’s pretty scary. And, forecasts from NOAA show that over the next few weeks, temperatures will remain elevated for an extended period. Perhaps enough to cause coral mortality.

A screenshot of NOAA's prediction for March-July 2024

So, it seems our coral reefs – which, let’s not forget, provide a whole range of essential ecosystem services that we rely on – are facing a difficult few months.

What can we do to stop mass coral bleaching?

Unfortunately, there is very little we can do once a bleaching event is happening – we can’t magically improve water quality; it is difficult to replace herbivore fish real quick…and telling tourists not to turn up is obviously a non-starter!

But we can – and should – try to minimise these impacts; at the least, we can protect important reef sites by closing access to tourists – which was done back in 2010.

But the real lesson here, as mentioned in our annual report recommendations, is that we need a long-term effort to build resilience – because this is going to happen again.

What we need is…

• We need to restructure marine resource management across the board so that management involves all stakeholders. Only that way will people buy-in to the necessary solutions.

• We need better sewage treatment systems on the islands.

• We need to control fishing properly.

• We need to manage new developments in sensitive areas.

• We need more education and awareness for tourists. That’s going to take a multi-stakeholder effort.

Coral maintenance with the Kulapuan Marine Conservation Group.

The 2010 bleaching event was difficult to manage because it was unexpected. This time we have some warning, and we might be able to manage the immediate threats more effectively.

But the real story is – are we, as a society, going to do what is necessary to build resilience in the long term? Are we all going to address ways in which we can strengthen marine resource management? Are we all going to make the necessary investments to allow us to protect and conserve these important marine ecosystems?

We need to restructure marine resource management across the board so that management involves all stakeholders. Only that way will people buy-in to the necessary solutions. We need better sewage treatment systems on the islands; we need to control fishing properly; we need to manage new developments in sensitive areas; and we need more education and awareness for tourists. That’s going to take a multi-stakeholder effort.

And while you are here - here is our 2023 annual corporate report for your reading pleasure!!

Tioman Airport Decision: A Watershed in Biodiversity Conservation?

The decision last week by the Malaysian government to shelve the proposed airport development on Tioman island is both welcome, and timely, for many reasons.

Conserving Tioman’s natural resources

The most immediate and important reason, of course, is that it paves the way for conserving Tioman Island in its current, largely pristine state. This in itself is a good thing considering the island’s abundant biodiversity resources which, as the world is now (belatedly?) realising, need to be protected.

Tioman Island's beautiful coral reef.

This endeavour would be challenging with a new airport bringing more visitors, and all the consequent impacts that would result from more resort development, more roads and infrastructure, more waste…you get the picture.

So, it is a great start.

But perhaps this opens up so many other opportunities to review old decisions, made with old information and out-of-date thinking, that are just not appropriate in the world as it is today.

If that sounds like hyperbole, then consider the following.

Tourism trends in the post-COVID world

Whither tourism? I’ve talked about this before, particularly focusing on the impacts of large numbers of visitors on people and places.

We saw this in Mantanani Island, where visitor numbers increased, over a 10-year period, from around 50 per day to as many as three thousand per day: clearly not sustainable, with huge impacts on ecosystems and the local community.

Numerous industry surveys tell us that “tourists” are now looking for more “authentic” experiences, less crowded, with intact nature, the whole thing. Quiet, private, pristine.

But which “tourists” are those?

Last week I saw a video of an “island” crawling with tourists. All there for the ultimate Instagram Moment – white sand, perfect blue sea, islands in the distance…and with careful camera angles, the 200 other people sharing the sandbank can be kept out of the shot!!

Apparently, when asked about such crowded destinations, many respondents said, “it’s ok, we don’t mind – we are used to it”. So clearly, not all tourists are seeking a “private commune” with nature.

I am probably over-simplifying, but can we really segment the tourism industry in this way?

Can we separate out tourists looking for the quiet, nature-focused getaway and tourists who don’t mind more crowded destinations?

And if we can, what are the characteristics of each group in terms of expectations, duration of stay, and spending, for example? Are people looking for the authentic experience willing to pay more – and if so, how much more?

Such an experience suggests more intensive management efforts and limits on visitor numbers – it’s going to be expensive.

So, the tourist will have to pay for it. Thailand is certainly moving in this direction, away from beach/sea holidays to more nature-based tourism. There must be a value proposition for them.

Tourism in Malaysia

Which leads us to the question: which of the above groups is Malaysia targeting?

Because it seems to me that if the division is real, then targeting one group or the other should be a deliberate choice.

You either cater for small-scale, niche market tourists, with appropriate facilities and infrastructure – and charge accordingly. Or you go large-scale, mass tourism, again with appropriate facilities and infrastructure – and charge accordingly for that, too.

Clearly, there are huge implications in this choice for destinations, and the East Coast islands are among the most popular destinations in Malaysia.

Is the plan to drastically increase tourism numbers? Or is it to target the group looking for an authentic experience? Because islands like Tioman have that – in spades. If the former case, yes, we will probably need new infrastructure, including resorts and transportation. If the latter – maybe less development. 

Who makes the decision? On what basis? What research has been done?

I guess what I’m saying is that now might be a good time for Malaysia to rethink its tourism strategy and decide which of these markets to target. Because I don’t think you can cater to both in the same destination; it has to be a deliberate decision.

After all – from a revenue perspective, a hundred tourists paying RM 1,000 per trip brings in the same revenue as one thousand tourists paying RM 100 per visit…but with different challenges.

Managing Marine Parks

While we are reviewing our approach to tourism, maybe it is an appropriate moment to review the approach to Marine Park management. This is because the islands that are surrounded by Marine Parks are popular tourism destinations, and they have what both groups are looking for.

Under the current regime, the Federal government looks after the Marine Park – the doughnut of water surrounding the island; the State governments are responsible for managing the islands themselves.

Which introduces a conflict situation.

State governments don’t have much incentive to protect the sea because they aren’t responsible for it, so perhaps they want to develop tourism. But the Federal government doesn’t have control of development on the islands that might damage the marine resources in the sea…you can see where that ends up.

Perhaps the time has come to review this system.

How about integrating the management of the Marine Park and the islands? How about inviting State governments to participate in managing the Marine Parks so they also get some benefit from that?

In this way, development on the islands can be coordinated with protecting the marine resources – not to mention the terrestrial resources, too.

And while we are at it – let’s give a seat at the table to the local communities living on the islands, too! There is plenty of evidence that local communities make an important contribution to marine resource management where they have a chance to do so – and our own experience on Tioman reflects this.

The Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG) is made up of local islanders.

Biodiversity financing

The final piece of the jigsaw: financing.

The recently signed Kunming-Montreal Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (the GBF) calls for urgent action to protect biodiversity. Importantly it speaks at length about funding for biodiversity conservation, acknowledging the estimated funding gap of US$ 700 billion per year that has been highlighted as one of the key challenges facing us.

There are emerging biodiversity-based financing mechanisms that could release significant funds for biodiversity conservation from the private sector – funds that government just don’t have themselves.

These so-called “biodiversity credits” could be a game-changer in funding biodiversity conservation. Yes, there are risks, and yes, much work needs to be done to introduce appropriate regulations and standards, but on balance, I would say there are some interesting things happening that we are following very closely.

A catalyst for change

All the above ideas and suggestions are strongly supported by policies in Malaysia.

On a national level, the National Policy on Biological Diversity 2016 – 2025 speaks about Malaysia’s commitment to conserving its biodiversity; the 12th Malaysia Plan includes commitments to safeguard natural capital.

In addition, Malaysia has adopted two international agreements: the Sustainable Development Goals, which call for sustainable management of ecosystems, and the recently-signed Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which includes commitments to increase protected areas and reduce biodiversity loss.

The above agreements and policies talk extensively about funding for conservation and the role of local communities.

And here’s what that made me think.

Looking at through this lens of change I am outlining; the bigger context of the brave decision announced last week by the Environment Minister, YB Nik Nazri, starts to look even more important.

Imagine it leading to this scenario – a new paradigm in which:

• Fewer tourists visit protected areas but bring the same economic value as mass tourism;

• Protected areas are sustainably managed by all stakeholders, including local communities, for long-term conservation goals;

• Private sector funds are invested alongside government funds.

Joined up, collaborative management.

What’s not to like?

How Serious Are We Really About Protecting Coral Reefs?

Coral reefs are sometimes described as “the rainforests of the sea”, a phrase used to capture the vast biodiversity that they harbour. But at the same time, they are often (mis-)treated as “the invisible ecosystem” because, unlike actual rainforests, they are to all intents and purposes hidden. Few people see coral reefs and fewer still understand the benefits they provide to society. 

Which are many.

Together with coastal mangroves and seagrass meadows, with which they have close ecological links, these marine ecosystems provide a number of important ecosystem services – nature’s bounty that people benefit from. Protection against storms, habitat for juvenile marine species, jobs in tourism – not to mention as a source of food, these marine ecosystems are an intrinsic part of the lives of many people.

People rely on these marine ecosystems for food and jobs. The planet relies on these ecosystems because they filter water and keep it clean, and they protect coastlines from storms and erosion. Businesses need these ecosystems for the seafood they produce and the jobs that creates. Peaceful, inclusive societies value them for their cultural importance.

Ok, you want data?

A report published recently by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (The Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2020) reveals that between 2009 and 2018 there was a progressive loss of about 14% of the coral from the world’s coral reefs.

At that rate it will all be gone in another 70 years or so. It will all be gone if things continue as they are.

According to the Coral Reef Alliance:

• Some scientists predict that 90% of global reefs will experience severe bleaching annually by 2055. The last time there was “severe bleaching” in Malaysia (1998), something like 40% of corals died. Sure, they recovered – after a few years. Imagine bleaching every year; they aren’t going to last long.

• 200 million people depend on coral reefs to protect them from storm surges and waves.

• 48% of fossil fuel emissions are absorbed by the ocean. This makes the more acidic which affects the ability of various marine species to form strong skeletons, making them vulnerable to a number of threats.

In fact, all of the above could be said about all three marine ecosystems (together with mangroves and seagrass meadows): very valuable, very threatened.

Let’s face it.

These ecosystems are not being well managed and we are losing them.

A 2020 report from FRIM estimates that Malaysia lost over 21,000 Ha of mangroves between 1990 and 2017. Scientists say that seagrass meadows are being lost equally quickly. And data from Reef Check surveys show declines in coral reef health between 2014 and 2020. 

Photo from Stop Adani Flickr

Maybe too many business interests combined with insufficient regulation are allowing this degradation? Three recent case studies:

• Reports of a new resort to be constructed on Perhentian Island. Locals tell us that the area is currently pretty much un-spoiled…and we know what happens when land is cleared for development. That’s going to have huge impacts on the reefs around that part of the island - which is one of the best places to see sharks in Perhentian.

• Tioman airport is still an active project, according to some. How can we be serious about protecting biodiversity if we are still even considering that project?

• Just today the media reports that Penang fishermen are warning politicians that they will only vote for candidates that will support their livelihoods. The Penang South Island (PSI) project (I love the way it has been renamed from the original Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project…not quite as sexy!!) will impact the livelihoods of an estimated 6,000 fishermen, and will destroy the very ecosystems on which their livelihoods depend – and everyone else’s food.

SDG 14 calls on nations to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, sea and marine resources for sustainable development.

That is not happening today.

What do we need to do to change this?

Managing Marine Resources - Let's Talk About It

Let’s talk about management…of marine resources, that is.

The original idea for this article was to discuss how we are managing Marine Parks in Malaysia. But the scope quickly broadened out to include the question: which marine resources should we be managing?

Are we just talking about the narrow band of water around islands that comprise the Marine Parks in Peninsular Malaysia – mainly home to coral reefs? Or are we talking about other, interconnected marine ecosystems?

Then it somehow moved on to the very subject of management itself – what it is, how do you manage marine resources, and how effectively are they are being managed in Malaysia?

So in this first of two parts, I’ll address the former question – manage what?

I’ll talk about “how”, later.

Three important marine ecosystems in Malaysia

The phrase “marine resources” has many different interpretations.

To a merchant seaman, it could simply mean free and open access to seaways. To a mining company, it could mean undersea resources such as hydrocarbons, precious metals and so on. To a fisheries expert it could mean the stocks of fish on which communities worldwide rely for their main source of dietary protein. To a resort operator – the very attraction that brings people to their door.

So let me start off by saying that when we talk about marine resources at Reef Check Malaysia, we are talking primarily about three marine ecosystems: coral reefs; seagrass beds; and mangroves. Even this definition is somewhat arbitrary. Some might argue that mangroves are coastal; others might argue for the inclusion of mudflats and other similar ecosystems.

All valid questions; I just wanted to be clear on our own particular emphasis.

Reef Check Malaysia started life as a small NGO focusing on coral reef surveys. 15 years ago our survey programme covered just 16 sites around islands off the East coast. Today, our annual survey programme has grown to cover over 200 reef sites around Malaysia, in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak.

In recent years, however (yeah, we are a bit slow like that!) we have come to the realisation that coral reefs don’t exist in isolation. Of course we always knew that – but we never proactively considered how it might affect how we look at “the sea”. Our focus was pretty much on reefs.

But we have come to understand how deeply linked to other marine ecosystems coral reefs are – particularly seagrass beds and mangroves. Some might even say that they are but one habitat – with species moving between them as they move between different stages of their lifecycle. Some move between ecosystems to feed, some to breed, some to mature.

So surely, we should be looking at these ecosystems, or habitats, in a joined up, holistic manner, right?

The 3 marine ecosystems - should we look at them as one?

Joined up management?

Wrong.

In fact, it is only literally this year that we have come to understand just how fragmented management is, and the reality is that there is no holistic management of these critical habitats:

• The National Forestry Act provides protection for mangroves within gazetted forest reserves. However, approximately 1,000 sq km of mangroves are not (yet) gazetted and are put solely under the jurisdiction of State governments.

• The Fisheries Act allows for the establishment of Marine Parks to protect marine resources; but most Marine Parks (at least in Peninsular Malaysia) are in waters surrounding islands that are managed by State governments

• Seagrasses, on the other hand, are not covered by either of the two important legal tools mentioned above. Except where they are located within the boundaries of a Marine Park, in which coral reefs are the main emphasis.

The fragmented marine management

Connectivity

We are now aware of two important axes of biological connectivity between these three ecosystems.

First, there is community connectivity – between different communities of each ecosystem. Taking coral reefs off the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia as an example, research suggests that the reefs in the south are connected to reefs in the north (though I acknowledge that the science isn’t settled).

But taken as is, the research suggests that the distance between “known reefs” (e.g. Tioman island to Tenggol island, some 220km) is too far for coral larvae to travel before they become ready to settle and form a new colony. So the theory goes that there are “stepping stones” along the way – un-surveyed reefs that form a link between distant reefs.

Why is this important?

Well, consider that it is likely (according to the same research) that reefs in the south provide new “seeds” (in the form of coral, fish and other larvae) to reefs in the north, allowing them to recover if badly damaged. But what would happen if the “stepping stones” were disrupted – because we don’t know where they are and so we can’t protect them?

No more larval flow, no more re-supply, with dire consequences for those northern reefs.

And then there is what I will call functional connectivity – whereby one ecosystem plays host to a particular species during different stages of its lifecycle, with the organism moving between them at different periods of its life.

Looking again at the East coast of Peninsular Malaysia, this is “West-East” connectivity, moving from coastal mangroves through near coastal seagrass beds to coral reefs. Disrupt one of the ecosystems and you disrupt the entire life-cycle of the organism, again with dire consequences for populations. 

Understanding biological connectivity

Integrating Management

We have come to the conclusion that it is essential to manage all three ecosystems using an integrated approach that protects both the North-South and the West-East connectivity.

Obvious, really…but not happening yet!

Yes, it’s a big task – it will involve multiple jurisdictions (Federal vs State) and multiple stakeholders (fishermen, local communities, tourism operators, shipping industry, etc).

But imagine we could make it work.

It could potentially improve food security for coastal and urban communities, improve livelihoods, protect biodiversity, provide for coastal protection against the coming challenges of climate change…and even create economic opportunities in new forms of tourism. The challenges are immense, but the potential rewards are worth giving this a close look.

Next time, I will talk more about what it means to manage a marine resource, how we are managing our marine resources, and how we might change that to take into account integrating management of various marine ecosystems.

Stay tuned.

Read the second part of the article here.