Coral Reef Restoration Un

CORAL REEF
RESTORATION
AS A STRATEGY TO IMPROVE
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
A guide to coral restoration methods
Copyright Suggested Citation Additional Support
© 2020 United Nations Hein MY1,2, McLeod IM2, Shaver EC3, This project was also supported by
Environment Programme Vardi T4, Pioch S5, Boström-Einarsson the Australian Government’s National
L2,6, Ahmed M7, Grimsditch G7(2020) Environmental Science Program
This publication may be reproduced
Coral Reef Restoration as a strategy Tropical Water Quality Hub (NESP
in whole or in part and in any form for
to improve ecosystem services – TWQ) funding to Ian McLeod, Margaux
educational or non-profit services
A guide to coral restoration methods. Hein, and Lisa Boström-Einarsson.
without special permission from
United Nations Environment Program,
the copyright holder, provided
Nairobi, Kenya. Acknowledgement
acknowledgement of the source is
made. United Nations Environment 1 Marine Ecosystem Restoration (MER) We would like to express our gratitude
Programme would appreciate receiving Research and Consulting, Monaco to the following experts for supporting
a copy of any publication that uses this this report through the provision of
2 TropWATER, James Cook University, text, case studies, photos, external peer
publication as a source. Australia review and guidance: Amanda Brigdale,
No use of this publication may be made 3 The Nature Conservancy, USA Anastazia Banaszak, Agnes LePort,
for resale or any other commercial Tory Chase, Tom Moore, Tadashi
purpose whatsoever without prior 4 ECS for NOAA Fisheries, USA
Kimura, members of the ICRI Ad-Hoc
permission in writing from the United 5 University Montpellier 3 Paul Valery, Committee on coral reef restoration,
Nations Environment Programme. France and the leadership team of the CRC.
Applications for such permission, with a We thank them for providing their
6 Lancaster Environment Centre,
statement of the purpose and extent of valuable time, knowledge and expertise,
Lancaster University, UK
the reproduction, should be addressed continuous trust and exemplary
to the Director, Communication 7 United Nations Environment collaboration and professionalism.
Division, United Nations Environment Programme, Kenya
Programme, P. O. Box 30552, Nairobi List of Acronyms
00100, Kenya. Advisory Committee
CRC – Coral Restoration Consortium
Austin Bowden-Kerby (Corals for
Disclaimers Conservation), Emily Corcoran CMP – Conservation Measures Partnership
The designations employed and the (Independent consultant), Alasdair GBR – Great Barrier Reef
presentation of the material in this Edwards (Newcastle University), Jessica
publication do not imply the expression Levy (Coral Restoration Foundation), IFRECOR – French Initiative for Coral Reefs
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Jennifer Loder (Great Barrier Reef ICRI – International Coral Reef Initiative
United Nations Environment Programme Foundation), Joanie Kleypas (National
concerning the legal status of any Centre for Atmospheric Research- IPCC – Intergovernmental
country, territory or city or its authorities, USA), Jennifer Koss (NOAA), Elizabeth Panel on Climate Change
or concerning the delimitation of its McLeod (The Nature conservancy), NASEM – National Academies of
frontiers or boundaries. Phanor Montoya-Maya (Corales de Paz), Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Buki Rinkevich (National Institute of
Mention of a commercial company or Oceanography-Israel), Francis Staub NOAA – National Oceanic and
product in this document does not imply (ICRI), David Suggett (University of Atmospheric Association
endorsement by the United Nations Technology Sydney), Didier Zoccola RRAP – Reef Restoration
Environment Programme or the authors. (Centre Scientifique Monaco). and Adaptation Program
The use of information from this
document for publicity or advertising is Layout RRN – Reef Resilience Network
not permitted. Trademark names and
Johanna Villani Design SER – Society for Ecological Restoration
symbols are used in an editorial fashion
with no intention on infringement of UNEA – United Nations
Funding Environment Assembly
trademark or copyright laws.
This work was funded by the Swedish
The views expressed in this publication International Development Cooperation UNEP – United Nations
are those of the authors and do not Agency and the Principality of Monaco. Environment Programme
necessarily reflect the views of the
United Nations Environment Programme.
We regret any errors or omissions that
may have been unwittingly made.
Authors
Margaux Hein, Ian McLeod, Elizabeth
Shaver, Tali Vardi, Sylvain Pioch, Lisa
MER
Boström-Einarsson, Mohamed Ahmed,
Gabriel Grimsditch.
Marine Ecosystem Restoration Research and Consulting
Cover: Freedivers monitoring corals growing on tables in

Pulau Hatamin, Indonesia © Martin Colognoli /Coral Guardian Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services
Contents
North Broken Passage GBR
© Catlin Seaview Survey
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
INTRODUCTION 6
1 WHAT IS CORAL REEF RESTORATION? 8
2 CORAL REEF RESTORATION: 14

CURRENT CHALLENGES
AND OPPORTUNITIES
3 TO RESTORE OR NOT TO RESTORE: 18

A CALL FOR REALISM
4 RECOMMENDATIONS 22
5 CONCLUSIONS AND ACTION PLANS 32
6 CASE STUDIES 36
REFERENCES 58
Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 1

EXECUTIVE Summary
Coral reefs provide billions of dollars in ecosystem services every year globally but are in
fast decline in the face of rising climate and anthropogenic disturbances. Urgent climate
action is required along with bold local management to halt the declines and support
coral reef resilience now and into the future.
Coral reef restoration is increasingly advocated for as a In 2019, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA)
management strategy to combat dramatic declines in coral adopted Resolution 4/13 requesting the United Nations
health and cover globally. It is also increasingly suggested Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International
as a mechanism to help countries deliver on national and Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) to better define best practices
international commitments under various multilateral for coral restoration for the maintenance of ecosystem
environmental agreements. services, including for coastal defence and restoration
of fish nursery areas. The coming UN Decade on
Yet, there is still a limited understanding of the
Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) and Ocean Science
effectiveness of coral reef restoration efforts, particularly
for Sustainable Development (2021-2030), provide
in supporting the maintenance of ecosystem services.
an opportunity to highlight the work already underway
and set out a path for future actions.
This document presents an overview of the best-
available knowledge in the field and provides realistic
recommendations for the use of restoration as a
management strategy for coral reefs to assist managers,
practitioners, policy makers, and funding agencies
to make informed decisions.
2 Elkhorn reef site © Paul A Selvaggio, Secore International Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services
The report is organised in six parts.
WHAT IS CORAL REEF RESTORATION?

1 Part 1 defines coral reef restoration in the context of climate change and describes current coral reef
restoration goals and methods.
CURRENT CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

2 Part 2 presents opportunities and challenges, particularly around scale, standards, ecosystem integrity,
and socio-cultural considerations.
TO RESTORE OR NOT TO RESTORE – A CALL FOR REALISM

3 Part 3 calls for realism and advises caution against the unplanned use of coral reef restoration,
especially on reefs where local disturbances cannot be mitigated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
4 Part 4 highlights general recommendations on using coral reef restoration as a management strategy, focusing
on steps to take prior to restoration in the planning and design phase, as well as in the implementation and
monitoring phases. Recommendations that are specific to goals and methods are also highlighted.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND ACTION PLANS

Part 5 draws general conclusions and provides links to trusted sources of information.
6 CASE STUDIES
Part 6 presents six case studies of coral reef restoration efforts in different parts of the world.
Whilst not designed to reduce climate impacts, coral Increased consideration of ecological engineering, beyond
reef restoration can be a useful tool to support resilience, just planting corals, that integrate reef-wide and long-term
especially at local scales where coral recruitment is limited, ecological succession processes are also necessary to
and disturbances can be mitigated. Ongoing investment in improve the current scale, cost and effectiveness of coral
coral reef restoration research and development globally reef restoration methods.
will improve the scale and cost-efficiency of the methods
We suggest coral reef restoration strategies follow
currently applied.
four critical principles: 1) planning and assessing around
However, at present, there is limited evidence of long-term, specific goals and objectives, 2) identifying adaptive
ecologically relevant success of coral reef restoration strategies to mitigate risks, 3) engaging local stakeholders
efforts. Coral reef restoration should not be considered a and communities in all stages of the restoration efforts,
‘silver bullet’ and should be applied appropriately, with due and 4) developing long-term monitoring plans to allow for
diligence, and in concert with other broad reef resilience adaptive management and to improve the understanding
management strategies. In the context of climate change, of restoration effectiveness for specific goals.
applying coral reef restoration methods effectively and
efficiently requires ‘climate-smart’ designs that account
for future uncertainties and changes.

RECOMMENDATIONS
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
• Coral reef restoration efforts need to be • Coral reef restoration efforts need to
integrated into broader reef management integrate ecological processes beyond
strategies. planting corals.
Implementing bold action to reduce anthropogenic Meeting goals associated with securing and
stressors as part of a broad management strategy enhancing the provision of reef ecosystem services,
is essential to improve the reef conditions necessary and overall coral reef resilience to climate change
for reef restoration to be successful. requires broader considerations of ecosystem
processes associated with reef health, physical
• Future impacts of climate change should be integrity, and connectivity principles.
incorporated into the planning and design
phase of coral reef restoration efforts. • Methods’ selection should account
for cost-effectiveness and scalability,
Short and long-term management decisions
should be ‘climate-smart’, accounting for climate as appropriate for the local context.
change projections and site-specific vulnerabilities This report provides an overview of these
to disturbances. parameters for current well-established coral
reef restoration methods.
• Socio-economic considerations need to
be considered systematically in all stages • The field of coral reef restoration is
of coral reef restoration processes. evolving rapidly and needs monitoring
Engaging various stakeholders in all stages of reef and adaptive management strategies.
restoration efforts is crucial to build long-term Planning for long-term monitoring should be an
support from the public, empower partnerships integral part of any coral reef restoration efforts to
with diverse sectors and stakeholders, and link allow for adaptive management and the inclusion
conservation actions to economic goals. of the latest technology and research advances.
• Coral reef restoration is not a short-term
fix for coral reef decline.
Ecosystem restoration efforts are interventions
that need to be planned and funded as long-term
(at least 10 to 20 years) strategies.
4 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Pacific © Hannes Klostermann
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
• Coral reef restoration targets should be • Policy, plans, and funding specific to
included in commitments made to the coral reef restoration are needed to assist
UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. implementation at local, regional, and
Coral reefs are a critical, valuable and highly threatened global scales.
global ecosystem, and we recommend that they should These might include new or refined policies and plans
be well represented in global, regional and/or national to support on-going investment and collaborations
restoration targets associated with the UN Decade at multiple scales towards intervention strategies
on Ecosystem Restoration. for coral reefs. They should reflect the management
recommendations above.

INTRODUCTION
Coral reefs are some of the most ecologically and economically valuable ecosystems
on our planet. Covering less than 0.1% of the world’s ocean, they support over 25%
of marine biodiversity and provide a wide range of ecosystem services such as coastal
protection, fisheries production, sources of medicine, recreational benefits, and tourism
revenues (Burke et al. 2011).
Coral reefs occur in over 100 countries and territories Coral reef restoration could help countries deliver on
with at least 500 million people directly depending on national commitments linked to Nature-Based Solutions
reefs for their livelihoods. Healthy coral reefs contribute (NBS) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
substantially in benefits and services to people, in the to the Paris Agreement on climate change, as well as
order of billions of US dollars. For example, Mesoamerican supporting the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration
reefs were recently estimated to provide US$2.6 billion (2021-2030). The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration
in ecosystem goods and services annually (UNEP 2018), aims to scale-up ecosystem restoration efforts globally to
while the Great Barrier Reef is valued at US$56 billion meet Sustainable Development Goals linked to conserving
with a yearly economic contribution of US$6.4 billion biodiversity, ending poverty, improving livelihoods, ensuring
(Deloitte et al. 2017). food security, and combating climate change. Coral reef
restoration efforts are now implemented in at least 56
Often referred to as ‘sentinel ecosystems’, coral reefs are
countries around the world (Boström-Einarsson et al.
now considered the most vulnerable ecosystems to climate
2020), but there is limited guidance on the efficiency and
change and local anthropogenic pressures (Bindoff et al.
efficacy of various methods, particularly with regards to
2019). Some estimates suggest that over 50% of coral
scale, cost, and regional specificities. The Coral Restoration
cover has already been lost in the last 30 years (NASEM
Consortium (CRC) was formed in 2017 to foster
2019). Disturbances such as declining water quality,
collaborations and technology transfer among experts,
destructive fishing practices, coral disease, and predator
managers, and practitioners, and facilitate the adoption
outbreaks are exacerbated by an increase in the intensity
of coral reef restoration practices globally. Both the
and frequency of storms and mass coral bleaching events
International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), a partnership of
(Hughes et al. 2018). Two recent IPCC reports (IPCC 2018;
nations and organisations to preserve coral reefs, and the
Bindoff et al. 2019) summarize the existing projections
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have
of future coral bleaching to state that coral reefs as we
adopted resolutions to better define needs, priorities, and
know them will all but disappear in a scenario of up to 2°C
recommendations for implementing coral reef restoration
warming and up to 90% of coral reefs could be lost even
more broadly. In 2019, ICRI formed an Ad-hoc committee
with an increase of 1.5°C.
to advance a plan of action to promote reef restoration
Urgent climate action is essential to combat ‘the coral reef practices by facilitating investment and capacity-building
crisis’ (sensu, Bellwood 2004) and ensure a future for coral among ICRI members. In the same year, the United
reefs (Hughes et al. 2017). However, even if greenhouse gas Nations Environment Assembly adopted Resolution 4/13
emissions were to be drastically and immediately reduced, requesting UNEP and ICRI to better define best practices
global ocean temperatures could still take decades to for coral restoration, as appropriate, for the maintenance
stabilize (Hansen et al. 2007). Established conservation of ecosystem services, including for coastal defence and
practices such as marine protected areas and managing restoration of fish nursery areas.
land-based pollution are vital for supporting coral reef
This report is a result of that resolution. The aim is to
resilience (Anthony et al. 2017; McLeod et al. 2019a).
present an overview of coral reef restoration strategies
However, bolder active management actions such as
to assist managers, practitioners, funding agencies, and
predator control and coral reef restoration are now also
decision-makers in making informed decisions on the use
needed to protect and re-build reef ecosystems, alongside
of restoration as a coral reef management strategy in
climate action and conservation and protection measures
support of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.
(Rinkevich 2019; Duarte et al. 2020).

BOX 1. THE POLICY LANDSCAPE FOR CORAL REEF RESTORATION
There are many levels at which policy can enable and support appropriate reef restoration efforts, as a part of
addressing the decline of these ecosystems. For the purpose of this report, policies are considered as a course of
actions proposed and adopted by governments, parties, or groups, while initiatives are means by which the policies
are implemented. Here we describe some important multilateral environmental agreements as well as some relevant
initiatives that support their implementation.
Multilateral environmental agreements Examples of Initiatives that support

There are a large number of international policy policy implementation relevant to coral
frameworks, instruments and agreements considered reef restoration
to support the conservation and sustainable A number of initiatives are in place to respond to these
management of coral reef ecosystems. A 2019 UNEP international bodies and coordinate the implementation
analysis identified at least 232 global and regional of coral reef restoration efforts globally and regionally.
international instruments, and 591 commitments that The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) has
address the need to protect these ecosystems and adopted resolutions on coral restoration and formed
manage the key stressors acting on coral reefs such as a dedicated Ad-hoc committee on coral restoration
water quality, chemicals management, and regulation of with a mission to help coordinate projects and
fisheries (UNEP 2019). research among international partners (McLeod et
One of the most directly relevant international al. 2019b). This includes assessing global needs and
policy frameworks is the Convention on Biological priorities; advocating best practice in science, policy
Diversity, whose objectives include the conservation of and legislation; and facilitating the transfer of new
biodiversity and the sustainable use of its components. knowledge to managers and restoration practitioners.
Two of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets were related to The Commonwealth Blue Charter, an agreement
ecological restoration (14 and 15), whilst Target 10 was between the 53 Commonwealth nations to achieve
specifically about minimizing impacts on coral reefs, sustainable ocean development and Sustainable
and Target 11 set-up a target of effectively protecting Development Goal 14 also has action areas specific to
at least 10% of coastal and marine areas (CBD 2010). coral reef protection and restoration.
The Aichi Biodiversity Targets expired in 2020 and
will be superseded by the Convention on Biological Other examples of initiatives at the regional level
Diversity Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. include the Nairobi Convention Coral Reef Task Force,
The negotiation of this new framework provides an Caribbean Challenge, Micronesia Challenge, Coral
important opportunity to ensure that appropriate Triangle Initiative, and the Secretariat of the Pacific
provision is put in place for the conservation and Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).
restoration of coral reef ecosystems. At the national level, initiatives are also in place with
The United Nations Environment Assembly is several countries developing action plans for coral
the world’s highest-level decision-making body on reef restoration and 88% of ICRI country members
the environment. Understanding environmental interested in the development of new international
challenges and preserving and rehabilitating our commitments and policies specifically dedicated to
environment is at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for coral restoration (McLeod et al. 2019b). Examples of
Sustainable Development and the upcoming UN national initiatives include a Coral Reef and Restoration
Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. At its 4th Assembly Protocol in Costa-Rica, Coral Reef Action Plans in the
(UN Environment Assembly), resolution 4/13 on Netherlands and Thailand, a Coral Reef Conservation
sustainable coral reefs management was adopted. Program Strategic Plan in the US, and a Reef
The resolution recognises the role of restoration to Restoration and Adaptation Program in Australia.
achieve biodiversity goals and urges the development
of appropriate best-practices and recommendations.

1 What is
CORAL REEF
RESTORATION?
Ecological restoration is defined by the Society for

Ecological Restoration as “the process of assisting
the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded,
damaged, or destroyed” (SER working group 2004).
In the past, the goal of restoration has been to restore an ecosystem back to a historical
baseline. This view also implied that the threat(s) responsible for the degradation, damage
or destruction could be removed. However, this may not be possible for coral reefs because
the threat of rising ocean temperatures will continue for decades even if greenhouse gas
emission targets are met. The goal of coral reef restoration has therefore shifted towards
recovering or maintaining key ecosystem processes, functions, and services through the
next few decades of climate change, rather than restoring to a historical baseline.
In this report, the term ‘coral reef restoration’ is used to describe an active intervention
that aims to assist the recovery of reef structure, function, and key reef species in the
face of rising climate and anthropogenic pressures, therefore promoting reef resilience
and the sustainable delivery of reef ecosystem services.

Elkhorn corals as wavebreaker
© Paul A Selvaggio, Secore International

1.1 Motivations, goals, and objectives of coral reef restoration
Understanding the utility of restoration as a coral In conservation, goals are commonly defined as the
reef management strategy requires defining specific ultimate impact you hope to achieve by conducting
motivations (WHY we are undertaking restoration), goals interventions over the medium to long-term (e.g. 5-20
(WHAT we want to achieve by undertaking restoration), years; Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation,
and objectives (WHAT we want to achieve in order to CMP 2020) and are achieved through a series of smaller,
reach our goal). concerted objectives that occur over shorter time
intervals (e.g. 1-3 years). The overarching goal of most coral
Common motivations for coral reef restoration include
reef restoration projects is to recover a functioning and
1) securing key reef ecosystem services (e.g. coastal
self-sustaining reef ecosystem, and coral reef restoration
protection, fisheries production, tourism), 2) fulfilling
efforts should be planned as a long-term intervention.
legal and political requirements (e.g. reparations for
However, there are narrower, but still important goals
environmental damage following ship groundings),
that motivate managers and practitioners. Below is a list
3) preserving socio-cultural values associated with the reef,
of common goals for coral reef restoration (Table 1).
4) preserving biodiversity, and 5) researching restoration
techniques and reef ecological processes (Bayraktarov
et al. 2019). These rationales are non-exclusive and often
complement one another.
Table 1. Goals and associated rationales of coral reef restoration.
GOALS RATIONALES – USE RESTORATION TO….

SOCIO-ECONOMIC GOALS
a. Sustain or recover Sustain or re-establish the regulating ecosystem services provided by reefs to protect
coastal protection coastal communities and infrastructure by attenuating wave energy and mitigating
disturbances such as erosion and coastal flooding
b. Sustain or recover Sustain or re-establish the provisioning services delivered by reefs in providing habitat
fisheries production and nursery areas for commercially important fisheries
c. Sustain or enhance local Maintain reef aesthetics to support local reef tourism and/or provide opportunities
tourism opportunities for eco-tourism experiences
d. Promote local coral Support local communities and/or Indigenous traditional owners to engage and
reef stewardship reconnect with the local reef environment, improve reef custodianship and promote
intrinsic value of reefs (spiritual, traditional, worship)
ECOLOGICAL GOALS
a. Re-establish reef ecosystem Rehabilitate the function, structure, diversity and health of degraded coral
function and structure reef ecosystems
b. Mitigate population declines Assist the recovery of endangered coral populations, and preserve innate
and preserve biodiversity reef biodiversity from genes to phenotypes to ecosystems
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND SUPPORT GOALS
a. Mitigate impacts and Support resistance and recovery processes to reduce risks of impact and ensure
promote reef resilience in that reefs persist through current and projected changing climate conditions
the face of climate change
DISTURBANCE-DRIVEN GOALS
a. Respond to acute Assist natural recovery process when reefs are affected by acute disturbances such
disturbance to accelerate as storms, predator outbreaks, ship groundings, and other structural damages
reef recovery
b. Mitigate anticipated coral Adopt an effective ‘no net loss’ mitigation policy whereby if a disturbance (e.g. coastal
loss prior to disturbance development) cannot be avoided, it should be minimised and offset for example by
relocating anticipated losses prior to disturbance

Different groups of stakeholders may have different Several objectives should be developed to improve
primary goals. For example, tourism operators may the likelihood of successfully completing overall goals
focus on sustaining local tourism opportunities around (see Shaver et al. 2020 for guidance on planning coral
‘high value sites’ with high coral cover, whereas natural reef restoration projects).
resource managers may instead focus on mitigating
population declines and preserving biodiversity. While 1.2 Coral reef restoration methods
aiming towards one specific goal, other complementary
goals may also be achieved. For example, a local Coral reef restoration methods were initially developed
government may initiate reef restoration to reduce from methods used in terrestrial ecosystems. For example,
coastal erosion, and in doing so, achieve other goals the concept of ‘coral gardening’ developed in the 1990s,
associated with the preservation of biodiversity, and adapted silviculture principles to the mariculture of coral
increase in tourism opportunities. fragments (Rinkevich 1995). Other methods stemmed
from emergency response interventions following
Objectives are formal statements developed to create, disturbances that affected the structural integrity of
track, and accomplish the above-mentioned goals over the reef substrate such as ship grounding or extreme
shorter time periods. To manage ecosystems effectively, weather events (Precht 2006). More recently, scientists
both goals and objectives should be crafted using the and conservationists have worked to develop methods
SMART approach, where they are Specific, Measurable, to support coral reef resilience in the face of climate
Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Objectives should change (e.g., McLeod et al. 2019a) and to restore coral
be informed by reference ecosystems but should consider reef ecosystem structure and function to ensure the
future- anticipated environmental change (Gann et al. sustainability of reefs and the services that they provide,
2019). Examples of smart objectives specific to coral reef for example by implementing ecological engineering
restoration include: XX genotypes from XX coral species approaches (Rinkevich 2020). Below is a list of five of the
outplanted on XX reefs in the first two to three years, or XX most widely practiced methods currently used globally
increase in coral cover at XX site within five years resulting to restore coral reefs (Table 2).
in XX% reduced wave action.
Table 2. Current methods of coral reef restoration adapted from Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020.
METHOD DEFINITION
1. DIRECT TRANSPLANTATION Transplanting coral colonies or fragments without an intermediate nursery phase.
2. CORAL GARDENING Transplanting coral colonies or fragments with an intermediate nursery phase.
Nurseries can be in situ (in the ocean) or ex situ (flow through aquaria).
3. SUBSTRATE ADDITION Adding artificial structures for purposes of coral reef restoration as a substrate
(ARTIFICIAL REEF) for coral recruitment, coral planting, and/or for fish aggregation.
3.1 Electro-deposition Adding artificial structures that are connected to an electrical current to accelerate
mineral accretion.
3.2 Green engineering Adding artificial structures designed to mimic natural processes and be
integrated into reef landscapes (nature-based solutions, eco-designed structures,
living shorelines).
4. SUBSTRATE MANIPULATION Manipulating reef substrates to facilitate recovery processes.
4.1 Substrate stabilisation Stabilising substratum or removing unconsolidated rubble to facilitate coral
recruitment or recovery.
4.2 Algae removal Removing macro-algae to facilitate coral recruitment or recovery.
5. LARVAL PROPAGATION Releasing coral larvae at a restoration site, after an intermediate collection and
holding phase, which can be in the ocean or on land in flow through aquaria.
5.1 Deployment of Deploying settlement substrates that have been inoculated with coral larvae.
inoculated substrate
5.2 Larval release Releasing larvae directly at a restoration site.

© Ewout Knoester for REEFolution

While these five methods have been the most widely The twenty-three intervention types investigated by
applied to date, the field of coral reef restoration is rapidly NASEM include novel approaches such as cryopreservation,
evolving, and future projects may involve approaches that managed relocation of corals to promote assisted gene
are very different from those described in this report. flow (AGF), or microbiome manipulations (NASEM 2019).
A number of new emerging interventions are currently Meanwhile, RRAP in Australia is evaluating ‘moonshot’
being tested experimentally across various scales, from solutions that can operate across the entire scale of the
individual corals (e.g. genetics, reproduction, physiology), Great Barrier Reef, including cloud brightening for cooling
to coral populations, reef communities, and ecosystems. and shading reef areas, assisting the evolutionary adaptation
of reef species to warmer waters, and mass production and
For example, field experiments are underway in Fiji and Kiribati
release of coral larvae to seed reefs (Bay et al. 2019).
to facilitate natural processes of reef recovery by gardening
and transplanting coral fragments from colonies that have While the interventions proposed through RRAP and
survived recent episodes of coral bleaching, and encouraging NASEM represent a substantial body of research and
ecological synergies by actively removing coral predators and future potential for improvement of the field of reef
re-introducing fish and sea urchins to control macro-algae restoration, many are still in the research and development
overgrowth (See Coral for Conservation case-study). The US phase and may take years before becoming feasible for
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine implementation. In contrast, many locally-tailored coral
(NASEM) and the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program gardening approaches are already in various stages of
(RRAP) have recently provided an extensive review of a number implementation. Coral reef restoration also provides a
of interventions that could increase the physiological resilience platform for integrating those interventions to increase
of corals to climate change (NASEM 2019, Bay et al. 2019). coral resilience that are still under development.
EMERGENCY RESTORATION
Substrate stabilisation
Stabilising loose colonies
Triage (collection of loose coral fragments)

E
CLIMATE
AG
GS
MITIGATION AND
M
IN
DA
REDUCTION OF
ND
M
ANTHROPOGENIC
OR
OU
PRESSURES
ST
GR
IP
SH
RADED REEF CURRENT INTERVENTIONS HEA

LTHY REEF
DEG
Substrate addition and manipulation
Direct transplantation and coral gardening
Collection of spawn from resilient colonies
INTERVENTIONS IN R&D
Larval propagation ALMOST READY
Assisted gene ﬂow
Fisheries enhancement
Lab grown corals for adaption and resistance

• PHYSIOLOGY • GENETICS • EPIDEMIOLOGY
Environmental interventions YEARS TO
• REEF SCALE COOLING AND SHADING DECADES AWAY
Figure 1. Overview of how current and in-development interventions can be used to assist the recovery of a degraded reef.

2
CORAL REEF
RESTORATION:
C urrent challenges
and opportunities
A recent study by Boström-Einarsson et al. (2020) surveyed

over 360 coral reef restoration efforts by analysing
peer-reviewed journal articles and grey literature, as well
as through an online survey providing the most extensive
overview of the current state of coral reef restoration.
The review revealed that coral reef restoration projects have been implemented in at least
56 countries. Altogether, 229 coral species (about 25% of scleractinian coral species)
from 72 coral genera have been used in restoration. A majority (59% of projects), focused
on fast-growing branching coral species (that are also the most sensitive to disturbance),
and 28% of projects focused on a single species of coral (Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020).
The average survival of individual corals post-transplantation was 66%, which is higher
than the average 50% survival of individuals transplanted in terrestrial systems (Gann
et al. 2019). However, survival rates are likely to be over-estimated given that monitoring
rarely continued beyond one year after transplantation. For instance, a recent study in
Florida that followed over 2400 outplanted colonies of one species (Acropora cervicornis)
over eight years found that initial coral survivorship was high but decreased after two
years, and projected only 0-10% survivorship after seven years (Ware et al. 2020).
In terms of methods used, Boström-Einarsson et al. (2020) found almost 70% of projects involved
coral planting (e.g. direct transplantation, coral gardening). Substrate manipulation methods comprised
10% of all projects, and larval propagation 1% of all projects, making these methods more difficult
to assess in terms of feasibility and efficiency. In summary, the field of coral reef restoration is still
at an early stage compared to the restoration of other ecosystems, and faces several challenges for
successful implementation. We highlight below four critical challenges and associated opportunities.

Freshly settled coral under fluorescence (Reef Patrol) © Secore International

2.1 Limited scales 2.2 Lack of standards
Increasing the scales at which current projects are being The field of coral reef restoration was initially developed as
applied, both in time and space, is one of the greatest a haphazard collection of DIY projects aimed at responding
challenges of coral reef restoration. The spatial scale to acute disturbance at specific reefs rather than a
at which coral reef restoration is currently applied is coordinated effort integrated within broad international
extremely small when compared to the scale of impacts standards (such as those developed by SER; McDonald
of disturbances such as mass coral bleaching. While a few et al. 2016; Gann et al. 2019). Regional contrasts in goals
projects have been documented to span over 5,000 m2 and methods have resulted in very different approaches
(0.5 ha), the median scale of coral reef restoration efforts being used in different regions of the world. For example,
is ~100 m2 (Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020). Cost is likely the strong focus on restoring endangered Acropora species
to be a strong limiting factor to scaling-up restoration in the Caribbean has generated approaches that are not
efforts with median costs estimated at US$400,000 necessarily relevant for the Asia-Pacific region where the
per hectare (e.g. US$40/m2; Bayraktarov et al. 2019). main reef-building species are still abundant. These initial
However, many efforts are underway to increase the scale approaches lacked the standardised approaches to
of coral transplantation and site-selection processes (e.g. monitor restoration projects and report on the cost
favouring sites with high larval connectivity) to improve of various types of interventions, which impeded the
the geographic reach of restoration. Other projects are ability to compare the efficiency and efficacy of different
developing low-cost coral gardening methods, such as the methods (Bayraktarov et al. 2016, 2020).
rope nursery, where cost of restoration is under US$1 per
In response to these early challenges, coral reef
coral outplanted (Levi et al. 2010). Whilst scaling-up is one
restoration managers and practitioners are increasingly
of the most important challenges for coral reef restoration,
implementing standards developed by SER (SER 2016,
small-scale projects have value in promoting local,
2019; McDonald et al. 2016; Gann et al. 2019). In addition,
targeted intervention strategies, piloting new techniques,
the Coral Restoration Consortium is developing a list
integrating and educating local community groups and
of standard terms and their definitions. For example,
stakeholders, and promoting tourism and local economies.
the CRC Monitoring Working Group has developed a
If well connected in terms of larval exchange, multiple
comprehensive guide to monitoring that recommends
small-scale projects could also positively impact reefs
universal metrics to be measured by any and all restoration
over larger scales.
projects (Goergen et al. 2020) and a guide for field-based
Time scales are also an issue. The operational timeframe restoration is currently in preparation. The MERCI_COR
of coral reef restoration efforts varies depending on method developed by the French Initiative for Coral Reefs
project funding, goals, and methods used. In general, (IFRECOR) can be used to assess biodiversity changes
positive outcomes at ecologically relevant timescales throughout different stages of restoration (Pioch et al.
are likely to take several years to decades to appear, 2017). The development of these standards is an important
due to the slow growth rate of corals and the slow rate of consideration in seeking support and resourcing for future
natural ecosystem recovery. Most coral reef restoration coral reef restoration activities and will ultimately help
projects monitor for about 12 months (Boström-Einarsson develop streamlined permitting processes facilitating
et al. 2020), which is insufficient to understand the broader project implementation.
ecological response beyond technical characteristics
of attachment methods and early-succession patterns.
Developing scalable coral reef restoration strategies
is the driving force of innovation in the field, and with
targeted investment, and increased funding, more
cost-effective, scalable solutions should become available
to practitioners and managers in the near future.
© Marie Roman, AIMS

2.3. Poor ecological integrity 2.4 Insufficient Socio-cultural considerations
The field of coral reef restoration is still in its infancy Engaging diverse stakeholders and local communities is
compared to restoration efforts in other ecosystems, critical to the success of coral reef restoration efforts
particularly terrestrial systems. Its scientific maturity (Suding et al. 2015; McDonald et al. 2016; Gann et al. 2019).
is still limited and until recently, primarily focused on Coral reef restoration can be a tool for stewardship, a
elucidating the most cost-effective ways to grow and channel for delivering conservation education and calls
plant corals (Rinkevich 2014), which explains why the to action, a way to empower communities, and a platform
methods of direct transplantation and coral gardening for evolving reef management approaches. It provides
make up over two thirds of all restoration efforts hope and an opportunity for tangible actions against
(Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020). the overwhelming issue of climate change. Past and
current coral reef restoration efforts have been driven
Better integration of keystone reef organisms and
by scientific research or permitting regulations, and
ecological processes may also benefit the process and
socio-cultural aspects have typically not been well
outcomes of coral reef restoration efforts (Shaver and
integrated (Hein et al. 2017).
Silliman 2017; Ladd et al. 2018). For example, integrating
coral-predator control strategies, connecting fish nursery There is an increased recognition of the value of engaging
habitats like mangroves and seagrasses, or protecting society more widely in the coral reef restoration process,
and/or re-introducing key herbivores may create particularly in using traditional local knowledge in planning
positive feedbacks that facilitate recovery of the coral and design of the efforts (e.g., McLeod et al. 2019b;
community at the restored site (Mumby et al. 2004). Shaver et al. 2020). Community engagement has been
Further, direct transplantation could be combined with linked to increase in the long-term success of restoration
larval propagation to enhance genetic diversity over time efforts in general, generating more acceptance, facilitating
(Horoszowski-Fridman et al. 2020a). Using mixed-method monitoring through citizen science, and ensuring
strategies is also likely to improve the adaptive capacity long-term support (DeAngelis et al. 2020; UNEP 2020).
of the intervention in the face of uncertainties and future Finding ways to better engage communities first-hand in
climate change conditions (Gardali et al. 2019; Shaver all stages of the restoration effort is a great challenge for
et al. 2020). For example, integrating larval propagation future projects that will necessitate more targeted and
approaches more widely in coral reef restoration efforts effective communication with the public.
necessitates improving the health, growth, and survival
of coral recruits. Comprehensive genetic population
management strategies also need to be developed to
Divers from The Nature Conservancy
guide the restoration of threatened coral species. transplanting fragments of A.cervicornis
in Dry Tortugas © Rachel Hancock Davis,
Methods that address the physical restoration of reefs The Nature Conservancy
(e.g. substrate addition and manipulation) are often
overlooked for being cost and/or permit prohibitive.
Yet, physical restoration is often a prerequisite to biological
restoration in many ecosystems and can increase the
speed of recovery and success of restoration (Gann et
al. 2019). Restoring reef structure is also key to restoring
some specific ecosystem services such as coastal defence
or fisheries production (Zepeda-Centeno et al. 2018;
Viehman et al. 2020). Incorporating ecological engineering
approaches and interventions that operate at different
scales both spatially and temporally might also improve
the outcomes of the intervention (Rinkevich 2020).
In conclusion, developing broader coral reef restoration
strategies that incorporate ecological processes to
maintain and restore biodiversity beyond the narrow
focus of enhancing populations of a few coral species will
have beneficial impacts at more meaningful ecological
scales. Although potentially more expensive and technically
challenging, coral reef restoration strategies that
integrate genetic and ecological considerations are more
likely to return greater ecosystem services and lead to
self-sustaining ecosystems.

3
TO RESTORE OR
NOT TO RESTORE:
A call for realism
BOX 2. Coral reef restoration and global climate change

The main driver of coral reef declines is global climate change, associated mass coral
bleaching, and local human pressure (e.g. pollution, overfishing, anchor damage). Even if
global targets set by the Paris Agreement are met in the future, current greenhouse gas
emissions are still increasing, and the increase in frequency of mass-bleaching events in
the last five years suggest that coral reefs globally are very close to their temperature
limits (Hughes et al 2018).
In this context, some scientists argue Coral reef restoration is not designed
that active interventions, such as reef to reduce climate impacts, but rather
restoration, are ‘band-aid’ strategies that is intended as a complementary tool
do not address the underlying causes of to support natural recovery following
reef declines (Bruno and Valdivia 2016; disturbance in key areas. Given the many
Hughes et al. 2017; Bellwood et al. 2019). uncertainties associated with different
Coral reef restoration has been criticised climate scenarios (Bindoff et al. 2019), the
as an expensive, temporary fix that is key challenge is to design coral restoration
not deployable at scales that match the efforts such that the realities of climate
scale of disturbances, and a distraction change are embedded in the choice of
from other conservation strategies that goals, objectives and methods (Shaver et al.
are more focused on addressing the root 2020). Climate change mitigation does not
causes of disturbances (Bellwood et al. preclude investment in local management
2019; Morrison et al. 2020). However, strategies designed to build the resilience
it is important to differentiate among the and adaptation of the socio-ecological coral
portfolio of actions available to tackle reef systems. It is not an ‘either or’ situation,
climate change and to ensure coral reefs multiple actions need to be implemented
and their associated services can persist concurrently to provide coral reefs with
in the future. the greatest hope for the future.

Stocking CRIB with settlement substrates

© Christian Miller, AIMS

Restoration will generally only be successful if the causes There is a growing argument that the risk of doing
of reef degradation are known and have been reduced nothing far outweighs the risks or uncertainties of active
or removed (Edwards 2010). For example, there is little interventions (Anthony et al. 2017, 2020). The rapid
value in replanting a coral reef where corals have died increase in implementation of coral reef restoration
due to poor water quality if water quality has not been strategies globally is driven by a sense of urgency
improved prior to planting. It is also not worth the valuable following catastrophic losses in coral cover in the last
and limited resources of most local reef managers to decade. This sense of urgency creates unique scientific
undertake restoration if the reef can recover without uncertainties as there is not enough time to wait for climate
restoration efforts, which is likely to happen on reefs action to be enacted, for pressures to stop, or for repeated
where coral recruitment is not limited and if there is experimental methods to be published in scientific journals
enough time between predicted disturbance events. before action is taken.
Restoration is necessary when there is a barrier to natural Even in the context of continued coral declines attributed
recovery that cannot be overcome, to kick start system to climate change, coral reef restoration can provide
recovery. The most common barriers to natural recovery benefits at local scales such as: 1) promoting genetic
are substrate limitations and/or recruitment limitations. diversity and maintaining the potential for coral species
Substrate limitation refers to instability and suitability, to adapt to change, 2) helping to prevent the extinction
which both affect the capacity of coral larvae to recruit, of some species, 3) assisting species migration to new
settle and grow. For example, unconsolidated coral rubble locations, 4) continuing to provide critical ecosystem
impedes coral attachment and may create further physical services, and 5) providing tangible mechanisms for
damage (Ceccarelli et al. 2020), while substrate covered people to combat ecological grief. Importantly, coral reef
in macro-algae impedes coral settlement (Dixon et al. restoration should not be considered as a solution on its
2014). Recruitment limitation refers to limited supply own but rather as part of an integrated resilience-based
of coral larvae (or fragments) when reproductive adult management framework (e.g. McLeod et al. 2019a) that
populations are too small or when a reef is disconnected includes a hierarchical portfolio of actions from threat
from larval supply. Physiological barriers to recovery are reduction (i.e. climate change mitigation, water quality
also emerging where coral growth and survival are now controls, fishing regulations), to actions that support the
constrained as corals are pushed to the limits of their recovery and resistance of ecosystem processes such
thermal tolerance under climate change (Schoepf et al. as marine protected areas or coral predator removal
2015; Thomas et al. 2018). (e.g. crown-of-thorns starfish).
Within that framework, the different strategies
integrate both social and ecological adaptive capacity
to manage uncertainty and change (McLeod et al. 2019)
a. Coral reef restoration can be a useful tool to support
resilience, and if well integrated into a resilience-based
management framework, can play a key role in meeting
Sustainable Development Goals associated with the UN
Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (Claudet et al. 2019).
Implementation of coral reef restoration actions should
be carefully planned and should not divert resources away
from other reef management strategies that actively
control stressors.

4
RECOMMENDATIONS

© Zach Ransom, Coral Restoration Foundation™

4.1 Prior to restoration
Following the standards developed by SER (Gann et should it not be able to recover on its own (Figure 2).
al. 2019), restoration is the last part of a continuum of This continuum highlights that restoring corals should
activities including reducing impacts, remediation, and not be the first point of action in a reef management
rehabilitating ecosystem function (Figure 2). Actions strategy, but rather a last resort strategy in a carefully
aimed at protecting and enabling recovery can be broadly planned ecosystem management framework (Edwards
categorised as ‘proactive’ and they support other ‘reactive’ 2010). Avoiding and mitigating local impacts to reefs
actions, commonly referred to as ‘restoration’. ‘Reactive’ should always be the priority, and restoration should
actions are aimed at repairing ecosystem function and never be used as an offset approach to justify degradation
assisting the recovery of a degraded reef system, in another area.
PROACTIVE REACTIVE
Actions aimed at protecting Actions aimed at repairing ecosystem function
reefs and enabling recovery and assisting the recovery of a degraded reef system
Climate change mitigation

Coral gardening
Predator control
Direct transplantation
Disease management
Erosion control Algae removal
Increasing corals’
Fisheries control adaptation potential
Larval propagation
Marine Protected Areas
Substrate addition
Shading and cooling
Substrate manipulation
Waste and water quality
management
REDUCING IMPROVING REPAIRING INITIATING PARTIALLY FULLY

Societal Ecosystem Ecosystem Natural Recovering Recovering
Impacts Management Function Recovery Functioning Functioning
Ecosystems Ecosystems
Figure 2. Continuum of actions for coral reef conservation and restoration with examples of ‘proactive’ and ‘reactive’ interventions.
Adapted from SER guidelines (Gann et al. 2019).

When applied to coral reef management, several key 4.2 Planning and design
questions should be considered prior to implementing
restoration actions, in order to identify if restoration is
feasible and necessary (Edwards 2010). BOX 3. A MANAGER’S GUIDE
TO CORAL REEF RESTORATION
1. WHY DID CORAL MORTALITY OR REEF PLANNING AND DESIGN
DEGRADATION HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
A Manager’s Guide to Coral Reef Restoration
This question requires an assessment, as thorough as Planning and Design (Shaver et al. 2020) has
possible, of the cause(s) of coral decline (e.g. pollution, been developed to assist managers in developing
human activities, overfishing or destructive fishing, restoration plans based on global standards that
thermally induced bleaching). It is critical to assess whether are consistent with these recommendations for
threats have been identified and are currently being restoration planning and design. This guide provides
sufficiently addressed through effective management instructions on how managers can lead a process
strategies, and whether restoration is necessary to for identifying and developing SMART goals and
supplement existing approaches. objectives for their location, use local data and
criteria to select restoration sites considering
2. WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS/IMPEDIMENTS current and future impacts, apply an evaluation tool
TO NATURAL RECOVERY? for selecting and designing appropriate and climate-
This question requires a careful review of the factors smart restoration interventions, and develop a local
affecting the natural recovery potential of corals Restoration Action Plan using a template.
(e.g. spawning capacity, barriers to coral recruitment,
limits to coral growth). It is critical to assess whether
natural recovery can happen on its own, over time, or PLANNING A SMART APPROACH
whether restoration strategies are necessary to assist
the recovery of the system. Restoration is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach, and each
aspect of a restoration program, from goals to methods
3. WHAT TYPE OF REPAIR OR INTERVENTION IS used, should be tailored to the specific needs and abilities
NECESSARY TO RECOVER ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION? of each location. If coral reef restoration is deemed
appropriate, it is critical that goals and objectives be clearly
In some instances, repairing the physical integrity of the defined. Goals and objectives should be crafted that
reef (e.g. securing loose rubble), or recovering key ecological follow the SMART approach, meaning they are Specific,
processes (e.g. herbivory) should be a prerequisite to coral Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timebound.
restoration as these will greatly impact coral survivorship Applying SMART objectives for specific goals will help
and resilience, and ultimately the efficacy and efficiency define the scope of the restoration efforts in terms of both
of the restoration effort. This step may be informed by space and time, and guide operations in terms of specific
designating a reference ecosystem, and an assessment resources needed for each objective.
of whether the site supported a coral community prior
to the disturbance. From this information, restoration sites can be selected
where restoration is most relevant to your goal (e.g. on
windward sides of the island or valuable coastlines if
your goal is to improve coastal protection services),
coral survivorship is likely in the near and long-term
(e.g. according to local management and climate change
model predictions), and restoration is required to improve
condition (e.g. natural recovery processes will not occur
without intervention). Well-defined objectives will also
allow for targeted monitoring programs, beyond 12 months,
that should improve understanding and reporting of
long-term recovery patterns and adaptive management
needs through time.

BUILDING AN ADAPTIVE DESIGN 4.3 Monitoring and communication
Methods of interventions should be chosen and designed
specifically to achieve your goal. For example, outplanting
MEASURING EFFICACY AND HAVING AN EXIT PLAN
corals can be done through direct transplantation, Improving the efficacy and efficiency of coral reef
asexual fragmentation with a nursery, or corals reared restoration efforts does not stop with careful planning
from gamete collection or a combination of the above. and design but should also incorporate a long-term plan
We provide guidance below on the suitability of methods specifically around monitoring and communication, and an
to different restoration goals (Figure 3). However, managers Operational Plan with an exit strategy detailing long-term
are advised to stay up-to-date as technologies used in sustainability of the project (see the Open Standards for
coral reef restoration are evolving rapidly (see links to the Practice of Conservation, CMP 2020). Monitoring is
resources). Overall, the selection of interventions should crucial to inform decision-making and help redefine goals
include careful considerations of scale, cost-efficiency, and and methods as the field evolves, i.e. adaptive management.
feasibility (see Figure 4). Pilot studies should be included Monitoring is also essential to increase transparency and
to refine the choices of sites and methods and the Action accountability. In some instances, scoring methods (e.g.
Plan prior to full implementation. In addition, climate MERCI_COR, Pioch et al. 2017) can help assess gains
change considerations should be applied to the design and losses associated with the interventions. Ideally,
of interventions to ensure the restoration project has restoration efforts should be set up in a way that allows
the best possible chance of success under future climate for an assessment of effectiveness (with control sites and/
conditions (see Van Hooidonk et al. 2016; West et al. or following a before/after/control/impact (BACI) design ,
2017,2018). see Falk et al. 2006; Gann et al. 2019), and monitored and
evaluated consistently, so improvements can be made as
ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS AT ALL STAGES the project evolves and environmental conditions change.
Engagement with stakeholders, local communities, To date, monitoring has strongly focused on assessing
Indigenous communities, and traditional owners in all the efficacy of methods used by tracking the fate
stages of restoration planning and implementation is of transplanted corals in the first months following
critical to reduce potential conflicts associated with the transplantation (Hein et al. 2017; Boström-Einarsson et al.
use of reef resources and maximise collaborations and 2020). Including long-term monitoring of ecological, social,
investment opportunities. Incorporating traditional or and economic outcomes tailored to specific goals and
local knowledge of the specific reef system of concern will objectives is integral to furthering the understanding of the
improve the chances of restoration success. Appropriate effectiveness of coral reef restoration to assist the recovery
engagement and communication are critical to maximise of degraded reefs. Such long-term monitoring plans will
the flow of socio-cultural and economic benefits require a longer-term vision (5 to 10 years) for planning
beyond the people directly involved in the restoration and investment. While monitoring plans may vary across
effort, therefore securing longer-term support. Coral regions and the goals of specific projects, they should follow
reef restoration can be a useful educational tool that international standards highlighted in the CRC’s Coral
encourages tangible behavioural changes and improves Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide: Methods to Evaluate
the social resilience of local communities, the economic Success from Local to Ecosystem Scales (Goergen et al.
resilience of local reef-reliant industries, as well as the 2020) as closely as possible. Improving the standardisation
ecological resilience of the reef (Hein et al. 2019). of monitoring plans will advance our understanding of the
effectiveness of restoration in meeting socio-ecological
goals and the return on investments.
© Ewout Knoester for REEFolution

COMMUNICATING PROJECT OUTCOMES These principles also align with Gardali et al. ‘s (2019) call
to design ‘climate-smart’ restoration efforts, in which
Communication of both successes and failures is critical
programs account for future uncertainties associated
to improve collaboration and outreach (DeAngelis et
with climate change. Timeframes for the realisation of any
al. 2020). Improved communication on the role and
of the goals will be a minimum of three years, and efforts
effectiveness of coral reef restoration as a tool for coral
must be designed to account for how reef systems will
reef management is instrumental for supporting decisions
be affected by changing conditions during and after that
and policies on coral reef protection. It will also assist
time. Engaging the public to foster long-term stewardship,
policy makers in delivering on national, regional and
integrating climate-change models, having a long-term
international commitments. Communicating monitoring
monitoring plan, and building resilience through ecological
results (e.g. hectares restored, number of people involved,
integrity and redundancy are all critical considerations for
etc.) and stakeholder engagement should provide the basis
the success of any restoration project in today’s changing
for improving research and implementation of coral reef
climate (Gardali et al. 2019).
restoration efforts globally. It is important to communicate
often to keep the public engaged and to use non-scientific This report provides an index for the suitability of each
language that is easily understandable and relevant to your method for each of the coral reef restoration goals
audiences. Managers and practitioners should strive to join (Figure 4). Coral reef restoration methods currently applied
local, regional, and international restoration groups such as in the field have been qualitatively ranked from least to
the CRC and the RRN to maximise the potential for sharing most appropriate in fulfilling specific goals, based on
and communicating lessons learned. current knowledge. This index is meant to assist managers,
practitioners and decision-makers in choosing methods
4.4 Recommendations on restoration goals depending on their initial goals. Note that for most projects,
multiple methods may be used to satisfy specific goals
The recommendations outlined above are relevant for and associated objectives. Note also that given the fast
any coral reef restoration effort. However, for projects pace at which the field of coral reef restoration is moving
that have been designed to achieve a specific goal, it and the high level of regional and global investments, new
is important to consider some additional information. methods that may be more appropriate are in development.
The following table (Table 3) was developed to highlight The cost, scales, and efficiencies of current methods are
expert recommendations for each restoration goal listed also likely to improve in the near future.
in Table 1. These recommendations were developed to
align with guidelines from SER (McDonald et al. 2016;
Gann et al. 2019), as well as other recent seminal pieces
(Suding et al. 2015; Gardali et al. 2019).
For example, Suding et al. (2015) highlight four key
principles to ensure goals align with resilience and
sustainability principles:
1. Having restoration efforts planned to enhance
ecological integrity, focusing on functional groups
and redundancy,
2. Having long-term goals and objectives to ensure
long-term sustainability,
3. Ensuring restoration efforts are informed by the
past and the future, and
4. Having the restoration effort benefit and engage society.
Reefscapers coral propagation, Maldives © Reefscapers

GOALS SOCIO-ECONOMIC GOALS
SUB a. Recover and sustain b. Recover and sustain c. Sustain local tourism d. Promote local coral
GOALS coastal protection fisheries production opportunities reef stewardship
TIMEFRAME Medium (3-5 years) Long (> 5 years) Short (< 3 years) Short (<3 years)
• Use nature-based solutions • Site selection should • Engage the tourism • Engage local stakeholders
(green engineering, consider fisheries industry in the project as in the project as early
eco-design, biomimetics) protection and early as possible as possible
as much as possible connectivity to healthy
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
• Develop effective • Incorporate Indigenous

• Careful consideration of fish population communication plan knowledge in site selection
hydrology in site selection • Design should maximise • Design should incorporate and project design
• Functional design should complexity and diversity aesthetics considerations • Target young people
include ecological of substrates
• Develop specific training • Develop effective
and physical function • Design should consider to reduce risks of doing communication plan
(habitat, species) potential for recruitment more harm than good
of desirable species • Embed within Resilience
• Consult with engineers so • Follow sustainable Based Management
designs are robust (durable) • Engage fishermen and funding models frameworks
against future disturbances local communities
and ecofriendly as early as possible
• Embed with coastal
protection policies
GOALS ECOLOGICAL GOALS CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND SUPPORT GOALS

SUB a. Re-establish reef b. Mitigate population a. Mitigate impacts and promote reef resilience
GOALS ecosystem function declines and preserve through climate change
and structure biodiversity
TIMEFRAME Long (> 5 years) Medium (3-5 years) Medium (3-5 years)
• Long-term process • Careful site selection • Site selection and project design based on climate
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
• Integrate within where disturbances have smart models

Resilience-Based been mitigated • Species selection based on local knowledge of resilient
Management frameworks • In-situ and ex-situ coral assemblages and functional redundancy
• Maximise diversity and nurseries can be used • Integrate research on coral adaptation mechanisms
functional redundancy as gene banks for
from genotypes, to endangered species
species, and growth forms • Maximise genetic
• Consider positive ecological diversity especially when
feedbacks beyond target specific species
coral transplantation
GOALS DISTURBANCE-DRIVEN GOALS

SUB a. Respond to acute disturbance to accelerate b. Mitigate anticipated coral loss prior to disturbance
GOALS reef-recovery
TIMEFRAME Short (< 3 years) Short (< 3 years)
• Consider substrate stabilisation and triage of live corals • If possible, move corals to in-situ or ex-situ nurseries
early on prior to disturbance
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
• Mitigate source of disturbance prior to restoring • Relocation site should have similar environmental
• Have an emergency response plan in place ahead parameters to donor site
of time (similar to oil spill response planning) • Mitigating the disturbance to avoid relocation is always
• Might be constrained by insurance and permitting rules the favoured solution
• Aim for ‘no-net loss’ to offset ecological losses
Table 3. Key considerations and timeframe for restoration goals.

Re-establish Mitigate Mitigate impacts Respond
Recover Recover Promote reef population and promote to acute Mitigate
and sustain and sustain Sustain local local ecosystem declines and reef resilience disturbances anticipated
coastal fisheries tourism coral reef function and preserve in the face of to accelerate coral loss prior
protection production opportunities stewardship structure biodiversity climate change reef recovery to disturbance
Direct
transplantation
Coral
gardening
Electro-
deposition
Green
engineering
Substrate
stabilisation
Algae
removal
Deployment of
inoculated substrates
Larval
release
Socio-economic Ecological Climate Disturbance-driven

goals goals mitigation goals goals
Least appropriate Most appropriate
Figure 3. Method suitability index matrix for each coral reef restoration goal. The darker the colour, the more appropriate a method is to each
specific goal.
4.5 Recommendations on methods

To assist practical implementation, we also drew specific
challenges and recommendations for each of the methods
described (Table 4). Challenges represent obstacles
currently experienced in the field, while recommendations
align with key principles described above to ensure
methods are aligned with goals and objectives.
Each of the methods was scored from 0 to 10, where
0 is low and 10 is high, by eleven coral reef restoration
experts for cost, efficiency and scalability providing a
qualitative comparison among methods for these three
parameters (Figure 3).
High variability in the scores reflect some uncertainty
among experts given the youth of the field. Estimates
of cost, scales, and efficiencies of current methods are
likely to improve in the near future given the high level
of regional and global investment.
Monitoring in St Thomas, US Virgin Islands © Colin Howe

Table 4. Challenges and recommendations for current methods of coral reef restoration.
METHOD CHALLENGES RECOMMENDATIONS

1. DIRECT TRANSPLANTATION
• Can be expensive • Planting sites should be as similar to donor site as possible
• Availability of diverse coral fragments • Avoid planting during storm and bleaching season
as donor material • Maximise diversity of fragments as much as possible
• Limited to small scale projects • Attachment methods: invest time, use non-toxic materials
and/or chemicals
• Use citizen science to reduce cost and increase engagement
• Have a plan to monitor and maintain outplanting site
2. CORAL GARDENING
• Cost and labour intensive • Requires careful consideration of depth and other environmental
• Limited to small scale projects factors at nursery sites (e.g. water quality, wave action)
• Materials used are often not eco-friendly or not • Have a plan for extreme weather events
resistant to damage or degradation over time • Plan to maximise diversity of fragments in nursery:
• Health of corals can be compromised due to growth forms, sources, species, and genetic diversity
algae overgrowth and spread of disease in • It is a two-step process: see recommendations
high density nurseries for direct transplantation
• Requires sustained maintenance that can • Have a long-term plan for maintenance and removal
be expensive of the nursery once restoration project is complete
3. SUBSTRATE ADDITION (ARTIFICIAL REEFS)

3.1 Electro- • Very expensive and difficult to deploy • Develop more research to justify its usefulness compared
deposition • Limited evidence of success to simpler structures
• Needs a reliable power source • Consider alternative local sources of energy (solar, wind)
3.2 Green • Expensive to design and deploy • Consult engineers for optimal design depending on goals
engineering • Limited to small scale projects • Materials used should integrate potential to become living
(Nature Base • Limited evidence of success linked to structures structure (recruitment potential on the structure following
Solution, being overgrown by corals bio-mimetic principles of green engineering)
eco-design) • Failure can have lasting detrimental effect • Consider impact of structure(s) on the site hydrodynamics
on reef aesthetics • Mostly relevant when reef structure and stability has
been compromised
4. SUBSTRATE MANIPULATION
4.1 Substrate • Can be very expensive to deploy • More research into natural ways to stabilise substrate
stabilisation • Can have poor aesthetics (e.g. natural binding by sponges or crustose coralline algae)
• Limited evidence of success, • Apply careful consideration of hydrodynamics
approaches not very well documented
• Difficult to assess when it’s appropriate to
use (natural recovery versus intervention)
4.2 Algae • Algae can grow back quickly • Use in conjunction with other intervention that increase
removal • Very labour intensive herbivory and control water quality
• Risk of removing natural, non-invasive algae • Time removal around coral recruitment
species and disrupt positive ecological processes • Use citizen science and volunteers to maximise engagement
5. LARVAL PROPAGATION
5.1 Deployment • Expensive, labour intensive, and requires • Need to improve coral recruits’ growth and survival substrates
of inoculated expert knowledge • Invest in technology development and training to scale-up
substrate • Limited evidence of long-term success due current efforts
to the novelty of the method • Optimise outplanting strategy to promote self-sustaining
• Substrates can become overgrown by algae, populations of sexual recruits
sponges, and other sessile invertebrates
compromising recruits’ health and survival
5.2 Larvae • Expensive: requires a lot of equipment and • Consider mixing genets from different regions (Assisted Gene Flow)
release involvement of experts • Potentially one of the most scalable methods for coral
• Difficult to engage the public and reef restoration, and a research priority for making this
community members method more accessible and improving coral recruits health,
• Evidence of success currently limited by high growth, and survival
post-settlement mortality
• Timing of action dictated by coral spawning
• Long time scale for meaningful
ecological outcomes

PLOT KEY
Violin plots illustrate the full range of COST

answers – here scores of cost, efficiency
10.0
and scalability from 0 to 10.
Lines indicate a lack of consensus
Scale of grades from 0 to 10

Bulges indicate some consensus 7.5
Dotted lines represent average scores
5.0
ALGAE REMOVAL
COST Average
EFIICIENCY Average 2.5
SCALABILITY Average
0.0
CORAL GARDENING
COST Medium to High
EFIICIENCY Average
SCALABILITY Medium to High EFFICIENCY

10.0
DIRECT TRANSPLANTION
COST Average
7.5
EFIICIENCY Average
SCALABILITY Medium to Low

5.0
ELECTRO-DEPOSITION
COST High 2.5
EFIICIENCY Low
SCALABILITY Low
0.0
LARVAL PROPAGATION
COST High
EFIICIENCY Average SCALABILITY

SCALABILITY Medium to High 10.0
SUBSTRATE ADDITION
7.5
COST High
EFIICIENCY Medium to Low
SCALABILITY Average 5.0
SUBSTRATE STABILISATION 2.5

COST Medium to High
EFIICIENCY Medium to Low

0.0
SCALABILITY Average
Figure 4. Violin plots representing cost, effectiveness, and scalability of seven common coral reef restoration methods, graded on a scale
of 0 to 10 by 11 global experts.

5
CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this report is to assist practitioners,

managers, and decision-makers to decide whether
and how to use coral reef restoration as a strategy
to protect coral reefs locally, regionally, and globally.
As coral reefs have experienced catastrophic losses
in health and cover during the last few years, the need
for coral reef restoration efforts is accelerating.
Whilst not designed to reduce climate impacts, coral reef restoration can
be a useful tool to support resilience, especially at local scales where coral
recruitment is limited, and disturbances can be mitigated. With ongoing and
further investment in research and development, cost-effectiveness of established
and new methods should improve the scalability and effectiveness of coral reef
restoration interventions. However, at present, given the limited spatial scale, high
costs, and limited evidence for long-term, ecologically relevant success, the necessity
of applying coral reef restoration should be carefully thought through. If implemented,
it should be integrated within an overarching reef resilience-based management
framework. In the context of climate change, applying coral reef restoration methods
effectively and efficiently requires ‘climate-smart’ designs that account for future
uncertainties and changes (Parker et al. 2017).

Settlement substrates in the CRIB

Diver performing coral tree maintenance
© Zach Ransom, Coral Restoration Foundation™

Current information and projections on the specific
vulnerability of a reef site to climate change should be
incorporated in initial planning to ensure the chosen
intervention(s) have a chance to withstand future conditions
(West et al. 2017, 2018; Shaver et al. 2020). Increased
consideration of ecological engineering, beyond just planting
corals, that integrate reef-wide and long-term ecological
succession processes are necessary to improve on the
current scale, cost and effectiveness of coral reef restoration
methods (Shaver and Silliman 2017; Rinkevich 2020).
Following recommendations from SER, we suggest coral
reef restoration strategies follow four critical steps:
1) planning and assessing around specific goals and
objectives, 2) identifying adaptive strategies to balance risks
and trade-offs, 3) engaging communities in all stages of the
restoration efforts, 4) developing long-term monitoring
plans to allow for adaptive management and improving the
understanding of methods’ effectiveness for specific goals.
Source of trusted information to follow up:

- A Manager’s guide to coral restoration planning and
design: https://www.coris.noaa.gov/activities/restoration_
guide/welcome.html
- Online database for Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020’s
“Coral restoration- a systematic review of current methods,
successes, failures and future directions:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226631.g003
- IFRECOR’s ecological engineering guide by Léocadie et al.
2019: http://www.ifrecor-doc.fr/items/show/1877
- ICRI’s report mapping current and future priorities
for coral restoration and adaptation programs:
https://www.icriforum.org/wp-content uploads/2020/05/
ICRI_MappingPriorities_lowres_DEC19-1.pdf
- NASEM report on interventions to increase the resilience of
coral reefs: https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/
interventions-to-increase-the-resilience-of-coral-reefs
- NOAA Corals and climate adaptation planning design tool:
https://www.coris.noaa.gov/activities/CCAP_design/
- RRAP website https://www.gbrrestoration.org
- CRC website http://crc.reefresilience.org
- RRN website https://reefresilience.org
35
Collecting elkhorn coral gametes
6
CASE
STUDIES

6.1 CORAL NURTURE PROGRAM
by David Suggett
GOALS The objective was to develop low cost approaches

that could dovetail into existing operations and thus be
Promote local reef stewardship and build more sustainable
cost effective, but also easily adopted into existing tour
tourism economies
operator business models.
LOCATION
ACTION TAKEN
Great Barrier Reef, Australia
Initial activities, ‘Phase one’ (February 2018-February
2019), were designed in partnership with the government’s
THE CHALLENGE
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) to
Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has experienced design the workflow for, and in turn implement, coral
catastrophic loss of coral (>30%) from mass bleaching propagation practices. Detailed site ecological surveys,
via back-to-back marine heatwaves (2016–17), with a third alongside assessments of historical site knowledge, were
event underway in 2020. These unprecedented impacts conducted to help guide the first nursery and propagation
solidified concerns that conventional GBR management – and outplanting permits. A novel physical attachment
largely marine area protection and mitigating deteriorating device consisting of a nail and a strap, the Coralclip®
water quality – was no longer sufficient to secure the GBR’s (Photo 1), was invented, which sped-up planting by one
future. This prompted government investment into national or two orders of magnitude faster (and hence more
intervention – and dynamic adaptive-management options. cost-effectively) than was previously possible via
The tour operator industry largely sustains the GBR’s $6.5B conventional chemical fixatives used to date (Suggett
per year asset value and has an overwhelming desire to et al. 2020). From this first phase, over 2500 corals
maintain and restore the quality of their ‘high value’ reef were maintained in the new nurseries and nearly 5,000
sites (Suggett et al. 2019). Whilst the desire was in place to corals outplanted to Opal Reef in the space of a few
specifically adopt established coral propagation practices weeks (Suggett et al. 2020), largely during routine
for site-tailored reef rehabilitation (e.g. from the Caribbean, vessel operations and using operator staff to outplant.
and rapidly developing elsewhere), capacity was limited
by fundamental legislative, governance and operational
barriers designed for reef protection.
Photo 1. Examples of Coralclip® deployment: Top, new Coralclip® attachment, securing branching Acropora; Bottom is aged Coralclip®
(3 months) where device is largely non-visible and coral has cemented in place. Bottom left shows example of securing Acropora
hyacinthus in place to the sides of substrate © John Edmondson (Wavelength Reef Cruises).

Subsequent ‘Phase Two’ CNP activities (April 2019-April Efforts focused on ensuring standardised workflows for
2020) examined how the approach developed for the establishing nurseries and outplanting across operators
test site and tourism operator via ‘Phase One’, applied and sites – including training, site evaluations and data
to multiple reefs with different environments and coral reporting (in part for ecological trajectory assessments
conditions, and among multiple tourism operators with as well as permit compliance; Photo 2).
different business models.
© David Suggett © John Edmondson

(Wavelength Reef Cruises)
© David Suggett
© John Edmondson (Wavelength Reef Cruises)
Photo 2. Coral Nurture Program at work. Top: Operators tending to nurseries and outplanting using Coralclip®. Bottom: surveying outplant
success as part of the ‘Phase two’ kick-off workshop amongst multiple GBR tourism operators, staff, researchers and GBRMPA.

HOW SUCCESSFUL HAS IT BEEN?
As of May 2020, over 50 nursery platforms have been Planning has begun towards ‘Phase three’, which includes
established and over 17,000 corals planted across six major broader (regional) adoption amongst the tourism industry
high-value tourism sites, as a result of the Coral Nurture – as well as other key GBR stakeholders, notably traditional
Program tourism-research partnership. Operators were owners – and fully tracking ecological responses of the
equipped with the knowledge and tools to ‘pivot’ and redeploy outplanting sites, to ensure these initial efforts inform
efforts and resources from tourism to site rehabilitation ‘what works best, where and when’ in deciding future
during the COVID19-induced tourism downturns. scaling of activities.
© John Edmondson (Wavelength Reef Cruises)
© David Suggett
Photo 3. Application of the floating coral propagation nursery platforms, Opal Reef, GBR. Top shows growth of coral after 12-18 months
propagation from fragments. Bottom is ‘on-deck’ seeding tray initially trialled to sow frames with fragments during the early phases of deployment.

LESSONS LEARNED FUNDING SUMMARY
1. Adapting nursery and outplanting design to fit Australian & QLD Government (‘Boosting Coral
location-specific requirements Abundance’ Challenge. AMP Foundation)
Tools were conceived specifically for the conditions that
had driven the need for restoration. For example, numerous LEAD ORGANISATIONS
coral species (across all growth morphologies) had been University of Technology Sydney
impacted at GBR sites, and therefore floating platforms Wavelength Reef Charters
were designed in favour of existing ‘coral tree’ structures to
consistently accommodate any taxa, but also within often PARTNERS
physically dynamic outer reef sites (Suggett et al. 2019;
Ocean Freedom
Photo 3).
Passions of Paradise
2. Monitoring and implementation Quicksilver/Great Adventures
Based on the extent of outplanting achieved in ‘Phase One’ Sailaway
for the test site, it was clear that attempting to ‘fate track’ TropWATER James Cook University
1,000s of outplants was impossible, and instead the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
outplant ‘success’ evaluations were established around
ecological approaches using marked replicate plots of reef RESOURCES
(and un-amended controls). Initial installation of nursery www.coralnurtureprogram.org
platforms at all sites provided very visible demonstrations
relatively quickly to the operators and their tourist Suggett, D. J., Camp, E.F., Edmondson, J., Boström-
customer base of active site rehabilitation practices. Einarsson, L., Ramler, V., Lohr, K., Patterson, J.T. (2019).
Active outplanting was slower to adopt, and ultimately Optimizing return-on-effort for coral nursery and
was best executed in targeted ‘campaigns’ when staff outplanting practices to aid restoration of the Great Barrier
were available without impacting on regular operations. Reef. Restoration Ecology 27, 683-693.
3. Empowerment and capacity building is key Suggett, D.J., Edmonson, J., Howlett, L., Camp, E.F. (2020).
Coralclip®: a low-cost solution for rapid and targeted out-
Empowerment and capacity building are at the core of
planting of coral at scale. Restoration Ecology 28, 289-296.
the approach and philosophy of CNP. Stakeholders want
to save the reef, and researchers want to help support
robust methods to do this. Therefore, the partnership we
built between researchers and tourism operators (or any
other stakeholder) capitalised on the passion and drive
of all involved to make positive change. The desire to
optimise effective practice(s) tailored to the GBR has been
critical in ensuring key lessons are learnt prior to initiating
projects purely for commercial gain, in particular where the
ecological impacts are yet to be fully resolved. Importantly,
scientific rigour has been central in driving increased social
licencing, learning through implementation, but under well
controlled environmental and social conditions. This has
been central in building trust amongst researchers,
stakeholders and the wider public to better define when
restoration is (and isn’t) appropriate for the GBR.

6.2 ECO-DESIGNED MOORING PROJECT
by Sylvain Pioch
GOALS ACTION TAKEN

Nature based solution to stop anchoring damage First, protection actions were taken by prohibiting
and develop new substratum for coral implantation anchoring in the bay of Deshaies, and then eco-mooring
devices were designed and implemented. A total of
LOCATION 40 mooring blocks were designed to attract coral larvae
Deshaies bay, Guadeloupe settlement. The blocks mimicked natural roughness,
pits and the shape of small caves that could be found
THE CHALLENGE in surrounding coral reefs (Photo 4). As an NBS approach
and eco-design construction (Pioch et al., 2017),
Our challenge was to design a new mooring system that the size, orientation and aesthetic parameters were
would ‘kill two birds with one stone’ by reducing the considered to enhance the ecosystem integration of
impacts, from boat anchors in coral reef and seagrass this eco-mooring project.
areas, and to enhance coral colonisation and associated
fauna. The new mooring system was to integrate an
eco-design approach as a Nature-Based Solution (NBS)
which mimicked coral habitats and their ecological
functions using methods of green engineering.
Photo 4. The concept of eco-mooring to maintain safe boating or yachting tourism and effective coral substratum (adapted from Pioch S.).

HOW SUCCESSFUL HAS IT BEEN? LESSONS LEARNED
The six years of ecological monitoring showed a return 1. Design
of normal growth of coral and seagrasses in the bay Three different models were tested to assess the capacity
of Deshaies, after boating anchoring prohibition and of different concrete treatments and surface roughness
installations of the eco-moorings. After six years, 52% to attract coral recruits. The ‘mangroves roots’ design was
of local coral species had settled on the eco-moorings, by far the best for coral recruitment (Photo 4).
even though the total surface of the 40 mooring blocks
only covered 300 m² in the bay. 2. Storm resistance
Corals settled on the eco-mooring resisted and survived
Altogether, nine species of coral (Agaricia agaricites,
the passage of the super hurricane Irma in 2017, and its
Porites astreoides, Porites divaricata, Diploria
17m high waves.
labyrinthiformis, Pseudodiploria strigosa, Colpophyllia
natans, Meandrina meandrites, Siderastrea radians and FUNDING SUMMARY
Favia fragum) and 43 species of fish were recorded on
and around the mooring blocks (Photo 5). In comparison, Regional environmental and development agency
17 species of corals and 25 species of fish were recorded (SEMSAMAR; 50%), local community (city and county;
in adjacent natural coral areas. 30%), European funding (20%). The cost of one
eco-mooring was €4,000 (US$4,320 ) with an
expected durability of 50 years.
LEAD ORGANISATION
Regional environmental and development agency
(SEMSAMAR). The monitoring was done by the
University of Antilles, Borea (Prof. Claude Bouchon)
and Caraïbes Aqua Conseil consulting (CAC).
PARTNERS
National Natural Park of Guadeloupe, fishermen, local
diver’s shops, diving clubs and French Water Agency.
RESOURCES
Pioch, S., Léocadie, A. (2017). Overview on Eco-moorings
facilities: Commented bibliography. International Coral. Reef
Initiative (ICRI), Foundation for the Research on Biodiversity
Photo 5. Mooring system with coral recruitment on a mangrove (FRB) report. https://www.icriforum.org/sites/default/
‘skirt’ (Bouchon, C.). files/OVERVIEW%20of%20eco-mooring-light.pdf

6.3 LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF
REPEATED RESTORATION EFFORTS
by Buki Rinkevich
GOALS 3. The transplantation phase

1. Evaluate long-term outcomes of coral outplanting; The approved transplantation site was a reef off Dekel
Beach, about 3 km southwest of the nursery. This area is
2. Reveal the ecological engineering outcomes of heavily impacted by various anthropogenic activities due
successive restoration acts in a specific site. to its proximity to the navy, the commercial ports, and a
popular diving centre. The shallow reef at Dekel Beach
LOCATION (6-13 m depth) consists of scattered knolls on a sandy
Eilat, Gulf of Eilat, Israel slope, mostly denuded of corals. We randomly selected
11 knolls that were divided into either ‘transplanted’ or
THE CHALLENGE ‘reference’ groups. A total of 1,400 coral colonies were
transplanted during three transplantation sessions.
Our challenge was three-fold: 1) A conceptual challenge
The first session was started in 2005, and the following
– to restore a denuded reef that has been degraded by
sessions occurred in 1.5 year intervals, which allowed
intensive anthropogenic activities, and is still impacted by
us, for the first time, to repeat transplantation (i.e. add
unremitting human impacts; (2) An ecological engineering
transplants onto knolls transplanted in former outplanting
challenge – to significantly enhance long-term survivorship
sessions). The transplants were secured to the knolls using
of transplanted coral colonies; (3) A technical challenge – to
an underwater drilling methodology that enabled the
securely attach transplanted corals on hard bottom three-
transplantation on vertical facets for maximum coverage
dimensional reef structures, including vertical substrates.
of the target area. Monitoring was performed every
2-3 months over the first six years and sporadically for
ACTION TAKEN
the next 9 years (now 15 years since first transplantation
1. Nursery phase event). The overall transplantation plan is described in
Eight locally common coral species were selected for the Horoszowski-Fridman et al. (2015, 2020b).
project: seven branching species (Stylophora pistillata,
Pocillopora damicornis, Acropora variabilis, A. humilis, HOW SUCCESSFUL HAS IT BEEN?
A. pharaonis, A. valida, Millepora dichotoma) and a massive This study revealed encouraging and surprising results.
species (Dipsastraea favus). Coral nubbins were pruned
from donor colonies and were maricultured until they 1. Coral outplanting was not associated with any recorded
reached sizes of fully developed colonies in an underwater stress to the coral colony, and over the long-term, the
floating reef nursery installed in the northern Gulf of Eilat nursery-bred transplants had slightly lower survival
(Photo 6A). rates than the highly adapted colonies naturally growing
at the experimental site (Horoszowski-Fridman et al.
2. Permitting phase 2015, 2020b).
Another major challenge included getting permits for the
2. Despite challenging environmental conditions at
transplantation site, the transplantation methodologies
Dekel Beach reef site, the farmed transplants continued
and procedures, and the number of transplanted coral
growing at enhanced rates, equivalent to those
colonies per site.
recorded in the coral nursery.
3. The drilling methodology employed increased
transplantation efficiency compared to gluing/
cementing approaches and enabled transplantation
on vertical facets (Horoszowski-Fridman et al. 2015).
4. Repeated transplantation dramatically improved the
survival of transplants. After 15 years, only the knolls
that were repeatedly transplanted are still flourishing
(Photo 6B).

5. Stylophora pistillata had improved reproductive LESSONS LEARNED
outputs, releasing ten times more larvae than the
(a) Coral reefs can be restored even in sites where
colonies naturally growing at Dekel Beach for the
anthropogenic impacts are not relieved
8 years following transplantation.
(b) Nursery-farmed transplants can have enhanced
6. Transplants provided new habitats for coral-associated
and improved growth rates and reproductive outputs
organisms (fish and invertebrates) that recruited to the
compared to local colonies
restored site in high numbers.
(c) Nursery conditions (Photo 6A) can ‘equip’ transplants
with improved biological traits
A (d) Improved attachment methodologies to the substrate
enhance restoration efficiency
(e) Repeated transplantation emerged as an important
ecological engineering tool in reef restoration
(f) Long-term outcomes attest to the restoration of reef
associated fauna in addition to the restoration of coral
communities (Photo 6B)
FUNDING SUMMARY
Funding sources: AID-MERC program (no M33-001)
and the North American Friends of IOLR (NAF/IOLR).
LEAD ORGANISATION
B
National Institute of Oceanography, Haifa, Israel
PARTNERS
Dr Yael Horoszowski-Fridman, Dr. Shai Shafir, Oranim
College, Israel; graduate students and volunteers.
RESOURCES
Horoszowski-Fridman, Y. B., Rinkevich, B. 2020b. Active
coral reef restoration in Eilat, Israel: Reconnoitering the
long-term prospectus. In: D. Vaughan (ed.) Active Coral
Restoration. J. Ross Publishing (in press).
Horoszowski-Fridman, Y.B., Brêthes, J.C., Rahmani, N.,
Photo 6. Long-term outcomes of repeated restoration efforts in Rinkevich, B. 2015. Marine silviculture: Incorporating
the Gulf of Eilat, Israel. A. Coral mariculture at the Eilat’s mid-water ecosystem engineering properties into reef restoration
floating nursery (10 m depth): new colonies are generated from small acts. Ecological Engineering 82, 201-213.
fragments (left in the photo) and reared until developed to large
colonies ready for transplantation (right). Photo: Y. Horoszowski-
Fridman; B. A transplanted knoll at Dekel Beach, 11 years after it
was restored by the ‘marine silviculture’ repeated methodology.
Transplant colonies created complex spatial structures supporting
a diverse reef-associated fauna. This knoll remained the same even
15 years post- transplantation. Photo © S. Shafir.

6.4 DEVELOPING THE
MISSION: ICONIC REEFS
by Tom Moore
GOALS ACTION TAKEN

Mitigate population declines and preserve biodiversity Development of the Mission: Iconic Reefs project.
The process started in 2019 and lasted over 6 months
LOCATION involving 25 local researchers, restoration practitioners,
The Florida Keys, Florida, USA and members of several state and federal agencies.
The plan was to use the best available restoration
THE CHALLENGE science and allow for research and development to occur
concurrently with phases of active construction. Two
Reefs in the Florida Keys have suffered dramatic declines in-person meetings and numerous conference calls were
in the last 40 years and are not recovering on their organised to plan restoration around specific goals:
own. Current management and local, independent reef
restoration efforts are not enough to stop decline, 1. Site selection: the aim was to select sites spread
particularly after recent impacts from hurricane Irma and out throughout the upper, middle, and lower Keys, and
outbreaks of the fast-spreading stony coral tissue loss representative of multiple reef types across a wide
disease (SCTLD). Urgent emergency action is required geographic range to help spread the risk of large-scale
– one that involves collaboration among many local, impacts. The site selection process involved in-depth
national and international partners. The challenge involves habitat mapping and measuring efforts.
finding actions to intervene on causes of decline, scale up 2. Specific restoration objectives were developed for
current restoration efforts, and develop new and lasting each reef site in consecutive phases to meet 10-year
collaboration with key partners. and 20-year goals (Figure 5). Defining objectives involved
developing target percent cover for each habitat zone
and translating these targets to an estimate of number
of planted corals required. It also involved consideration
*This figure represents the generalized % cover at the 7 Iconic Reef Sites based on preliminary data and
observations from 2019, post-disease event. **Within the appropriate reef sites and zones for species
of the capacity to achieve these targets from production
targeted in Phase 1A (Elkhorn Coral). All percent cover values are generalized estimates across the sites
and zones. Exact values are available on a per reef and zone basis.
to outplanting, and monitoring capacity (Figure 5).
2019 2020 2025 2021 2028 2025 2035
STATUS QUO PHASE 1A PHASE 1B PHASE 2
2%
CORAL COVER*
10%
CORAL COVER**
15%
CORAL COVER
25%
CORAL COVER
(Based on 2019 observations
from Iconic Reef sites only)
Elkhorn Restoration Balances the reef with Focuses on slower
–focuses on quickly a more diverse group of growing corals that give
No action leaves the reef restoring reef structure corals and the addition the reef its full diversity
precipitously close to with rapidly growing of other non-coral species and cover. Completion
functional collapse and at framework building corals such as grazers. of Phase 2 should
significant risk with major that are not affected by result in a resilient and
economic implications. the current disease event. regenerative reef.
• Trending Down • Immediate Start • Infrastructure Buildout • Utilizes Phase 1

• Ecological Catastrophe • No R&D Required • Some R&D Needs Infrastructure + New
• Widespread Economic • No Special Permitting • 1-2 Year Ramp Up • Achievable R&D
Implications • Rapid Results • 7 Year Construction • 10 Year Construction
• Very Little Time Period Period
Figure 5. Generalized coral cover targets and associated restoration actions for the three consecutive phases of the Mission: Iconic Reefs project.

3. Novelty actions considered: based on lessons learned Third, a stewardship and maintenance program will be
from past projects, new actions were added to the incorporated throughout the process to ensure that sites
restoration plan (Figure 6). First, active site preparation are checked on a more frequent basis and that issues are
will be considered prior to the beginning of the restoration addressed while they are still minor.
effort, and not only where corals are being planted but
4. Source funding and build collaboration: public and
rather as large-scale removals of invasive and nuisance
private funding streams will be sourced by multiple
species across a site before restoration begins.
organisations using a partnership approach. This
Second, active supplementation of herbivores back to the public-private partnership should be coordinated by
sites including diadema sea urchins and king crabs will be a collection of stakeholders, managers, and citizens
considered in Phase 1B. and be known as the Florida Keys Restoration Council.
SITE PREPARATION
1 Prior to restoration, nuisance and invasive species will be removed and substrate cleaned and prepared
for corals.
CORAL PROPAGATION AND PLANNING

2 Coral fragments will be grown in ocean and shoreside farms for ~1 year prior to being planted on the reef
in clusters that will form a larger coral.
SUPPLEMENT WITH GRAZERS

3 To restore ecological balance and prevent future algae overgrowth the site will be supplemented with
sea urchins and crabs.
STEWARDSHIP AND MAINTENANCE

4 Sites will receive regular professional and volunteer maintenance to fix broken corals, remove debris,
and ensure coral health.
MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

5 Performance monitoring will ensure that project success and failures can be incorporated onto ongoing
work and future projects.
Figure 6. Suite of actions considered to achieve the restoration objectives for the Mission: Iconic Reefs project.

1. Site selection: Seven iconic reefs narrowed down from a list of 37 initial reef sites. Reef sites were chosen based upon
characteristics such as likelihood of success, biodiversity and habitat composition, connectivity to other habitat types,
allowable and compatible human uses, and current enforcement and compliance activities. The final seven reef sites are
spread out along the stretch of the Florida Keys (Figure 7).
● CARYSFORT REEF
● HORSESHOE REEF
● CHEECA ROCKS
● SOMBRERO REEF
● NEWFOUND HARBOUR
● LOOE KEY REEF
● EASTERN DRY ROCKS
Figure 7. Map of the 7 iconic reefs chosen along the Florida Keys for the Mission: Iconic Reefs project.
2. Restoration plan: Specific objectives were laid out in percent cover of corals as well as number of corals outplanted
in distinct implementation phases. Targets to achieve these objectives were differentiated among reef zones and coral
species (Figure 8, Table 5) and developed for each of the seven selected reef sites (Figure 8). These targets were broken
down among the different phases of the project, including specific monitoring plan and flexibility for adaptive management.
Objectives were budgeted to provide a cost estimate of necessary funding required for completion.
SHALLOW REEF CREST FOREREEF TERRACE

TARGET COVER 11% TARGET COVER 15%
Elkhorn Coral 11% Star Coral 1%
Brain Coral 0.5%
Staghorn Coral 13%
Small Stony Coral 0.5%
REEF CREST
TARGET COVER 35%
SPUR AND GROOVE
Elkhorn Coral 27.5%
Brain Coral 1% TARGET COVER 20%
Staghorn Coral 5% Elkhorn Coral 9%
Small Stony Coral 0.5% Star Coral 2%
Blade Coral 1% Brain Coral 1%
Pillar Coral 0.25%
Staghorn Coral 6%
Small Stony Coral 1.5%
Figure 8. Target percent cover among coral species and reef zones to achieve restoration objectives for the Mission: Iconic Reefs project by 2035.

Table 5. Example of targets for restoration actions associated with the spur and groove reef area for the Eastern Dry Rocks reef site.
ZONE 3 – EASTERN DRY ROCKS – SPUR AND GROOVE – TOP

Restorable Other Components
10,794 Coral Restoration Component
Area of Zone Site Preparation Sea Urchins
Completion Site Condition % of Restorable

Phase 1 (10 Years) Phase 2 (20 Years) 5 Significant 50%
Target Score Area to Target
Area of Restoration Restoration

Area of
Restored Requirement Requirement Restoration
Target % Cover 20.25% 13.60% 6.65% Restored 10,794 Area (sq m) 5,397
Coral (clusters/ (clusters/ Area (sq m)
Coral (sq m)
(sq m) heads) heads)
Elkhorn Coral 10.00% 8.00% 864 4,179 2.00% 216 847 # per sq m 3.0
Site Prep
100 Phase 1/2
Star Coral 2.00% 1.00% 108 3,792 1.00% 108 2,922 (sq m/day) 50% 50%
Allocation
Preparation
108 # Sea Urchins 8,096 8,096
Brain Coral 1.00% 0.50% 54 1,896 0.50% 54 1,461 Days Required
Monitoring Caribbean King Crab
% of Restorable
Pillar Coral 0.25% 0.10% 11 323 0.15% 16 337 % of Zone 20% 0%
Area to Target
Staghorn Coral 6.00% 4.00% 432 2,090 2.00% 216 847 Area (sq m) 2,159 Area (sq m) 0
Plots per Zone 21.6 # per sq m 1.0

Other Small
1.00% 0.00% 0 0 1.00% 108 4,567 Plots/day | Phase 1/2
Stony Coral 6 20 50% 50%
Events/10 Years Allocation
Monitoring
Other 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 72 # Crabs 0 0
Days Required
3. Secured funding: The funding plan was approached • Previous experience with restoration in the region
as a vision for investment strategy, with initial funding and the specific sites was key to informed site selection
secured to allow for developing a bigger vision and and planning. Conducting a pilot restoration study prior
argument for investment. NOAA Restoration Center and to embarking on a major planning effort should be given
the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program have awarded serious consideration.
US$5.3 million in grants to two primary restoration
practitioners in the Keys. In addition, NOAA will work with FUNDING SUMMARY
outside partners to secure additional public and private • NOAA Restoration Center and the NOAA Coral Reef
funds up to US$100 million. Conservation Program have awarded US$5.3 million in
4. Plan for implementation: We are hiring an implementation grants to two primary restoration practitioners in the Keys.
coordinator, segmenting each reef into work zones, and • Call for additional investment for up to US$100 million.
beginning to develop site by site implementation strategies.
5. Secure community support and engagement: LEAD ORGANISATIONS
Community engagement informed the thinking on NOAA
this project and the plan development throughout the Coral Restoration Foundation
process thanks to other existing related efforts in the Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium
region. The plan is to engage the community in the Reef Renewal
efforts throughout the duration of the project. The Florida Aquarium
LESSONS LEARNED PARTNERS

As this effort is just launching it is too soon for a The Nature Conservancy
comprehensive consideration of lessons learned. However, Mote Marine Laboratory & Aquarium
a few pertinent particulars from the planning process that SECORE
might help others when considering a similar effort are University of Florida
noted below: University of Miami
Nova Southeastern University
• While the use of resilience predictions and data were
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
considered as part of the site selection process,
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
the spatial resolution and associated trends/
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation
differentials were not sufficient to make these datasets
particularly useful.
RESOURCES
• High resolution mapping of the reef area and the https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/habitat-
ability to differentiate habitat zones was critical conservation/restoring-seven-iconic-reefs-mission-
to making accurate predictions of restoration recover-coral-reefs-florida-keys
requirements within a site.

6.5 A TRIAL OF CORAL REEF RESTORATION
AT A LARGE SPATIAL SCALE BY OKINAWA
PREFECTURAL GOVERNMENT IN JAPAN
by Tadashi Kimura, Tomofumi Nagata and Nakamura Akihiro
GOALS ACTION TAKEN

Re-establish reef ecosystem function and mitigate The prefectural government conducted a 7-year project
population declines from climate change and enhance (2010-2016) for the technical development and research
sustainable initiatives of local communities. on coral reef restoration accompanied by various other
projects on reef conservation including public awareness
LOCATION and education. The project contained 2 major programs;
Okinawa prefecture, Japan 1) pilot study of coral outplanting at a large spatial scale,
and 2) research on coral reef restoration.
THE CHALLENGE 1. The pilot study of coral outplanting at a large spatial
Coral reefs in the Okinawa prefecture, Japan, are important scale was conducted at three locations: Onna, Yomitan
habitats supporting high biological diversity and high and Zamami villages (Figure 9). Activities included:
value fisheries and tourism industries. However, in the 1-1) Seed (Juvenile) colony production
early 2000s, coral cover around the Okinawan islands 1-2) Nursing culture
had dropped below 10% due to a range of disturbances
1-3) Outplanting (at 3 ha)
including bleaching, predation by Acanthaster cf. solaris,
soil erosion and eutrophication. In 2010, The Okinawan 2. Research on coral restoration included:
prefectural government declared a ‘21st century vision for 2-1) Reviewing the literature on coral culture
Okinawa’ that aimed to review economic and public values and outplanting
of coral reefs and natural coastlines and develop a new
system/framework for its conservation and restoration. 2-2) Conducting genetic analysis of coral
populations for genetic diversity
2-3) Assessing the appropriate density
of seed colony for coral outplanting
JAPAN
OKINAWA CHINA
ISLAND
ONNA VILLAGE
YOMITAN VILLAGE
KERAMA ISLANDS PHILLIPINES
ZAMAMI VILLAGE
Figure 9. Map of the Okinawan Islands and locations of the restoration trials.

1. A systematic cycle of seed production and nursery 1-3) At Zamami village, coral seeds were collected
processes (Figure 9) was developed for large scale from the natural recruitments on the ropes of the
restoration to provide coral seeds across 3 hectares. aquaculture facility in the village. The seeds were
also produced from the natural larvae during the
1-1) At Onna village, all coral seeds for outplanting were
mass spawning for outplanting.
produced from asexual reproduction from nursed
colonies which consisted of 20 Acropora species 1-4) Total area and number of seed colonies for the
and 30 other coral species. Coral seeds were outplanting pilot study are shown in Table 6.
also produced by sexual reproduction at private The outplanting area using seeds by asexual
research institutes in Aka Island and Kume Island reproduction was highest in Onna village with an
for outplanting. area of 2.74 ha. The number of seeds were also the
highest at Onna village with 104,687 colonies.
1-2) At Yomitan village, coral seeds were produced
at the local facility with asexual reproduction
for outplanting.
Table 6. Total area and number of seed colonies of outplanting pilot study at 3 different villages for 7-year project.
VILLAGE ONNA YOMITAN ZAMAMI

AREA VILLAGE VILLAGE VILLAGE
Type of seed Asexual Sexual Asexual Asexual Sexual
production reproduction reproduction reproduction reproduction reproduction
2.74 0.38 0.18 0.08 0.04
Area (ha)
3.42 (total)
No. of colonies 104,687 15,306 23,935 1,885 5,501

for outplanting 151,314 (total)

SEED PRODUCTION
Asexual reproduction Sexual reproduction
© Okinawa Prefectural Government © Okinawa Prefectural Government
DONOR COLONY FARM NURSERY

© Onna Village Fishery Cooperative © Okinawa Prefectural Government
Donor colony cultivation (Some seeds were transferred Coral seeds with substrate devices
from the nursery to back-up the donor farm)
OUTPLANTING
© Okinawa Prefectural Government
Outplanting at the restoration site
Figure 10. Cycle of seed production and nursery processes for large scale restoration.
2. For the research phase, current and past information on coral transplantation and restoration were collected to
summarize and develop recommendations for future restoration efforts. The genetic analysis of coral populations
was also conducted in this project for examining genetic diversity of cultured seed colonies. Finally, the population
density of outplanted colonies was assessed to identify appropriate density for successful reproduction.
2-1) A genomic analysis of the coral Acropora digitifera 2-3) The genetic analysis revealed that the genetic
(Dana, 1846) showed that the species did not have structure of the coral population was complex
a single gene population in Nansei islands including around Okinawa prefecture and seed colonies and
Okinawa, but there were specific markers at the donor colonies for outplanting should be collected
DNA level for different areas and island localities. from the site near the outplanting to prevent
2-2) Acropora tenuis (Dana, 1846), a popular species destruction and disturbance of genetic structure
for coral restoration, had at least 2 genetic of the population.
populations in Okinawan waters. However, these 2-1) As Acropora tenuis (Dana, 1846) didn’t show any
2 populations were not clearly identified, but had population cloned at natural habitat, seed colony
different population genetic structures depending for restoration should be produced by sexual
on the site. reproduction. Even when seeds from asexual
reproduction were used for outplanting, the donor
colonies should be identified on genotypes and
seed colonies should be outplanted at the different
locations for successful fertilization with different
genotypes when they are matured.

LESSONS LEARNED To follow-up on these lessons, a new project is underway
until 2022 to tackle the challenges of enhancing seeds’
The project found 3 major lessons learned.
survival and growth, increasing research on larval dispersal
1. The cost of seed production is still high and should and population dynamics of the outplanted colony, and
be reduced for sustainable restoration. the effectiveness of ecological, economic and social values
• Seed production by asexual reproduction cost of reef restoration for local communities.
JPY2,000 (US$18.39) per seed colony compared
with JPY2,700 (US$24.82) – 3,500 (32.18) for FUNDING SUMMARY
seed produced by sexual reproduction. Annual budget for the project from 2010 to 2016
• Improving the cost-effectiveness of seed production 2010: JPY 5,900,000 (US$ 56,000)
would require simplifying and optimizing the 2011: JPY 98,500,000 (US$ 940,000)
techniques for both sexual and asexual reproduction, 2012: JPY 192,900,000 (US$ 1,841,000)
and improving survival after outplanting. 2013: JPY 216,600,000 (US$ 2,067,000)
2014: JPY 217,900,000 (US$ 2,080,000)
2. Importance of sustainable system on reef management 2015: JPY 224,800,000 (US$ 2,146,000)
at the local level. 2016: JPY 228,900,000 (US$ 2,185,000)
• Onna village showed successful restoration led by *This budget included support for various coral reef conservation
the Fishery Cooperatives during the project. That projects conducted around the prefecture and for holding some events
village has had strong enthusiasm and policy for for public awareness.
sustainable development since coral conservation
efforts started in 1998 after they experienced mass LEAD ORGANISATIONS
coral bleaching. The Fisheries cooperative from the Nature Conservation Division, Department of
village has had many projects to prevent soil erosion, Environmental Affairs, Okinawa Prefectural Government
eutrophication and predation by Acanthaster cf.
solaris, and protect not only their fisheries resources PARTNERS
but also tourist resources. In 2018, the village was
Onna Village municipal office
declared a ‘coral village’ to respond to another mass
https://www.vill.onna.okinawa.jp
coral bleaching event that occurred in 2016, and
continue to address challenges on reef conservation Onna Village Fishery Cooperatives
for sustainable development. These experiences http://www.onnagyokyou.com
have accelerated their conservation policy and Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate
activities on sustainable use of natural resources University https://www.oist.jp
and led to long-term actions on reef restoration.
Zamami Village municipal office
• Local community development for sustainable https://www.vill.zamami.okinawa.jp
resource management should be emphasized in
the context of the reef restoration. Zamami Village Fishery Cooperatives
• Public awareness and education for the community RESOURCES
would support long-term and sustainable actions on
reef restoration and integrated management along Nature Conservation Division, Okinawa Prefecture (2017)
the coast. Summary report on coral reef restoration project in Okinawa
prefecture (in Japanese). https://www.pref.okinawa.jp/site/
3. Need countermeasures against coral bleaching induced kankyo/shizen/hogo/sangohozensaisei.html
by high water temperatures.
Akifumi Tsuha (2018) Coral reef restoration project
• Both outplanted and natural coral colonies had by Okinawa prefectural government (in Japanese).
severe damages from the mass bleaching in 2016. Ocean Newsletter 421. https://www.spf.org/opri/
• More research on vulnerable sites, genetic strain newsletter/421_2.html
of resistance for high water temperature and Makoto Omori, Yoshimi Higa, Chuya Shinzato, Yuna Zayasu,
technical development of shading of natural sunlight Tomofumi Nagata, Ryota Nakamura, Atsushi Yokokura and
would provide possible countermeasures against Satoshi Janadou (2016) Development of active restoration
coral bleaching. methodologies for coral reefs using asexual reproduction in
Okinawa, Japan. Proc 13rd Int Coral Reef Symp 359-377

6.6 CORAL RESTORATION
FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC
by Austin Bowden-Kerby
LOCATION HOW SUCCESSFUL HAS IT BEEN?

Fiji, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Samoa, Vanuatu, and French Polynesia We have established a restoration strategy that builds
bleaching resistance on coral reefs in seven South Pacific
THE CHALLENGE island nations, helping coral reefs adapt to increasing
Climate change is increasingly becoming the major stressor water temperatures. We have taught the strategy to a
on coral reefs of the South Pacific region, replacing sizable group of trainees in the region. National and local
overfishing, water quality issues, and physical destruction partnerships have been established, and the restoration work
of reefs as the major cause of reef decline on many reefs. has been linked to ongoing coral conservation work. Twenty-
Warming oceans is resulting in mass coral bleaching and two gene bank coral nurseries have thus far been established:
coral death, which threatens to undermine much of the Fiji (8), Kiribati (1), Tuvalu (5), Samoa (4), Vanuatu (3),
progress made in coral reef conservation over the past and French Polynesia (1), each with dozens of species
decades. Well-managed, and even pristine coral reefs have and multiple coral genotypes of each species (Photo 7).
proven no more resilient than overfished and degraded In Fiji, our major resort partnership site is located at
reefs in the face of mass bleaching. Strategies to increase Plantation Island Resort in the Mamanuca Islands. The
bleaching resistance and post-bleaching recovery are resort has sponsored the training of 15 Fijians as professional
needed in order to address climate change as the greatest coral gardeners to serve in the tourism industry. The resort
emerging challenge. For the South Pacific, where funding hired two of the coral gardeners as full- time staff in 2018,
for coral reef restoration has been very difficult, these to maintain and advance the coral restoration work. Three
strategies need to be mainstreamed into the tourism highly successful international restoration workshops were
industry and community-based efforts. carried out at the resort in 2019-20, training 75 people from
thirteen nations. A foundation has also been laid with the
ACTIONS TAKEN Indigenous community and other resorts for establishment
Coral-focused climate change adaptation measures have of a permanent marine park in the wider area. With the
for the most part been nested within existing coral reef COVID-19 crisis, the resort is closed and all training is
management strategies and MPAs, through capacity cancelled, however the resort continues to employ the two
building and the establishment of coral nurseries and coral gardeners, and to provide boats and accommodation
restoration sites composed of bleaching resistant corals. for Corals for Conservation (C4C) in order to maintain and
Unbleached corals are sampled during mass-bleaching advance the coral restoration and bleaching resistance work.
events and from populations proven resistant to bleaching In Kiribati, where mass coral bleaching in 2015-16 lasted
within natural hot pockets in the wider reef system – for 14 months, and where bleaching temperatures have
shallow closed lagoons and reef flat tide pools. Special continued for 30 months out of the past 60 months,
emphasis is placed on sampling Acropora species, which very few corals have survived, and many species have
have proven particularly vulnerable to bleaching and to become locally extinct. At our Kiritimati (Christmas Atoll)
post-bleaching mortality, and which we have found to site, virtually all branching corals were killed in the mass
become rare or locally extinct on reefs severely impacted bleaching, however we have been able to locate and to
by bleaching. It is often a race against time, as our sites have propagate a few ‘super coral’ survivors, with more than
clearly shown that predation can kill most of what survives one genotype of at least seven Acropora species and two
mass bleaching within only months. Fragments are taken Pocillopora species collected and propagated within our
from these bleaching resistant corals and established within field nursery. Two outplanting sites have thus far been
gene bank nurseries located in less stressful/cooler water established for two of the Acropora species and for one
conditions secure from predators. The second phase of the of the Pocillopora species (Photo 8).
work involves trimming fragments from colonies grown
The COVID-19 crisis has prevented international travel
in the nurseries, for outplanting into restoration patches
and follow up, limiting C4C’s work to the Fiji sites for now.
located on degraded reefs within established
Local partners are continuing with site maintenance,
no-take reserves where other stressors are minimized.
although reporting is erratic.

© Austin Bowden-Kerby
Photo 7. Gene bank nursery with mother corals, and coral gardeners, and the fish which help keep the corals healthy. Mamanuca Islands, Fiji.
© Austin Bowden-Kerby
Photo 8. Kiribati’s super corals on ropes in a nursery.

LESSONS LEARNED • The tourism sector and communities can become
major resources for action and progress, but training
• Post bleaching predation and subsequent mortality
and long-term guidance is required for effectiveness.
of the few survivors of mass bleaching can be an
Coral Gardener as a profession is operational, and the
important factor preventing coral reefs from adapting
diverse methods employed do not rely on SCUBA and
to increasing temperatures over time.
are thus less expensive and more accessible (Photo 9).
• The collection of corals from heat stressed hot pockets
can be time-sensitive, as thermal stress is increasing FUNDING SUMMARY
year by year, and some hot pockets formerly filled
Funding has mostly been crowd sourced through Global
with resistant corals have already over-reached the
Giving, with Fiji site expenses supported by Plantation
maximum temperature for any corals to survive. The
Island Resort, sites in Kiribati and Tuvalu were also
most bleaching-tolerant populations had already died
supported by the Conservation Food and Health
out on Kiritimati Atoll by the time the work began in
Foundation, Line Islands Fisheries (Kiribati), Southern Cross
2016. On Funafuti Atoll, Tuvalu, >90% of the corals of
Cable and the Ministry of Environment (Tuvalu). Other
the shallow southern lagoon were dead and standing,
support was UNFAO (Samoa), Island Reach (Vanuatu), and
apparently dying in mass bleaching before the work
the World Surf League (Mo’orea).
began in 2018. Where possible, remaining hot pocket
corals should be sampled and established within gene LEAD ORGANISATION
bank nurseries located in cooler waters.
Corals for Conservation, a Fiji-registered NGO
• It is impossible to replant entire coral reefs, however
it may be possible to jump-start natural recovery PARTNERS
processes, and to spread bleaching resistance
among coral populations. We have seen strong larval Plantation Island Resort, Malolo Community, Naidiri
recruitment around our nurseries, with nurseries Community, Line Islands Fisheries, Samoa Fisheries, FAO
apparently becoming a strong settlement signal for South Pacific, Coral Gardeners Moorea, World Surf League
incoming larvae. Reefs without corals may have delayed and Tuvalu Reef to Ridge Program.
recovery via recruitment due to a lack of settlement
cues, therefore scaling up does not require that corals RESOURCES
be replanted to entire reef systems, rather dense C4C has developed an ecologically based coral restoration
patches of corals widely spaced might serve to reboot field training course and text draft with international
natural processes of coral recruitment, as long as a significance. Training sessions will again be offered twice
source of larvae exists up-current. There is also hope annually, once travel is restored.
that widely spaced outplanting might reap a much
bigger result, as coral larvae settle in ‘naked’- without
symbiotic algae, and acquire their algae from what leaks
out of nearby corals- so patches of bleaching resistant
corals might spread their resistant algae to newly
settled corals. Lastly, if the outplanted patches are
composed of multiple genotypes of each coral species,
sexual reproduction will be re-established among
populations of rare and resistant corals, and so a third
source of natural recovery and resistance is secured.

Photo 9. First international coral gardening workshop for the tourism industry at Plantation Island Resort, Mamanuca Islands Fiji, in February 2019.

REFERENCES
- Anthony, K., Bay, L.K., Costanza, R., Firn, J., Gunn, J., Harrison, - Claudet, J., Bopp, L., Cheung, W.W.L., Devillers, R., Escobar-
P. et al. (2017). New interventions are needed to save coral reefs. Briones, E., Haugan, P. et al. (2019). A roadmap for using the UN
Nature Ecology & Evolution 1(10), 1420–1422. Decade for Ocean Science for sustainable development in support
of science, policy, and action. One Earth 2(1), 34-42.
- Anthony, K., Helmstedt, K., Bay, L., Fidelman, P., Hussey, K.E.,
Lundgren, P. et al. (2020). Interventions to help coral reefs under - Conservation Measures Partnerships (2020). Open Standards
global change – a complex decision challenge. PlosOne 15(8): for the Practice of Conservation Version 4.0. https://cmp-
e0236399 openstandards.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CMP-Open-
Standards-for-the-Practice-of-Conservation-v4.0.pdf
- Bay, L.K., Rocker, M., Boström-Einarsson, L., Babcock, R., Buerger,
P., Cleves, P. et al. (2019). Reef Restoration and Adaptation - DeAngelis, B.M., Sutton-Grier, A.R., Colden, A., Arkema, K.K.,
Program: Intervention Technical Summary. A report provided Bailie, C.J., Bennett, R.O. et al.(2020). Social factors key to
to the Australian Government by the Reef Restoration and landscape-scale coastal restoration: Lessons learned from three
Adaptation Program (89pp). US case studies. Sustainability 12, 869.
- Bayraktarov, E., Saunders, M. I., Abdullah, S., Mills, M., Beher, J., - Deloitte Access Economics (2017) At what price? The economic,
Possingham, H. P. et al. (2016). The cost and feasibility of marine social and icon value of the Great Barrier Reef. Deloitte Access
coastal restoration. Ecological Applications 26, 1055–1074. Economics Pty Limited, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
- Bayraktarov, E., Stewart Sinclair, P.J., Brisbane, S., Boström-Einarsson, - Dixon, D. L., Abrego D., Hay, M.E. (2014). Reef ecology. Chemically
L., Saunders, M.I., Lovelock, C.E. et al. (2019). Motivations, success mediated behavior of recruiting corals and fishes: a tipping point
and cost of coral reef restoration. Restoration Ecology 27, 981-99. that may limit reef recovery. Science 345, 892–897.
- Bayraktarov, E., Brisbane, S., Hagger, V., Smith, C.S., Wilson, K.A., - Duarte, C. M., Agusti, S., Barbier, E., Britten, G. L., Castilla, J.
Lovelock, C.E.., Gillies, C., Steven, A.D.L., Saunders, M.I. (2020). C., Gattuso, J.P. et al. (2020). Rebuilding marine life. Nature,
Priorities and Motivations of Marine Coastal Restoration Research 580(7801), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2146-7
Frontiers in Marine Science 7, 484
- Edwards, A.J. (Ed.) (2010). Reef Rehabilitation Manual. Coral
- Bellwood, D., Hughes, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M. (2004) Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management
Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429, 827- 833. Program: St. Lucia, Australia. ii + 166 pp. ISBN 978-1-921317-05-7.
- Bellwood, D. R., Pratchett, M.S., Morrison, T.H., Gurney, G.C., - Falk, D.A., Palmer, M.A., Zedler, J. B. (2006). Foundations of
Hughes, T.P., Alvarez-Romero, J.G. et al. (2019). Coral reef Restoration Ecology. In Ecoscience. Island Press Washington, DC.
conservation in the Anthropocene: Confronting spatial mismatches
- Gann, G.D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C.R.,
and prioritizing functions. Biological conservation 236, 604-615.
Johnson, J. et al. (2019). International Principles and Standards
- Bindoff, N.L., Cheung, W.W.L., Kairo, J.G. et al. (2019). Changing for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Washington, D.C. USA:
ocean, marine ecosystems, and dependent communities. Chapter 5 Society for Ecological Restoration.
in: IPCC special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing
- Gardali, T. et al. (2019). Making ecological restoration climate-
climate. Pörtner, H.O. et al. (eds), IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland.
smart. American Society of Landscape Architects. https://www.
- Boström-Einarsson, L., Babcock, R.C., Bayraktarov, E., Ceccarelli, asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/PPNs/Landing_Pages/MakingEcolo
D., Cook, N., Ferse, S.C.A. et al. (2020). Coral restoration - A gicalRestorationClimate-Smart.pdf
systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and
- Goergen, E.A., Schopmeyer, S., Moulding, A., Moura, A., Kramer,
future directions. PLoS One 15: e0226631.
P., and Viehman, S. 2020. Coral reef restoration monitoring guide:
- Bruno, J. F., and Valdivia, A. (2016). Coral reef degradation is not best practices for monitoring coral restorations from local to
correlated with local human population density. Scientific reports ecosystem scales. National Ocean Service, National Centers for
6:29778. Coastal Ocean Science. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS
NCCOS 279. Silver Spring, MD. 145 pp. doi: 10.25923/xndz-h538
- Burke, L.A., Reytar, K., Spalding, M., Perry, A. (2011). Reefs at risk-
revisited. World Resources Institute, Washington DC - Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, P., Kharecha, P., Lacis, A., Miller, R.
et al. (2007). Dangerous human-made interference with climate:
- CBD Secretariat (2010) The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-
A GISS modelE study. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
2020 and the Aichi targets. Document UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2.
7, 2287-2312.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya, Japan.
- Hein, M.Y., Willis, B.L., Beeden, R., Birtles, A. (2017). The need
- Ceccarelli, D.M, McLeod, I.M., Boström-Einarsson, L., Bryan, S.E.,
for broader ecological and socio-economic tools to evaluate the
Chartrand, K.M., Emslie, M.J. et al. (2020). Small structures and
effectiveness of coral restoration programs. Restoration Ecology
substrate stabilisation in coral restoration: State of knowledge,
25, 877-883.
and considerations for management and implementation (in prep).

- Hein, M.Y., Birtles, A., Willis, B.L., Gardiner, N., Beeden, R., Marshall, - McLeod, I.M., Newlands, M., Hein, M., Boström-Einarsson, L.,
N.A. (2019). Coral restoration: socio-ecological perspectives Banaszak, A,, Grimsditch, G. et al. (2019b). Mapping Current and
of benefits and limitations. Biological Conservation 229,14:25 Future Priorities for Coral Restoration and Adaptation Programs:
International Coral Reef Initiative Ad Hoc Committee on Reef
- Horoszowski-Fridman, Y.B., Brêthes, J.C., Rahmani, N., Rinkevich,
Restoration 2019 Interim Report. 44 pp.
B. (2015). Marine silviculture: Incorporating ecosystem engineering
properties into reef restoration acts. Ecological Engineering 82, - Morrison, T,, Adger, N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Possingham, H., Hughes,
201-213. T.P. (2020). Advancing coral reef governance into the Anthropocene
One Earth 2(1), 64-74, DOI:10.1016/j.oneear.2019.12.014.
- Horoszowski-Fridman, Y. B., Izhaki, I., Rinkevich, B. (2020a).
Long-term heightened larval production in nursery-bred coral - Mumby, P.J., Edwards, A.J., Arias-González, J.E., Lindeman, K.C.,
transplants. Basic and Applied Ecology 47, 12-21. Blackwell, P.G., Gall, A. et al. (2004). Mangroves enhance the biomass
of coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean. Nature 427, 533-536.
-Horoszowski-Fridman, Y. B., Rinkevich, B. (2020b). Active coral
reef restoration in Eilat, Israel: Reconnoitering the long-term - National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
prospectus. In: D. Vaughan (ed.) Active Coral Restoration. J. Ross (2019). A Research Review of Interventions to Increase the
Publishing (in press). Persistence and Resilience of Coral Reefs. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25279.
- Hughes, T.P., Kerry J.T., Alvarez-Noriega, M., Alvarez-Romero, J.G.,
Anderson, K.D. et al. (2017). Global warming and recurrent mass - Nature Conservation Division, Okinawa Prefecture (2017).
bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373–377. Summary report on coral reef restoration project in Okinawa
prefecture (in Japanese). https://www.pref.okinawa.jp/site/
- Hughes, T.P., Anderson, K.D., Connolly, S.R., Heron, S.F., Kerry, J.T.,
kankyo/shizen/hogo/sangohozensaisei.html
Lough, J.M. et al. (2018). Spatial and temporal patterns of mass
bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science 359(6371), - Omori, M., Higa,Y., Shinzato, C., Zayasu, Y., Nagata, T., Nakamura, R.,
80–83. Yokokura, A., Janadou S. (2016) Development of active restoration
methodologies for coral reefs using asexual reproduction in
- IPCC (2018) Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of
Okinawa, Japan. Proc 13rd Int Coral Reef Symp 359-377
1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming
of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse - Parker, B.A., West, J.M., Hamilton, A.T., Courtney, C.A.,
gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the MacGowan, P., Koltes, K.H., Gibbs, D.A., Bradley, P. (2017).
global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable Adaptation Design Tool: corals and climate adaptation planning.
development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, NOAA coral reef conservation program. NOAA Technical
V., Zhai,P., Pörtner H.O., Roberts D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R. et al. Memorandum CRCP 27. Silver Spring, MD.
(eds.)].
-Pioch, S., Léocadie, A. (2017). Overview on Eco-moorings
- Ladd, M.C., Miller, M.W., Hunt, J.H., Sharp, D.E., Burkepile, D.E. facilities: Commented bibliography. International Coral. Reef
(2018). Harnessing ecological processes to facilitate coral Initiative (ICRI), Foundation for the Research on Biodiversity
restoration. Frontiers in ecology and the Environment 16, 239-247. (FRB) report. https://www.icriforum.org/sites/default/files/
OVERVIEW%20of%20eco-mooring-light.pdf
- Léocadie, A., Pioch, S., Pinault, M. (2019). Guide d’ingénierie
écologique: la réparation des récifs coralliens et des écosystèmes - Pioch, S., Pinault, M., Brathwaite, A., Méchin, A., Pascal N. (2017).
associés. IRECOR handbook, 72p: http://ifrecor-doc.fr/items/ Methodology for Scaling Mitigation and Compensatory Measures in
show/1877 Tropical Marine Ecosystems: MERCI-Cor. IFRECOR handbook, 78 p.
- Levi, G., Shaish, L., Haim, A., Rinkevich, B. (2010). Mid-water - Precht, W.F. (2006). Coral Reef Restoration Handbook.
rope nursery- Testing design and performance of a novel reef CRC Taylor and Francis Press Group. Boca Raton, Florida.
restoration instrument. Ecological Engineering 36, 560-569.
- Rinkevich, B. (1995). Restoration strategies for coral reefs
- McDonald, T., Gann, G.D., Jonson, J., Dixon, K.W. (2016). damaged by recreational activities: the use of sexual and asexual
International standards for the practice of ecological restoration- recruits. Restoration Ecology 3(4), 241–251.
including principles and key concepts. Society for Ecological
- Rinkevich, B. (2014). Rebuilding coral reefs: does active reef
Restoration, Washington, DC
restoration lead to sustainable reefs? Current Opinion in
- McLeod, E., Anthony, K., Mumby, P. J., Maynard, J., Beeden, Environmental Sustainability 7, 28–36.
R., Graham, N. et al. (2019a). The Future of Resilience-Based
- Rinkevich, B. (2019). The active reef restoration toolbox is a
Management in Coral Reef Ecosystems. Journal of Environmental
vehicle for coral resilience and adaptation in a changing world.
Management 233, 291-301.
Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 7, 201 doi:10.3390/
jmse7070201.

- Rinkevich, B. (2020). Ecological engineering approaches in coral - Van Hooidonk, R., Maynard, J., Tamelander, J. et al. (2016) Local-
reef restoration. ICES Journal of Marine Science, fsaa022, https:// scale projections of coral reef futures and implications of the Paris
doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa022 Agreement. Scientific Reports 6, 39666. https://doi.org/10.1038/
srep39666
- Shaver, E.C., Courtney, C.A., West, J.M., Maynard, J., Hein, M.,
Wagner, C., Philibotte, J., MacGowan, P., McLeod, I., Boström- - Viehman, T.S., Reguero, B.G., Rosman, J.H., Lenihan, H.S.,
Einarsson, L., Bucchianeri, K., Johnston, L., Koss, J. (2020). Stolarzzi, C.D., Goergen, E.A., et al. (2020 in prep). Coral
A manager’s guide to coral reef restoration planning and design. restoration for coastal resilience: a framework for multi-scale
NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. NOAA Technical integration of ecology, hydrodynamics, and engineering.
Memorandum CRCP 36, 128 pp.
- Ware, M., Garfield, E. N., Nedimyer, K., Levy, J., Kaufman, L.,
- Shaver, E., Silliman, B. (2017). Time to cash in on positive Precht, W. et al. (2020). Survivorship and growth in staghorn
interactions for coral restoration. PeerJ, 5:e3499. coral (Acropora cervicornis) outplanting projects in the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary. PloS one 15(5), e0231817.
- Society for Ecological Restoration International Science &
Policy Working Group (2004). The SER International Primer - West, J.M., Courtney, C.A., Hamilton, A.T., Parker B.A., Julius, S.H.,
on Ecological Restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration. Hoffman, J., Koltes, K.H., MacGowan, P. (2017). Climate-Smart
www.ser.org, Tucson. Design for Ecosystem Management: A Test Application
for Coral Reefs. Environmental Management 59, 102–117.
- Suding, K., Higgs, E., Palmer, M., Callicott J.B., Anderson, C.B.,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0774-3
Baker, M. et al. (2015). Committing to ecological restoration.
Science 348(6235), 638–640. - West, J.M., Courtney, C.A., Hamilton, A.T., Parker, B.A., Gibbs,
D.A., Bradley, P., Julius, S.H. (2018) Adaptation Design Tool for
- Suggett, D. J., Camp, E.F., Edmondson, J., Boström-Einarsson,
Climate-Smart Management of Coral Reefs and Other Natural
L., Ramler, V., Lohr, K., Patterson, J.T. (2019). Optimizing return-
Resources. Environmental Management 62, 644–664.
on-effort for coral nursery and outplanting practices to aid
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1065-y
restoration of the Great Barrier Reef. Restoration Ecology 27,
683-693. - Zepeda-Centeno, C., Marino-Tapia, I., McLeod, E., Rodriguez-
Martinez, R., Alvarez-Filip, L., Banaszack, A. et al. (2018). Guidance
- Suggett, D.J., Edmonson, J., Howlett, L., Camp, E.F. (2020).
Document for Reef Management and Restoration to Improve
Coralclip®: a low-cost solution for rapid and targeted out-planting
Coastal Protection: Recommendations for Global Applications
of coral at scale. Restoration Ecology 28, 289-296.
based on lessons learned in Mexico. The Nature Conservancy,
-Thomas, L., Rose, N.H., Bay, R.A., López, E.H., Morikawa, M.K., Mexico. 81 p.
Ruiz-Jones, L., Palumbi, S.R. (2018). Mechanisms of thermal
tolerance in reef-building corals across a fine-grained
environmental mosaic: Lessons from Ofu, American Samoa.
Frontiers in Marine Science 4, 434.
-Tsuha, A. (2018) Coral reef restoration project by Okinawa
prefectural government. Ocean Newsletter 421,
(https://www.spf.org/opri/newsletter/421_2.html)
- United Nations Environment Programme (2018). The Coral Reef
Economy: The business case for investment in the protection,
preservation and enhancement of coral reef health. 36pp
- United Nations Environment Programme (2019). Analysis of
Policies related to the Protection of Coral Reefs-Analysis of global
and regional policy instruments and governance mechanisms
related to the protection and sustainable management of
coral reefs. Karasik, R., Pickle, A., Roady, S.A., Vegh, T. and
Virdin, J. (Authors). United Nations Environment Programme,
Nairobi, Kenya.
- United Nations Environment Programme (2020). Protecting
Seagrass Through Payments for Ecosystem Services:
A Community Guide. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.

© Fragments of Hope

Coral Reef Restoration Un

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coral Reef Restoration Un

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coral Reef Restoration Un

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CORAL REEF

Cover: Freedivers monitoring corals growing on tables in

1 WHAT IS CORAL REEF RESTORATION? 8

2 CORAL REEF RESTORATION: 14

3 TO RESTORE OR NOT TO RESTORE: 18

5 CONCLUSIONS AND ACTION PLANS 32

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 1

WHAT IS CORAL REEF RESTORATION?

CURRENT CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

TO RESTORE OR NOT TO RESTORE – A CALL FOR REALISM

5 CONCLUSIONS AND ACTION PLANS

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 3

4 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 5

6 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Multilateral environmental agreements Examples of Initiatives that support

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 7

Ecological restoration is defined by the Society for

8 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 9

Table 1. Goals and associated rationales of coral reef restoration.

GOALS RATIONALES – USE RESTORATION TO….

10 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 11

12 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Stabilising loose colonies

Triage (collection of loose coral fragments)

RADED REEF CURRENT INTERVENTIONS HEA

Direct transplantation and coral gardening

Collection of spawn from resilient colonies

Larval propagation ALMOST READY

Assisted gene ﬂow

Lab grown corals for adaption and resistance

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 13

A recent study by Boström-Einarsson et al. (2020) surveyed

14 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 15

© Marie Roman, AIMS

16 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 17

BOX 2. Coral reef restoration and global climate change

18 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 19

20 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 21

22 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 23

Climate change mitigation

Erosion control Algae removal

REDUCING IMPROVING REPAIRING INITIATING PARTIALLY FULLY

24 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 25

© Ewout Knoester for REEFolution

26 Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services

Reefscapers coral propagation, Maldives © Reefscapers

Coral reef restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services 27

• Develop effective • Incorporate Indigenous

GOALS ECOLOGICAL GOALS CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND SUPPORT GOALS

• Integrate within where disturbances have smart models