I guess artificial coral reefs don't grow well in some places. In other places they grow even worse. I would be glad if I see an example of an artificial reef that is not inferior to the natural one. According to my observations, on a natural coral reef, areas of rapid development coexist with dead reefs. The distance between such sites can be less than 100 m. I have observed when a flowering coral reef has degraded in less than 10 years. Attached is a photo of the reef.

I propose to discuss a quote from the article "When are payment for ecosystems services suitable for coral reef derived coastal protection?: A review of scientific requirements": "Payment for Ecosystem Services is an emerging tool intended to solve a range of ecosystem management inefficiencies, by linking conservation action to payment. Such schemes have not been tested to our knowledge, for coral reef derived coastal protection, which is a key Ecosystem Service for many nations bordered by tropical coral reefs.".

The subject of discussion is that if we introduce a tax, then we must have effective mechanisms for influencing the situation. These mechanisms should guarantee its improvement. There are currently no such mechanisms. We do not even have a complete list of the causes of reef degradation. If there is no way to restore the reef with a tax, then there is no reason to collect such a tax.

First, we need to consolidate scientific research and develop an effective mechanism. While it is not available, it is advisable to use the experience of Egypt in creating reserves in the most flowering areas of the reef. The meaning of creating a reserve: "I know little about the ecosystem, about environmental conditions, about transboundary transfers .... For this reason, I" freeze "the situation so as not to harm."

Where am I wrong?

Similar questions and discussions