Banning Harmful Fishing Techniques

By banning harmful fishing techniques coral reefs can be saved, thus helping out the fishing industry. Bottom trawling stirs up mud and sediments that block coral from receiving needed sunlight, and can flatten coral entirely. Blast fishing literally blows up parts of coral reefs, which can take many years to recover. Cyanide fishing poisons corals and attracts competitive species. Banning and enforcing regulations against these techniques, the fish in coral reefs that have been damaged can recover and support the industry in the long run. A potential negative consequence is that many people, mainly in small communities, have relied on these methods for food for centuries. That and many find work in these methods, especially bottom trawling, and those jobs could be lost. In the long run, the benefits of banning these techniques greatly outweighs the costs.

 

 

Creating Laws for Fishing Limits in Reefs

Even if fishing techniques aren't necessarily harmful, overfishing can still wreak havoc on coral ecosystems. Overfishing leads to the removal of entire species since the fishing industry targets certain fish. This impacts multiple levels of the coral reef ecosystem. It has also been shown that a high occurrence of bycatch increases the death rate of the species that weren't even targeted. Finally, fishing in coral reefs can physically damage the coral through fishing gear, destructive methods, or most commonly boat anchors. Organizations have been taking action to prevent overfishing in reefs that support the fishing industry. For example, the WWF has created no fishing zones in the great barrier reef. While at first it may seem that this would harm the industry since they can't fish in some areas, but as fish biomass increases so too does population size, leading to replenishment of populations adjacent to the no fishing areas  (a “spillover” effect to fished areas), helping commercial and recreational fisheries. This solution greatly helps both coral reefs and the fishing industry.

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Passing Laws on Coastal Development

During coastal development of hotels, much of the sand/dirt/various sediments dug up get runoff into the ocean. They then coat coral or make water murky, preventing coral from getting needed sunlight. This kills the coral. Both property and lives would be at risk if the GBR dies. Coral is one of nature’s main ways to protect coastal lands because it absorbs waves force. Without the GBR, coastal hotels would be at higher risk for property damage, coastal erosion, floods, waves, and storms. In fact, in Queensland Australia they’ve had to develop property maps including the risks of living on the shoreline. Climate change is the main factor killing the GBR, and by law in Queensland the said maps must include the risk of climate change. They said that “climate change is projected to have a significant impact on the coastal zone” partially referring to the loss of coral, which speeds up erosion. The ecosystem on land would also be negatively impacted. Seagrass meadows and mangroves in Queensland provide food and water purification; without the GBR they are very prone to damage from waves. Mangroves are a popular place for bird watchers to go, beaches for tourists, and coral for divers. Without the passing of coastal development laws all those factors of the tourism industry in tropical places would be at risk. The downside is that this could prevent the construction of future resorts, which would hurt the tourism industry in the short term.

​

​

​