Environmental impact assessment for coral reefs: advocating direct protective approaches

氣候變遷與自然資源的經濟分析－以珊瑚礁、水資源為例

Environmental impact assessment practices of the federative republic of Brazil: A comprehensive review

Nanobiotech engineering for future coral reefs

The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment: a further step towards an integrated assessment process

GreAT (Greener Air Traffic Operations) is a project funded by the European Commission under the H2020 framework programme. The overall objective is to reduce the fuel consumption and gas emissions during “gate-to-gate” flight phases through developing and assessing environment-friendly air traffic operational concept, adaptive airspace and green trajectory optimization technologies, and supporting avionic systems. Based on the scientific description of the impact of aviation emissions on the climate, the work within GreAT is seeking the key factors of the impact about aviation emissions on climate change characteristics by using sensitivity analysis, such as greenhouse gases, pollutant gases and condensation, and then select these factors as environmental impact assessment indicators, including fuel consumption, aviation emissions, air quality and greenhouse effect, establishing a calculation model for evaluation indicators using the fuel consumption model, gas emission model and climate change model. System analysis methods are used to build an aviation emission environmental impact (EIA) assessment index system structure, apply environmental impact assessment indicators, construct a general environmental impact assessment index system, and propose a comprehensive assessment method for aviation environmental impact. The following step in the project is the environmental impact assessment of air traffic operations to determine how green air traffic performs. According to the existing air traffic operation patterns, the flight characteristics and trajectory characteristics of the aircraft are determined, and the environmental impact assessment index system is used to evaluate the environmental impact under the air traffic operation plan and the impact and improvement effect on climate change.

Coral reef ecosystems are threatened on a worldwide basis, with overfishing, diseases, eutrophication, hurricanes, overpopulation, and global climate change all contributing to recent declines in reef-forming corals or phase shifts in community structure on time scales not observed previously (1–3). These changes are in contrast to recent periods of long-term stability in coral reef communities over geological time scales of thousands of years (4, 5). A recent meta-analysis of coral cover throughout the Caribbean has shown an 80% decline that has been both long term (e.g., decadal) in duration and region-wide (6). For the last two decades, coral reef biologists have attributed much of the increase in coral mortality to coral bleaching subsequent to elevated seawater temperatures occurring on both regional and global spatial scales (7). Coral bleaching, a stress response of reef-forming corals, results in the loss of their symbiotic algal partner that supplies a large percentage of the nutritional requirements of the coral host and causes the corals to appear white (ref. 7 and Fig. 1). Since 1979, there have been dozens of reports of coral bleaching associated with elevated sea surface temperatures (SSTs), whereas from 1876 to 1979, only three events were recorded (8). The recently released Fourth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; www.ipcc.ch) states with 90% certainty that most of the observed warming of the planet over the last half-century has been caused by human activities from the accumulation of greenhouse gases. On the heels of the IPCC report, in this issue of PNAS, Donner et al. (9) provide a quantitative assessment of the contribution of human-induced climate change for the most devastating coral-bleaching event on record, the Caribbean-wide coral bleaching in 2005.

Coral reefs also provide major essential benefits to people, like food production, tourism, biotechnology development, and coastal protection. While covering less than 1% of the ocean surface, coral reefs provide habitat for nearly one third of marine fish species as well as 10% of all fish captured for human consumption. In some situations, primarily related to the number of swimmers and the geography of the shoreline, concentrations of oxybenzone far exceed the levels shown to be harmful to corals [1]. Coral reefs consist of organisms in delicate equilibria that are susceptible to small changes in their surroundings. Recent natural and man-made disruptions, direct or indirect, such as changes in ocean temperature and chemistry, ingress of invasive species, pathogens, pollution and deleterious fishing practices, have been blamed for the poor health, or even the outright destruction, of some coral reefs [2]. Florida has the world’s third largest barrier reef, with nearly 1,400 species of plants and animals and 500 species of fish, but the reef is vanishing fast. Research has found that roughly half of the reef has disappeared over the past 250 years. Coverage of acropora, the primary genus of reef-building corals, has plummeted 97% [3]. In 2015, the nonprofit Haereticus Environmental Laboratory surveyed Trunk Bay beach on St. John, where visitors ranged from 2,000 to 5,000 swimmers daily, and estimated over 6,000 pounds of sunscreen was deposited on the reef annually. The same year, it found an average of 412 pounds of sunscreen was deposited daily on the reef at Hanauma Bay, a popular snorkeling destination in Oahu (Hawaii) that draws an average of 2,600 swimmers each day. Over the past three years, one – fifth of the world’s coral reefs have died off — and there is a growing awareness that sunscreen is playing a role [4,5]. 82,000 chemicals from personal-care products may be tainting the seas; about 80 percent of corals in the Caribbean have been lost in the last 50 years due to pollution, coastal development, and warming waters [6]. From 6,000 to 14,000 tons of sunscreen slide off of humans into coral reef areas each year, exposing the gorgeous underwater ecosystems to chemicals that can kill them. Global warming is the main reason that coral reefs are dying — but sunscreens play a role, too. Over the past three years, one-fifth of the world’s coral reefs have died off — and there is a growing awareness that sunscreen is playing a role [7,8]. In some situations, primarily related to the number of swimmers and the geography of the shoreline, concentrations of oxybenzone far exceed the levels shown to be harmful to corals [1]. Hawaii will ban two major ingredients of sunscreens– oxybenzone and octinoxate. But sunscreens also save lives by decreasing the risk of UV-induced skin cancers [2], [9,10]. It is said that a single drop of oxybenzone in more than 4 million gallons of water is enough to endanger organisms [7]. Studies have identified UV filters such as oxybenzone, octocrylene, octinoxate, and ethylhexyl salicylate in almost all water sources around the world and have commented that these filters are not easily removed by common wastewater treatment plant techniques. Additionally, in laboratory settings, oxybenzone has been implicated specifically as a possible contributor to coral reef bleaching. Furthermore, UV filters such as 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, oxybenzone, octocrylene, and octinoxate have been identified in various species of fish worldwide, which has possible consequences for the food chain [11]. Coral bleaching has negative impacts on biodiversity and functioning of reef ecosystems and their production of goods and services. Bleaching is a stress response by corals, where they turn pale due to a decline in the symbiotic micro-algae that lives inside their tissues. This increasing world – wide phenomenon is associated with temperature anomalies, high irradiance, pollution, and bacterial diseases. Sunscreens, by promoting viral infection, potentially play an important role in coral bleaching in areas prone to high levels of recreational use by humans [12]. Hard-coral bleaching and the increase in viral abundance in seawater were also seen after coral treatment with mitomycin C, an antibiotic commonly used to induce the lytic cycle in latent viral infections [2], [11-16]. Marine biologists say that the chemicals alter corals’ DNA and weaken their immunity to disease [3]. Unfortunately, the World Conservation Institute estimates that 20% of coral reefs are already destroyed, another 25% are in great immediate threat, and another 25% will be threatened by 2050 [17,18]. Haereticus Environmental Lab publishes a list each year of what sunscreens are safe for the environment, and the Environmental Working Group rates products with SPF values—including some 650 sunscreens and 250 moisturizers—on their environmental impact [6]. Although, medical and skin cancer specialists have warned of the public health risks of a ban on widely used sunscreens, describing the prohibition as risky and unjustified, in part because the few studies that have addressed the environmental impacts of sunscreens experimentally “are not representative of real-world conditions” [12]. The American Academy of Dermatology reiterated that skin cancer was the most common cancer in the United States, and that people should protect themselves with sunscreen and protective clothing, and by staying out of the sun [19]. Mineral (or physical) sunscreens, which typically feature zinc or titanium oxide as active ingredients, tend to be less damaging to coral reefs than chemical counterparts and synthetic preservatives. However, not all mineral formulas are created equal [20]. One estimate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put the economic contribution of coral reefs around the world at $30 billion each year. Reefs also protect the global environment by serving as carbon sinks, absorbing carbon dioxide that would otherwise contribute to global warming [21]. Certain preservatives found in sunscreens are also toxic: parabens such as the commonly used methyl paraben and butyl paraben, or phenoxyethanol, which was originally used as a mass fish anesthetic [22]. The degradation of reefs has direct impacts on coastal communities that depend on reef resources for their livelihoods. One of the main challenges of ecosystem and conservation management plans is to account for the connection between local habitats and the conflicting demands of different stakeholders on reef resources [23]. Little is known about its effects on small-polyp stony corals that are the main framework builders in coral reefs. Pollution of marine environments with microplastic particles has increased rapidly during the last decades [24]. Additionally, coral reefs are faced with the dual emerging threats of ocean warming and acidification due to rising CO2 emissions, with dire predictions that they will not survive the century [25]. In 2016, record high temperatures caused the third global‐scale mass coral bleaching event—a key consequence of climate change‐affecting 93% of reefs in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), one of the most recognized and well‐managed ecosystems on the planet [26]. Ecosystem‐based management combined with resilience thinking can be used to better effect than approaches which do not take into account the multi‐use, complex social‐ecological nature of coral reef systems. Improving marine protected areas (MPA) design to enable coral reef organisms to adapt, acclimate or disperse under climate change is necessary but not sufficient: a range of other conservation tools will need to be employed including management of external stressors, alternative fisheries restrictions, novel approaches such as active restoration, inclusion of social–ecological factors and action on multiple scales.

In the summer of 2005, while Atlantic hurricanes battered coastlines from Cuba to Mexico, the Eastern Caribbean baked under a relentless sun with barely a breeze to cool the air. Tourists and locals alike wilted in the heat, and below the sea, marine life and corals in particular suffered as well. The windless calm settled in just as a buildup of unusually warm water began accumulating in the region. Ordinarily, easterly trade winds would have churned the sea, helping it to cool. But thanks to an unprecedented heat wave beginning in May—the result of a confluence of factors related to climate change, scientists say—water temperatures in the Eastern Caribbean climbed and stayed high for months, reaching levels that by September would be warmer than any recorded in 150 years. The heat disturbed a symbiotic partnership that coral animals normally maintain with a type of algae called zooxanthellae. Zooxanthellae supply corals with essential nutrients produced by photosynthesis, particularly carbon, in return for the shelter and access to sunlight provided by the reefs. The algae also impart color to the corals, which themselves are colorless. But as sea temperatures rose, the zooxanthellae disappeared, leaving their carbon-deprived hosts behind to starve. The reefs turned snow white, the color of the underlying stonelike structures they had built up over centuries, in a phenomenon known as coral bleaching. As the heat wave progressed, it left a trail of bleached reefs the likes of which had never been seen in the Caribbean. By year’s end, coral cover ranging from 90% in the Virgin Islands to 52% in the French West Indies was affected. Coral bleaching isn’t always fatal—if water temperatures cool in time, the zooxanthellae might return, allowing corals to recover. But in parts of the Eastern Caribbean, the reefs never got a chance. Almost as soon as their recovery started, they were attacked by diseases affecting a range of coral species down to 60 feet. By 2007, roughly 60% of the coral cover in the Virgin Islands and 53% in Puerto Rico’s La Parguera Natural Reserve was dead—an unprecedented tragedy. The Eastern Caribbean disease outbreak came on the heels of what’s been a rough several decades for coral reefs worldwide. Long suffering from land-based pollution, habitat destruction, and overfishing, coral reefs now must also contend with climate change, which has accelerated their global decline. This puts a wealth of biodiversity at risk. Reefs support up to 800 types of coral, 4,000 fish species, and countless invertebrates. Reef-dwelling species numbering in the hundreds of thousands may not even be catalogued yet, some scientists speculate. The implications of these declines could be as disastrous for human health as they are for marine life. Globally, reefs provide a quarter of the annual fish catch and food for about 1 billion people, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. Reefs protect shorelines from storm surges, which could become more powerful as sea levels rise with climate change. Tourism—a mainstay of coastal economies in the tropics, worth billions in annual revenue—could suffer if reefs lose their appeal. Reefs are also a long-standing source of medicines to treat human disease. Being attached to reefs, corals and other immobilized marine animals can’t escape predators, so they deploy a range of chemical compounds to deter hunters, fight disease, and thwart competing organisms. Two antiviral drugs (vidarabine and azidothymidine) and the anticancer agent cytarabine were developed using compounds extracted from Caribbean reef sponges. Another product called dolastatin 10, isolated from the sea hare (Dolabella auricularia) of the Indian Ocean, has been investigated as a treatment for breast and liver cancers and leukemia. Many more lifesaving medicines and useful chemical products could one day be derived from reef dwellers, experts say. Saving these ecosystems is imperative on a range of levels, says Caroline Rogers, a marine ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. “We have to save them for economic, ecological, aesthetic, and even spiritual reasons,” she says. “People need to feel connected with nature and with systems that are bigger than they are. Coral reefs are awe-inspiring—we’re losing something that we barely understand.”

Global Environmental Impact Assessment Research Trends (1973-2009)

Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services

BackgroundSince the 1960s, environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and recently, social impact assessments (SIAs), have been conducted during the planning stages of large development projects to identify potential adverse effects and propose mitigation measures to ameliorate these impacts. EIAs and SIAs should outline all possible positive and negative effects of a proposed action or development on ecological and social systems, respectively, including biodiversity, flora and fauna, abiotic components (such as air quality), human health, security and wellbeing. The work outlined herein aims to generate a list of all possible direct and indirect effects of metal mining (including gold, iron, copper, nickel, zinc, silver, molybdenum and lead) along with the impacts of mitigation measures proposed, that are mentioned in EIAs and SIAs in Arctic and boreal regions of the following countries/regions: Canada, Alaska (USA), Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.MethodsWe will conduct searches for environmental and social impact assessments in Swedish and English, and until theoretical saturation is reached (i.e. no new action-impact pathways are identified). We will perform searches of specialist websites (e.g. public repositories of environmental and social impact assessments) and Google Scholar. We will also contact relevant stakeholders (that have been identified in the wider 3MK project https://osf.io/cvh3u/) and make a call for additional information. Eligibility screening will be conducted at two levels: title and full text. Meta-data will be extracted from eligible studies including type of mining activity, location of mine, type of impacts, and planned mitigation measures. Findings will be presented narratively, in a searchable relational database and in an evidence altas (a cartographic map). We will produce a framework of different mining impacts and related mitigation measures from practitioners’ knowledge reflected in EIAs and SIAs. This framework will further form the basis of a multiple knowledge base on mining impacts and mitigation measures generated from different knowledges including scientific, Indigenous, and practitioners’ knowledge.

Due to the growing recognition of the importance of natural resources to a healthy economy as well as a safe living environment, environmental impact assessment (EIA) has become an essential tool for wise governmental decisionmaking at the international, national, and local levels. Natural resources are as essential as man-made infrastructure is in maintaining a vibrant, sustainable economy. Even ‘environmental infrastructure’ (i.e.; waste water treatment facilities, water supply purification, solid waste disposal, and air pollution control), which is typically thought to be environmentally friendly, needs to undergo a thorough EIA process in conjunction with benefit cost analysis (BCA). The EIA process can be thought of as simply as a parallel or complementary BCA for environmental goods and services. The National Environmental Policy Act of the United States in 1969 was the first example of a framework for integrating EIA into the decisionmaking process. NEPA is well intentioned, but it has spawned an assessment process that is unstructured, incomplete, inconsistent, and not well integrated with all facets of the governmental decisionmaking process. Other models of integrating environmental impact assessment into multiobjective decisionmaking are available and should be drawn upon in order to develop the means for integrating EIA into an overall infrastructure management framework. These models include the U.S. Water Resources Council’s Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, multiobjective and multiattribute utility theory analytical techniques, and the ecosystem management approach. EIA should be an integral element of the infrastructure management toolkit, and a well-structured framework is needed to assure its coherent implementation, particularly in view of the need to evaluate alternative strategies for watershed and ecosystem management and sustainable development options.

Consideration of climate change on environmental impact assessment in Spain

Environmental health impact assessment: evaluation of a ten-step model.

This study aims to understand how the health dimension is integrated into four impact assessment tools used in Geneva, Switzerland: environmental impact assessment (EIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA), sustainability assessment (SA) and health impact assessment (HIA). We have chosen as a case study greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction policies chosen by the city of Geneva. The methodological approach consists in analysing EIA, SEA, SA and HIA conducted on three projects in three topic areas: urban planning, heating and transportation. These projects are: a complex urbanisation plan in an urban neighbourhood in Geneva (the Gare des Eaux-Vives project), a sustainable transportation plan for a central district in Geneva (the St-Gervais transportation project) and a strategy to encourage the City's employees to use sustainable transport for local business travel. The results show some shortcomings in the consideration of health in SEA, EIA and SA. This work highlights a narrow vision of health in SEA and EIA, limiting itself to a review of the effects of projects on the determinants of the physical environment as required by the legislation relating to these tools. EIA does not require the integration of the health dimension. As for SA, our research found that health is treated much more superficially than in HIA and primarily through the analysis of 'health and safety' criteria. It appears from this work that HIA is the tool which provides the most elaborate assessment, compared to SA, SEA or EIA, of the consequences for health of the GHG reduction policies chosen by the local decision-makers of a city. However, our study suggests that the HIA community should identify the situations in which HIA should be carried out and in which cases it is better to include health issues within an integrated analysis.