Review of corals subject to long-standing positive opinions

Transcription

1 Review of corals subject to long-standing positive opinions (Version edited for public release) Prepared for the European Commission Directorate General E - Environment ENV.E.2. Development and Environment by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre April, 2013

2 UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Website: The United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP- WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation. The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, combining scientific research with practical policy advice. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and highlight the many values of biodiversity and put authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre of decision-making. Through the analysis and synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely information for conventions, countries and organisations to use in the development and implementation of their policies and decisions. PREPARED FOR The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium DISCLAIMER The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP, contributory organisations or editors. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, the European Commission or contributory organisations, editors or publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of a commercial entity or product in this publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP. Copyright: 2013, European Commission UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically rigorous procedures and services. These include ecosystem assessments, support for the implementation of environmental agreements, global and regional biodiversity information, research on threats and impacts, and the development of future scenarios. CITATION UNEP-WCMC Review of corals subject to longstanding positive opinions. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

3 Contents Introduction... 2 Overview of status and management of Corals...3 Overview references SPECIES: Heliopora coerulea SPECIES: Acropora echinata SPECIES: Acropora florida SPECIES: Acropora humilis SPECIES: Acropora nasuta SPECIES: Euphyllia cristata SPECIES: Euphyllia glabrescens SPECIES: Fungia fungites SPECIES: Fungia repanda SPECIES: Leptoria phrygia SPECIES: Lobophyllia corymbosa SPECIES: Merulina ampliata SPECIES: Plerogyra sinuosa SPECIES: Pocillopora damicornis SPECIES: Pocillopora verrucosa SPECIES: Seriatopora hystrix SPECIES: Stylophora pistillata SPECIES: Tubastraea coccinea SPECIES: Tubipora musica Species review references: Annex I: Key to purpose and source codes Annex II: Trade tables Annex III: Trade relating to genus-level quotas

4 Overview of status and management of corals Introduction The Scientific Review Group may form positive opinions for species/country combinations, indicating to Member States that, given current and anticipated levels of trade, introduction into the European Union would not be considered to have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the species (Council Regulation EC No. 338/97). Positive opinions for some species/country combinations have been in place for a relatively long time. For example, according to an SRG 58 document, in May 2011, 300 positive opinions had been in place since 2001 or earlier (representing 1923 species/country combinations), and these had not been updated or replaced by any subsequent opinions or EU suspensions. At SRG 58, there was agreement to remove long-standing positive opinions for 1701 species/country combinations for which there was no or virtually no trade in wild or ranched individuals either globally or to the EU-27. Furthermore, for species/country combinations for which trade in wild or ranched specimens may be anticipated in future, there was agreement to produce in-depth species reviews, in order to determine whether the current longstanding positive opinions may still be warranted. This review of corals is the sixth in a series of reports providing material to inform SRG decision-making on long-standing positive opinions. Trade data for this report were extracted on 5 th of February (species level data) and 5 th of April (genus level data) 2013; trade analyses focus on the period The first section of the report provides an overview of the status and management of corals in countries selected for review. The second section provides a review of the trade patterns and conservation status in range states for the species subject to long standing positive opinions. 2

5 Overview of status and management of corals Australia Trends and status Overview of status and management of Corals Australia s reef area was reported to total km 2 (Chin et al., 2011), with around 390 Scleractinian species described from the waters surrounding the mainland (Banks and Harriot, 1995). Côté and Reynolds (2006) considered the Australian coral reefs to remain in relatively good condition, despite some recent setbacks and Wilkinson (2008) reported the eastern and western Australia to be in relatively good condition. Chin et al. (2011) reported that 14% of the country s reef area was thought to be at medium or high local threat from local pressures. Future prospects for these reefs were reported to be good, due to the remote location of many reefs and relatively small human populations (Wilkinson, 2008). More recently, although considered the best researched and managed reef system globally, the future outlook of the Great Barrier Reef was considered to be poor, due to pollution, fishing pressure but particularly climate related threats (Chin et al., 2011). In Queensland, the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) was reported to cover approximately km 2 (Wilkinson, 2008), 6% (~ km 2 ) of which consisting of coral reef areas (Atkinson et al., 2008b). The reefs of the GBR were reported to show highly dynamic status patterns, with a longer-term trend of gradual decline, particularly of inshore reefs affected by coastal pollution (Côté and Reynolds, 2006). Whilst the extent of hard coral cover was reported to have increased in the Cairns, Whitsundays and Swains regions, coral cover decline of 50% on outer-shelf reefs in the northern GBR over the period was reported, due to storm damage and coral disease (Wilkinson, 2008). Atkinson et al. (2008b) however reported that coral population trends were stable in the GBR and Sweatman et al. (2008) reported that in 2007, coral cover ranged from % for Acroporidae, % for Favidae, % for Pocilloporidae, % for Poritidae, % for Acropora (tabulate), % for Acropora (other than tabulate) and % for Montipora. Coral communities in the Northern Territory (NT) were considered to be diverse and in pristine condition, but the knowledge of the nature, extent, status and condition of coral communities within the NT was considered to be very poor (NRETA, 2010b). Massive corals, mainly Faviidae, were considered common, especially the genera Favia, Favites, Platygyra and Goniastrea, which were found to be overwhelmingly dominant in most sites surveyed in Arnhem Land (Veron, 2004). The reefs of Western Australia were reported to span 44% of the Australian coastline, including extensive coastal reef systems, as well as isolated and remote offshore oceanic reefs and islands (Wilkinson, 2008). The marine biodiversity was considered to be rich and diverse, ranking second globally in terms of endemism; the reefs were considered in good condition and the prognosis was considered to be good, provided reef resilience can be maintained against climate change damage (Wilkinson, 2008). Threats Australia s reefs were considered the least threatened reefs globally (Burke et al., 2011), with climate change being the main threat to corals and local threats thought to reduce the resilience of corals to global threats (Carpenter et al., 2008). Cyclones were reported to affect coral cover (Wilkinson, 2008), as was habitat loss and degradation (Atkinson et al., 2008b). Further threats included coastal development and other human impacts, outbreaks of Crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) and other species and coral disease (Wilkinson, 2008; Veron, 2008). Donnelly (2010) considered ocean acidification to be the most serious long-term threat. Human pressures were considered to be lower than in other parts of the world (Wilkinson, 2008). Although the effect of the commercial aquarium fishery had not been fully assessed in the Northern Territory (NRETA, 2010b), it was thought to be small (Veron et al., 2004; NRETA, 2010b). Protection and management Wilkinson (2008) reported that cooperative arrangements between State and national governments were in place to manage the Australian reefs and that most coral reef management was implemented through 3

6 Overview of status and management of corals Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), whilst fisheries resources were managed through specific fisheries management arrangements. Export of hard coral is subject to Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Regulations, with Non-Detriment-Findings (NDF) made at a State fishery level (Atkinson et al., 2008b). The fisheries exporting coral products were reported to be reassessed every 3-5 years against national guidelines for ecosystem-based management (Atkinson et al., 2008b). Australia s fishery was considered to be sustainable and lucrative (Sheppard et al., 2009), with strong political commitment to manage coral reef resources (Wilkinson, 2008); the extraction of corals was considered to be thoroughly controlled (Côté and Reynolds, 2006). Veron et al. (2004) considered corals to have extensive protection in Queensland, Australian Government marine protected areas and National Parks. Wilkinson (2008) reported that the reefs of eastern Australia had a long history of research and monitoring, and considered the management in place to be of world leading standard. Commercial-scale coral collection was reported to occur in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia (Atkinson et al., 2008b). No commercial harvest of corals was reported from South Australia, New South Wales or Victoria (Cairns Marine, 2009). Approximately three quarters of the Australian coral reefs were reported to be within marine protected areas, with a high level of management for many of these sites (Chin et al., 2011). The GBR ( km 2 ) and Ningaloo Coast (6045 km 2 ), both Western Australia, were declared World Heritage sites in 1981 and 2011, respectively (UNESCO, 2013b). Queensland (QL): A regulated coral fishery was reported to have been in place since 1932 (Harriot, 2001), and in 2006 it became an accredited Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO), therefore being permitted to export corals (Donnelly, 2010). A new policy framework was established (Roelofs and Silcock, 2008; Atkinson et al., 2008b) and a review of this policy was undertaken in 2008 (Atkinson et al., 2008b). The updated Policy for the Management of the Coral Fishery January 2009, managed by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and in force under the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994 and the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 2008 (DPIF, 2010), sets the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) at 200 tonnes/year, in a ratio of 60 tonnes of specialty coral (all corals apart from Pocilloporidae and Acroporidae) and 140 tonnes of other coral (ornamental coral, live rock, coral rubble and coral sand) (DPIF, 2010). The Queensland Coral Fishery (QCF) was reported to almost exclusively operate in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) and World Heritage Area (WHA) (Atkinson et al., 2008a), with most of the collection taking place in the Cairns and Keppel region (DPIF, 2010). Harvest of corals in the GBRMP and WHA requires a licence, with a maximum of 59 licences issued annually (DPIF, 2010); in , 25 licenced operators harvested corals (DSEWPC, 2012b). The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) was reported to manage natural resources within the GBRMP (Atkinson et al., 2008b) and the management was considered to have improved significantly in recent years (Chin et al., 2011). Collection is allowed year round, but only by hand or non-mechanical instruments; underwater breathing apparatus is permitted (QPC, 2008). The number of boats and collectors which can operate at any given time is limited, and trigger limits apply for high use areas, where harvest pressure is closely monitored (DEEDI, 2010). Recreational coral harvest outside State marine parks and the GBRMP is permitted; however, no underwater breathing apparatus may be used and the catch cannot be sold or traded (QG, 2011). The area of the Coral Sea falling under Australia's jurisdiction (approximately km 2 ) was declared a Conservation Zone in 2009 (DSEWPC, 2010). Fisheries in the Coral Sea were reported to be managed by the Commonwealth Government (DEEDI, 2010) and two licencees were reported to hold harvest permits (Donnelly, 2010); although harvest of coral is not permitted, 20 t of live rock can be collected annually (DSEWPC, 2012b). The QCF fishery was most recently assessed in June 2012 and Australia s CITES Scientific Authority for Marine Species made a NDF for CITES listed corals harvested within the fishery, confirming that the fishery was not detrimental to the survival or conservation status of corals (DSEWPC, 2012b). Furthermore, the QCF ecological risk assessment was reported to be reviewed every three years to assess new information on coral collection fisheries (Roelofs, 2008) and a climate change vulnerability 4

7 Overview of status and management of corals assessment (Donnelly, 2011) was reported to have concluded that the overall risk to key species was low (DSEWPC, 2012b). Approximately 80 species of corals were reported to be harvested by the fishery (McCormack, 2009b). Corals exported from Queensland in were reported to represent about 60% of the total live corals exported from Australia, with harvests amounting to 20 t in 2009 (Donnelly, 2010). Commercial harvest of live coral in was approximately 19 t (DEEDI, 2010). In the harvest of live coral was approximately 19 t specialty coral, 10 t of ornamental coral and 9 t of other coral (DEEDI, 2010). In , 28 t of live coral were harvested, representing an increase due to an increase in harvests of smaller pieces (DEEDI, 2011). In 2010/ t of speciality coral and 7 t of ornamental coral were collected (DSEWPC, 2012b). Atkinson et al. (2008b) considered the annual amount of corals harvested by this fishery to be a miniscule fraction of what naturally accretes in a year on the Great Barrier Reef. About 33% of the GBRMP was reported to be closed to all forms of fishing (Atkinson et al., 2008b) and in 2012, Australia afforded greater protection under the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve for approximately one million km 2 of the Coral Sea (Australian Government, 2012b). Northern Territory (NT): Corals are included under aquatic life in the Fisheries Regulation (NT, 2010b) and as fish in the Fisheries Act (NT, 2009). Prior to 1994, when a prohibition on coral harvesting was imposed in the NT, all aquarium collection licences were reported to have permitted the collection of coral (Sly and Errity, 2004). Later, the number of collectors and quantities of coral were restricted and in 2001, a moratorium on the issue of new aquarium collection licences was implemented (Sly and Errity, 2004). In 2003, the Northern Territory Aquarium Association (NTAA) was established, and a review of the collection of coral and associated benthic species was undertaken (Sly and Errity, 2004), with subsequent strict limitation of quantities harvested for licence holders (Handley, 2010). The number of licences issued between 2003 and 2011 oscillated between 11 and 18 (Sly and Errity, 2004; Veron et al., 2004; DEWHA, 2008b; Handley, 2010; NT, 2010; DPIF, 2011). The fishery had first been approved as a Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) in 2005 for three years (DPIF, 2011) but no exports had been recorded from the NT until 2008 (Atkinson et al., 2008b), after the fishery had again been approved as a Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (DEWHA, 2008c; Handley, 2010), leading to an endorsement of exports for three years (Handley, 2010). In 2011, WTO accreditation was granted for one year (DPIF, 2011) and the most recent assessment in 2012 accredited the fishery until May 2014 (Australian Government, 2012a). The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (DPIF) confirmed their cooperation with Australia s CITES SA for Marine Species in ensuring appropriate management of the fishery (DPIF, 2012). The NT Aquarium Fishery, operating in Darwin Harbour and Gove Harbour (NRETA, 2010b), was considered a small-scale, low impact operation (DEWHA, 2008b; Handley, 2010), although the demand for aquarium species was reported to be increasing (Handley, 2010). In 2004, the levels of coral harvest were considered to be low and of insignificant impact on the resource (Sly and Errity, 2004). In 2006, the commercial harvest of corals and anemones was reported to be 1091 kg and 2349 individuals (DEWHA, 2008b). In 2009, the harvest of coral and associated benthic species was estimated at approximately 5.5 t (approximately 3358 kg of live rock, 7411 individuals of Corallimorphs and 2131 individuals of Coral other ), well below the trigger point of 60 tonnes which had been put in place in 2009 (Handley, 2010). In 2010, harvest amounted to 89 kg and 3934 pieces of hard corals (DPIF, 2012), and in 2011 to 420 kg and 4856 pieces (DPIF, 2011). Coral harvest was reported to be permitted in all NT waters, with the exception of managed areas, Marine Reserves and the Darwin and Grove Harbours (DEWHA, 2008b), sanctuary zones and Aboriginal sacred sites (Handley, 2010). Whilst harvest was reported to be permitted all year, unfavourable weather was reported to limit activities (DEWHA, 2008b). Factors such as the extensive area of the fishery and seasonal closures were considered to provide protection to corals in the NT (Sly and Errity, 2004). In addition, specific conditions relating to areas, species, quantities, methods, the use or non-use of vessels [...] may be imposed on licensees (NT, 2009). Licensees were reported to be required to report catch and effort data by completing and submitting monthly logbook returns (Handley, 2010). 5

8 Overview of status and management of corals The recreational fishing rules and regulations appear to apply to the collection of coral specimens for personal aquaria, and this off-take was assumed to be very low (Handley, 2010). There appear to be no marine areas under specific protection in the NT; however, a new representative system of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) was reported to be being developed (NRETA, 2010a). Coral conservation efforts were reported to be just beginning, with approximately 10% of the coral communities in the Cobourg Marine Park intended to be zoned for conservation (NRETA, 2010b). Western Australia (WA): The Marine Aquarium Fish Managed Fishery (MAF) was reported to be operating in accordance with the WA Marine Aquarium Fish Management Plan 1995 and associated management regimes in force under the Western Australian Fish Resources Management Act 1994 and the Western Australian Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 (DEWHA, 2008a). After an unsuccessful application in 2011, due to the fishery not meeting increased reporting and assessment requirements (Fletcher and Santoro, 2012), the MAF was most recently re-approved as a Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) in December 2012 for one year, thereby allowing the MAF to export corals again (DSEWPC, 2012a). The MAF was reported to operate in all WA waters (apart from closed areas), with efforts being spread over km of coastline, but much of the coral quota being taken from the Dampier region (DEWHA, 2008a). Harvest was reported to be permitted year round (DEWHA, 2008a). The fishery was reported to be managed through mechanisms such as limited entry of the fishery, permanently closed areas, catch limits and gear restrictions (DEWHA, 2008a), including restricting harvest of corals and rock to non-mechanical tools only (DEWHA, 2008a). The fishery is required to report annually on catch and effort, and a daily log book is required for quota species (DEWHA, 2008a). A prohibition order on recreational harvest of corals and live rock was implemented in 2001 (DFWA, 2002; DEWHA, 2008a) and was still in place in 2013 (Department of Fisheries, 2013). In 2002, five individuals were licenced to collect corals commercially (DFWA, 2002). Later, a total of 13 licences were issued annually (DFWA, 2010), with licence holders permitted to harvest 500 kg of live rock annually (maximum 100 kg/day); five of the licensees were also allowed to harvest kg corals per year (maximum 50 kg/day) (State of Western Australia, 2007). In 2010, five licencees were permitted to harvest corals, with a combined annual quota of 7500kg (Department of Fisheries, 2010). The MAF s risk of impacting on breeding stocks was considered to be low, due to the absence of harvest pressure from other fisheries and due the low operation extent of the fishery compared to the distribution of the target species (DEWHA, 2008a; Fletcher and Santoro, 2012). Wilkinson (2008) reported that research, monitoring and management effort had increased significantly in WA. In WA, a number of waters were reported to be closed to fishing (DFWA, 2010) and Wilkinson (2008) reported that the rezoning of Ningaloo Marine Park in 2005 increased the no-take areas in WA to 34%. Fiji Trends and status Fiji s coral reef area was estimated at km 2, with an average coral cover of 45% (18-62% across 13 sites) in 2008 (Wilkinson, 2008). In 2011, Chin et al. (2011) reported a total reef area of 6704 km 2, with 80% of the total reef area considered to be threatened by local threats and thermal stress. At least 354 species of coral were reported to occur in Fiji (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). The recovery from mass bleaching events in 2000 and 2002 (hard coral mortality between 40% and 80% locally) was considered the main issue for coral reefs in Fiji (Whippy-Morris, 2009). The reef monitoring data available for Fiji was considered reliable and consistent, and the status of coral reefs in Fiji overall was found to be stable, as although affected by various disturbance events, live coral cover was increasing to levels before these events (Chin et al., 2011). However, while reefs were found to show strong resilience, Chin et al. (2011) pointed out localized signs of degradation and population declines. 6

9 Overview of status and management of corals Threats Bleaching, COTS, Drupella sea snails and other environmental factors were reported to have affected coral sites in Fiji to various degrees, but subsequent recovery of coral cover, although variable across sites, was reported (Wilkinson, 2008; Whippy-Morris, 2009; Chin et al., 2011). The collection of reef resources for the aquarium trade was thought to be of potential concern (Chin et al., 2011) and pose a moderate risk (Caldwell et al., 2009). Protection and management Wilkinson (2004) reported that the collection of all species and sizes of coral was permitted, without restrictions on number or harvesting method. The Fisheries Act, administered by the Department of Fisheries (Chin et al., 2011), restricts the use of underwater breathing apparatus for harvest to those licensed (Fiji Ministry for Agriculture, 1997). The Endangered and Protected Species Act 2002 lays down the requirements of permits for trade in CITES listed species (Fiji, 2002). The effectiveness and enforcement of management arrangements was considered to be unclear, as although the legislative base for effective management was reported to be in place, implementation of management was reported to be community based (Chin et al., 2011). In 2009, traditional fisheries management areas covered about km 2 and locally managed marine areas (LMMA) km 2 (Govan, 2009), with restrictions ranging from no-take to seasonal or species specific closures (Whippy-Morris, 2009). Burke et al. (2011) estimated that 32% of Fiji s reefs were protected, although the effectiveness of management was reported to vary. A revision of the legislative basis, including the introduction of a new parliamentary Act to govern trade in corals and other marine products was noted to be needed (Manoa, 2008). In the absence of a legislative basis, trade was reported to be managed through the setting of policies and guidelines within the Fisheries Act, including the restriction of the number of companies permitted to harvest live corals to two [Aquarium Fish Fiji and Walt Smith International, see Figure 1] (Lovell and Whippy- Walt Smith Intl. Morris, 2008), compared to six companies that had been harvesting live corals in 1999 (Lovell and Tumuri, 1999). The aquarium trade industry in Fiji Aquarium Fish Fiji was reported to mainly source corals and live rock from the coast of Viti Levu (Wilkinson, 2004; Whippy-Morris, 2009). Figure 1: Coral collection sites of the two operators in Fiji. Map after Lovell (2010). The Fiji Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) was reported to be composed of a wide range of stakeholders and aims to ensure the sustainability of the aquarium industry, harvested species and habitats in Fiji (Lovell and Tumuri, 1999), with operators required to develop Collection Area Management Plans for certification by MAC (Lovell, 2009). The facilities of Walt Smith International (WSI) were considered to be of a relatively high standard (Lovell and Tumuri, 1999) and the operation was reported to produce maricultured corals in two farms (Lovell, 2003b). The removal rate of corals by this operator from their collection sites was estimated at less than 0.06% in 2003, with Acropora spp. being the main species exported (Lovell, 2003b). In 2006, the removal rate for export was estimated at about 0.01% (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). Corals were reported to be collected to a depth of 7m (Lovell, 2003b). A baseline survey of their collection sites in 2003 assessed the coral reefs to be in good health (Lovell, 2003a) and the Fiji Department of Fisheries (DOF) and the Institute of Marine Resources (IMR) assessed the resources more recently leading to an NDF for WSI (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). In 2007, the Department of Fisheries and the Institute of Marine Resources conducted a resource assessment of live corals in the collection area of Aquarium Fish, Fiji (AFF), in order to provide a basis for a NDF (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). The study focussed on the reef flat area (deeper areas and lagoonal reefs were not considered but were noted to add considerably to the potential coral resource) of the AFF collection area (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). The survey found 27 of the 55 coral taxa contained in the country s quota (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). The coral cover was 7

10 Overview of status and management of corals estimated at 51%, with an overall removal rate for the live aquarium trade of %, resulting in a reduction of % of live coral cover (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). In 2006, the removal rate was estimated at 0.12% (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). The live coral aquarium fishery was reported to promote sustainability though: - Relatively small colonies harvested (3-15 cm diameter), hence small area of coral cover removed; - Large collection areas, therefore minimising the impact of removal overall; - Collection areas with high diversity of reef types and habitats; - Recruitment ensured through large areas without harvest; - Very small percentage of corals eligible for collection is actually removed and high total number of corals on the reef; - The Customary Fishing Rights Areas limit collection to designated areas; and - One aquarium company per collection area only, resulting in conservation of the resource both by Government and by the company (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). Quotas for CITES taxa were reported to have been reduced by 25% in 2007 and were subject to annual review by the Fiji Islands CITES Scientific Council and MA (SC58 Doc. 45.6). A NDF for coral extraction in AFF and WSI collection sites commissioned by the Fiji CITES MA, was reported to have contributed to the establishment of the 2009 coral export quotas (SC58 Doc.45.6). The financial returns from maricultured live corals were considered to be less than from wild collected specimens in Fiji, without preferential treatment such as subsidy (Lal and Cerelala, 2005). Only WSI was reported to have exported cultured corals from Fiji (Lal and Cerelala, 2005). Govan (2009) reported that 593 km 2 of marine areas were no-take zones in Fiji and that by 2020, 30% of the country s marine environment was planned to be included in a comprehensive and ecologically representative network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that is effectively managed and enforced. With 0.8% of the Fijian Exclusive Economic Zone protected under Marine Managed Area status, the country was among the few in the region within reach of the 1.5% mark representing the global average (Govan, 2009). Baseline surveys of marine resources in the Mamanuca Islands were reported to have been undertaken to identify recommended MPA s (Comley et al., 2005). Indonesia Trends and status In 2008, the coral reef area was estimated at km 2 (Wilkinson, 2008), comprising approximately 18% of coral reefs globally (Caldwell et al., 2009). Approximately 590 species of hard corals were reported to occur in the country (Wilkinson, 2008). Based on surveys conducted in 2000, Dirhamsyah (2005) reported that 32.3% of the reefs were considered to be in poor condition, with 35.3% in fair, 25.5% in good and 6.7% in excellent condition. The status of reefs was considered to be poorest in western Indonesia (Dirhamsyah, 2005). According to Wilkinson (2008), the condition of Indonesian coral reefs declined during The IUCN recommended that population surveys be undertaken for a number of coral species to assess the effects of harvest for the aquarium trade (see e.g. Hoeksema et al., 2008a; Richards et al., 2008c). Threats Dirhamsyah (2005) estimated that 70% of coral reefs were threatened, and Caldwell et al. (2009) considered the majority of Indonesian coral reefs to be under moderate to severe risk. Indonesia was identified as one of the nine countries most vulnerable to the effects of coral reef degradation globally (Burke et al., 2011). Destructive fishing practices were considered the main threat to corals (Burke et al., 2011; Dirhamsyah, 2005; Wilkinson, 2008; Caldwell et al., 2009; Turak and DeVantier, 2003), and Caldwell et al. (2009) reported that in some areas, up to 80% of coral cover had been destroyed by fishing with explosives. Further significant threats included extraction for ornamental trade and local uses (including construction and lime production) (Bentley, 1998; Dirhamsyah, 2005; Scaps et al., 2007), pollution (Turak 8

11 Overview of status and management of corals and DeVantier, 2003; Dirhamsyah, 2005; Scaps et al., 2007), and coastal construction and tourism (Dirhamsyah, 2005; Turak and DeVantier, 2003). Natural disturbances were also considered a threat; the damage caused by the tsunami of 2004 was considered severe in some areas, although minimal in most areas (Wilkinson, 2008). Coral bleaching was considered significant, with up to 100% of bleaching of susceptible species in some areas, with Acropora spp. most severely affected (GCRMN, 2010). However, in Bunaken National Park (north Sulawesi) and adjacent waters, rapid recovery of the reefs was observed after the 1998 and 2002 bleaching events, with most corals described as locally widespread and likely to have reproductivelyviable local populations, many of regional importance (Turak and DeVantier, 2003). Protection and management Act No. 5 of 1990 Concerning Conservation of Living Resources and their Ecosystems and Regulation No. 8 regulate the management of wildlife, prohibiting the harvest and trade of protected species (Ministry of Forestry, 1990). However, only the genus Antipathes spp. appears to be listed as protected under Regulation No. 7 of 1999 (Republic of Indonesia, 1999). Several laws and regulations are relevant for the management of coral reefs, but a lack of specific regulations was noted (Dirhamsyah, 2006). Act No. 31 of 2004 (Fisheries Act) was considered the most important law for the management of coral reefs, regulating the harvest of fish and corals and prohibiting the use of illegal methods and equipment (Dirhamsyah, 2005). Act No. 41 of 1999 (Forestry Act) was also considered to have a direct impact on coral reefs, particularly with regard to mangrove forest management (Dirhamsyah, 2005). However, the existing regulations were said to be widely regarded as ineffective and lacking in implementation and enforcement (Dirhamsyah, 2005). Indonesia was reported to have adopted the following principles of sustainable utilization of corals: i) the prohibition of harvesting within protected areas and tourism sites, ii) limiting harvest to assessed sites and allowing recovery of exploited sites, iii) limiting harvest to immature specimens through species-specific size limits and iv) conducting population monitoring (Samedi and Liman, 2002). The quotas for wild harvest were reported to be established by the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA) (Samedi and Liman, 2002). The number of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that include coral reefs was estimated at (Caldwell et al., 2009), and Wilkinson (2008) estimated that 9% of Indonesian coral reefs were within these MPAs. However, out of 114 MPAs overall, less than 3% were considered well-managed (Wilkinson, 2008). The Government, whilst encouraging new companies to farm corals, was reported to prohibit the establishment of new companies which harvest wild corals (Timotius et al., 2009). Approximately 25 farms were reported to be actively exporting farmed corals from Indonesia (Timotius et al., 2009). Coral farming is regulated under the Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.19/Menhut-II-2005 on captive management of wild plants and animals and the PHKA Regulation No. 09, January 2008 on Guidelines of ornamental coral transplantation for commercial purposes (Timotius et al., 2009). Regulation No. P.19/Menhut-II-2005 specifies that permits are needed for captive breeding and the export of captivebred specimens (unofficial English translation was provided by Indonesia with their Biennial Report in 2007). Since 2008, Indonesia has reported maricultured corals as source F, in line with EU reporting, instead of as source W*, as it had done previously. Making an accurate comparison of wild-sourced and maricultured imports between years, however, is still difficult, as the EU imports of wild-sourced corals prior to 2008 may be artificially high, due to the inclusion of some maricultured corals misreported as wild-sourced by the EU. In the Indonesian system, the Maximum Estimated Production (MEP) of corals is calculated on the basis of maximum breeding success and the number of adult breeding stock, and distributed among companies through the Coral Shell and Ornamental Fish Association of Indonesia (AKKII, Asosiasi Koral Kerang Ikan hias Indonesia) (Timotius et al., 2009). 9

12 Overview of status and management of corals Malaysia Trends and status In 2008, the coral reef area in Malaysia was estimated at 4006 km 2 (Wilkinson, 2008), with most of the reefs located in Sabah, Sarawak (Borneo), and the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia (Saad, 2012). Wilkinson (2008) reported that 400 species of hard corals are found in the country, while Sea Resources Management (2010), estimated that a total of 519 coral taxa occur in Malaysia. According to Wilkinson (2008), the condition of coral reefs declined in Malaysia over the period In surveys carried out in Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia in 2011, Reef Check Malaysia (2011) assessed the general condition of the Malaysian coral reefs as fair ; Saad (2012) considered the status of Malaysian coral reefs to be poorly known. The condition of the reefs on the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia in general was assessed as fair in 2000, with some sites considered to be in good condition (Harborne et al., 2000). Sea Resources Management (2010) described the coral reefs of the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia as patchy. In 2007, these reefs were assessed as in fair condition overall (Sea Resources Management, 2010). The amount of recently killed coral was estimated to be low, indicating little impacts from bleaching, predation and other stresses, although live coral cover was reported to have decreased , possibly due to bleaching, which affected up to 90% of corals in 2010 (Reef Check Malaysia, 2011). Threats More than 80% of the coral reefs in Malaysia were considered to be threatened (Saad, 2012). Coastal construction, sewage, waste and agricultural runoff were considered the main threats in Peninsular Malaysia (Reef Check Malaysia, 2011; Saad, 2012; Sea Resources Management, 2010). Sedimentation was regarded as the main threat along the west coast, and disease and predation along the east coast (Sea Resources Management, 2010). The main threats in East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak) were considered to include over - and destructive fishing (Pilcher & Cabanban, 2000; Saad, 2012; Sea Resources Management, 2010), as well as sedimentation and pollution (Pilcher & Cabanban, 2000; Reef Check Malaysia, 2011). Storms and disturbances were regarded as a further threats (Pilcher and Cabanban, 2000; Wilkinson, 2008). Sea Resources Management (2010) considered ocean acidification and global warming as the most significant future threats. Protection and management No coral species are protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act of 2010 (Malaysia, 2010); however, collection of corals, anchoring and trawling were reported to be prohibited within Marine Parks (Reef Check Malaysia, 2011). The management of coral reefs was reported to fall under State regulations (up to three nautical miles off shore) and federal government jurisdiction (up to 200 nautical miles off shore) (Coral Triangle Initiative, 2012; Pilcher & Cabanban, 2000). No coral species are included in the list of protected species in the Wildlife Conservation Enactment (1997) of Sabah (Sabah Wildlife Department, 2012). All animal species listed in CITES Appendices I and II are included as protected in the Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1998 (Chapter 26) in the laws of Sarawak, making it illegal to take, keep or trade specimens without a licence (Forest Department Sarawak, 2012). Lack of resources and insufficient harmonisation between different departments were thought to limit the effectiveness of coral reef conservation (Pilcher & Cabanban, 2000), and the inefficient regulatory system was considered to leave the Malaysian reefs open to almost unlimited exploitation and destruction (Sea Resources Management, 2010). However, the Malaysian National Action Plan for the Coral Triangle Initiative emphasised sustainable trade in reef-based ornamentals, and the improvement of the status of coral species (Coral Triangle Initiative, 2009). 10

13 Overview of status and management of corals Wilkinson (2008) reported that in 2008, 7% of Malaysia s reefs were contained within Marine Protected Areas (MPA), with 16% of MPAs overall considered to be well-managed. Reef Check Malaysia (2011) noted that particularly in East Malaysia there was an urgent need to increase the area of protected reefs. Marshall Islands Trends and status The Marshall Island s reef area was estimated at 1995 km 2 (Chin et al., 2011), with coral cover ranging from 50% to 90% (Wilkinson, 2008). A total of 362 coral species were recorded (Chin et al., 2011). In 2008, the majority of reefs in the Marshall Islands were considered to be virtually pristine (Wilkinson, 2008). Based on long-term data, reefs were considered to be relatively healthy and showing high coral cover; local damage through human and natural impacts was noted (Chin et al., 2011). Chin et al. (2011) reported that 29% of the reefs were threatened by local pressures and thermal stress. The limited availability of long-term monitoring data did not allow the identification of trends over time; however the status of coral reefs was considered to be stable overall (although with a low confidence of assessment); the resilience of reefs was unclear (Chin et al., 2011). The composition and structure of coral communities in the Marshall Islands was considered to be unique and requiring protection through management (Waddell and Clarke, 2008). Threats Threats such as over- and destructive fishing or coral bleaching were reported to have left the Marshall Islands relatively unaffected, with the exception of Majuro, where coral diversity and cover had declined due to degradation and fishing pressure, coral disease and COTS; this local decline was expected to continue (Wilkinson, 2008). Caldwell et al., (2009), however, considered pollution, climate change and fishing to have severe impacts on reefs, with harvest for the aquarium trade assessed as a moderate threat. The export of reef resources for the aquarium trade was reported to have lead to overexploitation (Waddell and Clarke, 2008). Protection and management The Marshall Islands is not a Party to CITES; however, the Director of the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA) acts both as scientific institution for NDFs and the competent Authority for the issuance of permits (CITES, 2013). The Fisheries Act bans destructive fishing methods, such as the use of poison or explosives (Marshall Islands Consolidated Legislation, 2004). Corals, although not included in the list of protected species, were deemed to be worthy of conservation measures (OEPPC, 2008). Although the Marshall Islands were considered to have a substantial legislative basis for managing marine resources, whether it was adequate was noted to be unclear (Chin et al., 2011). Baseline data were reported to be available from a number of monitoring efforts since 2001, undertaken by a range of organizations (Chin et al., 2011), with long-term monitoring at Rongelap, Ailuk, Likiep, Majuro and Arno Atolls since 2006/2007 (Waddell and Clarke, 2008). One main operator and several smaller ones were reported to be involved in the marine aquarium fishery, with the majority of harvest being taken from the Majuro lagoon (Gillett, 2011). Small aquaculture farms were reported to culture coral fragments for the aquarium trade; however, they were considered boom and bust business[es] (Waddell and Clarke, 2008). The ventures operated by MIMRA on Majuro, Likiep, Arno and Mili were considered the most successful operations (Waddell and Clarke, 2008). Ocean Reefs and Aquarium s technique of mariculturing corals was noted to differ from other operations in the region, with the majority being grown in tanks (Teitelbaum et al., 2010). Marine Protected Areas, the majority being small, were reported to have been established in Bikini, Ailinginae, Rongelap and Rongerik atolls, with fisheries and/or management plans for Mili, Likiep, Arno, Ailuk and Majuro atolls being developed (Waddell and Clarke, 2008). The Bikini Atoll was included in the World Heritage sites list in 2010, primarily due to its historic significance (UNESCO, 11

14 Overview of status and management of corals 2013b); the atoll was reported to have a high coral cover, despite local extinctions (Chin et al., 2011). An action plan for the protection of marine areas was reported to have been completed in 2008 (Wilkinson, 2008). The Marshall Islands was reported to have pledged 30% of nearshore marine resources to be under effective conservation under the Micronesia Challenge (Waddell and Clarke, 2008). The lack of financial means and capacity was noted to afford appropriate protection of the outer atolls by the Marshall Islands (Wilkinson, 2008). Micronesia (Federated States of) Trends and status The Federated States of Micronesia s (FMS) reef area was estimated at km 2 (Chin et al., 2011). In 2008, coral reefs were considered to generally be in good to excellent condition (Waddell and Clarke, 2008), with coral cover of 40-60% reported from Kosrae (Wilkinson, 2008). Chin et al. (2011) reported that the majority of reefs were in good health (based on the limited data available), although reefs near population centres were damaged and 52% of reefs were considered to be threatened by local pressures and thermal stress. Insufficient data was available to assess the resilience of the reefs (Chin et al., 2011). A total of 204 coral species were reported to have been confirmed (Turak in prep. in Waddell and Clarke, 2008), with Houk and Starmer (2007) reporting 214 species from Yap; the FSM National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) refers to 350 species of stony corals (FSM, 2002b). Threats Threats such as coral bleaching and impacts from fishing, harvest of corals and tourism were considered to be minimal (Wilkinson, 2008). However, Houk and Leberer (2008) reported damage of corals from dynamite fishing and Chin et al. (2011) considered sedimentation and other human induced threats significant; impacts of destructive fishing methods were reported to threaten coral reefs locally, with natural disasters and COTS also affecting reefs. Caldwell et al., (2009) considered pollution, habitat destruction and fishing to have severe impacts on reefs in FSM, while harvest for the aquarium trade was not identified as a threat. Overexploitation through coral extraction, however, was considered a threat (FSM, 2002b). Protection and management FSM is not a Party to CITES; however, the Department of Resources and Development acts both as scientific institution for NDFs and the competent Authority for the issuance of permits (CITES, 2013). The four State governments are responsible for the management of the coastal fisheries, supported by the national government (FSM, 2002b; FSM, 2004). Two government agencies per State, a Marine Resources Division (MRD) and an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Chin et al., 2011), with input from local/regional organizations, were reported to manage coral reefs (Wilkinson, 2008). However, it was noted that while new fisheries laws had been passed in Yap and Kosrae, these were still to be adopted in Pohnpei and Chuuk (FSM, 2004). Pohnpei was reported to have adopted a Marine Protected Areas Act (FSM, 2004). The four States were reported to collect fisheries data to a very limited degree, with data not being analysed (FSM, 2004). Furthermore, lack of management arrangements and enforcement were also noted (FSM, 2004). The use of explosives or poison for fishing does not appear to be prohibited (Marine Resources Act of 2002, Code of the Federated States of Micronesia on Conservation of Marine Species (FSM, 2002a)). The management of reef resources and enforcement was noted to face significant challenges due to lack of capacity and resources (Caldwell et al., 2009). However, more recent reef management efforts were considered to be promising, although their effectiveness was noted to be unclear (Chin et al., 2011). Monitoring programmes have been running for different numbers of years in the four States and have focused on different reef resources (Waddell and Clarke, 2008). In 2003, a Blueprint for Conserving the Biodiversity of the Federated States of Micronesia was drafted (Anon., 2003) and in 2006, FSM pledged under the Micronesia Challenge to Effectively conserving at least 30% of the near-shore marine resources and 20% of the terrestrial resources across Micronesia by 2020 (Waddell and Clarke, 2008). 12

15 Overview of status and management of corals Protected area networks were reported to be under development by all States; Pohnpei has established 11 marine sanctuaries; in Kosrae five areas were managed by communities; Chuuk was reported to have commenced conservation work in a number of areas and Yap has one locally managed marine area (Wilkinson, 2008). Utwe and And Atoll became UNESCO Biosphere Reserves in 2005 and 2007, respectively (UNESCO, 2013a). Burke et al. (2011) estimated that less than 1% of FSMs reefs were protected (MPAs). The Marine and Environmental Research Institute of Pohnpei (MERIP), a not-for-profit organization, was reported to farm corals by growing broodstock and distributing fragments (not collected from the wild) of three species of soft coral and two Acropora species to 12 provincial farmers, who received training and the equipment to farm the fragments (Lecaillon, 2009). The corals, bought back by MERIP, were reported to then be mainly sold to regional wholesalers, with the Marshall Islands Mariculture Farm being the major buyer (Lecaillon, 2009). The mariculture of a further four species of hard coral were reported to be under development (Lecaillon, 2009). New Caledonia (France) Trends and status New Caledonia, surrounded by the world s second largest barrier reef (McKenna et al., 2009), was estimated to have a coral reef area of 7284 km 2, with an average coral cover of 27% (5-48% across 10 sites) in 2008 (Wilkinson, 2008). Coral cover monitored at six sites around Nouméa was considered healthy, despite fluctuations over the years (Wilkinson, 2008). In 2007, almost half (49%, N=53) of reef sites assessed in the north-western lagoon of Province Nord were considered to be in good to very good health and 24.5% in excellent condition, while 19% were in fair and 7.5% in poor condition (McKenna et al., 2009). McKenna et al. (2009) reported 377 species of corals to occur in New Caledonia. Coral cover was reported to have remained stable at most monitoring sites, with increases or decreases in some sites (Chin et al. 2011). The resilience of reefs was considered reasonably good, with recovery after disturbances observed many times, although the low recruitment rates were thought to indicate naturally low capacity of reefs to recover from disturbances (Chin et al. 2011). In 2011, Chin et al. (2011) reported that 57% of reefs were at risk through local threats and thermal stress. Threats Land-based pollution (Tribollet et al., 2011), habitat destruction and climate change were considered to be severe threats to reefs, while harvest for the aquarium trade was not identified as a threat (Caldwell et al., 2009). Sedimentation from mining activities was noted to threaten corals (Tribollet et al., 2011), particularly in near-shore reef of north-west Grande-Terre and was considered the most severe stressor affecting reefs (McKenna et al., 2009). COTS was reported to have affected coral sites (Wilkinson, 2008); however, the prevalence of coral disease was found to be low (Tribollet et al., 2011). Protection and management New Caledonia, a dependent territory of France (CITES, 2013), was reported to have begun managing aspects related to CITES (previously managed by France) in 2010 (Kinch et al., 2011). A strategic assessment of the marine environment was reported to be in process, involving a wide range of stakeholders, which was intended to provide data, inform management targets and result in action points (Agence des Aires Marines Protégées, 2012). Environmental laws and policies were reported to be the responsibility of each [of the three] provinces (IUCN, 2009); Environment Codes were developed in 2008 for the North Province (Province Nord, 2008), in 2009 for the South Province (Province Sud, 2013) and the Loyalty Islands Province was planning to adopt their code in 2012 (Province des îles Loyauté, 2011). Rural communes were reported to manage their coastal area, with provincial authorities governing the area from 300 m to 12 nautical miles from shore; the territory s government being responsible for anything beyond that (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Regular monitoring of reefs was reported to have started in the late 1990s (Chin et al. 2011). 13

16 Overview of status and management of corals In 2008, 60% of the total reef area of New Caledonia was listed as a World Heritage Site, due to its diversity and high natural value (Wilkinson, 2008). Govan (2009) reported that with 0.9% of the New Caledonian Exclusive Economic Zone protected, the country was among the few in the region within reach of the 1.5% mark representing the global average. More than 35% of the continental shelf was reported to be Marine Managed Areas (Govan, 2009) and Chin et al. (2011) thought marine management and governance to show an increasingly positive trend ; the discrepancies in number and status of MPAs were noted to be due to a lack of country level assessments. Solomon Islands Trends and status The Solomon Island s coral reef area was estimated at 5750 km 2, with an average coral cover of 30% in 2008 (Wilkinson, 2008); in 2004, coral covers of 29-47% were reported from the six main islands, with cover decreasing from east to west (Green et al., 2006). A total of 496 species of hard coral records were reported from the Solomon Islands (Chin et al., 2011), the second highest diversity globally after Raja Ampat in Indonesia (Green et al., 2006). The Solomon Islands Marine Assessment, noted to be the first in-depth survey of Solomon Island corals, was undertaken in 2004 and concluded that the country s marine habitats/reefs were in good condition (Green et al., 2006). Localized degradation of reefs was assessed as low to moderate (Green et al., 2006). Chin et al. (2011) considered survey data to be limited, but reported that it showed high coral cover and relatively low levels of pollution, although noting locally increasing exploitation. In 2011, Chin et al. (2011) considered 82% of the reef area to be threatened by local threats and thermal stress. In 2012, coral harvest was reported to have led to reef degradation locally, with higher value species found to have declined (Albert et al., 2012b). The status of coral reefs was believed to be stable (confidence in assessment noted to be low), although more monitoring was considered to be needed to ensure an adequate assessment of coral reef status; insufficient information was available to assess the resilience of reefs (Chin et al., 2011). Threats Burke et al. (2011) considered overfishing/destructive fishing and land-based pollution to be the main threats to coral reefs, while Green et al. (2006) considered damage by COTS to be the main threat. Mining for coral lime (mainly Acropora spp. for the production of betel nut lime (Albert et al., 2012a)) was also considered to be of concern (Pacific Horizon Consultancy Group, 2008; Whippy-Morris, 2009), as was the collection of reef resources for the aquarium trade (Chin et al., 2011), which was assessed to have a moderate impact on reefs (Caldwell et al., 2009). Risks to reefs overall were thought likely to be increasing (Chin et al., 2011), due to rapid (human) population growth (Green et al., 2006). Protection and management The Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998 implements the requirements of CITES; however, it does not appear to restrict the trade and export of corals (National Parliament of Solomon Islands, 1998). The Fisheries Act 1998 prohibits the use of explosives or poison for fishing and the export of live corals without a licence (Solomon Islands, 1998). Traditional management through tenure and ownership was considered very important for the management of coral reefs (Sulu et al., 2000), with further studies on these systems required, particularly considering the strong dependency of communities on reef resources (Chin et al., 2011). Although community management efforts such as the Locally Managed Maine Areas were considered to be promising, the overall efficacy of management was unknown (Chin et al., 2011). One operator (Aquarium Arts Solomon Islands) was reported to hold a licence to export live corals, and a further two operators had licences to export curios; over time, the curio coral trade was noted to have become more significant than the trade in live specimens (Trinidad et al., 2012). Corals were reported to be mainly sourced from Ngella [Central Province] (Kinch, 2004; Teitelbaum, 2007), thus limiting the impact of harvest to localized areas (Albert et al., 2012b). However, Albert et al. (2012a) noted that very little information had been collected to assess the sustainability of coral harvest 14

17 Overview of status and management of corals for trade and that the proposed National Coral Management Plan required baseline surveys at primary harvest sites. The Coral Gardens Solomon Islands project was reported to aim at capacity building in coral culture, coral reef conservation and habitat enhancement (Kinch, 2004). However, mariculture was reported to account for less than 5% of the corals harvested in the Solomon Islands, and the failure of export licences to distinguish between wild and maricultured specimens was thought to reduce incentives to culture corals (Albert et al., 2012a). The understanding of national fisheries regulations and resource management issues was reported to be poor locally and the extensive coastlines were leading to difficulties with the enforcement of regulations (Wilkinson, 2008; Pacific Horizon Consultancy Group, 2008). Albert et al. (2012b) flagged the need for policy that addresses impacts of coral harvesting. Furthermore, the authors found dynamite fishing to still be practised locally, despite the prohibition (Albert et al., 2012a). Burke et al. (2011) estimated that 6% of the Solomon Islands reefs were protected. East Rennell (37 000ha), part of the southernmost island of the Solomon Islands, was declared a World Heritage site in 1998; the island was noted to be under customary ownership and protected under the National Protected Areas Act (2010), with Provincial Ordinance and local regulations and by-laws empowering traditional owners (UNESCO, 2013b). Tonga Trends and status In 2011, Chin et al. (2011) reported a total reef area of 1500 km 2, with only occasional survey data available, showing relatively low coral cover. Coral covers recorded ranged from 2%-50% in 1997 (MPCJ, 1997; in Lovell and Palaki, 2002); 13-15% in 2005 (Vieux, 2005); 28% in 2008 (Friedman et al., 2009), and an average of 14% in 2009 from sites in northern Tongatapu (Chin et al., 2011). Lovell and McLardy (2008) reported 189 species records for Tonga, while Chin et al. (2011) reported 192 and Tonga (2010) reported 218 species. While sites monitored in 2002 and again in 2008 were reported to show an increase of coral cover (Friedman et al., 2009), Tonga (2010) reported drastic declines. The limited data available was noted to make it difficult to identify a trend in coral cover, with reports ranging from declines to increasing trends (Chin et al., 2011). The availability of data over time was considered to be insufficient to assess long-term trends of coral reefs and resilience of reefs; however, it was noted that reef resources appear to have declined overall and that 75% of reefs were considered to be threatened by local pressures and thermal stress (Chin et al., 2011). Threats Degradation, overfishing, destructive harvest/fishing techniques, and natural threats were noted to affect reefs (Lovell and Palaki, 2002). Habitat destruction and climate change were thought to have severe impacts on reefs in Tonga (Caldwell et al., 2009). Pollution was also reported and overfishing was considered a significant threat affecting invertebrate stocks (Chin et al., 2011). Caldwell et al. (2009) considered harvest for the aquarium trade to be a moderate threat. Threats to coral reefs were thought to be increasing (Chin et al., 2011). Protection and management Tonga is not a Party to CITES, however the Research and Aquaculture Centre at the Fisheries Division acts as a scientific institution for non-detriment findings and the Fisheries Division is the competent Authority for the issuance of permits (CITES, 2013). The use of destructive harvest techniques for corals is prohibited under the Fisheries Management (Conservation) Regulations 2008, which also lay down the requirement of licences for the take of aquarium fish and that harvest is to be in line with the relevant management and development plans (Tonga, 2008). The use of scuba equipment is prohibited without a licence (Fisheries Management & Planning Section, 2008). Permits are required for export of corals (Kingdom of Tonga, 2002). However, 15

18 Overview of status and management of corals coastal fisheries management was reported to be enacted by the capital, with little effect on implementation in other islands (Gillett, 2011). In 2008, the Department of Fisheries banned the harvest and export of live rock (Tonga, 2010) in order to protect the ecosystem (Fisheries Management & Planning Section, 2008) and reduced the weekly quota for coral harvest from 300 to 150 pieces per company (Tonga, 2008). An issuance of annual quotas by species for each company was recommended, in order to avoid stock depletion (Fisheries Management & Planning Section, 2008). The Marine Aquarium Fishery Management Plan was reported to aim at establishing a precautionary approach of this fishery, encouraging aquaculture of aquarium products and community based management of the fishery (Fisheries Management & Planning Section, 2008). A maximum harvest and export size of 20 cm was applied to a number of genera, including Acropora, Pocillopora, Merulina and Seriatopora (Fisheries Management & Planning Section, 2008). Aquaculture operations need to be licenced and the Aquaculture Management Act 2003 lays down further requirements for the industry (Kingdom of Tonga, 2003). Live rock and a number of coral species were reported to be cultured (Tonga, 2010). However, regulations in general were noted to be poorly understood and enforcement was found to be difficult (Lovell and Palaki, 2002). While a number of community-based management initiatives were reported to have resulted in promising results, the establishment of effective legislation, enforcement and management were highlighted to pose significant challenges in Tonga (Chin et al., 2011). In Tonga, five (maximum number permitted) operators (Walt Smith International [one of the main operators of the industry in Fiji], Dateline Aquarium Fish Export, South Pacific Paradise Export, Jay Hawk and Island Tropical) were reported to be involved in the aquarium fishery (Fisheries Management & Planning Section, 2008). Harvest of live hard coral was reported to be restricted to Ualanga Lalo, Ualanga Uta, Mounu; Onevai, Onevao, Velitoa; and reefs from Motutapu islet to Tau islet to [all off the northern coast of Tongatapu] (Fisheries Management & Planning Section, 2008). Harvest in Marine Protected Areas (Hakaumama o Reef, Reef s surrounding Malinoa Island and Mounuafe, Pangaimotu, Ha atafu Reefs), all located in the north of Tongatapu, was reported to be prohibited, as well as harvest from Fafa, Atata, Eueiki and Eua; island Groups of Vava u and Ha apai and from and fringing reefs of Tongatapu (Fisheries Management & Planning Section, 2008). Vanuatu Trends and status Vanuatu s coral reef area was estimated at 4114 km 2, with an average coral cover of 26% (2-50% across 11 sites) in 2008 (Wilkinson, 2008). Vanuatu reefs were believed to contain 295 species of hard corals (Chin et al., 2011) and the colonisation of the country s coral reefs was thought to be assisted by dispersal from the Solomon Islands and the Australian GBR (Done and Navin, 1990; in Naviti and Aston, 2000). The availability of data over time was considered to be insufficient to assess the status and long-term trends of coral reefs; similarly, the resilience of reefs was unknown, although recovery after destructive events had been observed locally (Chin et al., 2011). In 2011, 92% of the reef area was found to be threatened by local threats and thermal stress (Chin et al., 2011). Threats The Center for Ocean Solutions (2009) reported that main threats affecting coral reefs included sedimentation, fishing and natural disasters; harvest for the aquarium trade was considered to have a low impact. However, other authors considered overutilization to be the main threat to coral reefs in Vanuatu (Whippy-Morris, 2009), with coral mining noted to be of concern, and collection of reef resources for the aquarium trade of potential concern (Chin et al., 2011). Amos (2007) noted that the export of live corals may pose a threat in the absence of monitoring and strict management, and although the level of exploitation of corals was not considered a threat, it was recommended that the resource be safeguarded now for future direction and development. Threats to coral reefs were thought to be increasing (Chin et al., 2011). 16

19 Overview of status and management of corals Protection and management The Department of Fisheries is responsible for the management and control of fishery resources (Government of Vanuatu, 2011) and has developed a National Marine Aquarium Trade Management Plan in 2008 (Vanuatu Department of Fisheries, 2009). The Fisheries Act No. 55 prohibits the harvest of corals within marine reserves and use of explosives or poison for fishing (Republic of Vanuatu, 2005). The number of export operators for reef resources was reported to be limited to four, and subject to a one operator, one area policy ; however, the export of wild-sourced corals was reported to be prohibited (Vanuatu Department of Fisheries, 2009). Chin et al. (2011) pointed out that efforts to reduce the dependence on wild caught species and support their populations through the aquaculture were being made. Export of farmed corals was reported to be only permitted if clearly showing growth around their base and if their source was known (Vanuatu Department of Fisheries, 2009). Facilities are subject to requirements laid down in the National Marine Aquarium Trade Management Plan, including the maintenance of records on water quality and mortality (not to exceed 3%), specifications on holding facilities, and need for EIA s where applicable (Vanuatu Department of Fisheries, 2009). Land to the edge of the reef was reported to be the property of the native ni-vanuatu people, therefore providing for customary ownership of land (Amos, 2007). However, this was noted to be in conflict with provisions of the Fisheries Act, affecting collaboration of communities with the Fisheries Department (Chin et al., 2011). Furthermore, land reform legislation was reported to have introduced the sale of land to foreign investors under lease agreements (Govan, 2009). While legislation for the management of coral reefs was reported to be in place, its effectiveness was found to be unclear, although positive results from community based efforts were noted (Chin et al., 2011). In 2009, locally managed marine areas (LMMA) were reported to cover 58 km 2 ; 89 km 2 of marine areas were set aside as no-take zones (Govan, 2009). The Department of Fisheries was reported to have initiated a Coral Reef Monitoring Program in 1998 (Amos, 2007) and routine monitoring of the marine aquarium fishery was to be undertaken in line with the Vanuatu National Marine Aquarium Trade Management Plan (Vanuatu Department of Fisheries, 2009). Monitoring of coral reefs was however noted to be sporadic and subject to a number of challenges (Chin et al., 2011), mainly lack of funding and capacity (Whippy-Morris, 2009). Severe damage of corals around Aore Island and Santo through predation by COTS led to an eradication and awareness program by the Department of Fisheries for Aore Island (Amos, 2007). A Marine Protected Area Network, Nguna-Pele, in central Vanuatu was reported to be community managed, with management measures ranging from permanent closures to periodical harvests (Wilkinson, 2008); overall, at least 80 villages were estimated to be managing marine protected areas (Chin et al., 2011). REFERENCES Adjeroud, M., Fernandez, J. M., Carroll, A. G., Harrison, P. L., and Penin, L Spatial patterns and recruitment processes of coral assemblages among contrasting environmental conditions in the southwestern lagoon of New Caledonia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 61 (7-12): Agence des Aires Marines Protégées Vers une gestion intégrée de l'espace maritime de la Nouvelle- Calédonie. Agence des Aires Marines Protégées and Gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Albert, J. A., Trinidad, A., Boso, D., and Schwarz, A. J. 2012a. Coral reef economic valuation and incentives for coral farming in Solomon Islands. Policy Brief. CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. Penang, Malaysia. AAS Albert, J. A., Trinidad, A., Cabral, R., and Boso, D. 2012b. Economic value of coral reed in Solomon Islands: Case-study findings from coral trade and non-coral trade communities. The WorldFish Center. Solomon Islands. Amos, M. J Vanuatu fishery resource profiles. IWP-Pacific Technical Report (International Waters Project) no.49. SPREP. Anon A Blueprint for conserving the biodiversity of the Federated States of Micronesia. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008a. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. WG9-CS4-S Summary. URL: 17

20 Overview of status and management of corals Documentos/WG-CS/WG9-AquaticInvertebrates/WG9-CS4%20Queensland/WG9-CS4- S.pdf. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan.B, Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008b. Non-detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. WG9-CS4. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings. Cancun, Mexico, November Australian Government. 2012a. Declaration of an Approved Wildlife Trade Operation Northern Territorr Aquarium Fishery. Gazette No 183 of Australian Government. 2012b. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve URL: Accessed: Banks, S. A. and Harriott, V. J Coral Communities of the Gneering Shoals and Mudjimba Island, South-eastern Queensland. Marine Freshwater Research, 46: Bentley, N., An overview of the exploitation, trade and management of corals in Indonesia. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 17(2). Burke, Reytar, K., Spalding, M., and Perry, A Reefs at Risk Revisited. World Resources Institute. Washington DC. Cairns Marine About our industry URL: Accessed: Caldwell, M., Churcher Hoffmann, T., Palumbi, S., Teisch, J., and Tu, C Pacific Ocean Synthesis: Scientific Literature Review of Coastal and Ocean Threats, Impacts and Solutions. The Woods Center for the Environment. Stanford University, California. Carpenter, K. E., Abrar, M., Aeby, G., Aronson, R. B., Banks, S., Bruckner, A., Chiriboga, A., Cortes, J., Delbeek, J. C., DeVantier, L., Edgar, G. J., Edwards, A. J., Fenner, D., Guzman, H. M., Hoeksema, B. W., Hodgson, G., Johan, O., Licuanan, W. Y., Livingstone, S. R., Lovell, E. R., Moore, J. A., Obura, D. O., Ochavillo, D., Polidoro, B. A., Precht, W. F., Quibilan, M. C., Reboton, C., Richards, Z. T., Rogers, A. D., Sanciangco, J., Sheppard, A., Sheppard, C., Smith, J., Stuart, S., Turak, E., Veron, J. E. N., Wallace, C., Weil, E., and Wood, E One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science, 321 (5888): Chin, A., Lison de Loma, T., Reytar, K., Planes, S., Gerhardt, K., Clua, E., Burke, L., and Wilkinson, C Status of Coral Reefs of the Pacific and Outlook. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. CITES National contacts and information URL: Accessed: Comley, J., Dowell, M., and Raines, P Mamanuca Islands Coral Reef Conservation Project. Year Three Report. Coral Cay Conservation Ltd. London, UK. Coral Triangle Initiative Malaysia draft national plan of action. Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Coral Triangle Initiative State of the Coral Triangle - report highlights Malaysia. Côté, I. M. and Reynolds, J. D Coral reef conservation. Cambridge University Press. DEEDI. 2009a. Coral Stress Response Plan for the Coral and Marine Aquarium Fish Fisheries. State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. DEEDI. 2009b. State of Queensland. Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report Coral fishery. DEEDI The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report Coral Fishery. URL: DEEDI The State of Queensland. Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report Coral Fishery. Department of Fisheries Marine Aquarium Fish Managed Fishery. Government of Western Australia Department of Fisheries. ESD Report Series No.8. Department of Fisheries Recreational fishing guide Government of Western Australia, Department of Fisheries. DEWHA. 2008a. Australian Government. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Assessment of the Western Australian marine aquarium fish managed fishery. DEWHA 2008b. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and The Arts. Australian Government. Assessment of the Northern Territory aquarium fishery. June

21 Overview of status and management of corals DEWHA 2008c. Australian Government. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Declaration of an approved Wildlife Trade Operation. Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S126, 27 June 2008.DFWA Department of Fisheries Government of Western Australia. Review of recreational take of coral in Western Australia. A discussion paper. Fisheries Management Paper No URL: DFWA Department of Fisheries Western Australia. Statewide ecosystem based fisheries management. Identification of State-wide ecological assets used in the EBFM framework. State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10. Dirhamsyah, Analysis of the effectiveness of Indonesia s coral reef management framework. University of Wollongong. Dirhamsyah, D., Indonesian legislative framework for coastal resources management: A critical review and recommendation. Ocean & Coastal Management, (49), pp Done, T. J. and Navin, K. F Vanuatu Marine Resources: Report of a biological survey. A project of the Australian International development Assistance Bureau. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. 272 pp. Donnelly, R Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Queensland Marine Aquarium Supply Industry. ProVision Reef. Donnelly, R Climate change vulnerability assessment: Queensland marine aquarium supply industry, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville. Research Publication 108. DPIF Queensland Government. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Policy for the Management of the Coral Fishery. January DPIF Northern Territory Government's Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. Northern Territory Aquarium Fishery Re-assessment Report - September DPIF Northern Territory Government. Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. Aquarium Fishery Status Report Fishery Report No DPIF Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. Aquarium Fishing and Display Fishery URL: 20Fishing%20and%20Display%20Fishery Accessed: DSEWPC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Coral Sea conservation zone URL: Accessed: DSEWPC 2012a. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Declaration of an approved wildlife trade operation. DSEWPC. 2012b. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Assessment of the Queensland Coral Fishery. Fiji An Act to regulate and control the international trade, domestic trade, possession and transportation of species protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and for related matters of 23 December Fiji Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests Fisheries Act. Fiji consolidated legislation, chapter 158 URL: Accessed: Fisheries Management & Planning Section Marine Aquarium Fishery Management Plan. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture & Food, Forest and Fisheries, Government of the Kingdom of Tonga. Fletcher, W. J. and Santoro, K Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2011/12: The State of the Fisheries. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. Forest Department Sarawak Protected Animals of Sarawak URL: d=206 Accessed: Friedman, K., Pinca, S., Kronen, M., Boblin, P., Chapman, L., Magron, F., Vunisea, A., and Labrosse, P Tonga country report: Profiles and results from survey work at Ha'atufu, Manuka, Koulo and Lofanga. Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Noumea, New Caledonia. FSM 2002a. Marine Resources Act of FSM. 2002b. The Federated States of Micronesia NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. FSM Federated States of Micronesia's Strategic Development Plan ( ). 19

22 Overview of status and management of corals Gillett, R Fisheries of the Pacific Islands. Regional and national information. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok. Govan, H Status and potential of locally-managed marine areas in the South Pacific: meeting nature conservation and sustainable livelihood targets through wide-spread implementation of LMMAs. SPREP/WWF/WorldFish-Reefbase/CRISP. Noumea. URL: 09/Default.aspx. Government of Vanuatu Ministry of Agriculture. URL: Accessed: Green, A., Lokani, P., Atu, W., Ramhoia, P., Thomas, P., and Almany, J Solomon Islands Marine Assessment. Technical report of survey conducted May 13-June 17, The Nature Conservancy Pacific Island Countries Report No. 1/06. GCRMN, Status of coral reefs in East Asian seas region: Handley, A. J Fishery status reports Northern Territory Government Department of Resources. Fishery Report No URL: Harborne, A., Fenner, D., Barnes, A., Beger, M., Harding, S. and Roxburgh, T Status report on the coral reefs of the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Coral Cay Conservation Ltd., Marine Parks Section Department of Fisheries Malaysia, UNDP-GEF. Harriot, V. J The sustainability of Queensland's coral harvest fishery. CRC Reef Research Centre Technical Report No. 40. CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville, Australia. Houk, P. and Leberer, T Rapid Ecological Assessment of Chuuk, Hall, and Mortlock Islands, Chuuk State, Federated States of Micronesia. Quantitative Assessment of Coral-Reef Assemblages and Coral Species Richness. Pacific Marine Resources Institute, The Nature Conservancy. Houk, P. and Starmer, J Rapid Ecological Assessment for Yap, Ngulu, and Ulithi. Yap State, Federated States of Micronesia. Quantitative Assessments of Coral-Reef Assemblages and Macroinvertebrate Abundances. Pacific Marine Resources Institute. Saipan, MP International Trade Subgroup International Trade in Coral and Coral Reef Species: The Role of the United States. Report of the Trade Subgroup of the International Working Group to the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force March 2, Washington, D.C. URL: IUCN New Caledonia Welcomes New Environmental Code URL: ew-caledonia-welcomes-environmental-code Accessed: Kinch, J The Marine Aquarium Trade in the Solomon Islands. Marine Aquarium Council, Suva, Fiji. 9 pp. Kinch, J., Teitelbaum, A., and Pippard, H Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Trade in Corals and Determining Non-detrimental Findings, May 2010, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Secretariat of the Pacific Community. SPC Aquaculture Technical Papers. Kingdom of Tonga Fisheries Management Act. Kingdom of Tonga Aquaculture Management Act. Lal, P. and Cerelala, A Financial and economic analysis of wild harvest and cultured live coral and lice rock in Fiji. Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International, Suva, Fiji; South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa; Department of Environment, Ministry of Lands & Mineral Resources, Republic of Fiji Islands. Lecaillon, G PCC for the Marine Aquarium Trade in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). Component 2A - Project 2A1. Post-larval capture and culture development. Pre-feasibility Study. CRISP. Noumea New Caledonia. Lovell, E. 2003a. Baseline and general stock monitoring survey of Motunikeasulua Reefs, Cakauvakababa-i- Yata Reef., Nakubu Reef - East lagoons and reef flat Yakauke Reef. off-shore from Lautoka : August Biological Consultants. Fiji. Lovell, E National Management Plan for the Aquarium Trade in Fiji. SPC/SPREP/CRISP Subregional workshop for the marine ornamental trade 2-5 December Lovell, E Live Coral Fishery for Aquaria in Fiji: Sustainability and Management. Regional Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings for Marine Listed Species, May 17-20,

23 Overview of status and management of corals Lovell, E. and Tumuri, M Provisional Environmental Impact Assessment for the Extraction of Coral Reef Products for the Marine Aquarium and Curio Trade in Fiji. A report prepared for the Fisheries Division, Government of Fiji. Fiji. Lovell, E. and Whippy-Morris, C Live Coral Fishery for Aquaria in Fiji: Sustainability and Management. Lovell, E. R. 2003b. Ecosystem and Fishery Management (EFM) Plan Information for the Marine Aquarium Council's Collection Area Management Plan (CAMP) for Walt Smith International, Fiji. Biological Consultants. Fiji. Lovell, E. R. and McLardy, C Annotated checklist of the CITES-listed corals of Fiji with reference to Vanuatu, Tonga, Samoa and American Samoa. JNCC report No Lovell, E. R. and Palaki, A National coral reef status report Tonga. Prepared by the International Ocean Institute (IOI), South Pacific and the Kiribati Fisheries Division for the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) and the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP). Malaysia. (2010). Wildlife Conservation Act 716 (of 2010). Manoa, P. E Adaptation of Fiji's Legislative Framework for the Trade in Aquarium Fish - Part 2- Proposals for improvement. CRISP Coordinating Unit. Noumea, New Caledonia. Marshall Islands Consolidated Legislation Fisheries Act. Title 51 - Management of marine resources. Chapter 2. Fisheries. McKenna, S. A., Baillon, N., and Spaggiari, J A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of the coral reefs of the northwest lagoon, between Koumac and Yandé, Province Nord, New Caledonia. Conservation International. Arlington, VA, USA. RAP Bulleting of Biological Assessment 53. Ministry of Forestry, Act of the Republic of Indonesia concerning conservation of living resources and their ecosystems, Jakarta, Indonesia: Ministry of Forestry. MPCJ Marine Parks Centre of Japan. The Report of the project for Resources Survey and Conservation of Tongan Marine Reserves. Marine Parks Center of Japan and Min. of Lands, Survey and Natural Resources. Tonga. National Parliament of Solomon Islands Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998 (No. 10 of 1998). Naviti, W. and Aston, J Status of coral reef and reef fish resources in Vanuatu. Regional Symposium on Coral Reefs in the Pacific: Status and Monitoring; Resources and Management May 2000, Noumea, New Caledonia. NRETA. 2010a. Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport. Northern Territory Government. Conservation planning URL: Accessed: a. NRETA. 2010b. Northern Territory Government. Department of Natural Resources, Environments and the Arts. Fact Sheet: Corals in the Northern Territory URL: Accessed: b. NT Northern Territory of Australia. Fisheries Act as in force 16 September NT Northern Territory of Australia. Fisheries Regulation as in force at 1 January OEPPC RMI Office of Environmental Planning and Policy Coordination. Republic of the Marshall Islands Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism. Animals and Plants of the Marshall Islands Deemed Worthy of Conservation Considerations URL: (CNIDARIANS) Accessed: Pacific Horizon Consultancy Group Solomon Islands State of Environment Report. Ministry of Environment Conservation and Meteorology. Honiara, Solomon Islands. Pilcher, N., & Cabanban, A. (2000). The status of coral reefs in Eastern Malaysia. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, Australian Institute of Marine Science Province des îles Loyauté La réglementation environnementale URL: Accessed: Province Nord Code de l'environnement de la Province Nord. Province Sud Code de l'environnement de la Province Sud. QG Queensland Government. Harvest fisheries - Coral Fishery. URL: Accessed:

24 Overview of status and management of corals QPC Queensland Parliamentary Counsel. Fisheries Regulation 2008 as in force on 1 October Reef Check Malaysia. (2011). Status of coral reefs in Malaysia Republic of Indonesia, Jenis-jenis tumbuhan dan satwa yang dilindungi. Lampiran peraturan pemerintah Republik Indonesia - Nomor 7 Tahun 1999, Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Republic of Vanuatu Fisheries Act no. 55 of Roelofs, A Ecological risk assessment of the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Roelofs, A. and Silcock, R A vulnerability assessment of coral taxa collected in the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Saad, J. M. (2012). State of the Coral Triangle report (SCTR): Malaysia. Draft final report, April Samedi and Liman, P.D Management measures and CITES trade controls for the stony coral trade in Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Trade in Stony Corals: Development of sustainable management guidelines. April 9-12, Jakarta, Indonesia. Scaps, P., Denis, V., Berhimpon, S. and Runtukahu, F Zooxanthellate Scleractinian corals of the northern coast of Sulawesi. Atoll Research Bulletin, (553). Sea Resources Management. (2010). Malaysia Ocean Policy ( ) - State of the marine environment report (SOMER). Sheppard, C. R. C., Davy, S. K., and Piling, G. M Biology of Coral Reefs. Biology of habitat series. Oxford University Press. Sly, S. and Errity, C Wild harvest fisheries. Aquarium fishery status report Solomon Islands Fisheries Act 1998 (No. 6 of 1998). State of Western Australia Fish Resource Management Act Prohibition on fishing (coral, 'live rock' and algae) Order Order No. 11 of 2007 under Section Government Gazette WA. Sulu, R., Hay, C., Ramohia, P., and Lam, M The Status of Solomon Islands' Coral Reefs. A Report prepared for the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Sweatman, H., Cheal, A., Coleman, G., Emslie, M., Johns, K., Jonker, M., Miller, I., and Osborne, K Long-term monitoring of the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Institute of Marine Sciences. Status Report Number 8, URL: Teitelbaum, A Coral uses and perspectives on sustainable development in Solomon Islands. SPC Fisheries Newsletter # pp. Teitelbaum, A., Kinch, J., Ponia, B., and Clua, E Cultured marine ornamentals - What's in it for the Pacific? SPC. C{S. Timotius, S., Idris and Syahrir, M., A review on ornamental coral farming effort in Indonesia. In International Ocean Science, Technology and Policy Symposium, World Ocean Conference Manado, May Tonga Fisheries Management (Conservation) Regulations Tonga Fourth Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): Review of Tonga National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Tonga. Tribollet, A., Aeby, G., and Work, T Survey and determination of coral and coralline algae diseases/lesions in the lagoon of New Caledonia. Studies of coral diseases in New Caledonia. Scientific Report. CRISP. New Caledonia. Component 3D - Project 3D3. Trinidad, A., Albert, J., and Boso, D Aquarium and curio coral trade in the Solomon Islands. Global, national and community perspectives. The WorldFish Center. Solomon Islands. Report 2 of the research project "Economic valuation of coral reeds and development of sustainable financing options in the Solomon Islands". Turak, E. and DeVantier, L., Reef-building corals of Bunaken National Park, North Sulawesi, Indonesia: Rapid ecological assessment of biodiversity and status. International Ocean Institute Regional Centre for Australia & the Western Pacific UNEP-WCMC Lagoons of New Caledonia: Reef diversity and associated ecosystems, New Caledonia, France. UNESCO. 2013a. Biosphere Reserves - Learning Sites for Sustainable Development URL: Accessed: a. 22

25 Overview of status and management of corals UNESCO. 2013b. World Heritage List URL: Accessed: b. Vanuatu Department of Fisheries Vanuatu National Marine Aquarium Trade Management Plan. Noumea, New Caledonia, SPC Headquarters. Veron, J. E. N Coral survey at selected sites in Arnhem Land. Townsville, Produced for National Oceans Office. Veron, J. E. N A Reef in Time. The Great Barrier Reef from Beginning to End. Belknap Press. Veron, J. E. N., Alderslade, P., and Harris, P Corals. In: National Oceans Office. Description of key species groups in the Northern Planning Area. National Oceans Office Hobart, Australia. Vieux, C Coral reef surveys in Vava'u, Kingdom of Tonga, September 26th-October 7th CRIOBE Research Centre/CRISP. Moorea, French Polynesia. Waddell, J. E. and Clarke, A. M The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment's Biogeography Team. Silver Spring MD. 569 pp. URL: Whippy-Morris, C South-West Pacific Status of Coral Reefs Report CRISP. Component 2A - Prroject 2A2. Wilkinson, C Status of Coral Reefs of the world: Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Wilkinson, C Status of Coral Reefs of the World: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, Australia. 23

26 Heliopora coerulea REVIEW OF CORAL SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS ANTHOZOA HELIOPORIDAE SPECIES: Heliopora coerulea SYNONYMS: Heliopora compressa, Madrepora coerulea COMMON NAMES: Blue Coral (English) RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, China, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Fiji, Guam, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: People s Republic of China IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Viet Nam formed on 09/03/2006 and for Indonesia formed on 30/06/2009. Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997 and removed for American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Fiji, Guam, India, Japan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Seychelles, Singapore, Tuvalu and Vanuatu on 02/12/2011. Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from the Solomon Islands first applied on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 10/09/2012. Previous negative opinion for the Solomon Islands formed on 12/06/2006. TRADE PATTERNS: People s Republic of China (including Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR and Taiwan, Province of China): The People s Republic of China (hereafter referred to as China) has not published any export quotas for Heliopora coerulea. There were no reported direct or indirect imports to the EU-27 of H. coerulea originating in China Direct trade in H. coerulea from China to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced carvings and raw corals traded for commercial purposes, imported by Japan and the United States of America (Table 1). Additionally, the United States of America reported the 24

27 Heliopora coerulea confiscation/seizure of four raw corals in 2009 and 0.48 kg of raw corals in All trade was reported by importers only. Table 1. Direct exports of Heliopora coerulea from China (including Taiwan, Province of China) to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was reported by importers and was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in 2002, 2003, 2008, or 2011.) Term Units Source Total China carvings - W raw corals - I 4 4 W 1 1 Taiwan, Province of China carvings kg W CONSERVATION STATUS in range states - W raw corals kg I Heliopora coerulea was reported to have a widespread distribution (Zann and Bolton, 1985) from the east African coast, including Madagascar, to the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the East and West Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Japan and the South China Sea, the waters around Indonesia and the northwestern and north-eastern coasts of Australia, to the Pacific Islands (Veron, 2000). The species was reported to commonly occur on intertidal reef flats and to form large colonies (Veron, 2000). Although it was described as uncommon in most of its range (Zann and Bolton, 1985), and locally rare (Obura et al., 2008b), it was found to be far more abundant in some equatorial Central Pacific sites than in the Western Pacific (Zann and Bolton, 1985). The broad distribution of the species was considered to reduce the risk of extinction (USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2012). Heliopora spp. are considered to be ruderals which are capable of rapid growth but are also relatively fragile (Edinger et al., 2000). H. coerulea was categorised as Vulnerable by the IUCN, as although population trends were unknown, population reductions were inferred; the species susceptibility to bleaching and habitat loss was noted, as was harvest for the aquarium and curio trade (Obura et al., 2008b). It was considered very widespread and locally common (Obura et al., 2008b). As H. coerulea is restricted to extremely shallow depths (generally less than 2 m), it was considered to be particularly susceptible to bleaching, harvesting and other localised threats (Obura et al., 2008b). However, the species did not bleach during climate events in the 1990, which affected corals in Majuro and Guam (USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2012). H. coerulea was not found to survive much more than a year within aquaria (Green and Shirley, 1999). China: The species presence was confirmed in China, including Taiwan, PoC (Veron, 2000). A survey of corals in southern Taiwan revealed H. coerulea to be locally abundant (Benayahu et al., 2004) and it was one of only two hard coral species not to have declined in abundance in a study area of Taiwan s Kenting National Park between 1984 and 2010 (Hsieh et al., 2012). The coral reefs of Taiwan were reported to increasingly suffer from man-made perturbations (Benayahu et al., 2004) due to construction, dredging, destructive fishing methods, harvest for aquaria, unregulated tourist activities, and various types of pollution (Dai, 1997). Some of the reefs of southern Taiwan suffered from extensive bleaching during 1998, when coral cover was substantially reduced (Fujiwara et al., 2000; Benayahu et al., 2004) and although some signs of recovery were observed, mass bleaching was again suffered in 2008 on many already stressed reefs (Kimura et al., 2008). Article 20 of The Marine Environment Protection Law of the People s Republic of China of 1999 specified that the State Council and local People s Governments at the Provincial level shall adopt effective measures to protect coral reefs (People's Republic of China, 1999). However, the protection status of the species is unclear. Sixteen of China s marine protected areas contained coral reefs as the dominant habitat (Wilkinson, 2008). Most reef areas in Taiwan were designated within national parks or national scenic areas; however, Wilkinson (2008) considered that management was ineffective, with inadequate laws and enforcement. 25

28 Acropora echinata REVIEW OF CORAL SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS ANTHOZOA ACROPORIDAE SPECIES: Acropora echinata SYNONYMS: Acropora procumbens, Madrepora durvillei, Madrepora echinata, Madrepora procumbens RANGE STATES: Australia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tonga, United States of America, Vanuatu, Viet Nam RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Fiji, Indonesia IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997 and removed for Australia, French Polynesia, Guam, India, Japan, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tonga, United States of America, Vanuatu and Viet Nam on 02/12/2011. TRADE PATTERNS: Fiji: Fiji has not published any export quotas for Acropora echinata; however, it has published export quotas for the genus Acropora every year since 2003 (Annex III, Table 2). The only direct trade in A. echinata from Fiji to the EU-27 reported consisted of 80 wild-sourced, live corals imported by France for commercial purposes in 2002; the trade was reported by the importer only. No annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or No indirect trade in A. echinata to the EU-27 originating in Fiji was reported Direct trade in A. echinata from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced, live and raw corals traded for commercial purposes, all of which were imported by the United States of America (Table 1). Some trade in Acropora was also reported at the genus level by Fiji and its trading partners (Annex III). Table 1. Direct exports of Acropora echinata from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importers and was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in ; no annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or 2011.) Term Total live raw corals Indonesia: Indonesia published export quotas for mariculture products of A. echinata in 2004 ( pieces) and 2005 (3000 pieces) consisting of stock from the previous year and the current year s product plan. Indonesia reported exports of captive-born live corals, totalling 635 in 2004 and 1241 in

29 Acropora echinata Additionally, Indonesia has published export quotas for Acropora spp. every year since 1997 (Annex III, Table 3 and 4). Direct trade in A. echinata from Indonesia to the EU-27 over the period consisted of captiveborn and wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). No indirect trade in A. echinata to the EU-27 originating in Indonesia was reported Direct trade in A. echinata from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of trade for commercial purposes, mainly in captive-born and wild-sourced, live corals, primarily imported by the United States of America (Table 2). No wild-sourced trade was reported by Indonesia. Additionally, the confiscation/seizure of five and 12 live corals in 2009 and 2010, respectively, was reported by the United States of America. Some trade in Acropora was reported at the genus level by Indonesia and its trading partners (Annex III). Table 1. Direct exports of Acropora echinata from Indonesia to the EU-27, All trade was in live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in or ) Importer Source Reported by Total Denmark F Importer W Importer France F Importer W Importer Germany F Importer Greece F Importer Poland F Importer Spain F Importer W Importer United Kingdom F Importer Subtotals W Importer W Importer F Importer Table 2. Direct exports of Acropora echinata from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was for commercial purposes. Term Source Reported by Total live C Importer F Importer I Importer W Importer raw corals W Importer

30 Acropora echinata CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Figure 1: Global distribution of Acropora echinata. Key: 0: not recorded, 1: confirmed record, 2: probable or predicted record, 3: doubtful record, 4: record under review. Map: Veron et al. (2013). The global distribution of Acropora echinata is indicated in Figure 1. A. echinata, a conspicuous species, was noted to have a narrow habitat preference, inhabiting shallow tropical reefs in protected locations with clear water and high Acropora diversity; the species occurs at depths of 8-25 m (Aeby et al., 2008). A. echinata was categorized as Vulnerable by the IUCN, as although population trends were unknown, population reductions were inferred; the species susceptibility to bleaching and predation was noted, as was harvest for the aquarium trade (Aeby et al., 2008). It was considered widespread but uncommon (Aeby et al., 2008). The species was reported to be mainly threatened by extensive reduction of habitat and other environmental and human induced threats; harvest was also noted (Aeby et al., 2008). Jenkins et al. (2006) considered A. echinata to be a silt-resistant species. All-Acropora assemblages were reported to be formed locally (Richards et al., 2008c) and Acropora spp. were considered the most abundant corals of Indo-Pacific reefs (Veron, 2000). Age at sexual maturity is assumed to be 3-8 years (Aeby et al., 2008) based on those for most reef building corals (Wallace, 1999), and average generation length was assumed as 10 years (Aeby et al., 2008). Acropora species were considered fast growing and prolific recolonizers (Lovell and Tumuri, 1999), with linear growth rates of cm/year and area growth rates of cm 2 /year reported (Green and Shirley, 1999). A report undertaken by Borneman (1999) for the US Coral Reef Task Force considered Acropora spp. to be generally suitable for keeping in aquaria. Acropora spp. coral fragments were reported to be able to grow to a marketable size within 4-6 months (ICLARM, 1998). Acropora spp. were noted to have a low resistance to bleaching and disease, with slow recovery rates (Aeby et al., 2008). Fiji: A. echinata was reported from the Great Sea Reef, northern coast of Vanua Levu (Jenkins et al., 2006), Yadua and Yadua Taba Islands, Astrolabe Reef (Kadavu), Mamanuca Island and Coral Coast, and Votua Village (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). The species was considered to be locally common in (Jenkins et al., 2006). Coral cover in Beqa Lagoon and inshore reefs of the southern coast of Viti Levu was reported to average 51%, 18% (8%-34%) of which consisted of Acropora spp. (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). The collection area of Aquarium Fish Fiji in the Beqa lagoon was estimated to contain more than 73 million Acropora spp. colonies (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). In the Walt Smith International collection sites, Acropora spp. were reported to account for 13.7% (branching species) and 3.7% (tabulate species) of the coral cover (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). The genus was reported to be locally dominant in the northern coast of Vanua Levu, making up 4-13% of the coral cover (Jenkins et al., 2006). Acropora spp. had the highest recruitment rates (52.2%) of all corals at various sampling sites on Fijian reefs, with recruitment primarily to shallow water areas (Quinn and Kojis, 2008). 28

31 Acropora echinata Much of the coral mortality caused by environmental events was attributed to declines of Acropora spp., but subsequent rapid recolonisation and growth of acroporids led to hard coral cover that in some locations reached pre-disturbance levels, indicating that Fiji s reefs are very resilient and in relatively good condition (Whippy-Morris, 2009). In 2007, the removal rates of Acropora spp. for the live aquarium trade were reported to be 0.014% (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). Indonesia: A. echinata was reported to occur in central and southern Indonesia, the Sulawesi Sea and the Banda Sea (Wallace et al., 2001), Kepulauan Seribu (van der Meij et al., 2010),, Bali (Mustika et al., 2012) and Sulawesi (Wallace, 1999), where it was recorded from Bahuluang (Moll, 1986), the Bay of Tomini (Wallace et al., 2001), Togean and Banggai Islands (Allen and McKenna, 2001), Bunaken National Park (Turak and DeVantier, 2003a) and Wakatobi (Turak, 2003b; in Mustika et al., 2012). In east Kalimantan, the species was recorded from Sangalaki (Suhendra, 2006) and Derawan (Turak, 2005; in Mustika et al., 2012). In eastern Indonesia, it was reported from Tukang Besi Islands, Suma, north-eastern Komodo, Sumbawa, and Salayer (Best et al., 1989). A. echinata was reported to have a scattered occurrence in Indonesian waters, and was usually found in deep waters (Suharsono, 2008). The species was considered to be rare in Bunaken National Park and thought to possibly not form locally reproductive populations; its local rarity was considered noteworthy (Turak and DeVantier, 2003a). The Kri Islands were reported to host extensive growths of Acropora spp.; the genus being amongst the dominant genera across the islands (McKenna et al., 2002). Acropora spp. was found to account for up to 47% of the coral cover in sites studied in the Moluccas, South Sulawesi and Central Java, although sites with high sedimentation and eutrophication had little or no Acropora cover (Edinger et al., 1998). Research by Wallace et al. (2001) indicated that Acropora spp. are restricted to specific habitat types. Acropora spp. were reported to represent 15% of the corals collected for the production of lime locally in Bali (Sarjana Putra, 1992; in Bentley, 1998). Acropora spp. were reported to be successfully cultured and were found at all facilities culturing corals, with harvest of the first generation possible after six months; the production in 2008 was estimated at pieces, and the Indonesian CITES authorities were reported to have reduced the export quotas for this genus [for wild specimens] on the basis of this success (Timotius et al., 2009). 29

32 Acropora florida REVIEW OF CORAL SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS ANTHOZOA ACROPORIDAE SPECIES: Acropora florida SYNONYMS: Acropora affinis, Acropora gravida, Acropora multiramosa, Acropora polymorpha, Madrepora affinis, Madrepora brachyclados, Madrepora compressa, Madrepora florida, Madrepora gravida, Madrepora ornata, Madrepora polymorpha RANGE STATES: Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cook Islands, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, New Caledonia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Réunion, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tonga, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands, Vanuatu, Viet Nam RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Fiji, Indonesia, New Caledonia IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Solomon Islands formed on 12/06/2006 and for Viet Nam on 09/03/2006. Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997 and removed for Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cook Islands, India, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Réunion, Samoa, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tonga, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands and Vanuatu on 02/12/2011; for Madagascar removed on 23/02/2012. TRADE PATTERNS: Fiji: Fiji has not published any export quotas for Acropora florida; however, it has published quotas for the genus Acropora every year since 2003 (Annex III, Table 2). There were no reported direct or indirect exports to the EU-27 of A. florida originating in Fiji No annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or Direct trade in A. florida from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced trade in raw and live corals for commercial purposes, all of which were imported by the United States of America (Table 1). All trade was reported by the United States of America only. Some trade in Acropora was also reported at the genus level by Fiji and its trading partners (Annex III). 30

33 Acropora florida Table 1. Direct exports of Acropora florida from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importers and was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in Fiji s annual reports for 2003 and 2011 have not yet been received.) Term Total live raw corals Indonesia: Indonesia published export quotas for mariculture products of A. florida in 2004 (1000 pieces) and 2005 (800 pieces) consisting of stock from previous year and the current year s product plan. Indonesia reported exports of captive-born live corals, totalling 240 in 2004 and 385 in Additionally, Indonesia has published export quotas for the genus Acropora every year since 1997 (Annex III, Table 3 and 4). Direct trade in A. florida from Indonesia to the EU consisted of captive-born and wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). No indirect trade in A. florida to the EU-27 originating in Indonesia was reported Direct trade in A. florida from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of live corals traded for commercial and scientific purposes, which were mainly captive-born and wild-sourced and were primarily imported by the United States of America (Table 2). Some trade in Acropora was reported at the genus level by Indonesia and its trading partners (Annex III). Table 1. Direct exports of Acropora florida from Indonesia to the EU-27, All trade was in live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in or ) Importer Source Reported by Total Austria F Importer W Importer France F Importer W Importer Germany F Importer Italy F Importer W Importer Poland F Importer W Importer Spain F Importer W Importer United Kingdom F Importer Subtotals W Importer W Importer F Importer

34 Acropora florida Table 2. Direct exports of Acropora florida from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was in live corals. (No trade was reported in 2002 or 2003.) Purpose Source Reported by Total S W Importer T C Importer F Importer R Importer W Importer New Caledonia: New Caledonia has not published any export quotas for A. florida. The only direct trade in A. florida from New Caledonia to the EU involved the export to France of wildsourced, raw corals for personal purposes and comprised 19, two and ten corals exported in 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively; none of the trade was confirmed by the importer. No annual reports have been received from New Caledonia for the years No indirect trade in A. florida to the EU-27 originating in New Caledonia was reported The only direct trade in A. florida from New Caledonia to countries other than the EU-27 reported over the period consisted of three wild-sourced, raw corals exported to the United States of America in 2003 for personal purposes; this trade was not confirmed by the importer. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Figure 1: Global distribution of Acropora florida. Key: 0: not recorded, 1: confirmed record, 2: probable or predicted record, 4: record under review. Map: Veron et al. (2013). The global distribution of Acropora florida is indicated in Figure 1. A. florida was reported to inhabit shallow reefs (Richards et al., 2008a) at depths of up to 20 m (Wallace, 1999). The species was reported to be able to grow to great sizes in suitable environments (Veron, 2000). A. florida was categorized as Near Threatened by the IUCN, as although population trends were unknown, population reductions were inferred (Richards et al., 2008a). However, it was noted to be widespread and common within its range and therefore thought to show some resilience to habitat loss and degradation (Richards et al., 2008a). The species was reported to be mainly threatened by extensive reduction of habitat; harvest was also noted (Richards et al., 2008a). Acropora species were noted to have a low resistance to bleaching and disease, with slow recovery rates (Richards et al., 2008a). For genus-level information, see A. echinata. Fiji: A. florida was reported from the Great Sea Reef, northern coast of Vanua Levu (Jenkins et al., 2006), Yadua and Yadua Taba Islands, Astrolabe Reef (Kadavu), Mamanuca Island and Coral Coast, and Votua Village (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). 32

35 Acropora florida A. florida was considered to be locally dominant (Jenkins et al., 2006). For genus-level information from Fiji, see A. echinata. Indonesia: A. florida was reported to occur in Sumatra, central and southern Indonesia, the Sulawesi Sea, Bay of Tomini and the Banda Sea (Wallace et al., 2001). The species presence was confirmed from Kepulauan Seribu and Jakarta Bay (van der Meij et al., 2010), North Sulawesi (Turak and DeVantier, 2003b; Scaps et al., 2007b), Wakatobi (Turak, 2005; in Mustika et al., 2012), Bunaken National Park (Turak and DeVantier, 2003a) and Bali (Mustika et al., 2012). In east Kalimantan, the species was recorded from Sangalaki Island, Panjang, Maratua and Derawan Island (Suhendra, 2006). In eastern Indonesia, the species was reported from the Tukang Besi Islands, Suma, north-eastern Komodo, Sumbawa, Taka Bone Rate Islands and Salayer (Best et al., 1989). A. florida was reported to be locally dominant in the Raja Ampat Islants, covering 100% in some areas (McKenna et al., 2002) and the species was considered common in the waters of Indonesia, where it was usually found scattered in deep habitats (Suharsono, 2008). A. florida was reported to have a widespread local distribution in Bunaken National Park, where the species was considered rare to uncommon but was believed to form locally reproductive populations (Turak and DeVantier, 2003a). For genus-level information from Indonesia, see A. echinata. New Caledonia: A. florida was reported to occur in the New Caledonian lagoon (Tribollet et al., 2011) and was recorded in the north-western (McKenna et al., 2009) and north-eastern lagoon of Grande Terre (McKenna et al., 2011). Acropora was identified as the dominant genus in the coral community of the lagoon, accounting for 43% of the cover on average, but up to almost 100% locally (Tribollet et al., 2011). In the north-western lagoon of Grande Terre, A. florida was considered rare in 10 sites surveyed, uncommon in 26 and common in four (McKenna et al., 2009). However, the species was considered one of the most common species in surveys between Touho to Ponérihouen (Province Nord), where it was recorded from 79% of the sites surveyed (McKenna et al., 2011). It was considered rare in 14, uncommon in 17 and common in five sites surveyed in the north-eastern lagoon (McKenna et al., 2011). Acropora species were found to be affected by coral disease/lesions (particularly white syndrome) in New Caledonia, although at low prevalence (Tribollet et al., 2011). 33

36 Acropora humilis REVIEW OF CORAL SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS ANTHOZOA ACROPORIDAE SPECIES: Acropora humilis SYNONYMS: Acropora canaliculata, Acropora fruticosa, Acropora obscura, Acropora spectabilis, Madrepora fruticosa, Madrepora guppyi, Madrepora humilis, Madrepora obscura, Madrepora spectabilis COMMON NAMES: Humilis staghorn coral (English), Karang jahe Humilis (Indonesian) RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Myanmar, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands, United States of America, Vanuatu, Viet Nam RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Indonesia confirmed on 14/09/2007. Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997 and removed for American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, French Polynesia, Guam, India, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Myanmar, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands, United States of America, and Viet Nam on 02/12/

37 Acropora humilis TRADE PATTERNS: Fiji: Fiji has not published any export quotas for Acropora humilis; however, Fiji has published quotas for the genus Acropora every year since 2003 (Annex III, Table 2). Direct trade in A. humilis from Fiji to the EU consisted of wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes; all trade was reported by the importer only (Table 1). No annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or No trade has been reported in A. humilis since No indirect trade in A. humilis to the EU-27 originating in Fiji was reported Direct trade in A. humilis from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced, live and raw corals, all of which were traded for commercial purposes and imported by the United States of America (Table 2). Some trade in Acropora was reported at the genus level by Fiji and its trading partners (Annex III). Table 1. Direct exports of Acropora humilis from Fiji to the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importers and was in wild-sourced, live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported ; no annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or 2011.) Importer Total France Germany Netherlands Subtotals Table 2. Direct exports of Acropora humilis from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importer and was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported ; no annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or 2011.) Term Total live raw corals Solomon Islands: The Solomon Islands has not published any export quotas for A. humilis. The Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007; no annual report has yet been received for the year Direct trade in A. humilis from the Solomon Islands to the EU consisted of wild-sourced, raw corals traded for commercial purposes and imported by Italy (Table 1). The only indirect trade in A. humilis originating in the Solomon Islands to the EU consisted of the re-export of one confiscated/seized raw coral for commercial purposes via the United States of America to Spain in 2006, reported by the re-exporter only. Direct trade in A. humilis from the Solomon Islands to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced, raw and live corals traded for commercial purposes, primarily imported by the United States of America (Table 2). Some trade in Acropora was reported at the genus level by the Solomon Islands and its trading partners (Annex III). Table 1. Direct exports of Acropora humilis from the Solomon Islands to the EU-27, All trade was in wild-sourced, raw corals for commercial purposes and imported by Italy. (No trade was reported in , 2005, 2009 or 2011; the Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007 and no annual report has been received for 2011.) Reported by Total Importer

38 Acropora humilis Table 2. Direct exports of Acropora humilis from the Solomon Islands to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in ; the Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007 and no annual report has been received for 2011.) Term Reported by Total live Importer raw corals Importer Tonga: Tonga is not a Party to CITES, hence it has not published any CITES annual export quotas and trade data are reported by trading partners only. Direct trade in A. humilis from Tonga to the EU consisted of wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). No indirect trade in A. humilis to the EU-27 originating in Tonga was reported Direct trade in A. humilis from Tonga to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of live and raw corals traded for commercial purposes, nearly all of which were wild-sourced. The principal importer was the United States of America (Table 2). Some trade in Acropora was reported at the genus level by Tonga s trading partners (Annex III). Table 1. Direct exports of Acropora humilis from Tonga to the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importers and was in wild-sourced, live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in 2002 or ; Tonga is not a Party to CITES.) Importer Total Denmark France Germany Subtotals Table 2. Direct exports of Acropora humilis from Tonga to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importers and was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in , 2008 or 2011; Tonga is not a Party to CITES.) Term Source Total live C 1 1 W raw corals W Vanuatu: Vanuatu has not published any export quotas for A. humilis. The only direct trade in A. humilis from Vanuatu to the EU-27 reported over the period took place in 2002 and involved wildsourced, live corals. Vanuatu reported the export of 60 corals to Germany and 30 corals to the United Kingdom with no purpose specified, while Germany and the United Kingdom reported the import of 40 and 30 corals, respectively, for commercial purposes. No annual reports have been received from Vanuatu for the years No indirect trade in A. humilis to the EU-27 originating in Vanuatu was reported Direct trade in A. humilis from Vanuatu to countries other than the EU-27 reported over the period involved wild-sourced, live corals. Vanuatu reported the export of 50 corals to an unspecified trading partner in 2002, while Canada reported the import of 50 corals from Vanuatu in the same year with the same export permit number. In addition, Vanuatu reported the export of 20 corals to the United States of America in 2002 without a purpose specified, which was not confirmed by the importer. The United States of America reported the import of 30 corals from Vanuatu for commercial purposes in Some trade in Acropora was reported at the genus level by Vanuatu and its trading partners (Annex III). 36

39 Acropora humilis CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Figure 1: Global distribution of Acropora humilis. Key: 0: not recorded, 1: confirmed record, 2: probable or predicted record, 3: doubtful record. Map: Veron et al. (2013). The global distribution of Acropora humilis is indicated in Figure 1. A. humilis was reported to inhabit shallow tropical reefs (Richards et al., 2008b) at depths of up to 11 m (Sheppard, 1982). A. humilis was reported to sometimes be a dominant species (Veron, 2000; Richards et al., 2008b), including in wave exposed habitats (Wallace, 1999). A. humilis was categorized as Near Threatened by the IUCN, as although population trends were unknown, population reductions were inferred (Richards et al., 2008b). However, it was noted to be widespread and common within its range and therefore thought to show some resilience to habitat loss and degradation (Richards et al., 2008b). The species was reported to be mainly threatened by extensive reduction of habitat; harvest was also noted (Richards et al., 2008b). The species was initially highlighted for potential review under the Review Significant Trade process in 2011 due to high volume (globally threatened) and sharp increase in trade (AC25 Doc. 9.6); however, it was not selected at AC26 (AC26 Doc. 12.3). For genus-level information, see A. echinata. Fiji: A. humilis was reported from the Great Sea Reef, northern coast of Vanua Levu (Jenkins et al., 2006), Yadua and Yadua Taba Islands, Astrolabe Reef (Kadavu), Mamanuca Island and Coral Coast, and Votua Village (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). A. humilis was considered to be locally common (Jenkins et al., 2006) and a dominant species in some areas (Lovell, 2000). For genus-level information from Fiji, see A. echinata. Solomon Islands: A. humilis was recorded at various locations off the six main Islands (Green et al., 2006). Acropora spp. were considered to be at least locally common during a survey of the six main Islands in 2004 and the presence of the genus in the Solomon Islands was considered significant (Green et al., 2006). This survey also showed that A. humilis has a relatively high fidelity to specific communities and the species was recorded in all (18) sites assessed; its abundance was reported as 34 specimens out of 568 corals [approximately 6%] recorded across all sites monitored (Green et al., 2006). Acropora spp. corals were reported to be primarily harvested in the Central and Guadalcanal Provinces, with specimens then dried and bleached in the sun prior to being shipped internationally as curios (Teitelbaum, 2007). Acropora spp. was reported to be amongst the most frequently requested corals by exporters to local fishers (Teitelbaum, 2007). In 2001, the annual consumption of Acropora corals as a source of lime for betel nut production was estimated at 10 million kg (Spalding et al., 2001), a demand which was expected to increase significantly with the growing population (Green et al., 2006). Severe depletion of the genus was reported from some 37

40 Acropora humilis areas as a result (Sulu, 2004 in Chin et al., 2011) and low levels of Acropora cover was found at monitored sites (Chin et al., 2011). Cultured Acropora corals were reported to be included in the species lists of Aquarium Arts Solomon Islands (Kinch, 2004) and Acropora spp. were considered to be very easy to culture (Teitelbaum, 2007). Tonga: A. humilis was reported to occur in Tonga (Lovell and McLardy, 2008), where it was recorded from Tongatapu (van Woesik, 1996) and from Vava u Island (Holthus, 1996). Acropora spp. were reported to form dominant assemblages in Tonga, dominating reef tops and slopes of the Funatuti lagoon, but also forming a good cover on the ocean side habitats (Lovell and Palaki, 2002). A. humilis was reported to have been affected to varying degrees during a coral bleaching event in 2000, ranging from minor effects to colony death (Lovell and Palaki, 2002). No further information on the status of the species in Tonga could be located. Vanuatu: The species was reported to occur in Vanuatu (Veron, 2000) and Acropora spp., along with Pocilloporidae were reported to dominate exposed coral reef slopes and crests, and were also found a characteristic genus to sheltered parts of the outer reef (Done and Navin, 1990; in Naviti and Aston, 2000). No information on the distribution or status of the species in Vanuatu could be located. 38

41 Acropora nasuta REVIEW OF CORAL SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS ANTHOZOA ACROPORIDAE SPECIES: Acropora nasuta SYNONYMS: Acropora diomedeae, Madrepora canaliculata, Madrepora effusa, Madrepora nasuta RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tonga, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Fiji, Indonesia IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Viet Nam formed on 09/03/2006. Positive opinion for all countries formed 22/07/1997 and removed for American Samoa, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, French Polynesia, Guam, India, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tonga, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands, Vanuatu and Yemen on 02/12/2011. TRADE PATTERNS: Fiji: Fiji has not published any export quotas for Acropora nasuta; however it has published export quotas for the genus Acropora every year since 2003 (Annex III, Table 2). There were no reported direct or indirect exports to the EU-27 of A. nasuta originating in Fiji No annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or Direct exports of A. nasuta from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced, raw and live corals traded for commercial purposes, all of which were 39

42 Acropora nasuta imported by the United States of America (Table 1). All trade was reported by the importer only; some trade in Acropora was also reported at the genus level by Fiji and its trading partners (Annex III). Table 1. Direct exports of Acropora nasuta from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importer and was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in Fiji s annual reports for 2003 and 2011 have not yet been received.) Term Total live raw corals Indonesia: Indonesia published export quotas for mariculture products of A. nasuta in 2004 (5000 pieces) and 2005 (2050 pieces) consisting of stock from the previous year and the current year s product plan. Indonesia reported exports of 565 and 1401 live, captive-born corals in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Additionally, Indonesia has published export quotas for the genus Acropora every year since 1997 (Annex III, Table 3 and 4). Direct trade in A. nasuta from Indonesia to the EU consisted of captive-born and wildsourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes (Table 1; see Annex II, Table 1 for detailed trade data). No indirect trade in A. nasuta to the EU-27 originating in Indonesia was reported Direct trade in A. nasuta from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of live corals traded for commercial purposes which were primarily wild-sourced and captiveborn. The principal importer was the United States of America (Table 2). Some trade in Acropora was also reported at the genus level by Indonesia and its trading partners (Annex III). Table 1. Direct exports of Acropora nasuta from Indonesia to the EU-27, All trade was in live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in or ) Source Reported by Total F Importer W Importer Table 2. Direct exports of Acropora nasuta from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was in live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in 2002, 2003 or 2008.) Source Reported by Total C Importer F Importer R Importer W Importer CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Figure 1: Global distribution of Acropora nasuta. Key: 0: not recorded, 1: confirmed record, 2: probable or predicted record, 3: doubtful record, 4: record under review. Map: Veron et al. (2013). 40

43 Acropora nasuta The global distribution of Acropora nasuta is indicated in Figure 1. A. nasuta was reported to inhabit shallow tropical reefs at depths of 3-15 m (Richards et al., 2008c). A. nasuta was categorized as Near Threatened by the IUCN, as although population trends were unknown, population reductions were inferred (Richards et al., 2008c). However, it was noted to be widespread and common within its range and therefore thought to show some resilience to habitat loss and degradation (Richards et al., 2008c). The species was reported to be mainly threatened by extensive reduction of habitat; harvest was also noted (Richards et al., 2008c). Acropora species were noted to have a low resistance to bleaching and disease, with slow recovery rates (Richards et al., 2008c). The species was initially highlighted for potential review under the Review Significant Trade process in 2011 due to a sharp increase in trade (AC25 Doc. 9.6), but it was not selected at AC26 (AC26 Doc. 12.3). For genus-level information, see A. echinata. Fiji: A. nasuta was reported from the Great Sea Reef, northern coast of Vanua Levu (Jenkins et al., 2006), Yadua and Yadua Taba Islands, Great Astrolabe Reefs, Astrolabe Reef (Kadavu), Mamanuca Island and Coral Coast, and Votua Village (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). A. nasuta was found to be locally common (Jenkins et al., 2006). For genus-level information from Fiji, see A. echinata. Indonesia: A. nasuta was reported to occur in Sumatra, central and southern Indonesia, the Sulawesi Sea, Bay of Tomini and the Banda Sea (Wallace et al., 2001). The species presence was confirmed from Kepulauan Seribu (van der Meij et al., 2010), North Sulawesi (Turak and DeVantier, 2003b; Scaps et al., 2007b), Wakatobi (Turak, 2003b; in Mustika et al., 2012) and Bali (Mustika et al., 2012). In east Kalimantan, the species was recorded from Sangalaki Island, Panjang and Maratua (Suhendra, 2006) and Derawan (Turak 2005 in Mustika et al., 2012). In eastern Indonesia, the species was reported from the Lucipara Islands, Tukang Besi Islands, Suma, north-eastern Komodo, Sumbawa and southwestern Sulawesi (Best et al., 1989). In East Kalimantan, A. nasuta was reported to be one of the most abundant coral species (Turak, 2003a; in Suhendra, 2006). A. nasuta was reported to occur in Bunaken National Park, with a moderately widespread local distribution; the species was considered to be rare to uncommon but was believed to be likely to form locally reproductive populations (Turak and DeVantier, 2003a). For genus-level information from Indonesia, see A. echinata. 41

44 Euphyllia cristata REVIEW OF CORAL SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS ANTHOZOA CARYOPHYLLIIDAE SPECIES: Euphyllia cristata COMMON NAMES: White Grape Coral (English) RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China, Vanuatu, Viet Nam RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Fiji formed on 14/09/2010. Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Indonesia first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 10/09/2012. Previous negative opinion for Indonesia formed on 11/07/2000. Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997 and removed for Japan, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China, Vanuatu and Viet Nam on 02/12/2011. TRADE PATTERNS: Australia: Australia has not published any export quotas for Euphyllia cristata. No direct trade in E. cristata from Australia was reported during the period , either to the EU-27 or elsewhere. Direct trade from Australia to the EU consisted of wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). No annual report has yet been received from Australia for the year No indirect trade in Euphyllia cristata to the EU-27 originating in Australia was reported Direct trade in E. cristata from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of mainly wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes, primarily imported by the United States of America (Table 2). Additionally, the confiscation/seizure of three live corals was reported by the United States of America in Table 1. Direct exports of Euphyllia cristata from Australia to the EU-27, All trade was in wildsourced, live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported ; no annual report has been received from Australia for 2011.) Importer Reported by Total Germany Importer United Kingdom Importer Subtotals

45 Euphyllia cristata Table 2. Direct exports of Euphyllia cristata from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in or 2008; no annual report has been received from Australia for 2011.) Term Source Reported by Total live I Importer 3 3 W Importer raw corals W Importer 3 3 CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Figure 1: Global distribution of Euphyllia cristata. Key: 0: not recorded, 1: confirmed record, 2: probable or predicted record. Map: Veron et al. (2013). The global distribution of Euphyllia cristata is indicated in Figure 1. E. cristata, usually forming small colonies, was reported to inhabit all reef environments at depths of 1-35 m (Turak et al., 2008). Veron (2000) reported it to occur in shallow reef habitats. Age at sexual maturity is assumed to be 3-8 years (Turak et al., 2008) based on those for most reef building corals (Wallace, 1999), and average generation length was assumed as 10 years (Turak et al., 2008). Euphyllia spp. were reported to be the fastest growing species of the main Scleractinian corals in international trade, with minimum area growth rates of 96.5 cm 2 /year (Green and Shirley, 1999). E. cristata was categorized as Vulnerable by the IUCN, as although population trends were unknown, population reductions were inferred; it was noted to be heavily harvested for the aquarium trade (Turak et al., 2008). The species was noted to be widespread but rare within its range (Turak et al., 2008); Veron (2000) considered it uncommon but conspicuous. The species was reported to be mainly threatened by extensive reduction of habitat; substantial harvest was also noted (Turak et al., 2008). Brainard et al. (2011) reported that the level of international trade in E. cristata, in combination with its rare but conspicuous colonies, was increasing the risks to the species and it was considered vulnerable to overexploitation. Roelofs and Silcock (2008) considered Euphyllia spp. to have low susceptibility to coral bleaching, while Rachello-Dolmen and Cleary (2007) considered the genus to be stress tolerators, able to occur in areas of high sedimentation or eutrophication. In 2010, the NOAA Fisheries Service (2010) indicated they were initiating an Endangered Species Act (ESA) status review of 82 coral species, including E. cristata. The species is amongst 66 others which have been taken forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) by proposing to list them as Endangered under the ESA (NOAA, 2013). According to Bruckner (2000), Euphyllia spp. survive poorly in captivity, therefore requiring continual replacement, which was fuelling trade; furthermore, they were noted to be easily damaged during collection and be susceptible to disease. 43

46 Euphyllia cristata Australia: E. cristata was reported from the Coral Sea (Ceccarelli, 2011); Dampier Archipelago (western Australian coast); Rowley Shoals (Veron, 2004), Scott Reef (Gilmour et al., 2008) (Western Australia offshore); Torres Strait, Northern and Central GBR, Pompey and Swain Reefs and Capricorn & Bunker Reefs (eastern and south-east Australian coast) (Veron, 2004). The species (all range States) was identified as a priority for review at the 25 th meeting of the Animals Committee (AC25 summary record) and was included the Review Significant Trade process in 2012 at AC26 (AC26 Doc. 12.3) due to high volume of trade (globally threatened) (AC25 Doc. 9.6); Australia was however removed from the process (AC26 WG7 Doc.1). 44

47 Euphyllia glabrescens REVIEW OF CORAL SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS ANTHOZOA CARYOPHYLLIIDAE SPECIES: Euphyllia glabrescens SYNONYMS: Caryophyllia glabrescens, Euphyllia laxa, Euphyllia rugosa, Euphyllia turgida, Leptosmilia costulata, Leptosmilia gaimardi, Leptosmilia glabrescens, Leptosmilia ramosa, Leptosmilia rugosa, Leptosmilia striata, Lobophyllia glabrescens RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Djibouti, Fiji, Guam, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Myanmar, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Vanuatu, Viet Nam RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Australia, Fiji, Micronesia (Federated States of), Solomon Islands IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Indonesia first formed on 15/05/2002 and last confirmed on 14/09/2007. Previous negative opinion for Indonesia formed on 16/09/1999. Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997 and removed for American Samoa, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Djibouti, Guam, India, Israel, Japan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Myanmar, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Seychelles, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Vanuatu and Viet Nam on 02/12/2011. TRADE PATTERNS: Australia: Australia has not published any export quotas for Euphyllia glabrescens. No direct trade in E. glabrescens from Australia to the EU-27 was reported Direct trade from Australia to the EU consisted of wild-sourced corals traded for commercial purposes, and mainly involved live corals (Table 1). No annual report has yet been received from Australia for the year No indirect trade in Euphyllia glabrescens to the EU-27 originating in Australia was reported No direct trade in E. glabrescens from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 was reported Direct trade to countries other than the EU-27 over the period mainly consisted of wildsourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes, primarily imported by the United States of America (Table 2). Additionally, the confiscation/seizure of 23 live corals was reported by the United States of America between 2008 and

48 Euphyllia glabrescens Table 1. Direct exports of Euphyllia glabrescens from Australia to the EU-27, All trade was wildsourced and for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported ; no annual report has been received from Australia for 2011.) Importer Term Reported by Total Belgium live Importer 5 5 Denmark live Importer France live Importer raw corals Importer Germany live Importer raw corals Importer Italy live Importer Netherlands live Importer Spain live Importer United Kingdom live Importer Subtotals raw corals Importer Importer Table 2. Direct exports of Euphyllia glabrescens from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, (No trade was reported ; no annual report has been received from Australia for 2011.) Term Purpose Source Reported by Total live P W Importer T I Importer W Importer raw corals T W Importer Fiji: Fiji has published export quotas for wild-sourced live or dead pieces of E. glabrescens every year , with the exception of 2006, when no quota was published. The quota appears to have been exceeded in 2008, according to exporter-reported data, and in 2010 according to both importer- and exporter-reported data (Table 1). Fiji did not specify whether its 2008 or 2010 reports were compiled on the basis of permits issued or actual trade. Analysis of permit numbers revealed that only a small proportion of the apparent quota excess in 2010 could be explained by export permits having been issued in the previous year. Table 1. CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Euphyllia glabrescens pieces, live or dead, from Fiji and global direct exports, as reported by the importers and exporter, (No quotas were published in 2002 or 2006; no annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or Trade data for 2012 are not yet available.) Quota Reported by importers Reported by Fiji

49 Euphyllia glabrescens Direct trade from Fiji to the EU consisted of wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). No annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or Indirect trade in E. glabrescens originating in Fiji to the EU also involved wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes, re-exported to the United Kingdom in 2003 (10 corals) and 2011 (14 corals), and Spain in 2006 (15 corals) and 2007 (10 corals). All indirect trade was reported by the reexporter only, with the exception of the 2011 trade, which was reported by the importer only. The main country of re-export was Singapore. Direct trade in E. glabrescens from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced, live and raw corals traded for commercial purposes, primarily imported by the United States of America (Table 3). Table 2. Direct exports of Euphyllia glabrescens from Fiji to the EU-27, All trade was in wild-sourced, live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in 2003; no annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or 2011.) Importer Reported by Total Denmark Importer France Importer Germany Importer Netherlands Importer United Kingdom Importer Subtotals Importer Table 3. Direct exports of Euphyllia glabrescens from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes. (No annual reports have been received from Fiji for either 2003 or 2011.) Term Reported by Total live Importer raw corals Importer Micronesia (Federated States of): The Federated States of Micronesia (hereafter referred to as Micronesia) is not a Party to CITES, hence it has not published any CITES annual export quotas and trade data are based on records from importing parties only. No direct trade in E. glabrescens from Micronesia to the EU-27 or elsewhere was reported prior to According to importer-reported data, direct exports from Micronesia to the EU consisted of live corals traded for commercial purposes, the majority of which were captive-born (Table 1). No indirect trade in E. glabrescens to the EU-27 was reported Direct imports of E. glabrescens from Micronesia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of captive-born and wild-sourced corals traded for commercial purposes, the majority live, which were primarily imported by the United States of America (Table 2). Table 1. Direct exports of Euphyllia glabrescens from the Federated States of Micronesia to the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importers and was in live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported from ; the Federated States of Micronesia is not a Party to CITES.) Importer Source Total France F W Germany F Netherlands F Spain F

50 Euphyllia glabrescens Importer Source Total United Kingdom F Subtotals F W Table 2. Direct trade in Euphyllia glabrescens from the Federated States of Micronesia to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importers and was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in ; the Federated States of Micronesia is not a Party to CITES.) Term Source Total live C F W raw corals F Solomon Islands: The Solomon Islands has not published any export quotas for E. glabrescens. The Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007; no annual report has yet been received for the year Direct trade from the Solomon Islands to the EU consisted of wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). No indirect trade in E. glabrescens to the EU-27 originating in the Solomon Islands was reported Direct trade in E. glabrescens from the Solomon Islands to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced corals traded for commercial purposes, the majority live; the principal importer was the United States of America (Table 2). Additionally, the confiscation/seizure of 18 live corals was reported by the United States of America during the period Table 1. Direct exports of Euphyllia glabrescens from the Solomon Islands to the EU-27, All trade was in wild-sourced, live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in 2004, 2005 or 2011; the Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007; no annual reports have been received from the Solomon Islands for 2011.) Importer Units Reported by Total Germany - Importer United Kingdom kg Importer Importer Table 2. Direct exports of Euphyllia glabrescens from the Solomon Islands to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in 2002; the Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007; no annual reports have been received from the Solomon Islands for 2011.) Term Source Reported by Total live I Importer W Importer raw corals W Importer

51 Euphyllia glabrescens CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Figure 1: Global distribution of Euphyllia glabrescens. Key: 0: not recorded, 1: confirmed record, 2: probable or predicted record, 4: record under review. Map: Veron et al. (2013). The global distribution of Euphyllia glabrescens is indicated in Figure 1. E. glabrescens was reported to inhabit various reef environments, at depths of 1-35 m (Turak et al., 2008a). E. glabrescens was categorized as Near Threatened by the IUCN, as although population trends were unknown, population reductions were inferred (Turak et al., 2008a). However, it was noted to be widespread and generally common within its range and therefore thought to show some resilience to habitat loss and degradation (Turak et al., 2008a). Veron (2000) considered the species to be uncommon but conspicuous. The species was reported to be mainly threatened by extensive reduction of habitat; harvest was also noted (Turak et al., 2008a). The species was initially highlighted for potential review under the Review Significant Trade process in 2011 due to high volume of trade (globally threatened) (AC25 Doc. 9.6); however, it was not selected at AC26 (AC26 Doc. 12.3). For genus-level information, see E. cristata. Australia: E. glabrescens was reported from Houtman Abrolhos Island, Ningaloo Reefs, Dampier Archipelago, Kimberley Coast (western and south-western Australian coast); Rowley Shoals, Scott Reef, Ashmore Reef (western Australia offshore); various sites off the Northern Territory coast; the Coral Sea; Torres Strait, Northern and Central Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Pompey and Swain Reefs and Capricorn & Bunker Reefs (eastern and south-eastern Australian coast) (Veron, 2004). E. glabrescens was considered a typical species of the inshore coral communities of the GBR (DeVantier et al., 2006) and during a survey at the Dampier archipelago in 1998, it was found to be the most common species recorded at the intertidal stations (Griffith, 2004). The species was observed to be harvested by fragmentation in the QCF and concerns were raised over the potential implication of harvest and fragmentation of large colonies on recruitment rates (Jones, 2011). E. glabrescens was listed as one of the species for which the risk from the QCF was greater than negligible, and therefore subject to performance measures, which were put in place to monitor the performance of the fishery against their objectives in relation to sustainability (DEEDI, 2011). Fiji: E. glabrescens was reported from the northern coast of Vanua Levu (Jenkins et al., 2006), Yadua and Yadua Taba Islands and Great Astrolabe Reef (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). The species was found to be locally common in the northern coast of Vanua Levu (Jenkins et al., 2006) and it was estimated to account for 0.3% of the coral cover in the Walt Smith International collection site (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). Micronesia (Federated States of): The species presence was confirmed from the Mortlock Islands, Chuuk State (Houk and Leberer, 2008), Dekehtik Island in Pohnpei State (Smith et al., 2005). No information on the status of the species in Micronesia could be located. 49

52 Euphyllia glabrescens Solomon Islands: The species was recorded in the Solomon Islands during a 2004 survey (Green et al., 2006). E. glabrescens was reported to be included in the species lists of Aquarium Arts Solomon Islands and Solomon Islands Marine Exports (Kinch, 2004) and Euphyllia spp. corals were reported to be amongst the most frequently requested corals by exporters to local fishers (Teitelbaum, 2007). No information on the distribution and status of the species in the Solomon Islands could be located. 50

53 Fungia fungites REVIEW OF CORAL SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS ANTHOZOA FUNGIIDAE SPECIES: Fungia fungites SYNONYMS: Fungia agariciformis, Fungia confertifolia, Fungia crassolamellata, Fungia dentata, Fungia haimei, Fungia lacera, Fungia papillosa, Fungia patella, Fungia patellaris, Fungia pliculosa, Madrepora fungites, Madrepora patella, Monomyces patella COMMON NAMES: Mushroom Coral (English) RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, China, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Myanmar, New Caledonia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands, United States of America, Vanuatu, Viet Nam RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Australia, Indonesia, New Caledonia, Solomon Islands, Tonga IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997 and removed for American Samoa, British Indian Ocean Territory, China, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Myanmar, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Timor-Leste, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands, United States of America and Vanuatu on 02/12/

54 Fungia fungites TRADE PATTERNS: Australia: Australia has not published any export quotas for Fungia fungites. No direct trade in F. fungites from Australia to the EU-27 was reported Direct trade to the EU was all wild-sourced and traded for commercial purposes, and mainly consisted of live corals (Table 1). No annual report has yet been received from Australia for the year No indirect trade in F. fungites to the EU-27 originating in Australia was reported Direct trade in F. fungites from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced corals, which were mainly live and traded for commercial purposes, primarily imported by Canada (Table 2). Additionally, the confiscation/seizure of three live corals was reported by the United States of America in Table 1. Direct exports of Fungia fungites from Australia to the EU-27, All trade was in wild-sourced corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in or 2011; no annual report has been received from Australia for 2011.) Importer Term Reported by Total France live Importer raw corals Importer Germany live Importer Netherlands live Importer United Kingdom live Importer Subtotals Importer Table 2. Direct exports of Fungia fungites from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was wild-sourced. (No trade was reported in , 2006 or 2007; no annual report has been received from Australia for 2011.) Term Purpose Units Reported by Total live T - Importer specimens S kg Importer Indonesia: Indonesia has published export quotas for wild-sourced F. fungites every year since 1999 (Table 1). The quotas applied to live corals except for , when the trade term was not specified. Trade appears to have remained within quota for all years. Additionally, a zero quota was published for corals from mariculture in In this year, 180 live, captive-born corals and six live, captive-bred corals were exported from Indonesia according to exporter- and importer-reported figures, respectively. Indonesia also published export quotas for the genus Fungia every year since 1997 (Annex III, Table 5). Table 1. CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Fungia fungites from Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the importers and exporter, (Trade data for 2012 are not yet available.) (For each year, trade in those terms to which the quota does not apply in that year is greyed out.) Quota (term) Reported by (live) 9300 (live) 9300 (live) 9300 (live) 9300 (live) (live) live importers raw corals 9700 (live) Indonesia importers Indonesia Subtotals importers Indonesia

55 Fungia fungites Direct trade from Indonesia to the EU was all for commercial purposes and consisted mainly of wild-sourced, live corals (Table 2; see Annex II, Table 2 for detailed trade data). Indirect trade in F. fungites to the EU-27 originating in Indonesia involved wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes, consisting of two corals re-exported via Singapore to Cyprus in each of 2007 and 2008 and five corals re-exported via the United States of America to the United Kingdom in All indirect trade was reported by the re-exporters only. Direct trade in F. fungites from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted mainly of wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes, primarily imported by the United States of America (Table 3). Additionally, the confiscation/seizure of 203 live corals was reported by the United States of America between 2003 and Table 2. Direct exports of Fungia fungites from Indonesia to the EU-27, All trade was for commercial purposes. Term Source Reported by Total live F Importer W Importer raw corals W Importer Table 3. Direct exports of Fungia fungites from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27, Term Purpose Source Reported by Total carvings T W Importer live (kg) T W Importer 7 7 live B W Importer T C Importer 6 6 F Importer I Importer U Importer W Importer raw corals T W Importer New Caledonia: New Caledonia has not published any export quotas for F.fungites. Direct trade in F. fungites from New Caledonia to the EU was all wild-sourced and for personal purposes, and comprised mainly raw corals and carvings (Table 1). The majority of the trade was not confirmed by the importers. No annual reports have been received from New Caledonia for the years No indirect trade in F. fungites to the EU-27 originating in New Caledonia was reported Direct trade in F. fungites from New Caledonia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of four wild-sourced carvings in 2006 and one in 2007, and one raw coral each in 2002 and 2003, all for personal purposes; none of the trade was confirmed by the importers. 53

56 Fungia fungites Table 1. Direct exports of Fungia fungites from New Caledonia to the EU-27, All trade was wildsourced and for personal purposes. (No trade was reported in ; no annual reports have been received from New Caledonia for ) Importer Term Units Reported by Total Belgium raw corals - Importer 1 1 Czech Republic raw corals - Importer 4 4 France (including dependent territories of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion) carvings - Importer live - Importer 5 5 raw corals kg Importer Importer Solomon Islands: The Solomon Islands has not published any export quotas for F. fungites. The Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007, and no annual report has yet been received for the year The only direct trade in F. fungites from the Solomon Islands to the EU-27 reported consisted of 160 wild-sourced, live corals imported by the United Kingdom for commercial purposes in 2002 (reported by the importer only). No indirect trade in F. fungites to the EU-27 originating in the Solomon Islands was reported Direct trade in F. fungites from the Solomon Islands to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes; the principal importer was the United States of America (Table 1). Additionally, the confiscation/seizure of three live corals was reported by the United States of America in Table 1. Direct exports of Fungia fungites from the Solomon Islands to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importers and was in live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2002, 2004, , or ; the Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007; no annual reports have been received from the Solomon Islands for 2011.) Source Total I 3 3 W Tonga: Tonga is not a Party to CITES, hence it has not published any CITES annual export quotas and trade data are reported by trading partners only. Direct trade from Tonga to the EU consisted of wild-sourced, live corals traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). No indirect trade in F. fungites to the EU-27 originating in Tonga was reported All direct trade in F. fungites from Tonga to countries other than the EU-27 over the period consisted of wild-sourced, live corals imported by the United States of America for commercial purposes (Table 2). Table 1. Direct trade in Fungia fungites from Tonga to the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importers and was in wild-sourced, live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in 2003, 2006 or ; Tonga is not a Party to CITES.) Importer Total Denmark Germany Subtotals Table 2. Direct exports of Fungia fungites from Tonga to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was reported by the importer and was in wild-sourced, live corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in or ; Tonga is not a Party to CITES.) Units Reported by Total kg Importer

57 Fungia fungites Units Reported by Total - Importer CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Figure 1: Global distribution of Fungia fungites. Key: 0: not recorded, 1: confirmed record, 2: probable or predicted record. Map: Veron et al. (2013). The global distribution of Fungia fungites is indicated in Figure 1. F. fungites, a free-living solitary coral, was reported to inhabit various reef areas and substrates (Hoeksema et al., 2008a), at depths of 1-20 m (Hoeksema, 1990; in Hoeksema et al., 2008a). The species was reported to form dense clusters on some reef flats, as a result of being a good asexual reproducer (Hoeksema et al., 2008a). Harvest by splitting of colonies was not considered possible for this species and Knittweis (2008) recommended a minimum harvest age of eight years to ensure sustainability. Linear growth rates of cm/year, with area growth rates of at least 2.2 cm 2 /year were reported for Fungia spp. (Green and Shirley, 1999); the growth rates for F. fungites were reported to decrease with the corals size (Goffredo and Chadwick-Furman 2003 in (Knittweis, 2008). F. fungites was categorized as Near Threatened by the IUCN, as although population trends were unknown, population reductions were inferred (Hoeksema et al., 2008a). However, it was noted to be widespread and very common within its range and therefore thought to show some resilience to habitat loss and degradation (Hoeksema et al., 2008a). The species was reported to be able to settle well in disturbed habitats, with populations thought to be increasing locally (Hoeksema et al., 2008a). F. fungites was reported to be mainly threatened by extensive reduction of habitat; harvest was also noted (Hoeksema et al., 2008a). It was thought to tolerate some heat stress and bleaching (Hoeksema, 2012). The species was initially highlighted for potential review under the Review Significant Trade process in 2011 due to high volume of trade (globally threatened) (AC25 Doc. 9.6), however it was not selected at AC26 (AC26 Doc. 12.3). Australia: F. fungites was reported from Ningaloo Reefs, Dampier Archipelago, Kimberley Coast (western and south-western coast), Rowley Shoals, Scott Reef, Ashmore Reef (western Australia offshore), various sites off the Northern Territory coast; the Coral Sea; Torres Strait, Northern and Central GBR, Pompey and Swain Reefs and Capricorn & Bunker Reefs (eastern and south-eastern coast) (Veron, 2004). F. fungites was found to be common at two study sites in the Dampier archipelago, both in a low sediment and a high sediment site, but the abundance of live-history stages differed between sites (Gilmour, 2002). The rarity of Fungidae in the Coringa-Herald reefs [Coral Sea] was considered noteworthy (Ceccarelli, 2011). In 1985, F. fungites was considered to be very common in the Cape Tribulation area of the GBR, between Cairns and Cooktown (Johnson and Carter, 1987). Indonesia: The species presence was confirmed from Kepulauan Seribu and Jakarta Bay (van der Meij et al., 2010), Bali (Mustika et al., 2012) and north-eastern Sulawesi (Scaps et al., 2007a). In east Kalimantan, the species was recorded from Sangalaki, Maratua and Derawan Islands (Suhendra, 2006). In eastern 55

58 Fungia fungites Indonesia, the species was reported from Tukang Besi Islands, Suma, north-eastern Komodo, Sumbawa, Taka Bone Rate Islands, Salayer and south-western Sulawesi (Best et al., 1989). F. fungites was considered to be common in Indonesia (Suharsono, 2008). Fungia spp. was reported to account on average for 0.41% of the coral cover in survey sites in Bali (Mustika et al., 2012). In the Pulisan region, north-eastern Sulawesi, Fungiids were reported to represent 11% of the zooxanthellate scleractinians observed, with F. fungites considered to be common and found to occur at almost all the sites surveyed (Scaps et al., 2007a). In Spermonde Shelf, South Sulawesi, F. fungites was considered to be the most abundant fungiid species in some locations surveyed and was found to be dominant in a number of reef flat sites, with more than 1000 specimens counted in the total area surveyed (Hoeksema, 2012). Relatively low densities of the species at the westward slopes of the reefs were thought to be due to the scarcity of suitably shallow substrates for larval settlement (Hoeksema, 2012). The species was reported to be widespread in Bunaken National Park, but it was considered uncommon to rare although believed to form locally reproductive populations (Turak and DeVantier, 2003a). New Caledonia: F. fungites was recorded from the northwestern and northeastern lagoon of Grande Terre (McKenna et al., 2009; McKenna et al., 2011). The species was found to be the second most frequently observed Fungia species across survey sites in northwestern lagoon of Grande Terre; F. fungites was considered rare in three sites surveyed and uncommon in 10 (McKenna et al., 2009). In the northeastern lagoon, the species was the third most frequently observed species of the genus across survey sites and was assessed as rare in nine, uncommon in 10, and common in four locations (McKenna et al., 2011). Solomon Islands: The species was recorded in various locations from Choiseul to Guadalcanal Island (Green et al., 2006). During a survey in 2004, the species abundance was reported as 32 specimens out of 570 corals [5.6%] recorded across all sites where F. fungites was found (Green et al., 2006). The species was not considered to show a particular fidelity to specific sites (Green et al., 2006). F. fungites was reported to be included in the species lists of Aquarium Arts Solomon Islands and Solomon Islands Marine Exports (Kinch, 2004) and Fungia spp. were reported to be amongst the most frequently requested corals by exporters to fishers (Teitelbaum, 2007). No further information on the status of the species in the Solomon Islands could be located. Tonga: The species was reported to occur in Tonga (Lovell and McLardy, 2008) and its presence was confirmed from Tongatapu (van Woesik, 1996). In the mid 1990s, Fungia spp. was considered to be common in Monu (van Woesik, 1996), but no further information on the distribution and status of the species in Tonga could be located. 56

59 Fungia repanda REVIEW OF CORAL SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS ANTHOZOA FUNGIIDAE SPECIES: Fungia repanda SYNONYMS: Fungia integra, Fungia linnaei, Fungia samboangensis, Verrillofungia repanda RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, China, Christmas Island, Djibouti, Fiji, French Polynesia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), New Caledonia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands, Vanuatu, Viet Nam RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997 and removed for American Samoa, British Indian Ocean Territory, China, Christmas Island, Djibouti, Fiji, French Polynesia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), New Caledonia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands, Vanuatu and Viet Nam on 02/12/2011. TRADE PATTERNS: Australia: Australia has not published any export quotas for Fungia repanda. No direct trade in F. repanda from Australia to the EU-27 was reported prior to Direct trade to the EU was all wild-sourced, for commercial purposes and consisted mainly of live corals (Table 1). No annual report has yet been received from Australia for the year No indirect trade in F. repanda to the EU- 27 originating in Australia was reported No direct trade in F. repanda from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 was reported Direct trade to countries other than the EU-27 over the period was wild-sourced, for commercial purposes and consisted mainly of live corals, primarily imported by the United States of America (Table 2). 57

60 Fungia repanda Table 1. Direct exports of Fungia repanda from Australia to the EU-27, All trade was in wild-sourced corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported ; no annual report has been received from Australia for 2011.) Importer Term Reported by Total Germany live Importer raw corals 3 3 Importer Ireland live Importer Spain live Importer Table 2. Direct exports of Fungia repanda from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, All trade was in wild-sourced corals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported ; no annual report has been received from Australia for 2011.) Term Reported by Total live Importer raw corals Importer 9 9 CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Figure 1: Global distribution of Fungia repanda. Key: 0: not recorded, 1: confirmed record, 2: probable or predicted record. Map: Veron et al. (2013). The global distribution of Fungia repanda is indicated in Figure 1. F. repanda, forming free-living single polyps of up to 23.5 cm size, was reported to inhabit reef slopes and flats (Hoeksema et al., 2008), at depths of 1-30 m (Hoeksema, 1990; in Hoeksema et al., 2008). Age at sexual maturity is assumed to be 3-8 years (Hoeksema et al., 2008) based on those for most reef building corals (Wallace, 1999), and average generation length was assumed as 10 years (Hoeksema et al., 2008). Linear growth rates of cm/year, with area growth rates of at least 2.2 cm 2 /year were reported for Fungia spp. (Green and Shirley, 1999). F. repanda was categorized as Least Concern by the IUCN, as although population trends were unknown, population reductions were inferred (Hoeksema et al., 2008). However, it was noted to be widespread and common within its range and therefore thought to show some resilience to habitat loss and degradation (Hoeksema et al., 2008). The species was reported to be mainly threatened by extensive reduction of habitat (Hoeksema et al., 2008). The species was initially highlighted for potential review under the Review Significant Trade process in 2011 due to sharp increase in trade (AC25 Doc. 9.6), however it was not selected at AC26 (AC26 Doc. 12.3). 58