Review of Corals from Indonesia

Home , Bunaken National Park, Cryptochiridae, Cynarina, Cynarina lacrymalis, Derawan Islands, Lobophyllia corymbosa

UNEP-WCMC technical report

(Coral species subject to EU decisions where identification to genus level is acceptable for trade purposes )

(Version edited for public release)

2 Review of corals from Indonesia (coral species subject to EU decisions where identification to genus level is acceptable for trade purposes )

Prepared for The European Commission, Directorate General Environment, Directorate E - Global & Regional Challenges, LIFE ENV.E.2. – Global Sustainability, Trade & Multilateral Agreements , Brussels, Belgium

Prepared November 201 4

Citation UNEP-WCMC. 2014. Review of corals from Indonesia ( coral species subject to EU decisions where identification to genus level is acceptable for trade purposes) . UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

The UNEP World Conser vation Monitoring Centre (UNEP -WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment of the United Nations Environment Programme, the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, combining sci entific research with policy advice and the development of decision tools.

We are able to provide objective, scientifically rigorous products and services to help decision - makers recognize the value of biodiversity and apply this knowledge to all that they do. To do this, we collate and verify data on biodiversity and ecosystem services that we analyze and interpret in comprehensive assessments, making the results available in appropriate forms for national and international level decision -makers and busine sses. To ensure that our work is both sustainable and equitable we seek to build the capacity of partners where needed, so that they can provide the same services at national and regional scales.

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.

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 219 Huntingdon Road, UNEP promotes Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK environmentally sound Tel: +44 1223 277314 practices globally and in its www.unep-wcmc.org own activities. Printing on

paper from environmentally sustainable forests and recycled fibre is encouraged.

Contents

Introduction and summary ...... 4 Overview of status and management of corals in Indonesia ...... 5 Review of genera ...... 14 Acropora spp...... 15 Tubastraea spp...... 21 Turbinaria spp...... 25 Caulastraea spp...... 31 Cyphastrea spp...... 36 Fungia spp...... 40 Lobophyllia spp...... 45 Pectinia spp...... 50 Stylophora spp...... 54 Goniopora spp...... 58 Porites spp...... 64 Acanthophyllia deshayesiana ...... 70 Cynarina lacrimalis ...... 71 References ...... 74 Appendix ...... 79

4 Introduction and summary

This document provides a review of the status and management of coral harvest and trade from Indonesia, with particular focus on 11 genera selected for more in- depth review at SRG69. Those genera include species for which there are current EU decisions in place at species level for Indonesia, yet identification to genus level is acceptable under CITES Notification No. 2013/035, for the purpose of implementing Resolutions Conf. 11.17 (Rev. CoP16) on National reports and Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP16) on Permits and certificates . These decisions may therefore provide implementation challenges, and the present document provides a basis for the SRG to reassess them.

The SRG selected a number of genera for in-depth review for Indonesia, in order to form an opinion at genus level where possible: Acropora, Tubastraea, Turbinaria, Caulastraea, Cyphastrea , Fungia, Lobophyllia, Pectinia, Stylophora, Goniopora, and Porites. The genera selected included cases where quotas have been published at species level but also at genus level; or for which there was (virtually) no trade at species level, while there was trade at genus level. Recognizing the recommendation in Res. Conf. 11.10 (Rev. CoP15) that Parties should “adopt the principles and practice of an ecosystem approach”, genus level opinions may warrant being applied across the relevant genera.

This review also includes species-level reviews of Acanthophyllia deshayesiana and Cynarina lacrymalis from Indonesia. These taxa have been selected for more in-depth review through the ‘Review of species selected on the basis of the 2014 quota analysis’, but are included in this document to allow the SRG to consider all the corals from Indonesia that are to be assessed at SRG70 together.

Overview of status and 5 management of corals in Indonesia

Indonesia, a key biodiversity hotspot for corals, is the largest exporter of corals globally. This section provides background information on the status and trends of corals within the country, threats affecting corals, and management actions taken to ensure sustainability of the trade. Status and trends Indonesia, globally the largest exporter of live corals, was reported to account for an average of 70% of corals in trade over the period 2000-2010 (Wood et al. , 2012). The country is the world’s largest archipelagic state (Asian Development Bank, 2014; Figure 1) and its coral reef area was estimated at 50 875 km 2 (Wilkinson, 2008), amounting to approximately 18% of the global coral reefs (Center for Ocean Solutions, 2009).

Indonesia, together with Malaysia, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea form part of the Coral Triangle biodiversity hotspot (Hoeksema, 2007; Tittensor et al ., 2010). Indonesia’s archipelago is home to an “extraordinary wealth of coral reef organisms” (Allen, 2008). The Bird’s Head Peninsula [West Papua province] is particularly biodiversity rich, with 574 coral species recorded in this location (Turak and Souhoka, 2003). Other ecoregions within the Coral Triangle also display a high diversity of corals, which was found to primarily be due to overlap of the range of species with wide distributions and to a much lesser degree due to endemism (only about 2.5% of coral diversity in the Coral Triangle is due to endemism) (Veron et al. , 2009). Coral growth was reported to be highest in eastern Indonesia (Asian Development Bank, 2014) and these eastern reefs were considered to be an important source of coral seeding populations for the whole archipelago (Wallace, Carden et al. , 2001).

However, Indonesia was reported to have experienced a rapid decline of marine resources over the last three decades, with urgent conservation measures needed (Allen, 2008). The status of reefs (Table 1) was considered to be poorest in western Indonesia in 2000 (Dirhamsyah, 2005) and t he condition of coral reefs was found to have declined over the period 2004-2008 (Wilkinson, 2008), with many reefs considered severely damaged (Scaps et al. , 2007). Arias-Gonzalez et al. (2011) warned that even small changes in coral covers may lead to cascades in trophic structure, ultimately affecting the people relying on services from corals reefs.

Table 1: Some assessments of the status of Indonesian reefs over time

Reef status 2000 2011 1 Poor 32.3% 30.8% Fair 35.3% 36.9% Good 25.5% 27.0% Excellent 6.7% 5.6% (COREMAP, 2011; in: Asian Reference: (Dirhamsyah, 2005) Development Bank, 2014)

1 Percentage of live coral cover: ‘poor’: 0–24%; ‘fair’: 25–49%; ‘good’: 50-74%; ‘excellent’: 75–100%.

6 A Marine Rapid Assessment Program at the Togean and Banggai Islands in Sulawesi in 1998 found an average coral cover of 41-42%, which at that time compared favourably to other survey sites in Indonesia and the reefs were considered to be in relatively good condition (Allen and McKenna, 2001). The condition of the coral reefs at the sites surveyed were assessed as follows: none were ‘extraordinary’, two were ‘excellent’, 10 ‘good’, 19 ‘moderate’, 14 ‘poor’ and two ‘very poor’ (Allen and McKenna, 2001). More recently, the reefs of the same archipelago were considered to be in poor condition overall (Moore and Ndobe, 2009). The Reefs in Jakarta Bay were considered to be in a poor state and seriously degraded in 1995 (Cleary et al. , 2008), with species richness declines over the period 1920-2005 due to the considerable human impacts on the reefs; half the species were recorded in 2005 compared to 1920 (van der Meij et al. , 2010). The average coral cover in Wakatobi Marine National Park (MNP) in southern Sulawesi was reported to have declined from nearly 50% in 2002 to 22% in 2007, while the genus richness did not appear to have changed (Wilkinson, 2008). Live coral cover at sites in Luwuk Peninsula, eastern Central Sulawesi, was 7-29% (average 15%) in 2007, and despite the low cover and evidence of overharvesting, the condition of the reef was considered to be good (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008). Coral cover averaged 28% (1-70%) in Bali between 2008 and 2011, and the reefs were considered to be in moderate to good condition (Turak and DeVantier, 2011). Corals reefs at sites in western Bandul Island, Ujung Kulon NP in West Java were reportedly in ‘very good’ condition at 10m depth and in ‘good’ condition at 3m depth; the average coral cover was 85% at 10m and 60% at 3m depth, with an overall live coral cover of 73% (Putri et al. , 2012).

The SA of Indonesia (2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC) believed that the condition of the reef and live coral cover had improved over the period 1993-2014, particularly since the establishment of COREMAP (The National Policy, Strategy and Action Plan) in the late 1998s (Suharsono, 2008b). COREMAP management actions were also believed to have contributed to increases in coral cover in eastern Indonesia over the period 2006-2011 (Giyanto, 2011).

1: Aceh 16: East Kalimantan/ North Kalimantan 2: Bali 17: Lampung 3: Bangka-Belitung 18: Maluku 4: Banten 19: North Maluku 5: Bengkulu 20: West Nusa Tenggara 6: Gorontalo 21: East Nusa Tenggara 7: Papua/West Papua 22: Riau 8: Jakarta 23: South Sulawesi/West Sumatra 9: Jambi 24: Central Sulawesi 10: West Java 25: Southeast Sulawesi 11: Central Java 26: North Sulawesi 12: East Java 27: West Sumatra 13: West Kalimantan 28: South Sumatra Indicates provinces where coral collection takes place (Suharsano and Bruckner, 2008). 14: South Kalimantan 29: North Sumatra 15: Central Kalimantan 30: Yogyakarta Figure 1: Indonesia, based on UN map No. 4110 Rev. 4, and provinces as of 25/10/2012.

Threats 8 In the mid 2000s, 70% of Indonesian coral reefs were considered to be threatened (Dirhamsyah, 2005) and the Center for Ocean Solutions (2009) later considered the majority of the coral reefs to be under “moderate to severe risk”. Indonesia was identified as one of nine countries that globally are “most vulnerable to the effects of coral reef degradation” (Burke et al. , 2011).

Destructive fishing practices were considered the main threat to corals (Burke et al. , 2011; Dirhamsyah, 2005; Wilkinson, 2008; Center for Ocean Solutions, 2009; Turak and DeVantier, 2003; Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC), with up to 80% of coral cover destroyed in some areas by fishing with explosives (Center for Ocean Solutions, 2009). Half of the reef of Komodo NP in Indonesia were reported to have been destroyed through the use of explosives (Best and Bornbusch, 2001) and 86% of the surveys sites at the Togean and Banggai Islands in Sulawesi showed some damage due to dynamite fishing (Allen and McKenna, 2001). The use of poison, which is squirted within coral formations to stun and collect fish hiding amongst the coral, and which harms corals, has been illegal since the 1980s (Wabnitz et al. , 2003). However, poor law enforcement (Pet and Pet-Soede, 1999) and difficulties with encouraging collectors to change techniques were reported to have made it challenging to eradicate this technique (Wabnitz et al. , 2003). Further significant threats included offtake for trade and local uses (including construction and lime production) (Bentley, 1998; Dirhamsyah, 2005; Scaps et al. , 2007), pollution (Turak and DeVantier, 2003; Dirhamsyah, 2005; Scaps et al. , 2007), coastal construction and tourism (Dirhamsyah, 2006; Turak and DeVantier, 2003).

The damage through the harvest of marine organisms for the aquarium trade was considered to be “relatively slight” compared to other human-induced impacts (Reksodihardjo-Lilley and Lilley, 2007; Wabnitz et al. , 2003). While the illegal trade in corals globally was considered to be substantial (Jones, 2008), the Scientific Authority (SA) of Indonesia (2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC) believed that it was "almost impossible", due to controls in place in Indonesia and importing countries. However, it is worth noting that importers did report some trade from Indonesia under source code I within their annual reports 2003-2012 (see trade sections of genus reviews).

Damages caused by natural disturbances also threaten coral reefs (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC ; Wilkinson, 2008 ) and bleaching was considered significant, with up to 100% of bleaching of susceptible species in some areas (GCRMN, 2010). Bleaching events have affected a number of reefs over the years, for example reefs from western Aceh to Ambon, and some reefs in Raja Ampat in 2010; bleaching in the Spermonde and Buton reefs in Sulawesi led to a 12.45% decrease in live coral cover in 2009-2010 (Yusuf and Jompa, 2012). Reefs impacted by acute natural events were however found to recover rapidly, compared to those affected by chronic anthropogenic stress (Connell, 1997). Protection and management Regulatory background The regulation of marine resources in Indonesia was considered to be complex, with 17 laws relating to coastal and marine management, 15 to ocean activities and two to the ratification of international conventions (Asian Development Bank, 2014). 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) prohibits the use of illegal methods and equipment and was considered the most important law for the management of coral reefs; Act No. 41 of 1999 (Forestry Act) was also considered to have a direct impact on coral reefs (Dirhamsyah, 2005). Act No. 5 of 1990 Concerning Conservation of Living Resources and their Ecosystems, and Regulation No. 8 regulate the management of wildlife and prohibit the harvest and trade of protected species (Ministry of Forestry, 1990). However, for corals, only the genus Antipathes (black coral) is listed as protected under Regulation No. 7 of 1999 (Republic of Indonesia, 1999); other wild-taken corals can be traded

for commercial purposes (Timotius et al. , 2009). The regulation of coral harvest was reported to fall within the Decree of The Minister of Forestry No. 447/Kpts-II/2003, regulating inter alia the 9 allocation of quotas, collection sites and roles of stakeholders (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC). Only live corals can be traded in Indonesia; the policy having been introduced to encourage collectors to reduce damage and mortality of harvested corals (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC).

While the governance of coastal and ocean resources was reported to lay with the State, many other bodies, such as agencies, departments and ministries are also involved (Asian Development Bank, 2014). Overall, t he legal and non-legal instruments were considered of limited effectiveness in managing the marine and coastal resources and ecosystems (Dirhamsyah, 2005; Asian Development Bank, 2014) and they were considered to be vague and open to interpretation, with conflicts between different laws (Patlis et al. , 2001). The national governance was considered weak and the management of the collection of organisms for the aquarium trade ineffective (Tissot et al. , 2010). Protected areas The number of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that include coral reefs was estimated at 30-50 (Center for Ocean Solutions, 2009), and Wilkinson (2008) estimated that 9% of Indonesian coral reefs were within MPAs. In 2011, MPAs covered 15.4 million ha (increasing from 13.5 million ha in 2009) and in 2014, 5.85% of coastal and marine areas in Indonesia within 12 nautical miles from the coast were protected, representing 19.9 million ha (Juffe-Bignoli et al . 2014). Indonesia was reported to aim at having 20 million ha of MPAs by 2020 (Asian Development Bank, 2014).

In 2008, out of 114 actively managed MPAs overall, less than 3% were considered well-managed (Wilkinson, 2008). NOAA (2012) reported that the majority of Indonesian MPA’s lacked any management activities, although the Asian Development Bank (2014) reported much activity to focus on strengthening MPA management, including encouraging community involvement. Coral reef management actions The National Policy, Strategy and Action Plan, also known as ‘Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program’ (COREMAP) (Suharsono, 2008b), was reported to have started in 1998, with its last phase running until 2018 (Asian Development Bank, 2014). The project aims at sustainable use of the coral reef ecosystem (Asian Development Bank, 2014) through five components:

• community awareness and education; • control and surveillance; • research and monitoring; • community-based management; and • institutional strengthening (Suharsono, 2008b; Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC ). The Coral Triangle Initiative, one of the key conservation initiatives focussing on the marine environment (Veron et al. , 2009), was reported to aim at the following in Indonesia:

• improving the governance and management of priority marine ecoregions (6 out of 12); • implementing an ecosystem-based approach to management of fisheries; • improving the management of Marine Protected Areas; • adopting climate change adaptation measures; and • improving the conservation status of threatened species (including corals) (Asian Development Bank, 2014).

Various coral reef rehabilitation efforts were reported to have been undertaken in a number of 10 locations and by different organizations, such as Non-governmental organisations (NGO), government agencies and others (Asian Development Bank, 2014). But w hile Indonesia was reported to have put much effort into working towards the sustainable management of marine resources, stakeholder participation and ownership were found to be lacking (Asian Development Bank, 2014). The Asian Development Bank (2014) also pointed out that the coordination amongst those implementing the management of coastal and marine resources needed strengthening and that overlapping functions of government agencies needed to be addressed.

When considering the level of management interventions, Cleary et al. (2006) pointed out that reef complexes should be managed at large spatial scales, based on findings that local land-use had no effect on coral composition, cover or taxon richness, while large scale human disturbance did affect the composition and coral cover in sites at the Jakarta Bay and Pulau Seribu reef complex. Coral harvest Corals play a key role in the reef ecosystem, but the effects of coral harvest on the ecology and geology of reefs was considered poorly understood and Bruckner (2001) therefore called for a cautious management of the harvest and trade. Indonesia was reported to have adopted the following principles for coral harvest:

• the establishment of no-take zones (Bruckner, 2001) by prohibition of harvesting within protected areas and tourism sites (Samedi and Liman, 2002); • limiting harvest to assessed sites and allowing recovery of exploited sites (Samedi and Liman, 2002) through rotational harvest (Bruckner, 2001), with a minimum of 4 years between harvest cycles (Suharsano and Bruckner, 2008); • limiting harvest to immature specimens through species-specific size limits (Samedi and Liman, 2002), with a maximum of 15cm for massive corals and 25cm for branching corals (Bruckner, 2001; Indonesia CITES Management Authority, 1999; in: Wood, 2001); and • conducting population monitoring (Samedi and Liman, 2002). The coral harvest management plan was also reported to contain recommendations on how to avoid damage to the reef when harvesting corals (Bruckner, 2001); the process of removal of corals was indeed found to have a very small impact on other colonies or the substrate (Bruckner and Borneman, 2006).

Quotas were reported to be established based on the following assumptions: reef accretion rates are 1-1.5 cm per year, coral growth rates are 2.5-30 cm per year, and harvest occurs on approximately 30% of the reefs that are in good to excellent condition (Suharsono, 1999; in: Bruckner and Borneman, 2006). On that basis, an overall coral harvest of 1 million colonies per year was believed to represent the take of 0.00035% of the coral reef area assessed as in good to excellent condition (Suharsano and Bruckner, 2008) . Furthermore, Indonesia was reported to categorize coral taxa into five categories, depending on a) the size of the colonies, b) their relative frequency, c) relative dominance and d) hard coral cover; the category then stipulates the level of harvest as follows: very common (harvest allowed), common (cautious harvest), uncommon (limited harvest), rare (strictly limited harvest) and very rare (harvest prohibited) (Buckner and Suharsono, 2008; based on Suharsono and Giyanto, 2006). Timotius et al. (2009) noted that over the period 1999-2007, the majority of exported wild-sourced corals were slow-growing, with faster growing corals traded at much lower levels. Fist sized corals were believed to have taken 6 months to 10 years to grow to that size (Bruckner, 2000).

The SA of Indonesia (2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC) explained that quotas were being set by the Management Authority (MA), with input from the SA and other stakeholders, including

exporters. Harvest sites were reported to be selected based on the province and coral abundance, with annual assessments to assist with establishing the quotas (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 11 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC). The determination collection sites was however thought to not consider the species composition of sites (Timotius et al. , 2009).

The harvest of live corals was reported to take place in 11 provinces (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC): Lampung, West Java, Banten, Bangka-Belitung, Central Java, East Java, West Nusa Tenggara, East Nusa Tenggara, South Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi and Central Sulawesi (Suharsano and Bruckner, 2008; Figure 1). The largest collection area was reported to be located within the Spermonde archipelago in south-west Sulawesi (Bruckner and Borneman, 2006). The total reef area of this archipelago was estimated at 4290 km 2, and in the mid 2000s, coral covers of 15-85% were observed at sites used by coral collectors (Bruckner and Borneman, 2006). The average size of the corals then was 5-24cm diameter, with only 1.5% of corals exceeding 100cm, thus making the vast majority of colonies available for collection in that area (Bruckner and Borneman, 2006). Collection quotas for some species were considered to have been set too high, allowing the annual removal of 1-96% of the standing stock of individual species in the Spermonde archipelago; the authors pointed out that for some taxa there was a considerable disconnect between the harvest level and the taxon’s abundance. The IUCN recommended for a number of coral species that the effects of coral harvest for the aquarium trade be assessed in Indonesia, and highlighted the need for adequate management steps to be put in place to ensure sustainability of offtake (IUCN, 2014).

The export quotas were reported to represent 90% of the allowable harvest, allowing for some losses during the collection process (Suharsano and Bruckner, 2008; Table 1). However, the quotas were considered to have little meaning in terms of understanding the full impact of offtake on taxa, as no records have to be kept of the actual harvest levels and losses of harvested corals through damage and mortality (Lilley, 2001). Such losses through poor handling during the trade chain were considered to be frequent in Indonesia, leading to the collection of more stock than ordered to compensate for these losses (Reksodihardjo-Lilley and Lilley, 2007).

The global marine aquarium industry in general was reported to struggle with negative feedback loops: as the trade volume of a species increases, prices fall, in turn increasing the volume of trade due to increased affordability (Rhyne et al. , 2014). This was found to impact on the care taken for specimens within the supply chain, with increased mortality increasing harvest pressure (Rhyne et al. , 2014). In order to improve the sustainability of the marine aquarium trade, a substantial change in business practices, incentives and values was considered to be needed (Rhyne et al. , 2014). Reksodihardjo-Lilley and Lilley (2007) envisaged the aquarium industry to support work on ensuring sustainable reef management, better quality of stock and a better business model of the industry in Indonesia. The Indonesian Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) was reported to provide training, together with a number of NGOs and some importers and exporters (Reksodihardjo-Lilley and Lilley, 2007). MAC was also reported to have assisted with the development of management plans for aquarium organism collection areas (Lilley, 2008).

Indonesian coral exporters are required to be part of the Indonesian coral, shell and ornamental fish association (AKKII) (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC). I n 2001, AKKII was reported to have 18 licensed exporters, each of them having their own divers without middlemen and providing training in species identification, collection and handling (Bruckner, 2001). It was recognized that if local communities were unable to extract aquarium resources from the wild, other unsustainable human impacts on the reef would continue (Rhyne et al. , 2014). However, the authors believed that where sustainability of wild harvests cannot be achieved due to low governance capacity, mariculture should be encouraged instead (Rhyne et al. , 2014).

Table 1: Harvest quotas by genus and province for 2008, based on Suharsano and Bruckner (2008), including the CITES export quotas for 2008 and 12 the difference (in %) between total harvest levels and export quotas.

Bangka– Central West Nusa East Nusa South Southeast Central 2008 CITES Lampung West Java Banten Belitung Java East Java Tenggara Tenggara Sulawesi Sulawesi Sulawesi Total export quota Difference Acropora 3000 3000 1000 3000 3000 3000 2000 4000 6000 5000 7000 40000 18000 55% Tubastraea 1000 500 500 500 500 1000 2000 1000 500 7500 6750 10% Turbinaria 7500 5500 1000 2500 1000 1500 2500 4000 6000 2500 2000 36000 32400 10% Caulastraea 4000 3000 500 2000 2500 1500 3500 4000 2000 2000 25000 22500 10% Cyphastrea 500 500 450 10% Fungia 3500 1750 500 2250 3000 1500 1500 2500 5500 3500 3000 28500 23850 16% Lobophyllia 2500 1500 1000 3500 2000 2000 1000 3500 4000 4500 2500 28000 25200 10% Pectinia 200 200 200 200 200 450 450 300 300 2500 2250 10% Stylophora 500 600 200 300 400 500 500 3000 2250 25% Goniopora 15000 12000 6500 15000 9000 7550 6000 11000 18000 22500 21000 143550 129195 10% Porites 6000 5000 2000 3500 4000 3000 2500 4500 5500 3500 16000 55500 49950 10% Cynarina 1000 500 250 1000 500 500 500 500 1500 500 500 7250 6525 10%

Mariculture 13 The Indonesian Government was reported to prohibit the establishment of new companies which harvest wild corals (Timotius et al. , 2009). Instead, the Government was moving towards mariculture of corals (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC), aiming at completely ceasing trade in wild-sourced corals once sufficient corals can be produced through mariculture (Suharsano and Bruckner, 2008). In 2007, approximately 25 facilities were reported to be actively exporting maricultured corals from Indonesia (Timotius et al. , 2009), with coral culture taking place both in land-based facilities and in the sea (Reksodihardjo-Lilley and Lilley, 2007).

Coral mariculture is regulated under the Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.19/Menhut-II-2005 on captive management of wild plants and animals and 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 captive-bred specimens (unofficial English translation was provided by Indonesia with their Biennial Report in 2007). The same regulation was also noted to require coral traders to return 10% of propagated corals to their natural habitats - this policy was however believed not yet be fully implemented (Asian Development Bank, 2014). Mariculture operations were reported to be subject to biannual inspections, with poor performance over two assessments resulting in mariculture permits being revoked (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC). Operations that successfully mariculture a new species were reported to be allocated the full export quota for a period of two years, which was hoped to be an incentive for mariculture (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC).

Since 2008, Indonesia has established Maximum Estimated Production (MEP) figures for coral mariculture, which represent the expected production per facility and per taxon for half a year at a time. The MEP figures were reported to be calculated on the basis of maximum breeding success and the number of adult breeding stock, and distributed among companies through the AKKII (Timotius et al. , 2009). The Indonesian Management Authority provided a list of maricultured coral taxa in March 2014, many of which will be reported at the genus level (Indonesia, in litt. to the German CITES Scientific Authority, 2014).

In order to better control the trade in corals from different sources, it was recommended that tags be used on cultured specimens and that importing countries should insist that they are left in place for international trade (Timotius et al. , 2009). Tags were reported to be attached to the mother colony, the first and the second generation fragments (Timotius et al. , 2009).

14 Overview of genera

This section provides overviews of the status of and trade in 11 genera from Indonesia that were selected for assessment at SRG 69: Acropora, Tubastraea, Turbinaria, Caulastraea, Cyphastrea, Fungia, Lobophyllia, Pectinia, Stylophora, Goniopora, and Porites.

Information on the conservation status of, and trade levels in, these 11 coral genera from Indonesia is provided at genus level; the full conservation status of individual species has not been reviewed.

In order to assess overall trade volumes in these genera, a number of conversions have been run on the data. For all trade tables, sources have been combined (‘mariculture’ contains sources C, F and R; source W contains sources W, U and unspecified; see (Wood et al. , 2012)). This mainly affected importer reported trade data. Purposes other than purpose T have also been combined as ‘other’. Trade reported at both the genus level and species level for maricultured corals for each genus has been aggregated, unless otherwise specified. Similarly, for the quota tables, quotas published at species level have been aggregated accordingly, to establish an annual “species quota”. This data was then compared to the aggregated trade reported at species level. This was also done for the trade data and quotas for wild-sourced corals, although only trade data for those species covered by species-specific quotas was aggregated; trade reported at species level for species not covered by species-specific quotas was aggregated with the genus-level trade.

Imports into the EU-28 and elsewhere included mainly live and raw corals, reported in both number of pieces and in weight. To facilitate an analysis of trends in sources in trade over the years 2003- 2012 and present these graphically, the volume reported in number of pieces was converted into weight, based on the conversion factors established by Green and Shirley (1999). They estimated the mean mass of pieces of live coral in trade at 206.1±13.1g and the mean mass of raw corals at 580±121g.

The full dataset is available here: https://db.tt/i1hbE9jp (direct trade) and https://db.tt/j0ZZ2scI (indirect trade). Indonesia has submitted annual reports for all years 2003-2012.

Since 2008, Indonesia has reported maricultured corals in trade as source F, in line with EU reporting, instead of reporting them as source ‘W*’, as it had done previously. It is difficult to compare the proportions of wild-sourced and maricultured coral imports before that change in reporting, as EU imports of wild-sourced corals prior to 2008 may be artificially high, due to some maricultured corals having been misreported as wild-sourced by the EU. Also since 2008, Indonesia has established Maximum Estimated Production (MEP) for coral mariculture, which generally indicated the expected production per facility and per taxon for half a year at a time. These MEP figures do not appear to be available fully for all years, and, although requested from the Indonesian SA, they were not provided and could therefore not be included within trade tables in this review.

The SA of Indonesia was contacted in the context of these reviews in order to seek further clarification on the status of these genera and the basis of non-detriment findings; the SA forwarded the same document that had been submitted to the European Commission. Views from coral experts were also sought, including from Lyndon DeVantier (Coral Reef Research), Asuka Ishizaki (Protected Species Coordinator, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council) and J. E. N. Veron. Veron highlighted that the website ‘Corals of the World’ would be released at the end of this year or soon after, and that this would provide a key resource for decisions in the context of corals; he, however, did not provide any further information on the genera under review (J. E. N. Veron in litt . to UNEP-WCMC, 2014).

SCLERACTINIA: ACROPORIDAE 15 Acropora spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN) : 146 species: 2 EN, 48 VU, 21 NT, 24 LC, 41 DD and 9 not assessed

EU DECISIONS Current no opinion i) for Acropora echinata, A. florida and A. nasuta (INDONESIA): formed on 28/05/2013. Previous positive opinions for these species formed on 22/07/1997.

Current positive opinion for A. formosa, A. horrida, A. hyacinthus and A. jacquelineae formed on 14/09/2007.

Current positive opinion for A. humilis formed on 22/07/1997 and last confirmed on 14/09/2007.

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas every year (in number of pieces), both at species level (various species) and at genus level; both for wild-sourced and maricultured specimens (Table 1; quotas aggregated). The reduction of export quotas for wild- taken Acropora in 2008 was reported to be due to the successful mariculture of the genus (Timotius et al. , 2009). Quotas for live wild-sourced corals have continued to decrease to a comparatively very low level of 3 000 individual pieces for both 2013 and 2014. Trade in wild- sourced corals appears to have remained within quota in most years according to exporter reported data, while trade data reported by importers suggests quota excesses in a number of years (for both genus and species-level quotas). This may be due to Indonesia reporting trade in maricultured specimens as source ‘W*’ rather than source F during these years, which importers may have reported in their annual reports as source W.

When conversion factors are applied to convert all trade reported in pieces to kilograms, direct global trade levels in wild-sourced corals appears to be declining according to importers, while trade in maricultured corals is increasing (Figure 1a). This is also reflected in trade data reported by Indonesia, although the data suggests that exports of maricultured Acropora surpassed those of wild-sourced corals already in 2004 (Figure 1b). This is likely explained by the abovementioned reporting discrepancies.

Direct exports of Acropora from Indonesia to the EU-28 and to the rest of the world 2003-2012 comprised very high levels of trade, mainly in live initially maricultured corals, with trade shifting to wild-sourced individuals, all primarily exported for commercial purposes (Table 2).

Indirect trade in Acropora from Indonesia to the EU-28 2003-2012 principally consisted of low levels of live, wild-sourced individuals mainly exported via Malaysia for commercial purposes (Table 3).

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Acropora (in number of pieces) from 16 Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia, 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 MARICULTURE QUOTA 5000 38614 350968 Importer 40 13 1006 2741 78284 99339 81409 102499 106451 Exporter 5000 28256 54574 144877 231648 256711 223382 199483 314526 WILD GENUS GENUS QUOTA 24500 24500 18000 48000 40000 18000 15035 13300 9850 5000 3000 3000 Importer 14160 30005 63031 127589 154992 78483 38328 29089 26629 15091 Exporter 24103 20011 16916 47969 39618 18562 14884 13219 9394 5296

MARICULTURE QUOTA 152500 216876 Importer 15 2660 180 526 1997 285 14291 20979 23825 54728 Exporter 67417 88637 121817 49777 WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 33750 33750 33750 Importer 15859 36320 45900 Exporter 33138 28957 31668 * A. formosa, A. humilis and A. hyacinthus (all 2003-2005)

80000

60000 mariculture -EU 40000 mariculture-RoW W-EU 20000 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

40000

30000 mariculture -EU mariculture-RoW 20000 W-EU 10000 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Acropora (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Acropora from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ 17 contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live I other Importer 17 10 27 Exporter W T Importer 16998 27331 44190 53019 57008 27508 5375 5319 6691 2950 246389 Exporter 24834 20203 17533 15335 13416 6919 6000 6472 4494 2355 117561 other Importer Exporter 20 20 mariculture T Importer 120 981 2523 55591 68056 69590 82925 90149 369935 Exporter 30372 51721 65556 77767 107701 105216 104578 87045 131266 761222 other Importer 180 180 Exporter live (kg) W T Importer 647 647 Exporter raw corals I other Importer 25 48 5 78 Exporter W T Importer 309 469 537 52 2153 197 54 84 115 3970 Exporter mariculture T Importer 1110 1570 570 3250 Exporter RoW carvings I T Importer 6 6 Exporter W T Importer 96 24 120 Exporter live I T Importer 38 10 24 171 83 148 128 602 Exporter O T Importer 38 38 Exporter W T Importer 13021 38994 64516 73530 97984 50975 32953 23770 19938 12141 427822 Exporter 32407 28765 30998 31554 26202 11623 8884 6747 4900 2941 185021 other Importer 225 1040 1265 Exporter 53 1080 1133 mariculture T Importer 55 2660 73 551 2215 22978 45574 32798 43219 71030 221153 Exporter 42045 65172 110835 116887 123947 151495 118804 112438 183260 1024883

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total 18 live (kg) W T Importer 15 4 58 77 Exporter raw corals I T Importer 1 1 2 Exporter other Importer 1 1 Exporter W T Importer 3895 4408 499 503 400 7060 3357 1268 1177 427 22994 Exporter other Importer 1 10 11 Exporter 36 14 50 mariculture T Importer 134 8135 14924 13782 10205 9464 56644 Exporter 3 3 other Importer Exporter 25 25 raw corals (kg) W other Importer 0.2 0.2 Exporter specimens W other Importer 504 504 Exporter 252 270 522 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Table 3: Indirect exports of Acropora from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade))

Term Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total live mariculture T Importer 860 860 Exporter 30 150 180 W other Importer Exporter 31 31 T Importer 50 90 60 200 Exporter 166 501 90 213 1188 14 40 2212 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 2 19 Acropora are mostly hermaphroditic endemics (Allen and McKenna, 2001) and (Wabnitz et al. , 2003) reef building corals some Acropora species that occur in (Wallace, Carden et al. , 2001). They are fast- Indonesia were considered to be very rare, growing corals of many different shapes such as A. russelli (Allen and McKenna, (Tomascik et al. , 1997), with linear growth 2001). rates of 2.3-20 cm/year and area growth rates of 19-1404 cm 2/year (Green and Shirley, Acropora were found to be “by far” the most 1999). Some Acropora corals reach sexual abundant corals across the Indo-Pacific, and maturity at 3-8 years (Wallace, 1999). The are able to out-compete other corals (Veron, genus’ life history traits were considered to 2000). Acropora were found to be locally make it able to rapidly adapt to dominant in a number of locations across environmental change (Guest et al. , 2012), Indonesia. Out of 146 sites surveyed and their rapid growth and ability to throughout Indonesia in the 1990’s, 48% colonize new areas was considered to give were found to be dominated by Acropora this genus the greatest potential for reef species (Wallace et al. , 2001). At the Togean recovery (Tomascik et al. , 1997). and Banggai Islands in Sulawesi, Acropora , Montipora and Porites were reported to be These corals were reported to occur in a dominant at survey sites, and 49 species of great variety of habitats, although being Acropora were recorded (Allen and characteristic of shallow environments of McKenna, 2001). less than 25m (Tomascik et al. , 1997). Some Acropora species, however, were reported to More recently, in Luwuk Peninsula, eastern be restricted to particular reef and habitat Central Sulawesi, 2.12-19.26% of the corals types (Wallace, Carden et al. , 2001). The within the sites surveyed belonged to the genus is amongst the most widespread coral genus Acropora (Scaps and Runtukahu, genera globally (Wallace, 1999), ranging 2008). In western Bandul Island, Ujung from south eastern Africa to the Arabian Kulon NP in West Java, 16.8%-22.67% of the peninsula, across the Indian and Pacific coral cover at depths of 3 and 10m reportedly Ocean (Veron, 2000). consisted of Acroporidae (Putri et al. , 2012). In 2006, Acropora was considered very The genus Acropora comprises 185 species, common in Lampung, Banten [both are 146 of which have been confirmed to occur provinces where coral harvest takes place] in Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). Acropora and West Papua Province; and common in ranges across Indonesia (Suharsono, 2008a) Central Java [also a province where harvest and corals of this genus can be found “on takes place], as well as in Jakarta (Suharsono almost every coral reef of Indonesia” and Giyanto, 2006). It was also found to be (Tomascik et al. , 1997). The country was common and locally dominant in sites found to contain the highest diversity of surveyed in Bali; the genus was almost Acropora globally (Wallace et al. , 2001). Two ubiquitous across survey sites, and 69 thirds of the Indonesian Acropora species (91 species were recorded (Turak and confirmed at the time) were reported to be DeVantier, 2011). In 2011, it represented also broadly distributed throughout the 9.67% of the coral cover on average across Indian and Pacific Oceans, half of them were sites surveyed in Bali (Lazuardi et al. , 2013), found in all regions within the Indonesian and 37.7% of the coral community in Durai archipelago, while 18% of Acropora species Island, Riau province (Milner et al. , 2013). were considered restricted to one region Acropora was found to be one of two only (Wallace et al. , 2001). Two species of dominant coral genera in Kofiau MPA in Acropora were thought to be Indonesian Raja Ampat (Purwanto et al. , 2012). The occurrence of many Acropora species was also reported from Komodo (61 species) 2 An individual is both male and female

(Turak, 2006; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011), Acropora species occurs within provinces 20 Wakatobi (76 species) (Turak, 2004; in: where harvest takes place. Turak and DeVantier, 2011), Bunaken NP (68 species) (Devantier et al. , 2006), Pulisan (64 Coral bleaching was considered a significant species) (Scaps et al. , 2007), and Derewan threat in Indonesia, with Acropora most (79 species) (Turak, 2005; in: Turak and severely affected in some areas (GCRMN, DeVantier, 2011). Acropora were found to be 2010; Yusuf and Jompa, 2012). Some tabular dominant at Pulau Weh in north Sumatra Acropora were also found to have been (Baird et al. , 2005) and the genus was damaged by fishing with explosives in Bali reported to be locally dominant at sites during surveys in 2008 and 2011 (Turak and surveyed at the Spermonde archipelago, DeVantier, 2011). Acropora was reported to Southwest Sulawesi, and on Buton Island, be one of the main targets for collectors of Southeast Sulawesi (COREMAP, 2008; In: aquarium fish, as the corals branches Yusuf and Jompa, 2012), including within provide hiding spaces for the fish, making sites targeted by coral collectors (Bruckner the genus a particular target for the use of and Borneman, 2006). cyanide (Cervino et al. , 2003).

However the genus was of low abundance Their high recruitment and replacement overall in Bunaken NP, despite being locally rates were considered to make Acropora dominant (Devantier et al. , 2006) and the relatively tolerant of harvest (Wabnitz et al. , population of Acroporidae was found to be 2003). However, some of the rare Acropora extremely low in six sites around Manado in species with restricted ranges were 2007 and 2008, and decreasing drastically considered to be threatened by over-use, (Okamoto et al. , 2012). The decline in species such as A. halmaherae, A. pichoni, richness at reefs in Jakarta Bay over the A. tortuosa and A. simplex (Wallace et al. , period 1920-2005 was also reported to have 2001). Large colonies of branching Acropora affected Acroporidae in particular, especially were reported to be harvested for the curio in near-shore areas (van der Meij et al. , 2010). trade, but this trade was found to focus on a Acroporidae were reported to be generally small number of taxa (Bruckner, 2001). underrepresented at disturbed reefs (Cleary Acropora was found to be the third most et al. , 2006) and Acropora was considered a commonly confiscated coral genus at good indicator of general shallow-water reef Heathrow airport (UK) over the period 2003- health (Tomascik et al. , 1997). 2007 (Jones, 2008). Although the origin of The IUCN classified two of the Acropora these corals may not be known, it is species that occur in Indonesia as noteworthy that Indonesia is the largest Endangered globally , 48 as Vulnerable, 21 as exporters of corals overall. Near Threatened, 24 as Least Concern; 41 In mariculture, Acropora corals were species are Data Deficient and nine species reported to grow to a size suitable for the have not yet been assessed (IUCN, 2014). aquarium market within four to six months Based on global assessments in Veron (Wabnitz et al. , 2003). Many Acropora and (2000), it could be inferred that 49 species of other small-polyped, relatively fast growing Acropora that occur in Indonesia are corals were reported to be grown in common in Indonesia, 25 sometimes mariculture, which was thought to risk common, 54 uncommon and 18 rare. More flooding the market with a limited number recently, approximately 49 species were of taxa (Reksodihardjo-Lilley and Lilley, considered to be common globally, 11 locally 2007). A number of Acropora species were common, 61 uncommon, 13 rare while 12 considered suitable to husbandry in aquaria have not been assessed (IUCN, 2014); figures (Fossa and Nilsen, 1996; in: Wabnitz et al. , based on estimates, due to differences in 2003; Yates and Carlson, 1992). nomenclature. One of the two Endangered

SCLERACTINIA: DENDROPHYLLIIDAE 21 Tubastraea spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN) : 4 species: 4 not assessed

EU DECISIONS Current positive opinion for Tubastraea coccinea formed on 12/09/2013. (INDONESIA): Previous positive opinion formed on 22/07/1997 and replaced with a no opinion ii) on 28/05/2013.

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas (in number of pieces) for wild- sourced corals initially at species level for Tubastraea coccinea , but, from 2010 onwards, were published at genus level. Species-level quotas were also published for maricultured corals in some years (Table 1; quotas aggregated). Trade appears to have remained within quota for wild-sourced corals in most years, except in 2012, according to Indonesia only.

Direct exports of Tubastraea from Indonesia to the EU-28 and to the rest of the world 2003-2012 comprised moderate to high levels of trade, mainly in live, wild-sourced individual pieces exported for commercial purposes (Table 2). When conversion factors are applied to convert all trade reported in pieces to kilograms, global direct trade levels in wild-sourced corals appears to be relatively constant, with an increase in 2012, both according to importers and Indonesia (Figure 1).

Indirect trade in Tubastraea from Indonesia to the EU-28 2003-2012 comprised the export of 267 live wild-sourced corals for commercial purposes, mainly via Malaysia, as reported by the exporter.

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Tubastraea (in number of pieces) from 22 Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 WILD QUOTA 7500 7500 12000 12000 12000 Importer 920 1245 1868 1640 1434 217 123 4683 5336 8127 GENUS GENUS Exporter 28 7456 6988 12316

MARICULTURE QUOTA 200 1078 0 Importer 14 Exporter WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 6650 6650 6650 6650 6650 6750 6750 Importer 2650 3552 4050 3514 4094 5217 4000 Exporter 6554 5447 6153 6318 6558 6738 6642 * T. coccinea (2003-2009)

3000 2500 2000 mariculture-RoW 1500 W-EU 1000 W-RoW 500

Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 a) 3000 2500 2000 1500 W-EU W-RoW 1000 500 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Tubastraea (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Tubastraea from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ 23 contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live I other Importer 2 2 Exporter W T Importer 402 418 1007 730 868 893 1351 1745 1641 2600 11655 Exporter 870 697 1071 902 840 1196 1845 1985 2065 3420 14891 other Importer 1 1 Exporter raw corals W T Importer 18 20 27 10 28 103 Exporter RoW live I T Importer 8 49 14 159 108 66 8 412 Exporter W T Importer 3168 4379 4911 4424 4660 4541 2772 2938 3694 5527 41014 Exporter 5684 4750 5087 5416 5718 5542 4797 5471 4923 8896 56284 other Importer Exporter 23 23 mariculture T Importer 14 4 10 28 Exporter raw corals I T Importer 3 1 1 5 Exporter W T Importer 164 536 25 25 100 87 301 130 142 243 1753 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 24 Tubastraea are azooxanthellate 3 corals also found to be unusually abundant at reef (Veron, 2000), which reach sexual maturity crests and slopes at one of four sites at 18 months (D. Stettler, pers. comm.; in: surveyed in northern Kaledupa Island Fenner and Banks, 2004) and grow to a [Wakatobi MNP, southeast Sulawesi] diameter of 5cm within one year in aquaria (Haapkylä et al. , 2009). Survey results from (Fenner and Banks, 2004). Dendrophylliidae 2005 and 2006 indicated an average density were found to be the most common of 0.2-0.5 colonies/ m 2 for Tubastraea , azooxanthellate corals in reef habitats, and although the density varied considerably also in some other shallow water habitats across sites (Haapkylä et al. , 2009). The (Veron, 2000). genus was found to be rare in the Spermonde archipelago (Yusuf and Rani, This genus comprises six species, four of 2006; Yusuf and Jompa, 2012) and which have been reported to occur in T. micrantha and T. diaphana were found to Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). The genus be amongst the rarest corals in sites Tubastraea was reported to be found on surveyed in 1994-1996 in Java, Ambon and most of the world’s coral reefs (Veron, Sulawesi (Edinger and Risk, 2000). 2000), and can be locally dominant Furthermore, the genus was considered rare (Tomascik et al. , 1997). In Indonesia, the in Lampung [a province where coral harvest genus was reported to have a scattered takes place], and very rare in West Papua distribution across the country (Suharsono, Province; it does not appear to have been 2008a). recorded in the sites surveyed in Banten, Jakarta and Central Java (Suharsono and Three of the four species of Tubastraea were Giyanto, 2006). recorded at the Togean and Banggai Islands in Sulawesi in 1998; the genus was present in The IUCN has not yet assessed any of the a number of sites surveyed (Allen and Tubastraea that occur in Indonesia (IUCN, McKenna, 2001). Three species were also 2014) and Veron (2000) does not provide recorded at survey sites in the Raija Ampat global assessment information for the islands (Donnelly et al. , 2003) and in Bali species within this genus. (Turak and DeVantier, 2011), where in 2011, it represented 0.03% of the coral cover on In the 1990s, this genus was found to have average across sites surveyed (Lazuardi et very high mortality rates to in home aquaria al. , 2013). The presence of Tubastraea was (Baquero, 1991; in: Wabnitz et al. , 2003). also confirmed during surveys at Luwuk More recently, the genus was said to Peninsula, eastern Central Sulawesi; 0.73- reproduce readily in aquaria under suitable 1.08% of the corals within the sites surveyed conditions (Riddle, 2008). were Tubastraea (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008). The genus was considered common in the Gam-Waigeo Passage in the Raja Ampat Islands (McKenna et al. , 2002). T. micrantha in particular was reported to be commonly found in reefs with strong currents (Veron, 2000). The species was found in dense aggregations on turbulent reefs of the Banda Islands (south Java) (Tomascik et al. , 1997) and was extremely abundant at Tanjung Pisok, Bunaken National Park, North Sulawesi (Turak and DeVantier, 2003). Tubastraea colonies were

3 without symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate)

SCLERACTINIA: DENDROPHYLLIIDAE 25 Turbinaria spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN) : 11 species: 7 VU, 1 NT, 2 LC and 1 not assessed

EU DECISIONS Current positive opinion for Turbinaria mesenterina and T. peltata formed (INDONESIA): on 14/09/2007.

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas (in number of pieces) for wild- sourced Turbinaria corals initially at species level for T. mesenterina and T. peltata , with a genus level quota published since 2011; a separate quota continues to be published for T. peltata . Species- and genus-level quotas were also published for maricultured corals in some years (Table 1; quotas aggregated). Trade appears to have remained within quota for wild-sourced corals in most years according to Indonesia, apart from 2012, while based on importer reported data quotas appear to have been exceeded in 2007, 2008 and 2010. This may partly be due to Indonesia reporting trade in maricultured specimens as source ‘W*’ rather than source F until 2008, which importers may have reported as source W.

When conversion factors are applied to convert all trade reported in pieces to kilograms, direct global trade levels in wild-sourced corals appear to be relatively constant according to importers and Indonesia, with the exception of 2010, where importer reported data indicates a peak in trade. Trade in mariculture corals, as reported by Indonesia, however, appears to have started to increase sooner and involve a higher level of trade, compared to importer reported trade data. Again, this pattern may be due to the above-mentioned reporting discrepancies (Figure 1).

Direct exports of Turbinaria from Indonesia comprised moderate to relatively high levels to the EU-28 and relatively high levels of trade to the rest of the world 2003-2012, mainly in live, wild- sourced individuals exported for commercial purposes (Table 2).

Indirect trade in Turbinaria from Indonesia to the EU-28 2003-2012 principally consisted of very low levels of live, wild-sourced and maricultured individuals mainly exported via Malaysia for commercial purposes (Table 3).

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Turbinaria (in number of pieces) from 26 Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 MARICULTURE QUOTA 3663 3663 Importer 28 21 28 22 23 92 Exporter 608 245 WILD GENUS GENUS QUOTA 0 0 18430 15000 15000 14000 Importer 5725 3906 3668 3966 3938 122 173 23 9879 9496 Exporter 17434 15552

MARICULTURE QUOTA 2600 980 9449 Importer 27 15 2108 2232 2444 2564 4906 Exporter 635 586 3488 8727 6840 8330 5131 15068 WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 33200 33200 33200 33200 33200 32400 34920 34920 16490 14000 12000 12000 Importer 18415 20785 23718 20086 25234 25047 20640 36252 8566 8794 Exporter 32639 29485 31170 31234 32870 32337 34558 34797 15239 14722 * T. mesenterina (2003-2010) and T. peltata (2003-2014); zero quotas published for T. reniformis and T. stellulata 2007-2008.

10000 8000 mariculture -EU 6000 mariculture-RoW 4000 W-EU 2000 W-RoW

Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

a) 10000 8000 mariculture -EU 6000 mariculture-RoW 4000 W-EU 2000 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Turbinaria (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Turbinaria from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ 27 contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live W T Importer 7022 7985 9607 7343 9321 9845 8495 8011 7584 7417 82630 Exporter 9829 9486 9796 8369 9400 11014 11417 11823 11393 9451 101978 other Importer 20 2 22 Exporter mariculture T Importer 28 1845 1694 1892 1762 2834 10055 Exporter 35 200 1477 4268 3096 3903 1944 5146 20069 live (kg) W T Importer 10 10 Exporter raw corals W T Importer 225 268 227 20 212 103 120 28 61 1264 Exporter 5 5 mariculture T Importer 40 40 Exporter RoW carvings W T Importer 30 30 Exporter live I T Importer 1 12 19 15 129 13 189 Exporter W T Importer 17118 16706 17729 16709 19851 15304 12318 28229 10859 10873 165696 Exporter 22810 19999 21374 22865 23470 21323 23141 22974 21280 20823 220059 other Importer 50 35 85 Exporter mariculture T Importer 55 21 15 285 538 552 825 2153 4444 Exporter 600 386 2619 4459 3744 4427 3187 10167 29589 other Importer 11 11 Exporter raw corals W T Importer 1271 1463 136 133 377 2118 2380 2398 1745 846 12867 Exporter mariculture T Importer 359 506 1164 389 160 2578 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Table 3: Indirect exports of Turbinaria from Indonesia to the EU-28, 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily source ‘F’, but also includes 28 trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified.)

Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total live mariculture T Importer 70 70 Exporter W T Importer 1 27 28 Exporter 15 10 68 172 2 267 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 4 29 Turbinaria are zooxanthellate colonial 2006); and Derewan (seven species) (Turak, corals (Veron, 2000), which may reach 2005; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011). Seven sexual maturity at 3-8 years, based on most species were recorded in Bali (Turak and reef building corals having been reported to DeVantier, 2011) and Turbinaria was reach sexual maturity at that age (Wallace, confirmed from western Bandul Island, 1999). Turbinaria are the only reef-building Ujung Kulon NP in West Java (Putri et al. , group within the family Dendrophylliidae 2012). (Tomascik et al. , 1997). The genus was often found in turbid but protected environments At Luwuk Peninsula, eastern Central (van der Meij, 2012) and was considered Sulawesi, 0.4-2.97% of the corals within the adapted to reject sedimentation (Best and sites surveyed were Turbinaria (Scaps and Hoeksema, 1987). It was also reported to Runtukahu, 2008) and in Bali, the genus often dominate non-reef structures and represented 0.24% of the coral cover, on volcanic rocks (Tomascik et al. , 1997). average, across sites surveyed (Lazuardi et al. , 2013). The genus was very abundant in The genus Turbinaria comprises 12 species, 11 sites surveyed in Bintan Island, Riau of which have been confirmed to occur in archipelago (Chou et al. , 2010). In northern Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). The Kaledupa Island [Wakatobi], 10 Turbinaria majority of the species within this genus colonies were recorded in 2006 in four sites that occur in Indonesia were considered surveyed (Haapkylä et al. , 2009). However, widespread globally (IUCN, 2014). In the genus was considered rare in Lampung Indonesia, the genus’ distribution was [a province where coral harvest takes place], reported to range across the country and it does not appear to have been (Suharsono, 2008a); it was considered the recorded in the sites surveyed in Banten, most abundant genus within the family Jakarta, Central Java and West Papua Dendrophylliidae in Indonesia, where it was (Suharsono and Giyanto, 2006). considered an important reef builder (Tomascik et al. , 1997). The IUCN classified seven of the Turbinaria species that occur in Indonesia as In the late 1990s, T. frondens, T. peltata, Vulnerable globally, one as Near T. mesenterina, and T. reniformis were Threatened, two as Least Concern, with one considered the most common and most species not yet assessed (IUCN, 2014). Based widely distributed Turbinaria in Indonesia, on global assessments in Veron (2000), it and T. frondens and T. mesenterina were could be inferred that four of the species very abundant in inner reefs north of the that occur in Indonesia may be common in Berau River in East Kalimantan (Tomascik et the country, one locally common, four al. , 1997). uncommon and one rare. More recently, five species were considered to be common Six species of Turbinaria were recorded at globally, one sometimes common, three the Togean and Banggai Islands in Sulawesi ; uncommon and one rare (IUCN, 2014). the genus was present in many of the sites surveyed (Allen and McKenna, 2001). The The SA of Indonesia (2014; in litt . to UNEP- occurrence of Turbinaria was also reported WCMC) confirmed that the only Turbinaria from Komodo (seven species) (Turak, 2006; species in trade from the wild are T. peltata in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011); Wakatobi and T. mesenterina . Both species were (Scaps and Denis, 2007) with six species classified as Vulnerable by the IUCN and recorded (Turak, 2004; in: Turak and while both species were considered DeVantier, 2011); Bunaken NP (van der Meij, widespread and common, pressure from 2012) with six species (Devantier et al. , harvest was considered a threat (IUCN, 2014). 4 with symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate)

Turbinaria were found to be amongst the 30 most resistant taxa during a bleaching event in Spermonde and on Buton reefs in Sulawesi in 2009-2010 (Yusuf and Jompa, 2012).

In the early 1990s, Turbinaria was considered to show good fragment viability in mariculture, although the success of husbandry in aquaria was found to be “marginal” (Yates and Carlson, 1992).

SCLERACTINIA: FAVIIDAE 31 Caulastraea spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN): 4 species: 2 VU, 1 LC and 1 NT

EU DECISIONS Current positive opinion for Caulastraea tumida formed on 14/09/2007. (INDONESIA):

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas (in number of pieces) for wild- sourced Caulastraea corals initially at species level for C. echinulata (until 2012) and C. tumida (until 2009), with a genus level quota published since 2010. Species- and genus-level quotas were also published for maricultured corals in some years (Table 1; quotas aggregated). According to trade data reported by Indonesia, quotas for wild-sourced corals may have been exceeded in 2012, while according to importer reported data, trade appears to have remained within quota in all years except 2007 and 2008. This may be due to Indonesia reporting trade in maricultured specimens as source ‘W*’ rather than source F during these years, which importers may have reported in their annual reports as source W.

When conversion factors are applied to convert all trade reported in pieces to kilograms, direct global trade levels in wild-sourced corals appear to be relatively constant according to importers and Indonesia. Trade in mariculture corals as reported by Indonesia, however, appears to have started to increase sooner and involve higher levels of trade, compared to importer reported trade data. Again, this pattern may be due to the above-mentioned reporting discrepancies (Figure 1).

Direct exports of Caulastraea from Indonesia comprised moderate levels of trade to the EU-28 and relatively high levels of trade to the rest of the world 2003-2012, mainly in live, wild-sourced individuals exported for commercial purposes, with trade in maricultured corals increasing (Table 2).

Indirect trade in Caulastraea from Indonesia to the EU-28 2003-2012 principally consisted of very low levels of live, wild-sourced individuals, mainly exported via Malaysia for commercial purposes (Table 3).

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Caulastraea (in number of pieces) from 32 Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 MARICULTURE QUOTA 10921 Importer 5 22 29 2994 3750 4515 4806 6925 Exporter 5685 12770 13799 12779 10195 18863 WILD GENUS GENUS QUOTA 0 0 13580 13580 12000 21000 21000 Importer 2864 2903 3209 4416 6013 2703 1154 9857 10750 10942 Exporter 5 76 30 13523 12944 12418

MARICULTURE QUOTA 10000 4590 0 Importer 3 30 99 37 51 44 49 46 Exporter 545 1375 3330 827 WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 21850 21850 21850 21850 21850 22500 24250 10670 10670 9000 Importer 12100 15103 17591 15016 15946 18248 16706 6583 6286 6725 Exporter 21550 19552 20070 21050 21724 22460 24037 10653 10001 9500 *C. tumida (2003-2009) and C. echinulata (2003-2012)

6000 5000 4000 mariculture-EU 3000 mariculture -RoW 2000 W-EU 1000 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

a) 6000 5000 4000 mariculture-EU 3000 mariculture -RoW 2000 W-EU 1000 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Caulastraea (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Caulastraea from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ 33 contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live I other Importer 20 1 21 Exporter W T Importer 4372 5550 5616 4965 7067 7047 5927 5860 6079 5903 58386 Exporter 6493 6047 5483 5171 6266 6941 7647 7937 7914 7054 66953 other Importer 3 3 Exporter mariculture T Importer 20 19 2149 2351 3186 2870 3713 14308 Exporter 40 205 888 2512 4635 5365 4520 3171 6502 27838 raw corals W T Importer 137 106 105 109 2 97 79 15 38 688 Exporter mariculture T Importer 45 45 Exporter RoW carvings W T Importer 19 19 Exporter live I T Importer 11 12 39 136 53 13 264 Exporter W T Importer 10592 12456 15157 14467 14892 13904 11933 10562 10954 11764 126681 Exporter 15057 13505 14587 15879 15458 15595 16420 16239 15031 14864 152635 other Importer 27 18 45 Exporter 5 5 mariculture T Importer 8 22 10 109 882 1450 1373 1985 3228 9067 Exporter 505 1170 2442 4000 8135 8434 8259 7024 12361 52330 other Importer 30 30 Exporter live (kg) W T Importer 12 18 30 Exporter raw corals W T Importer 905 573 38 40 251 918 838 897 773 598 5831 Exporter 5 5 other Importer 2 2 Exporter mariculture T Importer 137 700 455 682 729 2703 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

34 Table 3: Indirect exports of Caulastraea from Indonesia to the EU-28, 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified.)

Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total live mariculture T Importer 10 10 Exporter W T Importer 64 34 98 Exporter 18 11 64 208 301 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 5 35 Caulastraea are zooxanthellate colonial surveyed in Lampung, Banten, Jakarta and corals (Veron, 2000), which may reach West Papua (Suharsono and Giyanto, 2006). sexual maturity at 3-8 years, based on most However, it appears to occur in Lampung, reef building corals having been reported to as Caulastraea was reported to be the second reach sexual maturity at that age (Wallace, most heavily collected genus in that 1999). province (MAQTRAC database from ReefCheck; in: IUCN, 2014). The family Faviidae were reported to be over- represented where reefs are disturbed, due to The IUCN classified two of the Caulastraea their relative resilience to environmental species that occur in Indonesia as stress (Cleary et al. , 2006). Vulnerable globally , and one each as Near Threatened and Least Concern (IUCN, 2014). The genus Caulastraea comprises four Based on global assessments in Veron species, all of which have been confirmed to (2000), it could be inferred that three occur in Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). All species of Caulastraea may be uncommon in the species within this genus that occur in Indonesia, while one is common. More Indonesia were considered to be widespread recently, two species were considered to be globally (IUCN, 2014). In Indonesia, common globally, while two were Caulastraea was reported to have a scattered considered uncommon (IUCN, 2014). distribution across the country (Suharsono, 2008a). The genus, being targeted for the aquarium trade, was thought to be threatened by Two species of Caulastraea were recorded in harvest in parts of its range (IUCN, 2014). a small number of the sites surveyed at the Caulastraea was also found to be among the Togean and Banggai Islands in Sulawesi in top ten of the most commonly confiscated 1998 (Allen and McKenna, 2001). The genus’ coral genera at Heathrow airport (UK) over presence was also confirmed from Bali the period 2003-2007 (Jones, 2008). (Hoeksema and Putra, 2000) where one Although the origin of these corals may not species was recorded (Turak and DeVantier, be known, it is noteworthy that Indonesia is 2011), where in 2011, it represented 0.05% of the largest exporters of corals overall. the coral cover, on average, across sites surveyed (Lazuardi et al. , 2013). The genus In the early 1990s, C. furcata was considered was recorded at one out of nine survey sites to show good fragment viability in at Luwuk Peninsula, eastern Central mariculture, with successful husbandry in Sulawesi, with 0.54% of the corals within the aquaria (Yates and Carlson, 1992). survey site being Caulastraea (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008). One Caulastraea species was recorded at survey sites in Komodo (Turak, 2006; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011). The occurrence of two Caulastraea species was also reported from Wakatobi (Turak, 2004; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011) and Derewan (Turak, 2005; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011), while three species were confirmed from Bunaken NP (Devantier et al. , 2006). The genus was considered common in Central Java [a province where coral harvest takes place], but it does not appear to have been recorded in the sites

5 with symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate)

36 SCLERACTINIA: FAVIIDAE Cyphastrea spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN) : 7 species (2 VU and 5 LC)

EU DECISIONS Current positive opinion for Cyphastrea decadia formed on 14/09/2007. (INDONESIA):

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas (in number of pieces) for wild- sourced Cyphastrea serailia every year and a zero quota for maricultured corals in 2007 (Table 1; quotas aggregated). Trade appears to have remained within quota in all years for wild-sourced corals, according to importer reported trade data, while according to trade data reported by Indonesia, the zero quota established for maricultured corals in 2007 appears to have been exceeded.

When conversion factors are applied to convert all trade reported in pieces to kilograms, direct global trade levels in wild-sourced corals appear to fluctuate over the years according to importers, while the trade remained relatively constant according to trade data reported by Indonesia (Figure 1).

Direct exports of Cyphastrea from Indonesia comprised low levels of trade to the EU-28 and relatively low levels of trade to the rest of the world 2003-2012, mainly in live wild-sourced individuals exported for commercial purposes (Table 2).

No indirect trade in Cyphastrea from Indonesia was reported 2003-2012.

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Cyphastrea (in number of pieces) from Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 37 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

MARICULTURE QUOTA 0 Importer Exporter 165 WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 450 450 450 450 450 450 500 500 500 500 500 500 Importer 80 179 379 345 241 169 210 179 286 179 Exporter 421 407 443 450 450 450 500 492 500 487 * C. serailia (2003-2014)

140 120 100 80 mariculture -RoW 60 W-RoW 40 W-EU 20

Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 a) 140 120 100 mariculture -EU 80 mariculture-RoW 60 W-EU 40 20 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Cyphastrea (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Cyphastrea from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is 38 primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live W T Importer 37 112 160 103 62 95 106 150 82 57 964 Exporter 107 130 124 95 54 120 168 209 166 93 1266 mariculture T Importer Exporter 155 155 raw corals W T Importer 6 3 2 11 Exporter RoW live I T Importer 12 1 13 Exporter O T Importer 18 18 Exporter W T Importer 58 67 227 242 189 74 104 29 204 135 1329 Exporter 314 277 319 355 396 330 332 283 334 394 3334 mariculture T Importer Exporter 10 10 raw corals I T Importer 7 7 Exporter W T Importer 105 104 24 139 109 43 32 26 582 Exporter other Importer Exporter 1 1 mariculture T Importer 2 2 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 6 39 Cyphastrea are zooxanthellate colonial The IUCN classified two of the Cyphastrea corals (Veron, 2000) which may reach sexual species that occur in Indonesia as maturity at 3-8 years, based on most reef Vulnerable globally , while the remaining building corals having been reported to species were classified as Least Concern reach sexual maturity at that age (Wallace, (IUCN, 2014). Based on global assessments 1999). in Veron (2000), it could be inferred that three species of the Cyphastrea that occur in The family Faviidae were reported to be over- Indonesia may be common in the country, represented where reefs are disturbed, due to three uncommon and one rare. More their relative resilience to environmental recently, four species were considered to be stress (Cleary et al. , 2006). common or very common globally, while three species were considered uncommon The genus Cyphastrea comprises eight (IUCN, 2014). species, seven of which have been confirmed to occur in Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). The SA of Indonesia (2014; in litt . to UNEP- All the species within this genus that occur WCMC) confirmed that the only species in in Indonesia were considered to be trade from the wild from this genus was widespread globally (IUCN, 2014). In Cyphastrea serailia . This species was Indonesia, the genus was reported to have a classified as Least Concern and was scattered distribution across the country considered widespread and common (Suharsono, 2008a). globally, occurring in all tropical reef environments, where it is particularly One species of Cyphastrea was recorded at common on shallow reef flats in highly the Togean and Banggai Islands in Sulawesi fluctuating environments; it was also in a small number of the sites surveyed (Allen reported to be resistant to warming and high and McKenna, 2001). The genus Cyphastrea salinity (IUCN, 2014). However, it was was recorded at four out of nine survey sites recommended that the effects of collection at Luwuk Peninsula, eastern Central are monitored in Indonesia for this species Sulawesi; 0.73-1.29% of the corals within the (IUCN, 2014). sites surveyed belonged to the genus (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008). All seven species were recorded at survey sites in Bali (Turak and DeVantier, 2011), where in 2011, it represented 0.34% of the coral cover, on average, across sites surveyed (Lazuardi et al. , 2013). The occurrence of Cyphastrea was also reported from Komodo (five species) (Turak, 2006; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011), Wakatobi (five species) (Turak, 2004; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011), Bunaken NP (four species) (Devantier et al. , 2006) and Derewan (six species) (Turak, 2005; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011). The genus was considered uncommon in Lampung and Banten [both are provinces where coral harvest takes place], as well as in Jakarta; and common in Central Java [also a province where coral harvest takes place] and in West Papua (Suharsono and Giyanto, 2006).

6 with symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate)

40 SCLERACTINIA: FUNGIIDAE Fungia spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN) : 29 species: 2 VU, 20 LC, 1 NT and 6 not assessed

EU DECISIONS Current positive opinion for Fungia fungites first formed on 22/07/1997 and (INDONESIA): last confirmed on 28/05/2013.

Current No opinion i) for F. concinna and F. repanda formed on 02/12/2011. Previous positive opinion for F. concinna and F. repanda formed on 22/07/1997.

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas (in number of pieces) for wild- sourced corals at species level every year, and from 2006 onwards at genus level. Zero quotas for maricultured corals were published in 2007, both at genus and species level (Table 1; quotas aggregated). Quotas for wild-sourced corals may have been exceeded in 2012 according to Indonesia and in 2006 and 2007 according to importer reported trade data.

When conversion factors are applied to convert all trade reported in pieces to kilograms, direct global trade levels in wild-sourced corals appears to be relatively constant according to both the importers and Indonesia (Figure 1).

Direct exports of Fungia from Indonesia comprised moderate levels of trade to the EU-28 and relatively high levels of trade to the rest of the world 2003-2012; trade was mainly in live wild- sourced individuals exported for commercial purposes (Table 2).

Indirect trade in Fungia from Indonesia to the EU-28 2003-2012 principally consisted of very low levels of trade in live, wild-sourced individuals mainly exported via Malaysia for commercial purposes (Table 3).

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Fungia (in number of pieces) from Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 41 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 MARICULTURE QUOTA 0 Importer 18 10 15 Exporter WILD GENUS GENUS QUOTA 3600 3600 3600 3880 3880 3880 4000 24500 28500 Importer 4564 3249 3498 5783 6255 2846 2762 3004 3133 3760 Exporter 12 3507 3540 3594 3842 3833 3812 4015

MARICULTURE QUOTA 0 Importer 27 14 6 19 15 7 Exporter 180 WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 24300 24300 24300 23800 23800 20250 23765 23765 23765 24500 Importer 13506 14796 18134 14752 17084 17673 14916 16701 13066 16132 Exporter 24066 20163 22945 22991 23621 20190 23478 23664 22229 25517 * F. fungites, F. moluccensis and F. paumotensis (all 2003-2012)

8000

6000 mariculture-EU 4000 mariculture -RoW W-EU 2000 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 a) 8000

6000 mariculture -EU 4000 mariculture-RoW W-EU 2000 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Fungia from (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Fungia from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is 42 primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live I T Importer 8 26 34 Exporter W T Importer 5290 5918 5608 5133 6583 6841 6065 6646 6649 7855 62588 Exporter 7603 6763 5897 6321 8063 7071 8360 9436 9482 9691 78687 other Importer 6 6 Exporter mariculture T Importer 5 15 20 Exporter live (kg) W T Importer 10 10 Exporter raw corals W T Importer 167 83 167 10 183 67 85 28 54 844 Exporter RoW bodies I T Importer 7 7 Exporter carvings W T Importer 30 30 Exporter live I T Importer 25 38 5 5 81 413 212 182 961 Exporter O T Importer 48 48 Exporter W T Importer 12780 12127 16004 15402 16756 13678 11607 13029 9550 12037 132970 Exporter 16463 13400 17060 20177 19098 16713 18960 18061 16559 19841 176332 other Importer 20 30 50 Exporter mariculture T Importer 27 18 14 6 10 14 22 111 Exporter 180 180 live (kg) W T Importer 15 5 20 Exporter raw corals I T Importer 3 8 4 15 Exporter W T Importer 1278 1261 103 147 277 1218 1144 1732 1516 1192 9868 Exporter other Importer

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Exporter 6 6 43 mariculture T Importer 2 2 Exporter raw corals (kg) W other Importer 0.209 0.209 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Table 3: Indirect exports of Fungia from Indonesia to the EU-28, 2003-2012. (Source W contains source W, U and unspecified).

Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total live W T Importer 6 2 22 30 Exporter 47 5 112 359 2 2 527 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 44 Fungia are zooxanthellate 7 corals (Veron, the same number was recorded from 2000), which are solitary or colonial as Komodo (Turak, 2006; in: Turak and adults, and which are generally free-living DeVantier, 2011). Thirteen species were (not attached to substrate), although they recorded in Wakatobi (Turak, 2004; in: undergo an attached phase as juveniles Turak and DeVantier, 2011), 15 in Bunaken (Tomascik et al. , 1997). NP (Devantier et al. , 2006) and 16 in Derewan (Turak, 2005; in: Turak and These corals may reach sexual maturity at 3- DeVantier, 2011). 8 years, based on most reef building corals having been reported to reach sexual Fungia was amongst the more common maturity at that age (Wallace, 1999). genera recorded during surveys at Luwuk Fungiids reproduce sexually but also Peninsula, eastern Central Sulawesi; 1.03- asexually, the most common type being the 15.59% of the corals within the sites surveyed regeneration of the stalk with which the belonged to this genus (Scaps and juvenile became attached to the substrate Runtukahu, 2008). Fungia was also found to (Hoeksema 1989; in: Tomascik et al. , 1997). be among the dominant genera in the Fungia corals were found to often generate Spermonde archipelago, southwest Sulawesi asexual buds, especially after being damaged (Yusuf and Rani, 2006; Yusuf and Jompa, (Hoeksema 1986; in: Tomascik et al. , 1997). 2012; Hoeksema, 2012), including within sites Linear growth rates of 0.8-2.8 cm/year, with targeted by coral collectors (Bruckner and area growth rates of at least 2.2 cm 2/year Borneman, 2006), as well as at Buton Island, were reported for this genus (Green and southeast Sulawesi (COREMAP, 2008; In: Shirley, 1999). Fungiidae were found to be Yusuf and Jompa, 2012) . The genus amongst the dominant coral groups in represented 0.41% of the coral cover, on shallow-water lagoons subject to high average, across sites surveyed in Bali in 2011 sedimentation (Tomascik et al. , 1997). (Lazuardi et al ., 2013). The genus was considered common in Jakarta and West The genus Fungia comprises 29 species, all Papua; but uncommon in Lampung and rare of which have been confirmed to occur in in Banten [both are provinces where coral Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). All the harvest takes place]; it does not appear to species within this genus that occur in have been recorded in Central Java during Indonesia were considered to be widespread this survey (Suharsono and Giyanto, 2006). globally (IUCN, 2014). In Indonesia, the genus’ distribution was reported to range Large colonies of Fungia were reported to across the country (Suharsono, 2008a) and also be harvested for the curio trade – a Indonesia was considered to have one of the trade focussing on a small number of taxa highest diversity of Fungiidae in the Indo- (Bruckner, 2001). Pacific region (Tomascik et al. , 1997). The IUCN classified two of the Fungia species The genus was confirmed from western that occur in Indonesia as Vulnerable Bandul Island, Ujung Kulon NP in West globally , 20 as Least Concern, one as Near Java, where corals were found at 10m depth Threatened, while six have not yet been during transect surveys (Putri et al. , 2012). assessed (IUCN, 2014). Based on global The genus was present in many of the sites assessments in Veron (2000), it could be surveyed in the Togean and Banggai Islands inferred that seven species of Fungia may be in Sulawesi in 1998, with 11 species recorded; common in Indonesia, nine uncommon and (Allen and McKenna, 2001). Fifteen species two rare. More recently, 13 species were within this genus were recorded at survey considered to be common globally, two sites in Bali (Turak and DeVantier, 2011) and locally common, seven uncommon, while six have not yet been assessed (IUCN, 2014).

7 with symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate)

SCLERACTINIA: MUSSIDAE 45 Lobophyllia spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN) : 10 species: 1 EN, 3 VU, 1 NT, 4 LC and 1 not assessed

EU DECISIONS Current positive opinion for Lobophyllia corymbosa formed on 12/09/2013. (INDONESIA): Previous positive opinion formed on 22/07/1997 and replaced with a no opinion ii) on 28/05/2013.

Current positive opinion for L. hemprichii formed on 14/09/2007.

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas (in number of pieces) for wild- sourced corals initially at species level for Lobophyllia corymbosa and L. hemprichii , with a genus level quota published since 2010; a separate quota continues to be published for L. corymbosa . Species- and genus-level quotas were also published for maricultured corals in some years (Table 1; quotas aggregated). Trade appears to have remained within quota for in most years for wild- sourced corals, except in 2012, according to Indonesia, and in 2007 and 2008 according to importers.

Direct exports of Lobophyllia from Indonesia comprised moderate levels of trade to the EU-28 and relatively high levels of trade to the rest of the world 2003-2012; trade was mainly in live wild- sourced individuals exported for commercial purposes (Table 2).

Indirect trade in Lobophyllia from Indonesia to the EU-28 2003-2012 principally consisted of low levels of live, wild-sourced individuals mainly exported via Malaysia for commercial purposes (Table 3).

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Lobophyllia (in number of pieces) from 46 Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 MARICULTURE QUOTA 300 300 Importer 10 Exporter 299 50 WILD GENUS GENUS QUOTA 0 0 13000 13000 12000 11500 11500 Importer 4324 3443 3347 4106 2930 30 10 9300 9541 10136 Exporter 12 12933 12261 12513

MARICULTURE QUOTA 2400 411 Importer 8 8 6 6 500 600 Exporter 80 1531 WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 25700 25700 25300 25300 25300 25200 28000 15000 15000 14000 13500 13500 Importer 13340 16972 20494 16581 19282 21236 20903 19784 9629 10803 Exporter 25380 20701 23515 24432 25129 25141 27719 14935 14139 14601 *L. corymbosa (2003-2014) and L. hemprichii (2003-2009)

7000 6000 5000 mariculture-EU 4000 mariculture -RoW 3000 2000 W-EU 1000 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

a) 7000 6000 5000 mariculture-EU 4000 mariculture -RoW 3000 W-EU 2000 1000 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Lobophyllia (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Lobophyllia from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ 47 contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live W T Importer 5319 6456 6420 4953 6299 6726 5953 6164 6357 6971 61618 Exporter 7357 6160 6425 5714 6897 7393 7536 8985 8608 8011 73086 other Importer 20 6 26 Exporter mariculture T Importer 10 460 470 Exporter 283 768 1051 live (kg) W T Importer 15 15 Exporter raw corals W T Importer 142 155 177 41 145 95 79 65 102 1001 Exporter RoW carvings W T Importer 15 15 Exporter live I T Importer 10 14 26 36 72 38 196 Exporter W T Importer 12345 13959 17387 15734 15913 14520 14960 22920 12807 13968 154513 Exporter 18023 14541 17090 18718 18232 17748 20183 18883 17792 19093 180303 other Importer 34 34 Exporter 12 10 22 mariculture T Importer 8 8 6 6 500 140 668 Exporter 96 813 909 live (kg) W T Importer 10 10 Exporter raw corals I T Importer 2 1 3 Exporter W T Importer 891 837 91 49 273 1011 1089 969 859 737 6806 Exporter 6 6 other Importer 3 3 Exporter mariculture T Importer 29 29 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

48 Table 3: Indirect exports of Lobophyllia from Indonesia to the EU-28, 2003-2012. (Source W contains source W, U and unspecified). Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total live W T Importer 22 4 1 32 59 Exporter 15 13 80 341 11 3 463 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 8 49 Lobophyllia are zooxanthellate colonial considered to be the most abundant of the corals (Veron, 2000), which may reach Mussidae in Indonesia, often forming sexual maturity at 3-8 years, based on most monospecific stands and occurring across a reef building corals having been reported to wide range of habitats; L. corymbosa and reach sexual maturity at that age (Wallace, L. hataii too were reported to be found on 1999). They are hermaphroditic corals most reefs, but at lower densities (Tomascik (Tomascik et al. , 1997), with linear growth et al. , 1997). The genus was considered very rates of at least 1.6 cm/year (Green and common in Lampung and common in Shirley, 1999). Banten and Central Java [all are provinces where coral harvest takes place]; it was also The genus Lobophyllia comprises 10 species, common in Jakarta, but uncommon in West all of which have been confirmed to occur in Papua (Suharsono and Giyanto, 2006). Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). Approximately half of the species were The IUCN classified one of the Lobophyllia considered to be widespread globally (IUCN, species that occur in Indonesia as 2014), while the genus appears to have a Endangered globally , three as Vulnerable, scattered distribution in Indonesia one as Near Threatened, four as Least (Suharsono, 2008a). Concern, while one has not yet been assessed (IUCN, 2014). Based on global Seven species of Lobophyllia were recorded assessments in Veron (2000), it could be at the Togean and Banggai Islands in inferred that one species of Lobophyllia may Sulawesi in 1998; the genus was present in a be common in Indonesia and one locally number of the survey sites (Allen and common, while seven are uncommon. More McKenna, 2001). Five species of Lobophyllia recently, four of the species that occur in were recorded at survey sites in Bali; the Indonesia were considered to be common genus was part of the typical coral globally, four uncommon and one rare; one community of coastlines of Nusa Penida and has not yet been assessed (IUCN, 2014). neighbouring islands that are more L. corymbosa and L. hemprichii may be the sheltered from waves; the genus was also most important species in trade, both of recorded from reefs with clear waters at the which were classified as Least Concern, are eastern coast of Bali (Turak and DeVantier, common globally and can be very abundant. 2011). The genus’ occurrence was also The Endangered species occurs within reported from Komodo (five species) (Turak, provinces where coral harvest takes place. 2006; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011), Wakatobi (four species) (Turak, 2004; in: Timotius et al. (2009) raised concerns over Turak and DeVantier, 2011, Bunaken NP (six the high trade levels in Lobophyllia since the species) (Devantier et al. , 2006) and late 1990s, considering their slow growth Derewan (seven species) (Turak, 2005; in: rates. The genus was also found to be among Turak and DeVantier, 2011). The genus was the top ten of the most commonly recorded at seven out of nine survey sites at confiscated coral genera at Heathrow airport Luwuk Peninsula, eastern Central Sulawesi (UK) over the period 2003-2007 (Jones, (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008). 2008). Although the origin of these corals may not be known, it is noteworthy that Lobophyllia represented 0.81-5.14% of the Indonesia is the largest exporters of corals corals within the sites surveyed at Luwuk overall. Peninsula (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008) and in 2011, the genus represented 0.33% of the L. hemprichii was considered one of the coral cover, on average, at sites surveyed in corals that are most suitable to husbandry in Bali (Lazuardi et al. , 2013). L. hemprichii was aquaria (Fossa and Nilsen, 1996; in: Wabnitz et al. , 2003). 8 with symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate)

50 SCLERACTINIA: PECTINIIDAE Pectinia spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN) : 6 species (2 VU and 4 NT)

EU DECISIONS Current positive opinion for Pectinia lactuca first formed on 22/07/1997 (INDONESIA): and last confirmed on 30/06/2009.

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas (in number of pieces) for wild- sourced corals at species level for wild-sourced Pectinia lactuca until 2012, with a genus level quota published since 2013 instead. Species-level quotas were also published for maricultured corals in some years (Table 1; quotas aggregated). Trade appears to have remained within quota in all years, except 2012, according to Indonesia.

When conversion factors are applied to convert all trade reported in pieces to kilograms, direct global trade levels in wild-sourced corals appears to be relatively constant 2003-2013, both according to the importers and Indonesia (Figure 1).

Direct exports of Pectinia from Indonesia to the EU-28 and to the rest of the world 2003-2012 comprised relatively low levels of trade mainly in live wild-sourced individuals, all exported for commercial purposes (Table 2).

No indirect trade in Pectinia from Indonesia to the EU-28 was reported (Table 3).

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Pectinia (in number of pieces) from Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 51 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 WILD QUOTA 2500 2500 Importer 181 108 116 126 298 100 5 9 16 18 GENUS GENUS Exporter

MARICULTURE QUOTA 2000 1540 0 Importer 200 Exporter 5 227 20 40 670 WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 2350 2350 2350 2350 2350 2250 2500 2500 2500 2500 Importer 895 1218 1620 1388 1531 1256 1359 1243 1373 1577 Exporter 2306 1964 2274 2216 2343 2243 2470 2476 2278 2632 *P. lactuca (2003-2012)

600 500 400 mariculture-EU 300 mariculture -RoW 200 W-EU 100 W-RoW

Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 a) 600 500 400 mariculture -EU 300 mariculture-RoW 200 W-EU 100 W-RoW

Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Pectinia from (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Pectinia from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. All trade was for 52 commercial purposes. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified.

Importer Term (unit) Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live W Importer 796 832 762 700 843 911 779 697 537 653 7510 Exporter 1121 906 781 721 857 997 954 916 665 758 8676 mariculture Importer 151 151 Exporter 20 109 505 634 raw corals W Importer 16 5 1 3 10 35 Exporter RoW live I Importer 2 5 3 2 1 13 Exporter O Importer 73 73 Exporter W Importer 280 494 974 814 986 445 585 555 852 942 6927 Exporter 1185 1058 1493 1495 1486 1246 1516 1560 1613 1874 14526 mariculture Importer 54 54 Exporter 5 207 20 54 165 451 raw corals W Importer 125 149 54 6 20 215 161 157 77 173 1137 Exporter mariculture Importer Exporter 1 1 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 9 53 Pectinia are zooxanthellate colonial corals The genus was considered common in (Veron, 2000), which may reach sexual Lampung and Central Java [both are maturity at 3-8 years, based on most reef provinces where coral harvest takes place] as building corals having been reported to well as in Jakarta; it was uncommon in West reach sexual maturity at that age (Wallace, Papua and rare in Banten [the latter also 1999). Pectinia were found to be particularly being one of the provinces where harvest abundant in turbid coastal areas, which was takes place] (Suharsono and Giyanto, 2006). thought to indicate their ability to reject sedimentation (Tomascik et al. , 1997). The IUCN classified two of the Pectinia species that occur in Indonesia as The genus Pectinia comprises eight species, Vulnerable globally , while the remaining six of which have been confirmed to occur in species were classified as Near Threatened Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). Five of the (IUCN, 2014). Based on global assessments species that occur in Indonesia were in Veron (2000), it could be inferred that considered to be widespread globally (IUCN, two species of the Pectinia that occur in 2014). The genus’ distribution was reported Indonesia may be common in the country, to range across Indonesia (Suharsono, one locally common and three uncommon, 2008a). which was also reflected in a more recent assessment (IUCN, 2014). The genus’ presence was confirmed from Luwuk Peninsula, eastern Central Sulawesi The SA of Indonesia (2014; in litt . to UNEP- (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008) and the WCMC) confirmed that the only species in Togean and Banggai Islands in Sulawesi, trade from the wild from this genus was P. where 6 species of Pectinia were recorded in lactuca . This species was classified as 1998; the genus was present at many of the Vulnerable by the IUCN (2014), as although sites surveyed (Allen and McKenna, 2001). it was considered to be common and Six species were recorded at survey sites in widespread globally, it was noted to be Bali (Turak and DeVantier, 2011), five were subject to a number of threats, including recorded in Komodo (Turak, 2006; in: Turak harvest pressure. In Indonesia, the species and DeVantier, 2011), seven in Wakatobi occurs throughout the country (Suharsono, (Turak, 2004; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011), 2008a) and it was found to be locally six in Bunaken NP (Devantier et al. , 2006) common (Turak and Souhoka, 2003; Turak and seven species in Derewan (Turak, 2005; and Wakeford, 2002). in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011).

The genus Pectinia was recorded at eight out of nine survey sites at Luwuk Peninsula, eastern Central Sulawesi; 1.08-7.66% of the corals within the sites surveyed belonged to the genus Pectinia (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008). In Bali, the genus represented 0.31% of the coral cover, on average, across sites surveyed in 2001 (Lazuardi et al. , 2013).

The genus was reported to be amongst the 25 top genera harvested for the aquarium trade in Lampung, Southern Sumatra (Terangi Indonesian Coral Reef Foundation, unpublished data; in: Sheppard et al., 2008).

9 with symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate)

54 SCLERACTINIA: POCILLOPORIDAE Stylophora spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN) : 3 species: 1 NT, 1 LC and 1 not assessed

EU DECISIONS Current no opinion i) for Stylophora pistillata formed on 28/05/2013. (INDONESIA): Previous positive opinion formed on 22/07/1997.

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas (in number of pieces) for wild- sourced corals at species level for Stylophora pistillata every year until 2008. Quotas were also published for maricultured S. pistillata in some years (Table 1; quotas aggregated). The export quota for wild-sourced S. pistillata was reported to have been removed in 2008, as the species had been maricultured very successfully (Timotius et al. , 2009). Quotas appear to have been exceeded in 2005, 2006 and 2007 according to importers and in 2006 according to Indonesia. Importer reported potential quota excesses may be due to Indonesia reporting trade in maricultured specimens as source ‘W*’ rather than source F during these years, which importers may have reported as source W.

When conversion factors are applied to convert all trade reported in pieces to kilograms, direct global trade levels in wild-sourced corals appears to be declining according to importers, while trade in maricultured corals is increasing. According to Indonesia, trade in wild-sourced specimens virtually stopped in 2007, with trade in maricultured corals increasing since 2004 (Figure 1). Again, these slightly different patterns may be due to reporting discrepancies.

Direct exports of Stylophora from Indonesia to the EU-28 and to the rest of the world 2003-2012 comprised moderate levels of trade, initially mainly in live, wild-sourced individuals and in recent years maricultured corals, primarily exported for commercial purposes (Table 2).

Indirect trade in Stylophora from Indonesia to the EU-28 2003-2012 comprised of the trade of 5 live wild-sourced corals in 2005, as reported by both the importers and exporters; 51 live wild- sourced corals in 2007, as reported by the exporter; 10 live maricultured corals in 2010, as reported by the exporter; and 85 live maricultured corals in 2012, as reported by the importers. All trade was for commercial purposes.

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Stylophora (in number of pieces) from Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 55 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

MARICULTURE QUOTA 15000 7290 9559 Importer 15 45 119 3330 3919 3930 4636 7729 Exporter 3000 4425 4800 5496 11321 10577 12191 8266 17664 WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 Importer 1191 2232 3307 5298 5167 1483 698 366 203 202 Exporter 2221 2011 2153 2705 2232 54 * S. pistillata (2003-2008)

4000

3000 mariculture -EU 2000 mariculture-RoW W-EU 1000 W-RoW

Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 a) 4000

3000 mariculture -EU 2000 mariculture-RoW W-EU 1000 W-RoW

Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Stylophora (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Stylophora from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily 56 source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live W T Importer 965 1232 1748 3121 2947 852 15 35 10 10925 Exporter 1340 1150 1031 943 1131 10 5605 other Importer Exporter 20 20 mariculture T Importer 15 59 2202 2492 3140 2727 4200 14835 Exporter 1080 2050 1871 2925 5537 5306 6359 3909 6668 35705 other Importer 11 11 Exporter raw corals W T Importer 8 4 12 145 19 188 Exporter mariculture T Importer 43 10 45 98 Exporter RoW live I T Importer 3 2 14 19 Exporter W T Importer 316 1309 1584 1783 2280 742 684 366 211 222 9497 Exporter 881 861 1082 1242 1101 24 5191 other Importer 15 520 535 Exporter 40 576 8 624 mariculture T Importer 15 30 60 1128 1427 805 1903 3574 8942 Exporter 1920 2375 2929 2571 5784 5271 5832 4357 10996 42035 raw corals W T Importer 109 327 44 9 23 90 124 17 9 752 Exporter mariculture T Importer 126 325 1395 368 804 3018 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 10 57 Stylophora are zooxanthellate colonial 6.36% of the corals within the sites surveyed corals (Veron, 2000), which may reach belonged to the genus Stylophora (Scaps and sexual maturity at 3-8 years, based on most Runtukahu, 2008). In 2011, it represented reef building corals having been reported to 0.59% of the coral cover, on average, across reach sexual maturity at that age (Wallace, sites surveyed in Bali (Lazuardi et al. , 2013). 1999). The genus was considered uncommon in Central Java and rare in Lampung [which are Pocilloporids were considered to be typically provinces where coral harvest takes place], colonizing corals, with populations often and it was also rare in Jakarta, but common showing rapid turnover rates (Turak and in West Java; it does not appear to have been DeVantier, 2011) and Stylophora colonies were recorded in Banten during these surveys also reported to often be transported on (Suharsono and Giyanto, 2006). floating objects (Veron, 2000). The IUCN classified one of the Stylophora The genus Stylophora comprises eight species that occur in Indonesia as Near species, three of which have been confirmed Threatened globally , one as Least Concern, to occur in Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). and one has not yet been assessed (IUCN, All the species within this genus that occur 2014). Based on global assessments in Veron in Indonesia were considered to be (2000), it could be inferred that two species widespread globally (IUCN, 2014). In of Stylophora that occur in Indonesia may be Indonesia, S. pistillata was reported to have common in the country, which was also a scattered distribution across the country, confirmed more recently (IUCN, 2014). while S. subseriata was restricted to the eastern part of the country (Suharsono, This genus was found to be most susceptible 2008a). to bleaching in Kofiau MPA in Raja Ampat (Purwanto et al. , 2012). The presence of the genus was confirmed from Luwuk Peninsula, eastern Central The SA of Indonesia (2014; in litt . to UNEP- Sulawesi (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008) and WCMC) confirmed that the only species in western Bandul Island, Ujung Kulon NP in trade from the wild from this genus used to West Java, where it was recorded at 3m and be S. pistillata , but that since the species was 10m depth during transect surveys (Putri et successfully maricultured, a zero quota had al. , 2012). Two species of Stylophora were been established for wild specimens [quota recorded at survey sites in Bali, where the not published but may refer to harvest genus was part of the typical coral quota]. S. pistillata was classified as Near community of the northern coast (Turak and Threatened by the IUCN (2014) and was DeVantier, 2011). The occurrence of the same considered a widespread and common two species was also reported from Komodo species, which may be dominant locally. (Turak, 2006; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011), Wakatobi (Turak, 2004; in: Turak and In the early 1990s, S. pistillata was DeVantier, 2011), Bunaken NP (Devantier et considered to be suitable for mariculture, al. , 2006) and Derewan (Turak, 2005; in: with good fragment survival (Yates and Turak and DeVantier, 2011). One species was Carlson, 1992). also recorded at a number of survey sites at the Togean and Banggai Islands (Allen and McKenna, 2001).

The genus was recorded at all of the nine sites surveyed at Luwuk Peninsula; 0.64-

10 with symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate)

58 SCLERACTINIA: PORITIDAE Goniopora spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN) : 19 species: 4 VU, 5 NT and 10 LC

EU DECISIONS Current positive opinion for Goniopora lobata formed on 15/01/2004. (INDONESIA): Previous negative opinion formed on 22/05/2003.

Current positive opinion for G. minor and G. stokesi first formed on 14/09/2007 and last confirmed on 16/02/2010.

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas (in number of pieces) for wild- sourced corals at species level for Goniopora lobata , G. minor and G. stokesi every year until 2010, with a genus level quota published since 2010; separate species-level quotas continue to be published for G. lobata and G. stokesi , but not for G. minor . A zero quota for maricultured specimens was published in 2007 (Table 1; quotas aggregated). Trade appears to have remained within quota in most years for wild-sourced corals, except in 2010, according to importers, and in 2012, according to Indonesia.

When conversion factors are applied to convert all trade reported in pieces to kilograms, direct trade levels in wild-sourced corals appear to be relatively constant 2003-2012 according to importers and Indonesia, except for 2010, when importer reported data indicates a peak in trade (Figure 1).

Direct exports of Goniopora from Indonesia comprised very high levels of trade to the EU-28 and to the rest of the world 2003-2012; trade was mainly in live wild-sourced individuals exported for commercial purposes (Table 2).

Indirect trade in Goniopora from Indonesia to the EU-28 2003-2012 principally consisted of moderate levels of wild-sourced carvings and raw corals, mainly exported via the United States for commercial purposes (Table 3).

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Goniopora (in number of pieces) from Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 59 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 WILD QUOTA 48000 46000 45000 45000 39000 Importer 18688 14182 14700 16847 4951 264 97 186669 28145 33170 GENUS GENUS Exporter 12 47731 43698 46432

MARICULTURE QUOTA 0 Importer 80 20 22 2520 242 40 422 Exporter 170 1751 WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 137700 137700 137700 137700 137700 129195 127800 84600 81900 88000 86000 74000 Importer 74704 81791 92361 77717 96902 79816 69110 35617 39559 45482 Exporter 135713 121290 129653 133990 136967 129001 126648 84414 76959 89809 *G. lobata, G. stokesi (both 2003-2014), and G. minor (2003-2009)

60000 50000 40000 mariculture-EU 30000 mariculture -RoW 20000 W-EU 10000 W-RoW

Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 a) 60000 50000 40000 mariculture-EU 30000 mariculture -RoW 20000 W-EU 10000 W-RoW 0 Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Goniopora (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Goniopora from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is 60 primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live I T Importer 4 4 Exporter other Importer 24 24 Exporter W T Importer 18322 25703 27582 24623 30014 27625 23971 22753 24909 27599 253101 Exporter 28329 30017 31099 29223 33927 33949 33000 38734 36197 36193 330668 other Importer 25 1 26 Exporter mariculture T Importer 50 40 352 442 Exporter 1050 1050 live (kg) W T Importer 50 50 Exporter raw corals W T Importer 147 110 87 191 123 315 130 178 1281 Exporter RoW carvings I T Importer 68 6 74 Exporter W T Importer 10 96 94 200 Exporter live I T Importer 6 4 9 33 346 117 123 638 Exporter O T Importer 270 270 Exporter W T Importer 75070 70270 79452 69941 71839 52430 45236 199473 42794 51053 757558 Exporter 107384 91273 98544 104767 103040 95052 93648 93411 84460 100048 971627 other Importer 27 60 87 Exporter 22 22 mariculture T Importer 137 80 20 22 2520 217 146 3142 Exporter 170 701 871 live (kg) W T Importer 7 40 15 62 Exporter raw corals I T Importer 2 5 6 13 Exporter

W T Importer 9983 11184 1149 1228 1034 14366 13300 15148 11794 9922 89108 Exporter 61 other Importer 2 2 Exporter 12 12 mariculture T Importer 5 5 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Table 3: Indirect exports of Goniopora from Indonesia to the EU-28, 2003-2012. (Source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total carvings W T Importer Exporter 22220 462 22682 carvings (kg) W other Importer Exporter 3.425 0.08 2.633 0.04 0.031 6.209 T Importer Exporter 670.1 694.722 754.876 39.91 274.366 191.11 2625.084 derivatives (kg) W other Importer Exporter 0.057 0.14 0.197 T Importer Exporter 287.48 287.48 live W T Importer 139 69 2 1 120 331 Exporter 67 22 155 676 52 6 6 984 raw corals W T Importer 6 6 Exporter 8580 8580 raw corals (kg) W other Importer 3.74 3.74 Exporter 0.17 0.111 0.02 0.038 0.339 T Importer Exporter 43.72 105.24 186.28 107.17 442.41 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 62 Goniopora are gonochoric 11 (Wabnitz et al. , (Lazuardi et al ., 2013). Goniopora was 2003) zooxanthellate 12 colonial corals reported to be locally dominant at the (Veron, 2000), which may reach sexual Spermonde archipelago, Southwest maturity at 3-8 years, based on most reef Sulawesi, and on Buton Island, Southeast building corals having been reported to Sulawesi (COREMAP, 2008; In: Yusuf and reach sexual maturity at that age (Wallace, Jompa, 2012). Within sites targeted by coral 1999). Goniopora were reported to be slow- collectors in the Spermonde archipelago, growing (Wabnitz et al. , 2003), although Goniopora was found in deeper soft bottom noted to grow well on sandy substrates habitats (Bruckner and Borneman, 2006). (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in The genus was considered very common in litt . to UNEP-WCMC). Central Java and common in Lampung [both are provinces where coral harvest takes The genus Goniopora comprises 24 species, place], uncommon in Jakarta and West 19 of which have been confirmed to occur in Papua; and rare in Banten [the latter also Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). The being a province where harvest takes place] majority of the species that occur in (Suharsono and Giyanto, 2006). Indonesia were considered to be widespread globally (IUCN, 2014). In Indonesia, the The IUCN classified four of the Goniopora genus’ distribution was reported to range species that occur in Indonesia as across the country (Suharsono, 2008a). Vulnerable globally , five as Near Threatened and 10 as Least Concern (IUCN, 2014). Based The genus’ presence was confirmed from on global assessments in Veron (2000), it Luwuk Peninsula, eastern Central Sulawesi could be inferred that six of the species that (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008), Spermonde occur in Indonesia may be common in the archipelago (Bruckner and Borneman, country, one locally common, 10 uncommon 2006), and the Togean and Banggai Islands, and two rare. More recently, seven species where four species were recorded; the genus were considered to be common globally, was present at a small number of the survey four locally common, five uncommon, while sites (Allen and McKenna, 2001). Fifteen two were considered rare (IUCN, 2014). Goniopora species were recorded at survey sites in Bali (Turak and DeVantier, 2011). The Goniopora was reported to be among the occurrence of Goniopora was also reported genera that were most affected by coral from Komodo (11 species) (Turak, 2006; in: bleaching in 2009-2010 in the Spermonde Turak and DeVantier, 2011), Wakatobi (16 and on Buton reefs (Yusuf and Jompa, 2012). species) (Turak, 2004; in: Turak and The decline in species richness at reefs in DeVantier, 2011), Bunaken NP (14 species) Jakarta Bay over the period 1920-2005 was (Devantier et al. , 2006) and Derewan (16 also reported to have affected Poritidae, species (Turak, 2005; in: Turak and although to a lesser extent compared to DeVantier, 2011). other corals (van der Meij et al. , 2010).

Goniopora was amongst the more common Goniopora was found to be among the top genera recorded during surveys at Luwuk ten of the most commonly confiscated coral Peninsula, where it was recorded in all of the genera at Heathrow airport (UK) over the nine sites surveyed; 0.4-3.14% of the corals period 2003-2007 (Jones, 2008). Although the within the sites belonged to this genus origin of these corals may not be known, it is (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008). In Bali, the noteworthy that Indonesia is the largest genus represented 0.23% of the coral cover, exporters of corals overall. on average, across sites surveyed in 2011 In the early 1990s, Goniopora was considered to be suitable for mariculture, with good 11 separate male and female colonies fragment survival and successful husbandry 12 with symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate)

in aquaria (Yates and Carlson, 1992). However, Wabnitz et al. , (2003) considered 63 this genus to have poor survival rates in aquaria (estimated at 3-6 months) and the relatively high trade levels were thought to be due to the need to regularly replace these corals.

64 SCLERACTINIA: PORITIDAE Porites spp. II/B

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

SPECIES (IUCN) : 36 species: 1 CR, 2 EN, 9 VU, 8 NT, 11 LC, 2 DD and 3 not assessed

EU DECISIONS Current positive opinion for Porites cylindrica formed on 14/09/2007. (INDONESIA):

Trade patterns Between 2003 and 2014, Indonesia published CITES export quotas (in number of pieces) for wild- sourced corals at species level until 2005, while from 2005 onwards, the quotas were published at genus level; quotas have been reduced every year since 2008. Species- and genus-level quotas were also published for maricultured corals in some years (Table 1; quotas aggregated). Trade appears to have remained within quota in most years for wild-sourced corals, apart from 2012, according to Indonesia.

When conversion factors are applied to convert all trade reported in pieces to kilograms, direct global trade levels in wild-sourced corals appears to be fluctuating but possibly declining according to importers, while trade in maricultured corals is increasing. According to Indonesia, trade in wild-sourced corals remained relatively constant 2003-2012, while trade in maricultured corals started years before being reported by importers. This pattern may be due to reporting discrepancies, as Indonesia reported trade in maricultured specimens as source ‘W*’ rather than source F until 2008, which importers may have reported as source W (Figure 1).

Direct exports of Porites from Indonesia 2003-2012 comprised of relatively high levels of trade to the EU-28 and to the rest of the world in live, mainly in wild-sourced individuals corals exported for commercial purposes (Table 2). Trade in maricultured corals comprised relatively low levels of live specimens to the EU-28 and the rest of the world in recent years.

Indirect trade in Porites from Indonesia to the EU-28 2003-2012 principally consisted of low levels of wild-sourced live corals and carvings mainly exported via Malaysia and the United States, respectively, for commercial purposes (Table 3).

Table 1: Aggregated CITES export quotas for live Porites (in number of pieces) from Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 65 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 MARICULTURE QUOTA 4224 Importer 15 80 20 21 45 56 54 Exporter 2287 407 WILD GENUS GENUS QUOTA 47600 47600 49950 47700 45000 42750 40500 37500 35000 Importer 3109 2672 3076 30016 31133 23131 17981 31833 18142 16440 Exporter 46367 47348 50041 47254 44938 40401 41341

MARICULTURE QUOTA 5000 6133 8449 Importer 20 5 24 50 2326 1989 2691 3469 5128 Exporter 3238 3937 2883 3967 10431 5649 8232 7593 20805 WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA* 47600 47600 47600 0 0 Importer 17585 25965 32621 2215 931 Exporter 46611 40771 44358 56 * P. cylindrica, P. lichen, P. lobata, P. lutea and P. nigrescens (all 2003-2005; some zero quotas published 2007 and 2008)

12000 10000 8000 mariculture-EU 6000 mariculture -RoW 4000 W-EU 2000 W-RoW

Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 a) 12000 10000 8000 mariculture-EU 6000 mariculture-RoW 4000 W-EU 2000 W-RoW

Quantity imported (kg) imported Quantity 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b) Figure 1: Main sources of direct imports of raw and live Porites from (in kg, converted from number of pieces where appropriate) Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012 for commercial purposes, as reported by a) the importers and b) Indonesia . Quantities reported in numbers of pieces of coral converted to weight according to Green and Shirley (1999); ‘mariculture’ includes source F, C and R; source W includes U and source not specified.

Table 2: Direct exports of Porites from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is 66 primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade)).

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live W T Importer 7768 10916 13366 10759 13174 12382 10171 9273 9895 10214 107918 Exporter 13496 13361 13652 12126 14451 15440 16141 16468 15640 14266 145041 other Importer 39 2 41 Exporter 120 123 243 mariculture T Importer 4 10 1625 1261 2120 2243 3545 10808 Exporter 2030 1384 2485 2160 4548 2940 3561 2790 7534 29432 raw corals W T Importer 189 390 248 14 305 90 75 10 50 1371 Exporter mariculture T Importer 2 2 Exporter raw corals (kg) W T Importer 383 383 Exporter RoW carvings W T Importer 48 15 63 Exporter live I T Importer 1 2 31 7 47 23 9 120 Exporter O T Importer 129 129 Exporter W T Importer 12926 17721 22331 19257 20174 11641 7810 22535 8245 6226 148866 Exporter 33115 27410 30706 34181 32777 34524 31113 28470 24761 27075 304132 other Importer 25 25 Exporter 60 10 70 mariculture T Importer 35 5 100 40 721 749 616 1282 1637 5185 Exporter 1208 2553 2685 2214 5883 2709 4671 4803 13271 39997 live (kg) W T Importer 17 3 20 Exporter raw corals I T Importer 4 5 12 3 24 Exporter W T Importer 3751 4535 814 445 450 7270 7134 5033 3587 3512 36531 Exporter other Importer Exporter 7 91 98 mariculture T Importer 238 570 505 853 1364 3530

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Exporter 67 specimens W T Importer Exporter 75 75 other Importer 620 10 630 Exporter 310 490 800 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Table 3: Indirect exports of Porites from Indonesia to the EU-28, 2003-2012. (Source ‘mariculture’ is primarily source ‘F’, but also includes trade recorded as source C and R; source W contains source W, U and unspecified. Purpose ‘other’ contains all purposes other than T (commercial trade))

Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total carvings (kg) W other Importer Exporter 1 1.599 2.599 T Importer Exporter 96.74 151.82 128.88 11.61 16.28 405.33 derivatives (kg) W T Importer Exporter 77.02 77.02 live mariculture T Importer 85 85 Exporter W T Importer 60 60 Exporter 15 5 63 505 588 live (kg) W T Importer 12.72 7.74 20.46 Exporter raw corals (kg) W other Importer Exporter 1.12 1.12 T Importer 4.6 4.4 9 Exporter 0.2 0.2 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 06/10/2014.

Conservation status 68 Porites are zooxanthellate 13 corals (Veron, was present at many of the sites (Allen and 2000), which may reach sexual maturity at 3- McKenna, 2001). 8 years, based on most reef building corals having been reported to reach sexual Porites were also found to be dominant in a maturity at that age (Wallace, 1999). Linear number of locations in more recent surveys, growth rates of 0.9-2.8 cm/year, with area including for example in sites surveyed in growth rates of 22.9-44 cm 2/year were Bali; the genus was almost ubiquitous across reported for this genus (Green and Shirley, survey sites and branching and massive 1999). Porites were part of the typical coral community of the northern coast; 23 species Massive Porites were considered to be were recorded (Turak and DeVantier, 2011). among the more stress-tolerant corals Porites was the most common genus (Turak and DeVantier, 2011) and have been encountered during surveys of fringing coral found in impoverished environments with reefs around Bunaken Island and Tombariri high sand cover (Cleary et al. , 2008), for district in North Sulawesi (Schulze Rojas, example in heavily sedimented and turbid 2010) and it was also among the most environments in sites surveyed at Sampela, common genera recorded during surveys at Wakatobi MNP, where Porites was reported Luwuk Peninsula, eastern Central Sulawesi to be dominant (Scaps and Denis, 2007). (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008). The genus was considered to be one of the two most The genus Porites comprises 61 species, 36 of abundant genera at sites surveyed in which have been confirmed to occur in northern Kaledupa Island [Wakatobi MNP, Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, 2012). The southeast Sulawesi] (Haapkylä et al. , 2009). majority of the species within this genus Porites were found to be locally dominant at that occur in Indonesia were considered to Pulau Weh in north Sumatra (Baird et al. , be widespread globally (IUCN, 2014). In 2005) and at sites surveyed at Buton Island, Indonesia, the genus was reported to occur Southeast Sulawesi (COREMAP, 2008; in: throughout the country (Suharsono, 2008a). Yusuf and Jompa, 2012) . It was found to be one of two dominant coral genera in Kofiau The occurrence of Porites was reported from MPA in Raja Ampat (Purwanto et al. , 2012). Komodo (13 species) (Turak, 2006; in: Turak Porites was found to be among the dominant and DeVantier, 2011), Wakatobi (16 species) genera in the Spermonde archipelago (Yusuf (Turak, 2004; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011), and Rani, 2006; Yusuf and Jompa, 2012) and Bunaken NP (16 species) (Devantier et al. , the genus was locally dominant in turbid 2006), Pulisan (23 species) (Scaps et al. , waters near river outflows within sites 2007), and Derewan (20 species) (Turak, targeted by coral collectors (Bruckner and 2005; in: Turak and DeVantier, 2011). Porites Borneman, 2006). were also recorded at western Bandul Island, Ujung Kulon NP in West Java (Putri et al. , At Luwuk Peninsula, 6.61-19.6% of the corals 2012). within the sites surveyed were Porites (Scaps and Runtukahu, 2008). In 2011, the genus Surveys throughout the Indonesian represented 8.21% of the coral cover, on archipelago in the late 1990s found Porites to average, across sites surveyed in Bali be dominant in a number of areas (Wallace, (Lazuardi et al. , 2013) and 29.2% of the coral Carden et al. , 2001). At the Togean and community of Durai Island, Riau province, Banggai Islands in Sulawesi, the genus was belonged to the genus Porites (Milner et al. , found to be among the genera that were 2013). The genus was considered very dominant at survey sites; 12 species of common in Lampung and common in Porites were recorded in 1998 and the genus Banten and Central Java [provinces where coral harvest takes place]; the genus was also

13 with symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate)

common in West Papua and Jakarta (Suharsono and Giyanto, 2006). 69

The IUCN classified one of the Porites species that occur in Indonesia as Critically Endangered globally, two as Endangered 14 , nine as Vulnerable , eight as Near Threatened, 11 as Least Concern and two as Data Deficient, while three have not yet been assessed (IUCN, 2014). Based on global assessments in Veron (2000), it could be inferred that nine of the species of Porites that occur in Indonesia may be common in the country, seven sometimes common, five locally common, 13 uncommon and one rare. More recently, 15 species were considered to be common globally, three locally common, 13 uncommon, two rare, while three have not yet been assessed (IUCN, 2014). The Critically Endangered and one of the Endangered species occur within provinces where harvest takes place.

Although many species of Porites were considered to be resistant to bleaching (Carpenter et al. , 2008), bleaching observed in 2009-2010 in the Spermonde archipelago and on Buton reefs in Sulawesi was reported to have affected the genus (Yusuf and Jompa, 2012). Although Poritidae were reported to have been affected to a lesser extent by the decline in species richness in Jakarta Bay over the period 1920-2005 (van der Meij et al. , 2010), P. rus , a generally abundant species, was found to be virtually absent in highly perturbed reefs (Cleary et al. , 2006).

In the early 1990s, P. compressa was considered to be suitable for mariculture, although husbandry success in aquaria was found to be “marginal” (Yates and Carlson, 1992).

14 The taxonomic status of P. pukoensis is disputed , which relates to the distribution of the taxon

70 SCLERACTINIA: MUSSIDAE Acanthophyllia deshayesiana II/B

RANGE STATES: Australia (?), Indonesia, Philippines

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

EU DECISIONS: Current no opinion ii) for wild specimens from Indonesia formed on 03/09/2014.

IUCN: Not assessed

Taxonomic note Acanthophyllia deshayesiana and Cynarina lacrymalis were considered synonymous by Veron (2000) and Turak et al. (2008), and Best and Hoeksema (1987) considered A. deshayesiana to fit within the variability of C. lacrymalis . However, Cairns et al. (1999) and Wells (1964) considered them taxonomically distinct.

The SA of Indonesia (2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC) argued that A. deshayesiana and C. lacrymalis should be treated as separate species, based on characteristics such as habitat, skeleton shape, polyp shape and septum (internal wall) structure, and reported that separate quotas had been established on that basis.

Trade patterns Indonesia published a new CITES export quota of 4000 live, wild-taken specimens of Acanthophyllia deshayesiana in 2014. According to CITES trade data (extracted on 05/09/2014), the only reported direct import to the EU-28 over the period 2003-2012 consisted of 10 live, wild- sourced corals imported for commercial purposes, reported by Belgium in 2009. Direct trade to the rest of the world comprised eight live, wild-sourced specimens imported for commercial purposes, reported by the United States of America in 2012. Additionally, the confiscation/seizure of live, wild-sourced corals was reported by the United States of America amounting to 154, 19, and 69 specimens in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively (most of which was reported at the genus level). No indirect exports of A. deshayesiana to the EU-28 originating in Indonesia were reported 2003-2012. Indonesia did not report any exports of A. deshayesiana 2003-2012. Conservation status Acanthophyllia deshayesiana , a free living common (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, coral, was reported to occur in eastern and 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC). central Indonesia, at depths of 20-30m (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in The majority of specimens were reported to litt . to UNEP-WCMC). be of a brown coloration not of interest to the aquarium trade, with collectors The species was thought to be a brooding focussing on green and red specimens only coral and was reported to occur in groups on (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in sandy or muddy substrates at reefs exposed litt . to UNEP-WCMC). to strong currents (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC). A. deshayesiana was considered to be locally

SCLERACTINIA: MUSSIDAE 71 Cynarina lacrimalis II/B

SYNONYMS: Antillia grandiflora, Antillia japonica, Antillia nomaensis, Caryophyllia carduus, Caryophyllia lacrymalis, Cynarina savignii, Protolobophyllia japonica

COMMON NAMES: Cat's-eye Coral, Pacific Rose Coral

RANGE STATES: Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Tonga, Viet Nam

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6 (b) suspension for wild specimens from Indonesia first applied on 18/02/2005. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Indonesia formed on 16/09/1999.

Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Australia formed on 30/11/2009.

Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Tonga formed on 22/04/2005 and Article 4.6 (b) suspension applied on 03/09/2008.

IUCN: NT

Taxonomic Note See Acanthophyllia decaryana . Trade patterns Indonesia has published CITES export quotas for Cynarina lacrymalis every year since 1999, and for the genus Cynarina in 1997 and 1998. Trade appears to have remained within quota for all years 2003-2012 (Table 1).

Direct exports of C. lacrymalis from Indonesia to the EU-28 over the period 2003-2012 consisted of wild-sourced trade for commercial purposes, nearly all of which was in live corals (Table 2). Most trade was reported by the exporter only, the EU-28 having reported the import of only 20 raw corals since 2004, and none since 2008.

Indirect trade in C. lacrymalis to the EU-28 originating in Indonesia consisted of 12, eight and one wild-sourced live corals for commercial purposes in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively, reported by the exporter only.

Direct trade from Indonesia to the rest of the world mainly consisted of live, wild-sourced corals traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). The main importers were the United States and Japan. Additionally, the import of Cynarina spp. was reported at the genus level by countries other than the EU-28 totalling 3022 live and 7 raw corals, all wild-sourced, during the period 2003-2012.

Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Cynarina lacrymalis from Indonesia and global 72 direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available. ‘Mariculture’ includes source F and C; source W includes source U.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

MARICULTURE QUOTA 1000 0 Importer 6 10 14 Exporter WILD SPECIES SPECIES QUOTA 9000 8500 8000 7250 7250 6525 7250 7250 7250 7000 7000 7000 Importer 4294 6279 7139 6132 6200 5756 5531 4462 4572 5307 Exporter 8895 6924 7247 7065 7209 6519 7120 7205 6960 7186 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 17/09/2014 22005 mariculture quota specified “mariculture products (pieces): stock from the year 2004 and 2005 product plan.”

Table 2: Direct exports of Cynarina lacrymalis from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live T W Importer 28 10 10 48

Exporter 168 98 60 22 28 43 40 14 21 57 551

raw corals T W Importer 3 3

Exporter

RoW live (kg) T W Importer 2 2

Exporter

live B W Importer 25 25

Exporter

S W Importer

Exporter 2 2

T C Importer 6 5 11

Exporter

F Importer 10 9 19

Exporter

I Importer 20 11 21 46 27 7 5 137

Exporter

U Importer 10 10

Exporter

W Importer 4266 6279 7114 6122 6200 5736 5531 4462 4572 5307 55589

Exporter 8727 6826 7187 7041 7181 6476 7080 7191 6939 7129 71777

raw corals P W Importer 2 2

Exporter

T C Importer 5 5

Exporter

W Importer 1066 472 2 23 86 451 537 833 580 374 4424

Exporter

Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 17/09/2014 Conservation status Cynarina lacrymalis is a solitary coral for sometimes also occurring on sandy which the corallid may reach up to 10cm in substrates, preferring protected sites diameter and 8cm height (Best and (Scientific Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in Hoeksema, 1987). It was reported to occur litt . to UNEP-WCMC). The species was attached to reef slope or hard substrate, but generally found in sheltered lagoons or bays,

where light and water movement are the aquarium trade (Lilley, 2001). The SA of tempered (Best and Hoeksema, 1987), and at Indonesia, (2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC) 73 a depth range of 25-75m (Wells, 1964), and considered the species to be generally 24-30m on the Great Barrier Reef (Fisk, 1983; abundant and easy to detect. Lilley (2001) in Turak et al. , 2008). also described the species as widely dispersed and easy to identify live; although The species was thought to be a spawning the study only found five specimens across coral and was reported to be found singly as various collection areas in Indonesia, the opposed to in groups (Scientific Authority of author noted that the study only covered a Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC). small fraction of the total collection areas. The species was reported to be very variable The author also noted that while exporters in form (Best and Hoeksema, 1987). Most C. reported that the species was abundant in lacrymalis corals were reported to be pale or other collection areas (Lombok and brown, with other colours ranging from Spermonde), these statements were not bright red, green to yellow (Scientific confirmed (Lilley, 2001). Furthermore, Authority of Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to Raymakers (2001) reported that the species UNEP-WCMC). The Indonesian SA noted could be considered extremely rare, as very that the brighter coloured corals were the few individuals were identified in a series of main target of collection for Acanthophyllia surveys at four sites in Sulawesi, Sumatra decaryana, which likely also applies to C. and Java. At that time, the export quota lacrymalis. believed to amount to >10% of the estimated population (Raymakers, 2001). Bruckner and Wells (1964) reported Cynarina to be the Borneman (2006) estimated the species’ most widely distributed solitary mussid population in the Spermonde archipelago to Scleractinian coral. The species was reported be approximately 160 000 individuals. Based to range from the Indo-Pacific eastward into on that, they believed that the 2001 harvest the Red Sea east to the Loyalty Islands (New quota for the Spermonde archipelago Caledonia) and north to Japan, including Sri represented an offtake of 2.2% of the Lanka, the Gulf of Tadjoura (Horn of Africa) standing population in that area (Bruckner and the Great Barrier Reef of Australia and Borneman, 2006). (Wells, 1964). The species was categorised as Near In Indonesia, C. lacrymalis was reported to Threatened by the IUCN, and while the range from Sumatera Island in western most important threat was reported to be Indonesia to Papua (Scientific Authority of extensive reduction of coral reef habitat, it Indonesia, 2014; in litt . to UNEP-WCMC). Its was noted that the species was also presence was confirmed from Komodo and harvested for the aquarium trade (Turak et Rinca, Pulau Pari (Jakarta Bay) and the al. , 2008). Population trends were reported Spermonde archipelago (Lilley, 2001). to be unknown, but thought to be declining C. lacrymalis was reported to be generally (Wilkinson, 2004; in Turak et al. , 2008). uncommon, but very conspicuous (Veron, The species was reported to have exhibited 1995; Turak et al. , 2008). It was however high bleaching, but apparently low mortality found to be locally common (Turak et al. , in the 1998 bleaching event in Palau (Bruno 2008), such as at the Spermonde archipelago et al. , 2001). (South Sulawesi), where it was harvested for

74 References

Allen, G.R. 2008. Conservation hotspots of biodiversity and endemism for Indo-Pacific coral reef fishes. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems , 18: 541–556. Allen, G.R. and McKenna, S.A. (Eds.) 2001. A marine rapid assessment of the Togean and Banggai Islands, Sulawesi, Indonesia . RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment No. 20. Conservation International, Washington D.C., USA. 145 pp. Arias-Gonzalez, J.E., Johnson, C., Seymour, R.M., Perez, P. and Alino, P. 2011. Scaling up models of the dynamics of coral reef ecosystems: an approach for science-based management of global change. In: Dubinsky, Z. and Stambler, N. (Eds.). Coral reefs: an ecosystem in transition . Springer. 373–390. Asian Development Bank 2014. State of the coral triangle: Indonesia . Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, Philippines. 69 pp. Baird, A.H., Campbell, S.J., Fadli, N., Hoey, A.S. and Rudi, E. 2005. The shallow water hard corals of Pulau Weh, Aceh Province, Indonesia. Aquaculture, Aquarium, Conservation & Legislation International Journal of the Bioflux Society , 5(1): 23–28. Baquero, J. 1991. Scleractinians or stony corals and the aquarium trade. Part I. Sea Wind , 5(2): 6– 12. Bentley, N. 1998. An overview of the exploitation, trade and management of corals in Indonesia. TRAFFIC Bulletin , 17(2): 67–78. Best, B. and Bornbusch, A. (Eds.) 2001. Global trade and consumer choices: coral reefs in crisis . American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington D.C., USA. 28 pp. Best, M.B. and Hoeksema, B.W. 1987. New observations on scleractinian corals from Indonesia: 1. Free-living species belonging to the Faviina. Zoologische Mededelingen , 61(27): 387–403. Bruckner, A.W. 2000. New threat to coral reefs: trade in coral organisms. Issues in Science and Technology , 17(1): 63–68. Bruckner, A.W. 2001. Tracking the trade in ornamental coral reef organisms: the importance of CITES and its limitations. Aquarium Sciences and Conservation , 3(1): 79–94. Bruckner, A.W. and Borneman, E.H. 2006. Developing a sustainable harvest regime for Indonesia’s stony coral fishery with application to other coral exporting countries. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Coral Reef Symposium. Okinawa, Japan. 28 June - 2 July 2004 . 1692–1697. Bruno, J.F., Siddon, C.E., Witman, J.D., Colin, P.L. and Toscano, M.A. 2001. El Niño related coral bleaching in Palau, Western Caroline Islands. Coral Reefs , 20(2): 127–136. Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M. and Perry, A. 2011. Reefs at risk revisited . World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., USA. 130 pp. Cairns, S.D., Hoeksema, B.W. and van der Land, J. 1999. Appendix: List of extant stony corals. Atoll Research Bulletin , 459: 13–46. Carpenter, K.E., Abrar, M., Aeby, G., Aronson, R.B., Banks, S., Bruckner, A., Chiriboga, A., Cortes, J., Delbeek, J.C., DeVantier, L. et al. 2008. One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science , 321(5888): 560–563. Center for Ocean Solutions 2009. Pacific Ocean synthesis - scientific literature review of coastal and ocean threats, impacts, and solutions . The Woods Center for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 162 pp. Cervino, J.M., Hayes, R.L., Honovich, M., Goreau, T.J., Jones, S. and Rubec, P.J. 2003. Changes in zooxanthellae density, morphology, and mitotic index in hermatypic corals and anemones exposed to cyanide. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 46(5): 573–86. Chou, L.M., Huang, D., Tun, K.P.P., Kwik, J.T.B., Chieh Tay, Y. and Seow, A.L. 2010. Temporal changes in reef community structure at Bintan Island (Indonesia) suggest need for integrated management. Pacific Science , 64(1): 99–111. Cleary, D.F.R., Suharsono and Hoeksema, B.W. 2006. Coral diversity across a disturbance gradient in the Pulau Seribu reef complex off Jakarta, Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation , 15(11): 3653–3674. Cleary, D.F.R., Vantier, L., Vail, L., Manto, P., Voogd, N.J., Rachello-Dolmen, P.G., Tuti, Y., Budiyanto, A., Wolstenholme, J. and Hoeksema, B.W. 2008. Relating variation in species

composition to environmental variables: a multi-taxon study in an Indonesian coral reef complex. Aquatic Sciences , 70(4): 419–431. 75 Connell, J.H. 1997. Disturbance and recovery of coral assemblages. Coral Reefs , 16: 101–113. COREMAP 2008. Baseline study and monitoring of coral reef in villages sanctuary zone in Buton regency . Coral reef rehabilitation and management program II-LIPI, Jakarta, Indonesia. 71 pp. COREMAP 2011. Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project Phase II. Draft Implementation Completion Report . National Coordination Unit, Directorate General of Marine Coasts and Small Islands, Jakarta, Indonesia. Devantier, L., Turak, E. and Skelton, P. 2006. Ecological assessment of the coral communities of Bunaken National Park: indicators of management effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Coral Reef Symposium. Okinawa, Japan. 28 June - 2 July 2004 . 175–187. Dirhamsyah 2005. Analysis of the effectiveness of Indonesia’s coral reef management framework . PhD Thesis. University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. 325 pp. Dirhamsyah, D. 2006. Indonesian legislative framework for coastal resources management: A critical review and recommendation. Ocean & Coastal Management , 49(1-2): 68–92. Donnelly, R., Neville, D. and Mous, P.J. 2003. Report on a rapid ecological assessment of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua, Eastern Indonesia held October 30 – November 22, 2002. Final Draft November 2003 . The Nature Conservancy - Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia. 246 pp. Edinger, E. and Risk, M. 2000. Reef classification by coral morphology predicts coral reef conservation value. Biological Conservation , 92(1): 1–13. Fenner, D. and Banks, K. 2004. Orange Cup Coral Tubastraea coccinea invades Florida and the Flower Garden Banks, Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Coral Reefs , 23: 505–507. Fisk, D.A. 1983. Free-living corals: distributions according to plant cover, sediments, hydrodynamics, depth and biological factors. Marine Biology , 74(3): 287–294. Fosså, S.A. and Nilsen, A.J. 1996. The modern coral reef aquarium. Vol. 1 . 1st Ed. Birgit Schmettkamp Verlag, Minden, Germany. 367 pp. GCRMN 2010. Status of coral reefs in East Asian seas region: 2010 . Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, Ministry of the Environment, Japan, Tokyo, Japan. 121 pp. Giyanto 2011. Changes in coral coverage in the eastern Indonesia during COREMAP2 . Research Centre for Oceanography – Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI). 1 pp. Green, E.P. and Shirley, F. 1999. The global trade in corals . WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 10. WCMC - World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK. 70 pp. Guest, J.R., Baird, A.H., Maynard, J. a, Muttaqin, E., Edwards, A.J., Campbell, S.J., Yewdall, K., Affendi, Y.A. and Chou, L.M. 2012. Contrasting patterns of coral bleaching susceptibility in 2010 suggest an adaptive response to thermal stress. PloS ONE , 7(3): 1–8. Haapkylä, J., Seymour, A.S., Barneah, O., Brickner, I., Hennige, S., Suggett, D. and Smith, D. 2009. Association of Waminoa sp. ( Acoela ) with corals in the Wakatobi Marine Park, South-East Sulawesi, Indonesia. Marine Biology , 156: 1021–1027. Hoeksema, B.W. 2007. Delineation of the Indo-Malayan Centre of Maximum Marine Biodiversity: the Coral Triangle. In: Renema, W. (Ed.). Biogeography, Time, and Place: Distributions, Barriers, and Islands . Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 117–178. Hoeksema, B.W. 2012. Distribution patterns of mushroom corals (Scleractinia: Fungiidae) across the Spermonde shelf, South Sulawesi. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology , 60(1): 183–212. Hoeksema, B.W. and Putra, K.S. 2000. The reef coral fauna of Bali in the centre of marine diversity. In: Moosa, M.K., Soemodihardjo, S., Soegiarto, A., Romimohtarto, K., Nontji, A., Soekamo and Suharsono (Eds.). Proceedings 9th International Coral Reef Symposium. Bali, Indonesia. 23-27 October 2000. Vol. 1 . 173–178. Indonesia CITES Management Authority 1999. Pattern of coral reef utilisation in Indonesia . Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops, Republic of Indonesia. 9 pp. IUCN 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 22/10/2014]. Jones, R. 2008. CITES, corals and customs: The international trade in wild corals. In: Leewis, R.J. and Janse, M. (Eds.). Advances in coral husbandry in public aquariums . Burgers’ Zoo, Arnhem, the Netherlands. 351–361.

Juffe-Bignoli, D., Bhatt, S., Park, S., Eassom, A., Belle, E.M.S., Murti, R., Buyck, C., Raza Rizvi, A., 76 Rao, M., Lewis, E., MacSharry, B. and Kingston, N. 2014. Asia Protected Planet 2014 . UNEP- WCMC: Cambridge, UK. Lazuardi, E.M., Sudiarta, I.K., Ratha, I.M.J., Ampou, E.E., Nugroho, S.C. and Mustika, P.L. 2013. The status of coral reefs in Bali. In: Mustika, P.L.K., Ratha, I.M.J. and Saleh, P. (Eds.). RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment: Bali Marine Rapid Assessment Program 2011 . Conservation International. 69–77. Lilley, G. 2001. A review of Indonesian corals in trade with reference to their trade, population status and distribution in Indonesia . Medan, Indonesia. 47 pp. Lilley, R. 2008. The Banggai cardinalfish: An overview of conservation challenges. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin , 18: 3–12. McKenna, S.A., Allen, G.R. and Suryadi, S. (Eds.) 2002. A Marine Rapid Assessment of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia . RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment No. 22. Conservation International, Washington D.C., USA. 193 pp. Van der Meij, S.E.T. 2012. Host preferences, colour patterns and distribution records of Pseudocryptochirus viridis Hiro, 1938 (Decapoda, Cryptochiridae). Crustaceana , 85(7): 769– 777. Van der Meij, S.E.T., Suharsono and Hoeksema, B.W. 2010. Long-term changes in coral assemblages under natural and anthropogenic stress in Jakarta Bay (1920-2005). Marine Pollution Bulletin , 60: 1442–54. Milner, C., Currier, K., Kopcho, B. and Alling, A. 2013. A status report on the coral reef at Pulau Durai, Anambas Islands, Indonesia. Atoll Research Bulletin , 591: 1–17. Ministry of Forestry 1990. Act of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 of 1990 concerning conservation of living resources and their ecosystems . Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. Moore, A. and Ndobe, S. 2009. Reefs at risk in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia - status and outlook. Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft.Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July , 1(840-844). NOAA 2012. Management report for 82 corals status review under the Endangered Species Act: existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts . Pacific Islands Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Department of Commerce. 152 pp. Okamoto, M., Roeroe, K.A., Yap, M., Lalamentic, L.T.X., Fujiwara, S. and Oyamanda, K. 2012. Experimental transplantation of corals using sexual reproduction in Manado, Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium. Cairns, Australia. 9-13 July 2012 . 9–13. Patlis, J.M., Dahuri, R., Knight, M. and Tulungen, J. 2001. Integrated coastal management in a decentralized Indonesia: how it can work. Indonesian Journal of Coastal and Marine Resources , 4(1): 24–39. Pet, J.S. and Pet-soede, L. 1999. A note on cyanide fishing in Indonesia. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin , 5: 21–22. Purwanto, Muhajir, Wilson, J., Ardiwijaya, R. and Mangubhai, S. 2012. Coral Reef Monitoring in Kofiau and Boo Islands Marine Protected Area, Raja Ampat, West Papua . Report No. 6/12. The Nature Conservancy, Indo-Pacific Division, Indonesia. 50 pp. Putri, L.S.E., Hidayat, A.F. and Sukandar, P. 2012. Diversity of Coral Reefs in Badul Island Waters, Ujung Kulon, Indonesia. ISCA Journal of Biological Sciences , 1(3): 59–64. Raymakers, C. 2001. Review of trade in live corals from Indonesia . TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium. 66 pp. Reksodihardjo-Lilley, G. and Lilley, R. 2007. Towards a sustainable marine aquarium trade : An Indonesian perspective. SPC Live Reef Information Bulletin , 17: 11–19. Republic of Indonesia 1999. Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7 concerning the preservation of wild plants and animals . Indonesia. Rhyne, A.L., Tlusty, M.F. and Kaufman, L. 2014. Is sustainable exploitation of coral reefs possible? A view from the standpoint of the marine aquarium trade. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability , 7: 101–107. Riddle, D. 2008. Feature article: coral reproduction, part three: stony coral sexuality, reproduction modes, puberty size, sex ratios and life spans . Available at: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature1#section-22. [Accessed: 30/10/2014].

Samedi and Liman, P.D. 2002. Management measures and CITES trade controls for the stony coral trade in Indonesia. In: Bruckner, A.W. (Ed.). Proceedings of the International 77 Workshop on the Trade in Stony Corals: Development of sustainable management guidelines. Jakarta, Indonesia. 9-12 April 2001 . NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-23, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. 64–67. Scaps, P. and Denis, V. 2007. Association between the scallop, Pedum spondyloideum , (Bivalvia: Pteriomorpha: Pectinidae) and Scleractinian corals from the Wakatobi Marine National Park (Southeastern Sulawesi, Indonesia). The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology , 55(2): 371–380. Scaps, P., Denis, V., Berhimpon, S. and Runtukahu, F. 2007. Zooxanthellate Scleractinian corals of the northern coast of Sulawesi. Atoll Research Bulletin , 553: 1–23. Scaps, P. and Runtukahu, F. 2008. Assessment of the coral reefs of the Luwuk Peninsula, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Bulletin de la Société zoologique de France , 133(4): 341–355. Schulze Rojas, J.P. 2010. Reef front heterogeneity analysis and coral genera diversity pattern in the Bunaken National Park, Indonesia . MSc Thesis. International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Enschede, The Netherlands. 34 pp. Scientific Authority of Indonesia 2014. Scientific Authority of Indonesia in litt . to UNEP-WCMC Report of Indonesian corals for consultation concerning status of several species exporting to EU . Research Centre for Oceanography – the National Institute of Science. 29/10/2014. Sheppard, A., Fenner, D., Edwards, A., Abrar, M. and Ochavillo, D. 2008. Pectinia lactuca . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Available at : www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 04/11/2014]. Suharsano and Bruckner, A.W. 2008. Evaluation of non-detriment finding for trade in stony corals from Indonesia. Case study 5. NDF Workshop Case Studies, WG9-Aquatic Invertebrates , Suharsono 1999. Condition of coral reef resources in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Coastal and Marine Resources , 1: 44–52. Suharsono 2008a. Jenis-jenis karang di Indonesia . Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jakarta, Indonesia. 375 pp. Suharsono 2008b. Managing Indonesian coral reefs: lessons from voral reef rehabilitation and management program. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reed Symposium. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. 7-11 July 2008 . Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA. 1153–1155. Suharsono and Giyanto 2006. A formulation approach to quantify the abundance of coral genera. Marine Research Indonesia , 31: 1–11. Timotius, S., Idris and Syahrir, M. 2009. A review on ornamental coral farming effort in Indonesia. In: International Ocean Science, Technology and Policy Symposium, World Ocean Conference 2009. Manado, Indonesia. 12-14 May 2009 . Tissot, B.N., Best, B.A., Borneman, E.H., Bruckner, A.W., Cooper, C.H., D’Agnes, H., Fitzgerald, T.P., Leland, A., Lieberman, S., Mathews Amos, A. et al. 2010. How U.S. ocean policy and market power can reform the coral reef wildlife trade. Marine Policy , 34(6): 1385–1388. Tittensor, D., Mora, C., Jetz, W., Lotze, H. K., Ricard, D., Vanden Berghe, E. and Worm, B. 2010. Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature Letters , 466 (7310), 1098-1101. Tomascik, T., Mah, A., Nontji, A. and Moosa, M.K. 1997. The ecology of the Indonesian seas, Part I. The Ecology of Indonesia Series, Volume VII . Periplus Editions (HK) Ltd., Singapore. 642 pp. Turak, E. 2005. Coral biodiversity and reef health. In: Mous, P.J., Wiryawan, B. and DeVantier, L.M. (Eds.). Report on a rapid ecological assessment of Derawan Islands, Berau district, East Kalimantan, Indonesia, October 2003 . Turak, E. 2004. Coral Reef Surveys During TNC SEACMPA RAP of Wakatobi National Park, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia, May 2003. Final report to The Nature Conservancy . The Nature Conservancy, Bali, Indonesia. Turak, E. 2006. Corals and coral communities of the Komodo National Park. In: Beger, M. and Turak, E. (Eds.). A Rapid Ecological Assessment of the reef fishes and scleractinian corals of Komodo National Park, Indonesia in 2005 . The Nature Conservancy. Turak, E. and DeVantier, L. 2011. Biodiversity and conservation priorities of reef-building corals in Bali, Indonesia. In: Mustika, P.L.K., Ratha, I.M.J. and Saleh, P. (Eds.). RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment: Bali Marine Rapid Assessment Program 2011 . Conservation International. 78–130.

Turak, E. and DeVantier, L. 2003. Reef-building corals of Bunaken National Park, North Sulawesi, 78 Indonesia: rapid ecological assessment of biodiversity and status . International Ocean Institute Regional Centre for Australia & the Western Pacific. 66 pp. Turak, E., Sheppard, C. and Wood, E. 2008. Cynarina lacrymalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/133413/0. [Accessed: 24/10/2014]. Turak, E. and Souhoka, J. 2003. Coral Diversity and the Status of Coral Reefs in the Raja Ampat Islands. In: Donnelly, R., Neville, D. and Mous, P.J. (Eds.). Report on a rapid ecological assessment of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua, Eastern Indonesia held October 30 – November 22, 2002. Final Draft November 2003 . The Nature Conservancy - Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia. 59–84. Turak, E. and Wakeford, M. 2002. Banda Islands Rapid Ecological Assessment, May 2002: Assessment of Coral Biodiversity and Coral Reef Health . Australian Institute of Marine Science. UNEP-WCMC 2012. Taxonomic checklist of all CITES-listed coral species, based on information compiled by UNEP-WCMC 2012 . (See CoP16 Doc 43.1 Annex 5.1 and 5.2) Veron, J.E.N. 1995. Corals in space and time. The biogeography and evolution of the Scleractinia . Cornell University Press, Ithaca, USA. 321 pp. Veron, J.E.N. 2000. Corals of the world . 3rd Ed. Stafford-Smith, M. (Ed.). Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. Veron, J.E.N., Devantier, L.M., Turak, E., Green, A.L., Kininmonth, S., Stafford-Smith, M. and Peterson, N. 2009. Delineating the Coral Triangle. Galaxea, Journal of Coral Reef Studies , 11: 91–100. Veron, J. E. N. 2014. J. E. N. Veron in litt . to UNEP-WCMC, 23/10/2014. Wabnitz, C., Taylor, M., Green, E. and Razak, T. 2003. From ocean to aquarium: The global trade in marine ornamental species . UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. 66 pp. Wallace, C. 1999. Staghorn corals of the world: A revision of the genus Acropora . CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. 438 pp. Wallace, Carden, C., Richards, Z. and Suharsono 2001. Regional distribution patterns of Acropora and their use in the conservation of coral reefs in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Coastal and Marine Resources , 4(1): 40–58. Wells, J. 1964. The recent solitary mussid scleractinian corals. Zoologische Mededelingen , 39: 375– 384. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Status of coral reefs of the world: 2004 . 1st Ed. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. Wilkinson, C. 2008. Status of coral reefs of the world: 2008 . Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, Australia. Wood, E. 2001. Global advances in conservation and management of marine ornamental resources. Aquarium Sciences and Conservation , 3(1): 65–77. Wood, E., Malsch, K. and Miller, J. 2012. International trade in hard corals: review of management, sustainability and trends. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium. Cairns, Australia. 9-13 July 2012 . 9–13. Yates, K.R. and Carlson, B.A. 1992. Corals in aquariums: how to use selective collecting and innovative husbandry to promote reef conservation. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam. Vol. 2 . 1091–1095. Yusuf, S. and Jompa, J. 2012. First quantitative assessment of coral bleaching on Indonesian reefs. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium. Cairns, Australia. 9-13 July 2012 . Yusuf, S. and Rani, C. 2006. Environmental characteristic of ornamental corals (Scleractinia) in the Spermonde Islands, South Sulawesi. Torani Journal of Marine Science , 4: 241–247.

Appendix 79 Table 1: Purpose of trade

Code Description

T Commercial

Z Zoo

G Botanical garden

Q Circus or travelling exhibition

S Scientific

H Hunting trophy

P Personal

M Medical (including biomedical research)

E Educational

N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild

B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation

L Law enforcement / judicial / forensic

Table 2: Source of specimens

Code Description

W Specimens taken from the wild

R Ranched specimens: specimens of animals reared in a controlled environment, taken as eggs or juveniles from the wild, where they would otherwise have had a very low probability of surviving to adulthood

D Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Appendix-I plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention

A Plants that are artificially propagated in accordance with Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP15), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 (specimens of species included in Appendix I that have been propagated artificially for non-commercial purposes and specimens of species included in Appendices II and III)

C Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5

F Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that do not fulfil the definition of ‘bred in captivity’ in Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof

U Source unknown (must be justified)

I Confiscated or seized specimens (may be used with another code)

O Pre-Convention specimens