Coral Reefs Print

Coral Reefs: The marine forest


Coral reefs are complex marine ecosystems found in shallow tropical waters that provide refuge to approximately 25 per cent of all marine species[i]. Comparable to tropical rain forests in having the highest biological diversity on earth, coral reefs serve as the physical framework of critical habitats that support the nursery needs of fish and invertebrate larvae.

Reefs protect coastlines from storm surges, support productive fishery industries and provide the main source of protein and income[ii] for millions of coastal families in Southeast Asia. Coral reef-dependent species have scientific, pharmaceutical and educational value, and are extremely valuable as tourist destinations.

The fifth global report on the Status of Coral Reefs of the World, published in 2008, indicates that the coral reef area of Southeast Asia spans 86,025 square kilometers (Figure 1), but reports that 40 per cent of it has effectively been lost. Moreover, country estimates based on various reports (e.g., national report to CBD and marine gap analysis report) revealed a significantly lower aggregate coral reef area for the region at 69,734.5 square kilometers. The same document reports that global coral reef figures may be overestimated as these include sea areas surrounding the coral reefs and lagoons and not just the coral growth areas. For instance, the more recent figures reported by Thailand and Singapore include GIS assessments and these are 10 times lower than published in the global estimates[iii].

Figure 1. Distribution of coral reefs in Southeast Asia

 coral reefs

Source: World Fish Centre ReefBase Project, undated. Coral Reef MPAs of East Asia and Micronesia.

The region’s total coral reef area according to global estimates accounts for a third of the global total, which is 11 times larger than the aggregate coral reef area of China, India and Japan (Figure 2). Based on country estimates, however, the aggregate coral reef area of Southeast Asia is over one-fourth of the world’s total.

 

Figure 2. Distribution of coral reef areas in the world, 2001

 fig_coral reef distribution

Source: UNEP. 2001. World Coral Reef Atlas 2001 accessed on 22 February 2010 at

http://coral.unep.ch/atlaspr.htm#Coral%20Reef%20Area%20Statistics.

The World Coral Reef Atlas[iv] ranks Indonesia (1st) and the Philippines (3rd) as two of the top three countries with the most coral reef areas in the world, accounting for 18 per cent and 9 per cent, respectively, of the world’s total coral reef area of 284,845 square kilometers. The other ASEAN Member States of Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam, in aggregate, support less than five per cent of the world’s total reef area but up to 400 reef-building coral species. OECD countries like India, Japan and China account for 2.03 per cent, 1.02 per cent and 0.53 per cent of the world total, respectively, . However, national level estimates removes Indonesia at the top rank and places it next to Australia (48,960 km2). Based on Indonesia’s Fourth National Report, its coral reef area totals 35,664 km2 or 13.3 per cent as adjusted. The Philippines remains at number three with 10 per cent area contribution. Thailand is now at 67th place from its original 26th ranking due to availability of recent GIS data which records a coral reef area of 153.5 km2 for the country compared to global estimates of 2,130 km2.  

 

Hard coral diversity remains high in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Viet Nam, where altogether, a total of almost 600 species may be found (Figure 3). Allen (2003)[v] estimates that there are 3,764 reef-associated fish species in the entire Indo-Pacific region, where the extensive coral reef area of Indonesia, the region’s largest, accounts for some 2,057 reef fish species[vi].

 

Figure 3. Estimates of hard coral species in Southeast Asia

 fig_number-coral-species

Sources:

1 Forestry Department, Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources, Brunei Darussalam, undated.

   4th National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Government of Brunei Darussalam.

2 2004. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network 2004, accessed on 25 February 2010 at

   http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=9535 .

4Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia. 2007. 4th National Report to the Convention

   on Biological Diversity. Government of Malaysia. 2009. pp5.

5 National Parks Board, Singapore. 2010. Singapore – 4th National Report to the Convention on Biological

   Diversity. September 2010. pp19.

6Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Thailand. 2010. Marine Gap Analysis for Thailand.

   Bangkok, Thailand.

 

Information generated from monitoring surveys integrated by the Reefs at Risk Project in Southeast Asia in 2004 and 2008 reflects a general decline in coral reef condition, where some improvements were noted only in Viet Nam.

Figure 4 shows the differences in live coral cover (in percentage) at reported monitoring sites in the Southeast Asian region between 1994 and 2008. There has been a general decline in reefs rated previously with the status of “Very Good” and “Good” coral cover, with a parallel increase among those rated with “Fair” cover[vii].

 

Figure 4. Live coral cover in Southeast Asia, 1994-2008

 fig_live corals inventory

Sources:

1 2004. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network 2004, accessed on 25 February 2010 at

    http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=9535 .

2Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Thailand. 2010. Marine Gap Analysis for Thailand.

    Bangkok, Thailand.

15National Parks Board, Singapore. 2010. Singapore – 4th National Report to the Convention on Biological

    Diversity. September 2010. pp19.

 

The estimated annual total benefits of healthy coral reefs in the region ranges from USD 23,100 to 270,000 (Table 1).

Table 1. Potential sustainable annual economic net benefits (per km2) of a healthy coral reef in Southeast Asia

Resource Use (Direct and Indirect)

Production Range

Potential Annual Benefits (USD)

Sustainable Fisheries (local consumption)

10 – 30 tons

12,000 – 36,000

Sustainable Fisheries (live fish export)

0.5 – 1.0 tons

2,500 – 5,000

Coastal Protection (erosion prevention)

 

5,500 – 110,000

Tourism and Recreation

100 – 1,000 persons

700 – 111,000

Aesthetic/Biodiversity Value (willingness to pay)

600 – 2,000 persons

2,400 – 8,000

Total (fisheries and coastal protection only)

 

20,000 – 151,000

Total (including tourism potential and aesthetic value)

 

23,100 – 270,000

  Source: White, A.T., H.P. Vogt, and T. Arin. 2000. “Philippine Coral Reefs under Threat. The Economic Losses Caused by Reef

         Destruction,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 40, 7: 598-605.

 White, A.T. and A. Cruz-Trinidad. 1998. The Values of Philippine Coastal Resources: Why Protection and Management are

         Critical (Cebu City: Coastal Resource Management Project) p.28.

Cesar, H.S.J. 1996. “Economic Analysis of Indonesian Coral Reefs, “Working Paper Series Work in Progress” (Washington, DC: World Bank).

Note: Data are based on estimates for Indonesia and the Philippines only.

The potential economic value of coral reefs in Southeast Asia is estimated at USD12.7 billion, or 42.5 per cent of the world’s total USD29.8 billion-value (Table 2).

 

Table 2. Basic demographic statistics of Southeast Asian coral reefs vis-à-vis global values, 2004

 

CORAL REEF STATISTICS

 

 

GLOBAL

 

SOUTHEAST ASIA

 

SEA % OF GLOBAL

Coral Diversity (no. of species)

Approx 800

>600

>75

Reef Fish Diversity (no. of species)

Approx 4000

>1300

>33

 

Potential Economic Value of Well-managed Coral Reefs (USD billion)

 

Sustainable Coral Reef Fisheries

5.7

2.2

38.5

Coastal Protection

9.0

5.0

55.5

Coral Reef Tourism/Recreation

9.6

4.8

50.0

Biodiversity (Pharmaceuticals)

5.5

0.5

9.9

Total

       29.8

            12.7

42.5

Source: Tun, Karenne, Chou Loke Ming, Thamasak Yeemin, Niphon Phongsuwan, Affendi Yang Amri, Niña Ho, Kim Sour, Nguyen Van Long, Cleto Nanola,

 David Lane, Yosephine Tuti. 2008. Status of Coral Reefs in Southeast Asia, pp.140, accessed on 10 April 2010 at

 http://02cbb49.netsolhost.com/gcrmn/2008/9.%20South-East%20Asia.pdf.

Pressure Points on Coral Reefs

Although Southeast Asia hosts the largest coral reef areas in the world, it also has the highest rate of loss, which today stands at 40 per cent. Further compounding that dilemma is the fact that the rest of Asia, namely South Asia and East and North Asia, are not faring any better – with current rates of losses and threats being also greater than world figures (Table 3). The only reason why the “reefs at low threat” percentages are lower than the world total is because the rest of the reefs of the region are in the more badly damaged categories.

 

Table 3. Risk status of coral reefs in Southeast Asia vis-à-vis the rest of Asia and the world, 2001

Region

Coral Reef Area km2 1

Per cent of coral reef areas to world total

Effectively Lost Reefs (%)2

Reefs at Critical Stage (%)3

Reefs at Threatened Stage (%)4

Reefs at Low Threat level (%)5

South Asia

19,210

6.7

25

20

25

30

SE Asia

86,025

30.0

40

20

25

15

E & N Asia

5,400

1.9

20

22

18

40

World Total

284,845

100.0

19

15

20

45

Notes:

1 Coral reef area, from the World Atlas of Coral Reefs (UNEP 2001).

2 Reefs effectively lost, with 90 per cent of the corals lost and unlikely to recover soon.

3 Reefs at a critical stage, with 50 to 90 per cent of corals likely to join Category 2 in 10 to 20 years.

4 Reefs threatened with moderate signs of damage: 20-50 per cent loss of corals and likely to join Category 1 in 20-40 years.

5 Reefs under no immediate threat of significant losses (except for global climate change).

Categories 3 and 4 are based on the very high to high risk, and the medium risk categories of the Reefs at Risk process.

 Source: . Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, Australia, pp 296, accessed on

                   6 April 2010 at http://www.reefbase.org/download/gcrmn_download.aspx?type=10&docid=13312.

The Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia summaries of 2002 and 2008 indicate that 88 per cent of Southeast Asia’s coral reefs face medium to high overall threats. Over-fishing (63 per cent) and destructive fishing (56 per cent) are the two leading threats to coral reefs. The same reports have likewise identified that physical threats, in aggregate (52 per cent), such as sedimentation, marine-based pollution and coastal development, are significant contributors to coral reef threat (Figures 5 and 6, and Table 4).

 

Figure 5. Coral reef health in Southeast Asia

 impacts on coral reef

 Source: ReefBase and ReefCheck. ReefBase and Reef Check are constantly adding information (observations) on coral

   reefs. For more up-to-date information, visit the ReefBase and ReefCheck web sites at: www.reefbase.org and

   www.reefcheck.org . Relief: USGS GTOPO30

Figure 6. Comparative figures of reefs at risk from 2002 to 2008

 fig_coral reef threats

Source: Redrawn from Chou, L. M. 2009. Status of Marine Protected Areas in the ASEAN Region,

Powerpoint presentation to the Regional Technical Workshop on Gap Analyses for Marine and Terrestrial

Protected Areas, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2009.

 

Table 4. Summary of coral reef threats in the ASEAN region

 fig_coral threat distribution

* Bleaching correlated with anomalous sea-surface temperature

Sources:

1Burke, Loretta, Elizabeth Selig and Mark Spalding. 2002. Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. World

    Resources Institute. 2002 accessed on 5 April 2010 at http://pdf.wri.org/rrseasia_full.pdf.

2Forestry Department, Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources, Brunei Darussalam, undated.

     4th National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Government of Brunei Darussalam.

3Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. 2000. Philippines, 2000 accessed on 30 March 2010 at

      http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/infocorner/fast_facts.htm.

4Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Thailand. 2010. Marine Gap Analysis for Thailand.

      Bangkok, Thailand.

5National Parks Board, Singapore. 2010. Singapore – 4th National Report to the Convention on Biological

     Diversity. September 2010. pp18.

Anthropogenic Causes. Over-fishing has threatened 64 per cent of Southeast Asia’s reefs, while destructive fishing practices have endangered up to two-thirds of the coral reefs of the Philippines, Malaysia and Taiwan, and one-half of Indonesia’s.

Over one-third of the region’s total reef areas have also been under threat from sedimentation and pollution caused by coastal development and changes in land use, based on a report of an experts’ workshop held in Indonesia in June 2004.

Damage to coral reefs in Indonesia has been reported to reach 40 per cent in 2006. Causes of these threats have been attributed to: a) destructive means of fishing, such as the use of poisons like cyanide, bombing with the use dynamite, and muro ami - a fishing method where corals are roughly knocked to scare fish out of their hiding places; b) sedimentation from land sources and from mining activities; and c) physical damage from boat anchors and reef walking from tourists.

Similar threats are present in Philippine reefs. Additionally, these may be worsened by escalating incidences of biological outbreaks of such organisms as the crown-of-thorns starfish. Reefs in this country were noted to be in a steady state of decline, although healthy reefs can still be found in the Celebes Sea, Southern Philippine Sea, Sulu Sea and the Visayas Biogeographic regions[viii].

 

In Thailand, eco-tourism activities were reported to have caused significant damage to its coral reefs[ix].


Uncontrolled human population growth has been one of the major factors of pressure build-up in coastal areas in the last 40 years. In turn, such pressures have caused widespread resource exploitation and degradation, particularly in South Asia, Southeast Asia and China, where a significant portion of the population depends on viable fisheries for livelihood[x].

From 1990 to 2000, populations in the coastal areas of Southeast Asia, the OECD countries and the world have all exhibited an upward trend (Figure 7). Over the ten-year period, the coastal population in Southeast Asia averaged 125.8 million, ranging from a low of 115.4 million in 1990, to a high of 135.7 million in 2000 (Figure 7). In the same period, the average coastal population of 223.2 million of the OECD member nations (e.g., China, India, Japan and South Korea) was almost twice that of Southeast Asia.

  Figure 7. Number of Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ)* population vs total population

                 in Southeast Asia, the OECD countries and the world (1990, 1995 and 2000)

 fig_lecz

Source: Centre for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University.

Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ) Urban-Rural Estimates, Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project

(GRUMP), Alpha Version. Palisades, NY: Socioeconomic Data and Applications Centre (SEDAC),

Columbia University accessed on 2 April 2010 at http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/lecz.

 

* LECZ estimates from digital elevation model (DEM) by selecting all land contiguous with the coast

that was 10 meters or less in elevation. Zonal statistics were generated for total population and land

area for the country as a whole and within the LECZ.

In 1995, population density in the low elevation coastal zone (LECZ) areas was three to five times higher than in non-LECZ areas and total areas (LECZ + non-LECZ), indicating that majority of the population tended to concentrate in the coastal zones. For instance, coastal areas in Southeast Asia registered a 328 persons/km2 density, compared to 87 persons/km2 in non-LECZ areas, and 108 persons/km2 in the total combined areas. The same was true in the OECD countries, where coastal zones posted a higher population density of 754 persons/km2, compared to 165 persons/km2 and 179 persons/km2 in its non-LECZ and total areas, respectively. Across regions, the population densities in the OECD countries were two to four times higher than in Southeast Asia and the world, in all areas (i.e., LECZ, non-LECZ and total area) as shown in Figure 8.


Figure 8. Population density of coastal areas compared to non-coastal and total areas

               in Southeast Asia, the OECD countries and the world, 1995

fig_lecz pop density

 

Source: Centre for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia

University. Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ) Urban-Rural Estimates, Global Rural-Urban Mapping

Project (GRUMP), Alpha Version. Palisades, NY: Socioeconomic Data and Applications Centre (SEDAC),

Columbia University accessed on 2 April 2010 at http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/lecz.

 

1 LECZ estimates from digital elevation model (DEM) by selecting all land contiguous with the

   coast that was 10 meters or less in elevation. Zonal statistics were generated for total population

   and land area for the country as a whole and within the LECZ.

 

Response: A comprehensive approach to the issues

 

From both the fishers’ and scientists’ points of view, it has become undeniable that the era of plenty, in terms of fisheries resources, has ended; and the means must soon be found to ensure sufficient fisheries for the future.

Through the years, the ASEAN Member States have attended to the degradation of coastal resources by undertaking initiatives that promote conservation and the sustainable use of these resources. Appendix Table 2.3 presents a compilation of coastal resource-related projects implemented by the ASEAN Member States.

Responses to coral reef threats in the region are characterized by a host of programs, projects and activities in various forms and sizes, with a broad range of donors and implementers. The diversity of threats appears to dictate the type of responses, which may be categorized into the following:

 

  • Biodiversity conservation: for critical areas and marine biodiversity hotspots
  • Rehabilitation of reefs: where these are degraded
  • Establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and MPA networks: where a geographic (i.e., local, national) need was identified (e.g., need to set aside, protect areas or allow for their natural regeneration, a tool for fisheries management, conservation of reef resources, exclusion of destructive means of fishing, conservation of highly vulnerable species and habitats, need to maintain ecological processes, and status of community structure, and marine biodiversity conservation)
  • Establishment of social and enforcement networks: where stakeholders have taken up an active participation in managing their coastal and marine areas
  • Compliance to regional and international commitments (National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans)
  • Capacity-building on resource management to enhance capacities of local stakeholders and managers (e.g., integrated coastal management, enforcement of policies, plan preparation, etc.)
  • Policy development and/or reform to respond to changing marine environment circumstances, address threats, and institute a proactive approach to marine environment management
  • Development of sustainable financing mechanisms to perpetuate the above initiatives

 

Among the responses identified above, the establishment of MPAs has been recognized as the popular strategy in Southeast Asia to address the threat of over-exploitation. Of the 1,451 MPAs in the region, 403 have coral reefs (Table 5).

 

Table 5. Total number and area of MPAs, and MPAs with coral reefs in Southeast Asia

 

Country

 

Number of MPAs

Total Area Covered by MPAs

(km2)

Number of MPAs with Coral Reefs

 

MPA Management1

Brunei Darussalam

61

182.531

31

  • Coral reef MPAs are managed at the national level
  • Majority were established two decades ago

Cambodia

72

3,887.002

11

  • Established 15 years ago and managed at the national level with no known information on the ‘no-take’ zone

Indonesia

763

135,290.703

381

  • Administered at the national level but managed at the district level, and some at village level

Malaysia

1284

  • 5,249 km2 of coral reefs4
  • 6,891 km2 of mangrove reserves4

431

  • MPAs in Peninsular Malaysia are managed at the national level, while those in Sabah and Sarawak are managed by the state government

Myanmar

65

No available data

21

  • Administered and managed at the national level

Philippines

1,1696

7,565.976

2941

  • Many MPAs are considered non-functioning paper parks; majority are managed at the municipal level

Singapore

25

1.47

1

  • Established over 10 years ago and managed at the individual site and national level

Thailand

268

No available data

161

  • Administered and managed at the national level

Viet Nam

319

No available data

41

  • Administered and managed at the national level

SEA Total

1,451

 

4031

 

Sources:

1 ReefBase undated. Regional Summary Report for MPAs in East Asia and Micronesia accessed on 28 April 2010 at

http://www.reefbase.org/key_topics/pdf/region%20mpa.pdf.

2 Ministry of Environment-Cambodia and GEF/UNDP. 2006. Third National Report to the Convention on Biological

     Diversity, Kingdom of Cambodia. May 2006. pp143.

3 Kasasiah, Ahsanal. 2009. Nested MPA Networks in Indonesia, PowerPoint presentation for the East Asian Seas

     Congress 2009, Manila Philippines, 24 November 2009.

4 UP-MERF, CI-Philippines and BMRI. 2009. MPA Gap Analysis Reports for Philippines and Malaysia, 2009 (pp89-93)

5 ASEAN Secretariat. 2009. Fourth State of the Environment Report, ASEAN Secretariat, Jakarta Indonesia 2009. pp48

6 UP-MERF, CI-Philippines and BMRI. 2009. MPA Gap Analysis Reports for Philippines and Malaysia, ASEAN Centre for

    Biodiversity March 2009, pp22.

7Personal comments of Cheryl Chia, National Parks Board, Singapore.

8 Wongsuryrat, Manoch. 2009. The Status and Trends of MPAs in Thailand, PowerPoint presentation for the Regional

    Workshop on Gap Analyses for Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas in the ASEAN Region, September 2009,

    Yogyokarta, Indonesia.

9 Trang, Huyen Tran. 2009. Gap Analyses for Marine and Terrestrial Protected Areas in Viet Nam, PowerPoint

   presentation for the Regional Workshop on Gap Analyses for Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas in the

   ASEAN Region, September 2009, Yogyokarta, Indonesia.

 

Various entry points for MPAs have been designed. At the local and community level, these are organized in tandem with livelihood components in order to mitigate the impacts of over-exploitation. MPAs in Viet Nam, such as the Hon Mun Marine Protected Area Pilot Project and the Nha Trang Bay Marine protected area, were established for this purpose.

 

Studies done on MPAs indicate that those established with community participation and where regulations were effectively enforced demonstrated a slow but incremental increase in fisheries yield, by way of spillover (i.e., adult migration into neighboring fishing grounds[xi]) and recruitment (i.e., export of eggs and larvae). Fogarty and Murawski’s studies[xii] in the Georges Banks showed that closures played an important role in the increase in biomass of a number of commercially and non-commercially important fish (by up to as much as 50 per cent), and shellfish species (by up to 14-fold)[xiii]. A study by Abesamis et al (2006)[xiv] concluded that while spillover from fully protected MPAs, or ‘no-take’ zones, in the Central Philippines may contribute less than 10 per cent to fisheries yield, it should be underscored that social pressure may limit fishing close to fishing reserves and, in fact, contribute to enforcing its boundaries.

 

More comprehensive approaches like Ecosystems-Based Management and Integrated Coastal Management, which are very much similar to a comprehensively responsible governance system, are likewise growing in popularity. The move to decentralize Indonesia through the establishment and mobilization of Act 22/1999 and its Implementation Regulation 25/2000 places more power for governance at the local level. Targeted and adequate coastal management capacity building, coupled with the appropriate safeguards against unregulated resource uses, will contribute to assuring the local level management of coastal areas. In June 2006, the President of the Philippines signed Executive Order 533, declaring Integrated Coastal Management as the national strategy and policy framework for the sustainable development of coastal and marine resources in the country.

 

Some marine conservation initiatives have been scaled up to transboundary arrangements and multi-country collaborations. The first transboundary arrangement for the conservation of sea-turtles in Southeast Asia was the Turtle Island Heritage Protected Area: a collaboration between Malaysia and the Philippines. A multi-country collaboration, the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion, showcases triumphs gained from the management of marine biodiversity conservation corridors in the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. The recent six-country collaboration known as The Coral Triangle was launched in 2009 and is gaining ground in terms of local initiatives and international support (the aforementioned multi-country collaborations and regional initiatives are discussed in greater detail in Chapter IV).



[i]Environment: Coral reefs Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems & Global Climate. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Virginia, USA, accessed on 10 April 2010 at http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Coral_Reefs.pdf.

[ii] Tun, Karenne, Chou Loke Ming, Thamasak Yeemin, Niphon Phongsuwan, Affendi Yang Amri, Niña Ho, Kim Sour, Nguyen Van Long, Cleto Nanola, David Lane, Yosephine Tuti. 2008. Status of Coral Reefs in Southeast Asia, pp.140, accessed on 10 April 2010 at http://02cbb49.netsolhost.com/gcrmn/2008/9.%20South-East%20Asia.pdf.

[iii] Wilkinson, C. 2008. Status of coral reefs of the world: 2008. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, Australia, pp296 accessed on 6 April 2010 at http://www.reefbase.org/resource_center/publication/main.aspx?refid=27173&referrer=GCRMN

World Coral Reef Atlas 2001. United Nations Environment Programme, accessed on 22 February 2010 at http://coral.unep.ch/atlaspr.htm#Coral%20Reef%20Area%20Statistics.

Allen, Gerald R. and Mohammed Adrim. 2003. Coral Reef Fishes of Indonesia. Zoological Studies 42(1):1-72, accessed on 15 April 2010 at http://www.sinica.edu.tw/zool/zoolstud/42.1/1.pdf.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Tun et. al. 2008. op. cit.

[viii] Assessing Progress Towards the 2010 Biodiversity Target: The 4th National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2009. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Manila, Philippines. pp47.

[ix] National Report on the Implementation of Convention on Biological Diversity (4th National Report). 2009. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Bangkok, Thailand. p12.

[x] Hinrichsen, Diederich. 1995. Coasts in Crisis, Population and Sustainable Development Programme, AAAS website accessed on 9 April 2010 at http://www.aaas.org/international/ehn/fisheries/fish.htm.

[xi] Sumaila, Ussif Rashid, Sylvie Guenette,Jackie Alder and Ratana Chuenpagdee. 2000. Addressing ecosystem effects of fishing using marine protected areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 752-760, accessed on 25 April 2010 at http://www.idealibrary.com.

[xii] Fogarty, Michael J. and Steven A. Murawski. Do Marine Protected Areas Really Work? Georges Bank experiment offers new insights on age-old questions about closing areas to fishing. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachussettes, USA, accessed on 27 April 2010 at http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=3782.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Abesamis, Rene A., Angel C. Alcala and Garry R. Russ. 2006. How much does the fishery at Apo Island benefit from spillover of adult fish from the adjacent marine reserve? Fish Bulletin. 104:360-375.