WCWMC Biodiversity Series No. 9
The Global Trade in
Coral
WORLD CONSERVATION
MONITORING CENTRE
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
http://www.archive.org/details/globaltradeincor99gree
WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 9
The Global Trade in Coral
Edmund Green and Frances Shirley
WORLD CONSERVATION
MONITORING CENTRE
WCMC — World Conservation Press
1999
The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, based in Cambridge, UK, is a joint venture between three
partners in the World Conservation Strategy and its successor Caring for the Earth: IUCN — The World
Conservation Union, UNEP — United Nations Environment Programme, and WWF — World Wide
Fund for Nature. The Centre provides information services on the conservation and sustainable use of
species and ecosystems and supports others in the development of their own information systems.
WORLD CONSERVATION
MONITORING CENTRE
Published by:
ISBN:
Copyright:
Citation:
Cover design by:
Printed by:
Available from:
WCMC - World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK.
1 899628 13 4
1999. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-
commercial purposes is authorised without prior permission from the
copyright holders, provided the source is acknowledged.
Reproduction for resale or other commercial purpose is prohibited
without the prior written permission of the copyright holders.
The views expressed in this book do not necessarily reflect those of
WCMC or its collaborators.
The designations of geographical entities in this publication and the
presentation of the material do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of WCMC, UNEP or other
participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of
its frontiers or boundaries.
Green, E.P. and Shirley, F. 1999. The Global Trade in Coral. World
Conservation Monitoring Centre. World Conservation Press,
Cambridge, UK. 70 pp.
Michael Edwards
Victoire Press, Cambridge
World Conservation Monitoring Centre
219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 ODL, UK
Tel: +44 1223 277314; Fax: +44 1223 277136
Email: info@wemc.org.uk: http://www.wemc.org.uk/
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
7. IS CITES AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR MONITORING TRADE IN
COR AU sescsccdaccctesgs rd Lost coxa eh ek tee sone! sh ORE AS Jasco es ee een es Re ea
83) DHE IMPACWORIRNADEONICORAIMRE BRS esc a ees res eee eee
9. THE ECONOMICS OF THE LIVE CORAL TRADE.....0.......cecesececeeceeseceeseeeeneees
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. _ European imports of coral are recorded under a single category .................
lable 2 se wAtstylisedi@iRE Simecordito rac oral es sees eee en ee
Table 3. The number of coral transactions in the CITES Trade Database where
Import Quantity was recorded at a different value to the Export
CO) FT tal reser scree esata ieee rect ree ee ere rice eee eee
Table 4. Trade links between the tcp ten coral importing and the
LOPAtEMMEX POTN Canal Olesen eee eee ee
Table 5. Coral imports to different regions .............:ccccccccescesceseesceseeseeeceaeesceseesceseeae
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22
Trade links between coral importing and exporting regions.............:::ceceees 7
Taxonomy and general ecology of corals in trade ............:eecesceeeceeeeeereeeeeeeteees 19
The weight and linear dimensions of pieces of live coral in the UK
anduiS Ava quai unany trad eye eee esce eer aera ene ee 24
The mean weights and dimensions of pieces of live coral in the
Yo Wits tg 100010210 (haar eee cacti ee ck aac cece ri cecnorneALcKeeicanAsorceonoeEarc oases sabentsor oases acco Ds
Selected results of a survey of 683 aquarists ..........:ccccececeeseeeeeeneeeeteeeeeeeeeteeeees 28
The growth rates of species of 10 genera of commonly traded coral ................ 29
Trade links between the ten largest importers and exporters of black
The number of coral species per genus recorded in the CITES Trade
Database compared with the number of coral species per genus listed in
CHEESt Append ixe lilt eee ees aie e eee hee na nemo g see ed een ee 35
The 1999 free-on-board prices of single pieces of live coral from
NIM OMES TaN aes sete eset etna re cae en ve Reema Tae ore ae CR cer Re ee eet pter ecg at eee 43
The value to exporting nations of different genera of the live coral trade......... 45
The average retail prices in US dollars for 805 pieces of live coral from
sevenretailoutletssin the WU SAvin 199 9 ert rector reste cere ee eee ee 47
The retail prices in pounds sterling of 73 pieces of live coral in the
Lo ee Oe a cacerecech Reckicetaetuau adScLiaeccosor ace SSS b Sa tas Soe eo HaKo Hades RoeiGosUonsoscucbasccasooae 48
Characteristics of some common aquarium corals, summarised
from\Eossatand Nilseni(1998b) ieee meee eee 54
The mortality of Schleractinia corals im aquaria ..............:cecceseeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 55
The viability in aquaria of some coral species which may be
propagatedibyiracmentation eee eee ee i,
The retail price of cultured corals from two USA suppliers
SURVEY CCB OOO eae eter eee ce eer eRe eRe na eee eee Pere Sacer ees 59
Indonesian coral export quotas (number of pieces) for 1997
Compared to the number of pieces traded, as calculated from the
CITES database, and the quotas set for 1999.............ccecccccscescesceescesceteeeseeeseeees 61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Ten nations imported 98% of the coral recorded under CITES,
NOSSO O Me eee Saree EE, Woes AOE 2 A eS eee eres 1]
Ten nations exported 94% of the coral recorded under CITES,
OS oe ee boasacarcoocrnaont sedtaacsecolccaqnoake to aanaSade aan bese ERC raarencERGRO seo ceranaceeseee 12
The quantity of coral exported from the Philippines and Indonesia ................ 12
Trends in the global trade in coral as recorded under CITES,
IND SSO ORR see en Le, ENTE NE a octar ec ue a es ete En 15
Trends in the amount of coral exported from the major exporting
TVALL OMS) ote sees ere eee aera nose e a bette e vskee, oesuc a asad us auceatsenee teen eee eae 16
Exports of coral recorded under CITES expressed as tonnes per
IKOLOXO) Sao ORE Oy PAN SKS Piacoa acceroacucosseecereenan enc coad-cegceaceocc icanocpoacseedacnackesaceosacancaocads 17
The most frequently traded genera of coral recorded under CITES
DDS SSO Oi Fe eee tert en mere ee te oie, Ree er ON Va ae eee ER ee 18
The relative amounts of the ten most frequently traded genera in
the live and dead coral trade as recorded under CITES 1985-1997................ 23
Theitrendsinilavercoralutrade OS 5=N9 9 ieeeeeeeeeeeeree sees eee eee 26
The annual variation in the global trade in black coral ...........eeeeceeseereeeeeeeeees 34
The value of the international trade in live coral in terms of
the revenue in 1997 US dollars accruing to exporting nations ...........-..:::0 46
Size-frequency distribution of corals in the live trade ..............0:cccccsseceeeeeseeeeees 49
The retail value in 1997 US dollars of the international live
coral trade between 1985 and 1997 ooo... ececceeeesccceeeccecececesensececeeeesessssececeeens 50
Schematic representation of the economics of the live coral trade ................... Sil
Cumulative imports of live corals to the USA, as recorded by
CLES SIO SSS OOM EROS Tes Se rere Nr ee caeess ease eeee ete 56
LIST OF BOXES
BOX 1
BOX 2
BOX 3
THE ILLEGAL GRAD EMN CORAITCS eee eerae nr eeeereree eee
PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF IDENTIFYING CORAL SPECIES
PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF IDENTIFYING CORAL GENERA ............0004.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Teresa Mulliken of TRAFFIC International and Tim
Inskipp of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre for their efforts in
reviewing a manuscript. The assistance of the following people in compiling Table
7 is gratefully acknowledged:
Stephen Cairns
Department of Invertebrate Zoology
Smithsonian Institution
Washington D. C. 20560-0163
USA
Brian Rosen
Department of Palaeontology
The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London
SW7 5BD
UK
Douglas Fenner
Australian Institute of Marine Science
PMB No 3
Townsville MC
Queensland 4810
Australia
The assistance of the following people is gratefully acknowledged:
Jaime Baquero, Ocean Voice International
John Caldwell, CITES Trade Database Manager, WCMC
Bruce Carlson and Charles Delbeek, Waikiki Aquarium
Chris Collins, Geological Conservation Unit, University of Cambridge
Heather Cross, WCMC
Keith Davenport, Ornamental Aquarium Trade Association
Svein Fossa, Akvariekonsulenten
Vin Fleming, CITES Advisor, Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Chantal Hagen, Marine and Coastal Programme, WCMC
Helen Hendry, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge
John Jarvis, Coral Conservation Group
Stephanie Pendry, TRAFFIC International
Phil Shane, Quality Marine Limited, USA
Kristian Teleki, Cambridge Coastal Research Unit, University of Cambridge
Paul West and Derek Thompson, Tropical Marine Centre
~
= PL/I OIE
~
‘ : mee Wai Fi a avy a akin] as | Win ap
7 Oe 0.00 ~ > itr eee i OG 4 sel) Si
A i= Eyl) GA i ley Ps uae wm.
_ ee ° rita 1
- »
~ —s 5
—
be ~
— era | ile:
; . i
( i u .
F e
1 y >
; —
ne | ' ‘
an
a |
s
p - ‘
7 ; =
. ae I 7 a
a
- «
m5 = 9
| 7 ‘2 j 4 aay
i i... _.
\ i
»
Js =
=
| ahve
( >
“Whereas today the average aquarium uses sterile white corals, it is entirely
possible that the aquarium of tomorrow will contain nothing but living corals and
fish”
R.P.L. Straughan, The Marine Collector’s Guide. 1973
q : :
"Anne wai 1 4 auth. ie, | a a) hapa tiger “zit/ gray rs rr, 4
Ahi ace io ye batt Gcheiiis delhi dive uP rial af fituuie ot! (gir@ Me
sx ns a us - . z
j iy WOrrAs 4 ai’ .~ er icine i rT oes
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Trade in more than 2000 species of coral is monitored by the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Records for black corals (from 1982-1997) and stony corals (from 1985-1997)
were analysed in the first global assessment of the legal trade in coral: 70 nations
imported a total of 19,262t (or 34,600,000 pieces) from 120 exporting nations over
this period, with the USA accounting for more than 56% by weight of the global
trade, compared with 15% for the EU. Historically the Philippines was a major
exporter (19% by weight) but since the late 1980s has been superseded by
Indonesia. Taiwan (4.5t per 1000km?) and China (3.0t per 1000km?) exported
more coral per unit area of reef than any other nations, although the majority of
this trade occurred in the 1980s and today both are minor exporters. In recent years
Fiji and the Solomon Islands have become increasingly important coral trading
nations. Regional trade links demonstrate that for the period 1985-1997 South-East
Asian exports were an order of magnitude greater than those from the Pacific, and
two orders of magnitude higher than the Caribbean and Indian Ocean. Globally the
trade in coral peaked in the early 1990s but has since declined to levels
comparable with the mid 1980s (approximately 1000t per year).
Many trade records identified taxa at levels higher than species, such as
Anthipatharia spp. or Scleractinia spp. The majority only identified genus: overall
a total of 119 recognised Scleractinian genera. There is a clear failure to record
items to species level as required under the Convention. This probably reflects
practical difficulties in coral taxonomy and identification. The practical aspects of
identifying specimens to species, and the problems that non-specialists have in
using existing guides, were tested experimentally.
Dead corals, mainly the skeletons of genera with predominantly branching growth
forms, accounted for more than 90% of the trade up to the early 1990s, but since
then there has been a large increase in the amount of live coral traded. Colourful
species with large polyps (e.g. Euphyllia spp., Goniopora spp., Catalaphyllia spp.,
Trachyphyllia spp. and Heliofungia spp.) dominate the live trade in contrast to the
trade in dead coral which selects Fungia spp., Pocillopora spp., Porites spp. and
Acropora spp. The quantity of corals traded live has increased tenfold from 1985
to constitute more than half of the global trade in 1997, between 600-700t.
Measurements of live coral pieces in trade suggest the typical size to be 10 x 6cm
in cross section, 6 cm in height and weighing about 200g. When assessed against
published data on growth rates of different corals these dimensions suggest that a
typical live coral in the aquarium trade is at least three years old. Some species of
coral can be expected to survive in home aquaria for many years, certainly more
than three, but the husbandry of other species is more difficult and mortality
The Global Trade in Coral
occurs in less. In the latter case the amount of coral being collected cannot be
sustained by reproduction and growth. However in comparison to other extractive
and destructive impacts on coral reefs, such as mining and dynamite fishing, the
effects of collecting live coral for the aquarium trade are very small.
An economic analysis, using data on the cost of corals at point of export and the
retail price in the market place, estimated that the exporting nations generated
approximately US$5 million (1999 US$) in revenue from the live coral trade in
1997. This trade was worth approximately US$50 million in retail sales (1999
US$). Coral collectors earned between US$105,000 - 792,000 (1999 US$) in
income, depending on assumptions made on the price they received per piece of
coral.
2. MONITORING THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE
IN CORAL
Early accounts of the coral trade were specific to certain countries (e.g. the
Philippines, McManus 1980) or were constrained by the availability of suitable
data (e.g. Wells, 1985). Export and import data have been available from customs
authorities in some countries for many years, but corals are often combined with
shells and other derivatives such as cuttle bone in these statistics (Table 1). While
customs data were useful in highlighting some aspects of the trade, these
constraints prevented analyses in an international context until corals were listed
under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES).
Table 1. European imports of coral are recorded under a single category
Year Quantity (t)
1997 14.9
1996 11.1
1995 6.1
1994 6.1
1993 44
1992 59.2
1991 65.3
1990 68.2
1989 60.7
1988 46.1
1987 48.2
1986 45.1
1985 42.3
1984 34.4
1983 31.3
1982 30.9
1981 31.2
Notes:
EU trade is recorded under the code 050800 00 which is defined as 'coral and similar materials, unworked or
simply prepared but not otherwise worked, shells and cuttle bone, unworked or simply prepared but not cut to
shape; waste and powder thereof’.
The amounts of coral being traded in the late 1990s are much lower than in the 1980s but it is impossible to
determine under this recording system how much coral, as opposed to shells efc., is being imported. Worked
(i.e. carved) coral is recorded under a separate category (code 960190 10) which is defined as ‘worked ivory,
bone, tortoise shell, horn, coral, mother of pearl and other animal carving material and articles of these
materials'. Data taken from Eurostat, European Union external trade statistics.
Each party to the Convention is required to designate one or more management
authorities to be responsible for administering the convention, and one or more
scientific authorities to provide advice on technical issues, including assessments
The Global Trade in Coral
of the threat to species that international trade poses (Armstrong and Crawford,
1998). Shipments of coral involving parties to the Convention must be
accompanied by a CITES permit which is issued by the national CITES
management authority. Parties to CITES importing or exporting living or dead
coral material are then obliged to produce annual reports summarising and
specifying the quantity of trade in each listed species. These data have been
produced since CITES came into force in 1975 and are compiled in the CITES
Trade Database managed by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre on behalf
of the CITES Secretariat (WCMC, 1996). A stylised record from this database is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2. A stylised CITES record for coral
on oD
& = p> o
= fe | = a o
holiness Sem e) nine is E o 2
oS — as as om S pent = = s
o od eS x & = = = oO S i>)
> e =aZ mz o) oO =) e a n
oy ele ee E I E I E
eR Tate Hungary France Cuba 2 2 kg_ kg_ iive live zoo zoo wild wild
jragum
Notes:
Year = date of transaction.
Taxon = coral species.
Importing Nation = the declared country of destination.
Exporting Nation = the declared country from which the specimen(s) were consigned.
Origin = country of origin where trade in a re-exported specimen(s) is reported.
Quantity = numerical amount of specimen(s) reported as imports (and recorded in Units).
Unit = unit of quantity, either weight or number of specimens.
Term = descriptions of specimen(s) traded. Recorded terms for corals are carvings, derivatives, extract, live,
pieces and scientific specimens.
Purpose = purpose of the transaction. Recorded purposes for corals are commercial trade, bio-medical
research, circuses and travelling exhibitions, personal, zoos, scientific and educational.
Source = source of the specimen. Recorded sources for corals are specimens taken from the wild, animals bred
in captivity, confiscated specimens and pre-convention specimens.
I and E = For each transaction Quantity, Unit, Term, Purpose and Source are all recorded at the point of
import (I) and export (E).
The CITES Trade Database provides records of the international trade in coral
between 1982 and 1997. However limitations in the data must be acknowledged:
(i) Taxonomy: CITES requires that specimens be recorded at the species level.
Coral taxonomy is a highly specialised subject requiring experience and expertise.
Accurate identification of species may require considerable time and effort.
Undoubtedly mis-classification occurs in compiling CITES permits for corals and
species data cannot be considered reliable.
(11) Units: quantity is recorded either as weight or pieces, making comparisons
between different shipments difficult.
2. Monitoring the International Trade in Coral
(iii) Some countries (e.g. Indonesia in the years 1985-1996, see Edwards and Nash
(1992), but not 1997) report on the basis of permits issued, not on actual items
traded, thereby over-estimating trade if not all permits are used.
(iv) Export permits may be issued in one year but used in another so that the
transaction is reported in separate years by exporting and importing nations. This
serves to over-estimate trade volumes as there is no way of knowing whether an
export transaction in one year is the same shipment as an import transaction in the
following year.
Nevertheless the CITES Trade Database is a unique and invaluable mechanism for
monitoring international trade in marine species (Wells and Barzdo, 1991). It is
undoubtedly the best source of data for an analysis of the global trade in corals.
A HISTORY OF CORAL WITHIN CITES
In total 143 nations are parties to CITES. The Convention prohibits all
international commercial trade in species, listed in Appendix I, which are in
serious threat of extinction. However regulated trade is permitted in species, listed
in Appendix II of the convention, which are vulnerable to exploitation but not yet
at risk of extinction. All species of black coral (Antipatharia) were listed in CITES
Appendix II on 6th June 1981 as a result of a proposal put forward by the UK
government on behalf of the Government of the British Virgin Islands (an overseas
territory of the UK). The commercial harvest of corals for the jewellery trade, then
valued at US$500 million per year, was the principal reason for this inclusion. In
response to a proposal from Australia the second addition of corals to CITES was
made during the fifth meeting of the parties and resulted in 17 genera of hard coral
being listed in Appendix II on 1st August 1985. These genera were within the
orders Athecata, Coenothecalia, Stolonifera and Scleractinia. However this partial
listing did not include all the species being traded, and as a result failed to either
regulate or monitor trade because of the difficulties associated with identifying
listed and non-listed species, many of which look very similar. Israel was
concermed that corals collected illegally within its territorial waters of the Red Sea
were being traded under the guise of imported corals and so proposed the listing of
all coral species in 1990. All remaining species of hard coral (including the Order
Milleporina and 23 genera in the Order Stylasterina) were added on 18th January
1990. There are presently no species of coral listed in Appendix I but more than
2000 in Appendix II.
In an attempt to improve the documentation and standardise the reporting of the
international trade in corals the USA developed a resolution (CITES Notification
to the Parties No. 788) for discussion at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the
Parties to CITES (CoP10), which took place from 9-20th June 1997 in Harare,
Zimbabwe. This resolution proposed that: (1) reports of trade in specimens of coral
transported in water should record the number of pieces traded; (ii) reports of trade
in coral specimens other than specimens of coral transported in water should
record the weight in kilograms; (iii) specimens of readily recognisable coral gravel
The Global Trade in Coral
and 'living rock' (also known as ‘live rock’) in trade be reported at the level of order
(Scleractinia), where ‘living rock' is defined as pieces of scleractinian coral to
which are attached live specimens of invertebrate species not included in the
appendices. The aquarium industry opposed this resolution out of a concern that
part (iii) would bring about a large increase in the amount of items that had to be
recorded (e.g. the small pieces of rock to which soft corals and anemones are
attached) and in so doing would restrict trade to only those nations with the
capacity to manage the extra reporting load. The resolution failed to attract support
at CoP10 from nations other than the USA, and was withdrawn.
THE PHILIPPINE AND INDONESIAN TRADE IN CORALS
Studies of the trade in coral originating in the Philippines (Mulliken and Nash,
1993) and Indonesia (Bentley, 1998) used CITES data from 1986-1989 and 1985-
1995 respectively. Mulliken and Nash (1993) describe how the Philippines was a
major source of corals in international trade for at least three decades, exporting
more than 13,000t. The collection of corals for the coral trade there is believed to
have caused localised damage and altered the species composition of some reefs
(Wells 1981). Legal measures were taken to stop the collection and export of coral
in 1973, 1977 and 1980. However, trade continued and customs data show that the
USA imported an average of 350t annually between 1981-1985. The export ban
was also temporarily lifted in 1986 and again in 1992 to allow traders to clear
stocks, but there have been repeated problems of Philippine coral being illegally
imported into the USA and EU (Mulliken and Nash, 1993; Best, 1997). Bentley
(1998) used CITES data to identify the major importers of Indonesian corals, and
compared the trade to other destructive and extractive reef practices. However, this
report is the first global analysis of the coral trade which uses all CITES records
from the period 1985-1997 to assess the trade in corals in an international context.
3. METHODS USED IN THIS STUDY
A NOTE ON THE CITES TRADE DATABASE
In order to understand the recording of trade data in the CITES Trade Database,
and the analyses in this report, it is necessary to clarify the differences between (i)
a database record, (ii) a CITES permit, (111) a shipment of coral, and (iv) a database
output.
(i) A database record is a unique combination of date, taxon, importing and
exporting nation, origin, quantity, unit, term, purpose and source (see Table 2 for
definitions).
(ii) A single CITES permit, in the case of corals, is usually a list of different
species going from country X to country Y. Each combination of date, taxon,
importing and exporting nation, origin, quantity, unit, term, purpose and source is
entered into the CITES Trade Database as a separate record. Most countries, with
the notable exception of Indonesia, do not allow more than about five species to be
listed on a single CITES permit.
(i11) Theoretically a CITES export permit and a CITES import permit is needed to
allow the passage of a shipment of coral. The number of CITES permits issued
should therefore be twice the number of shipments made, but this is not the case as
many countries do not issue or require import permits.
(iv) The CITES Trade Database contains 316,606 records of coral trade for the
period 1982-1997. In an attempt to facilitate the analysis of these data records are
combined in database outputs. This means that all records of e.g. wild caught, live
Pocillopora damicornis originating in Indonesia, being exported from Singapore
to the USA for commercial purposes and recorded in kilograms in 1994 are
combined as a single entity in the output.
The database records may be analysed individually to determine, for example, the
proportion by number which are completed to species level. Given the huge
number of individual database records this was only performed for 1997 data
(38,077 records). The database outputs may be analysed to determine, for example,
the amount of coral by weight which was traded between any two countries. This
was performed for all database outputs for the period 1982-1997, where
appropriate.
THE RATIONALE FOR ANALYSING TAXONOMIC DATA AT
THE GENUS LEVEL
Coral trade data were extracted from the CITES Trade Database. Species were
identified in just 2% of 1997 database records, presumably reflecting practical
The Global Trade in Coral
problems with coral identification and taxonomy. Coral was typically recorded to
genus (83% in 1997) or simply as higher (suprageneric) levels such as Pectiniidae
(a Family) or in most cases simply as Scleractinia spp. (15% in 1997). Therefore
all analyses were conducted at the generic level. In the majority of trade (95% by
weight) Quantity, Unit, Term, Purpose and Source were not recorded on both
import and export permits. Where both import and export fields had been
completed transaction data were excluded from analysis if the Import Quantity had
been recorded at a different value to the Export Quantity (these constituted only
4% by weight of the trade, Table 3).
Table 3. The number of outputs from the CITES Trade Database where the
Import Quantity was recorded at a different value to the Export Quantity
Year #1Q+EQ n %
1985 5 i EG
1986 27 272 aS
1987 11 363o.0
1988 8 329 2:4
1989 0 356 0.0
1990 19 975 1.9
1991 20 991 2.0
1992 69 1594 4.3
1993 13 1609 0.8
1994 6 1900 0.3
1995 99 1949 5.1
1996 140 2397 eo:S
1997 125 TES 5H
i lotalnnS 42 En IStONS TNS TOm
Notes:
N = total number of database outputs for each year, % = the percentage of database outputs for which # IQ#
EQ in that year.
CONVERTING BETWEEN UNITS OF WEIGHT AND
NUMERICAL UNITS
Trade in coral is recorded either in numerical units (number of pieces) or units of
weight (Table 2). A conversion factor, the weight of a ‘typical’ piece of coral in
trade, was needed to analyse numerical and weight records in conjunction. The
Amendments to Appendices I and II of CITES (Anon., 1989) noted that US
Custom Service statistics, which are recorded by weight, and US Fish and Wildlife
Service Statistics, which are recorded as 'items', appear to indicate the average
weight of a piece of coral to be 1kg, and the average size 50cm. By comparison
Kirkby (1992) noted that 2,387,179 pieces of dead coral weighing 544t, were
imported into the USA between January 1991 and April 1992. The mean weight of
these pieces would therefore have been 228g. However, Kirkby's data are
inconsistent because he also noted that 627,884 pieces of live coral, weighing eight
3. Methods Used in This Study
tonnes, were imported over the same period, at an average weight of just 13g per
piece. This is clearly too low. Instead values of 0.5kg per piece of massive coral
and 0.25kg per piece of branching corals, as defined in the Amendments to
Appendices I and II of CITES (Anon., 1989), were used here to express each
transaction in both weight and numerical units. These figures were derived from
‘weighing a small quantity of dead corals' (Anon., 1989). An intermediate
conversion value of 0.375kg per piece of coral was used for those genera whose
species could not be described as either predominantly massive or branching in
their growth forms. One weakness of these conversion values is the assumption
that it is possible to generalise for pieces of coral from many different genera,
which were collected for many different purposes, from many different locations.
However, the purpose of this study was to obtain an overall understanding of the
global trade in coral, and this acknowledged disadvantage was outweighed by the
ability to combine transactions recorded in units of weight with transactions
recorded in numerical units. A conversion value also solves the problem of
expressing trade in units which are meaningful in terms of management (i.e.
quantitative kilograms not qualitative ‘pieces') which prevented the authors of the
most extensive study of coral trade to date from assessing its effects (O'Brien
Shoup and Gaski, 1995).
A conversion factor was not available for black corals, and therefore transactions
recorded in units of weight have to be treated separately from transactions
recorded in numerical units making it difficult to draw conclusions about the total
trade. These species are mainly collected for jewellery and have been listed under
Appendix II since 1982. For these two reasons black coral data were analysed
separately from hard corals.
THE RE-EXPORT OF CORALS
Describing the international coral trade is complicated by the re-export of material.
Coral may be imported from its country of origin, then exported to another
importing nation. Records indicate that a total of 3165t (16%) of coral was traded
in this way with the majority of the re-export recorded as occurring through Hong
Kong and the USA. Hong Kong re-exported 1650t most going to Japan, 1059t, and
to the USA, 528t. Thus 60% of Hong's Kong gross exports was coral imported
from elsewhere (all but 5t were from China). In fact given the small area of reef in
Hong Kong it is perhaps surprising that this proportion is not higher. The USA re-
exported 1173t of coral, 11% of its gross imports, to 19 different nations. Although
this coral originated from 15 different nations the data are skewed by very large
amounts of coral originating from Indonesia and Fiji which were re-exported to
Canada and Denmark. In the analyses described here re-exported coral was treated
as an import of the second importing nation, not the first. In other words, figures
given here are net imports and do not include coral which was recorded as being
re-exported to a third party. Of course re-export may have occurred and been
recorded as a separate transaction, and the third party may in turn re-export to a
fourth party, but there is no way of quantifying these occurrences with CITES
data.
/
\
asi at
pai
i‘ i
‘ 5
ef
ye rir /
ae pMoah
i
‘i
awry i
7 as
——
Th
7 iy
’ :
i ‘Fae. 7
1
.
i ni
Den
aa ie Ur ees
oh gin ' ia | ae a
a A AP Dy. Ye
m4 ety iit iy ult " i ae
4. THIRTEEN YEARS OF INTERNATIONAL
TRADE IN HARD CORAL
Seventy nations imported a total of 19,262t (34,600,000 pieces) of coral from 120
exporting nations between 1985-1997. The USA has dominated the international
trade in coral, receiving 56% of all the coral traded globally since species were
listed by CITES (Figure 1). Hong Kong and Japan are also important traders in
corals, Germany imports most of the coral coming into the European Union with
other EU nations each responsible for 1-2% of global trade (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Ten nations imported 98% of the coral recorded under CITES
1985-1997
12,000
2% 2% 1% 1% 1%
A similar pattern is revealed for exporting nations (Figure 2) with the trade
dominated by one country, Indonesia.
Coral exported from the Philippines has constituted 18% of the trade in the past 12
years, but Figure 3 shows this to be largely historical. In the mid to late 1980s
Indonesia and the Philippines were exporting approximately the same quantity of
coral per year. Indonesian exports increased to approximately 1000t per year after
the moratorium on coral trade in the Philippines, but have since declined to about
500t per year. The release in 1992 of stockpiled coral from the Philippines is
evident in Figure 3.
As these figures would seem to suggest, the trade between Indonesia and the USA
constituted a large proportion (26%) of the global coral trade in coral. This is
The Global Trade in Coral
Figure 2. Ten nations exported 94% of the coral recorded under CITES,
1985-1997
10,000
5,000
Tonnes
1% 1% 1% 1%
Figure 3. The quantity of coral exported from the Philippines and Indonesia
3,000
—(= Exports from Indonesia |
- a -Exports from the Philippines |
2,000
Tonnes
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Notes:
The quantity of coral exported from the Philippines and Indonesia was approximately equal until the late 1980s, when the
former declined as a result of national legislation prohibiting the collection and export of coral. Indonesian exports rose
subsequently. In 1992 there was a temporary suspension of the ban of coral trade in the Philippines to allow stocks of old
coral to be cleared.
12
4. Thirteen Years of International Trade in Hard Coral
Table 4. Trade links between the top ten coral importing and the top ten
exporting nations
= = =
3 S = a & an
- ~ val co i=) co lo} a
= = SS m4 SE = ron S x Ns) = oo
= ai fo = al nN a = = —_ =
4
2 va 2
3 a S S a
Lal ' ' So ' ' oS ' ' ' =
ev
s
AcE
3
&
if — ay
5 S J ~
s a S a i) - = S
= ' 1 S 7 a + ' ' S a
S
2
& a a
Ss So S
a ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' a
£
n 7
ge |é
= cS =) Fa)
= > Ss Noy Nn
Zz a 1 N — ' ' ' ' ' ' N
=
£
P=) °
hn
) Ee = =
2. = “a = Ss =
* B wo = 2S ea)
<3) nN ' oa) nN 1 ' =) 1 i) ' XN
3
= 5
3) SS a
= Zz So
= = real a S a
= ie} + No) wo Val (=) 2 +
[-¥ & a ' = = fo) roa) ” a) a S e.)
o
=
= = a) a i i
=) a N co an (se)
= iS S a “2 Va) S S.
ox ' N + S iS) _ - Ss ' =
n
eo
=
=
me Ss eS a +
= S S co + <4 al al & Ne} S eo
ol N Ss a o = oe) - i) al
= Se 3 Sa ~
= es x a = S ‘o
+ Ole Meme S S a
1S) 6 a = 1 ' ' ~ S s ' +
&
n
oO
Seals = aml
a) vel fon + So
= CN =) ex aS ea) = a Ss oa) so!
= a + CT — = = = No) = So ~
be 3
S > aos
4 i= —_ 4
& 2 r= oD
i") € = = oc 5) Ss —
CPP EE Wp rate, | aie Mahe ee =.) oo [RS
wa S = oO = S me © S °
=) = = oO = sy n =) Zz 4 =
Notes:
Data are expressed as the weight of coral, in metric tonnes, traded in the years 1985-1997. All USA trade with Vietnam
trade took place in 1997.
13
The Global Trade in Coral
evident from Table 4 which illustrates the trade links between the top ten coral
importing nations (who accounted for 98% of the total weight of traded coral) and
the top ten exporting nations (who accounted for 94% of all coral exports). The
trade between China and Hong Kong (14% of world trade) and Indonesia and
Germany (7% of world trade) was also substantial. Although the USA imported
coral from 72 different nations, trade with Vietnam only began in 1997,
presumably because of previous political barriers. Historical links between nations
can be seen elsewhere. For example, Portugal imported the majority of its coral
from Mozambique, an ex-colony, in contrast to most other EU countries who
imported mainly from Indonesian and the Philippines. Regionally the USA
imports three to five times as much coral as the entire European Union (Table 5),
and twice as much as the rest of the world.
Table 5. Coral imports to different regions
Importer Tonnes % Pieces %
USA 9,968 56 22,258,047 71
ROW* 5,349 30 4,615,879 15
EU’ 257/23 15 4,420,523 14
Total 18,030 31,294,449
Notes:
* Hong Kong accounts for 57% of coral imports to the rest of the world (ROW), Canada 2% and 52 countries account for
the remainder (each less than 1% of total global coral imports).
* Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
TRENDS IN THE AMOUNT OF CORAL EXPORTED BY DIFFERENT
COUNTRIES
In the 1980s the average amount of coral traded internationally was 565t per year
(Figure 4), with the trade split fairly evenly between the Philippines (mean exports
239t per year) and Indonesia (mean exports 212t per year). The international trade
increased in the 1990s peaking twice, first in 1992 at 4172t and again in 1995 at
2499t. The volume of trade in 1997 was 1221t. The number of signatories to
CITES also increased over the same period and so it is reasonable to assume that
present trade volumes are broadly comparable to those of the 1980s.
One further point emerges from Figure 4. The pattern in global trade in coral
tracked the changes in imports to the USA until 1994. The second peak in the
amount of coral traded in the 1990s was caused by rising demand in Europe, not
the USA where coral imports have decreased substantially since 1992. However
this may prove to be temporary because the increase in trade from 1996 to 1997
would appear to have been driven by the USA market (Figure 4).
There have also been some interesting trends in the amount of coral exported from
countries other than Indonesia and the Philippines (Figure 5). Wells and Wood
4. Thirteen Years of International Trade in Hard Coral
Figure 4. Trends in the global trade in coral as recorded under CITES, 1985-
1997
|--L+- Imports of corals to the USA
--a-- Imports of coral to the EU
|- @ Imports of coral to the rest of the world
——— Global trade in corals
7) 3,000 ARON TEE CCC ODIO OOS ARCO EC DPE AD TO CASI CES OLE EenSaonconorecnpceny! Sor eacccscectaens, cosoosdeccocosseccoeceactaceccastcescastenactass
®
c
6
a 2,000 meme PERM E RICE MER Oe SECO CONS ECP EEE ORCL PEPLIECDP OLDE OnEL i) JOP COOLC COLE CORNER ESE J CERRO. Soeconeae=yCareren Geroncasnessecacaos
1,000 4-----
0 & ——
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Notes:
Trends in the amount of coral exported to the USA, European Union and rest of the world are also shown.
(1989) analysed early CITES data from 1986-1987 to demonstrate that Malaysia,
Taiwan, Fiji, Haiti, New Caledonia and Thailand were also exporting coral to
temperate nations. The most dramatic increase in trade since the mid 1980s
occurred in Fiji which exported an average of 27t per year between 1990-1994. In
the mid 1990s this increased by an order of magnitude to an average of 293t
between 1995-1997. Trade from the Solomon Islands also increased over the same
period. By contrast China and Taiwan, both important historical exporters of coral,
decreased their traffic in hard corals by many orders of magnitude to levels that are
negligible compared to the late 1980s and early 1990s (Figure 5). Vietnam and
Mozambique are the seventh and tenth largest exporters having produced 2% of
the total amount of coral traded internationally over the last 12 years (Figure 2),
but nearly all of it in the years 1994-1997.
Regionally the picture is less clear, but imports to the USA from South East Asia
have declined and are now less than a third of what they were in the mid 1980s
(when there were fewer signatories to CITES and fewer species were listed under
the convention). The USA market seems to be increasingly supplied by nations in
the South Pacific region: imports from this region have risen, from an average of
38t in preceding years to 821t in 1997. Likewise the Indian Ocean appears to have
become more important to the European trade because tiny amounts were imported
from this region in the 1980s, but trade has increased from 0.5t in 1995 to 32t in
1997. While causal effects cannot be deduced directly from the data, it may be that
trade from these regions is increasing in response to declining activity in South
East Asia.
The Global Trade in Coral
Figure 5. Trends in the amount of coral exported from the major exporting
nations in Figure 2, excluding Indonesia and the Philippines (Figure 3) as
recorded under CITES, 1985-1997
Solomon Islands Tonga
100,000
75,000
2 50,000
25,000
0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
Taiwan Vietnam
240,000 120,000
180,000 nogcascaascsaasenso/ et besean ast cintwninciriels eir|vesigta’-lsie) 90,000
2 120,000 4------ se2e [eset Vee wc hess cee ee 2 60,000
CU EO U0) So ee cece eae era ay 30,000
04 0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
China Fiji
1,600,000 800,000
1,200,000 4----2::---202---220s fe \eeceeeecsecccee 600,000
LZ 800,000 4-2-2222 -e-s een eeferee Qe eee 2 400,000
400,000 4 --2--:--2-0022pheseeeeeeeeee agua 200,000
0OCHHAG
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
Mozambique Marshall Islands
80,000 80,000
60,000 60,000
2 40,000 © 40,000
20,000 20,000
0 0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
4. Thirteen Years of International Trade in Hard Coral
Table 6. Trade links (expressed as the weight of coral, in kg, traded in the
years 1985-1997) between coral importing and exporting regions
Arabian Caribbean _ Indian North North Red South South South
Gulf Ocean Atlantic Pacific Sea Atlantic East Asia Pacific
EU 99 39,878 58,664 105 18,031 1 157. = 2,521,313 209,547
ROW* 47 20,602 6,995 1,167 86,595 64 195 5,063,952 234,703
USA 343 17,493 24,905 3,988 76,492 101 0 9,574,155 1,283,688
Total 489 77,973 90,564 5,260 181,118 166 352 17,159,420 1,727,938
Coral Reef 3 20 36 D 17 17 1 68 91
Area
(1000 km’)
kg/1000 km? 163 3,899 2,516 2,630 10,654 10 352 252,344 18,988
Notes:
Links are also expressed in weight of coral traded per unit area of coral reef (coral reef areas defined and
calculated in Spalding and Grenfell, 1998).
* Rest of the world (i.e. not USA or EU members)
‘ Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
Figure 6. Exports of coral recorded under CITES expressed as tonnes per
1000 km? of coral reef
5.00
3.75
2.50
1.25
Tonnes of coral per
1000 km’ of reef
CORAL TRADE AS A FUNCTION OF CORAL REEF AREA
Exports can be expressed in terms of coral reef area using estimates provided by
Spalding and Grenfell (1998). In this analysis, if the country of origin was not
stated, then the coral was assumed to have originated in the export nation (Figure
6). Comparison with Figure 2 reveals that in proportion to the amount of coral reef
supplying material for export, Taiwan, China and Vietnam were the major
exporters. The reefs of South-East Asia have supplied an order of magnitude more
coral per 1000km? than either the North or South Pacific, and two orders of
magnitude more than either the Caribbean or the Indian Ocean, despite the large
The Global Trade in Coral
areas of reef in these regions (Table 6). Trade from other coral reef regions is
negligible by comparison.
THE TAXONOMIC COMPOSITION OF THE CORAL TRADE
A total of 143 groups of corals have been recorded in the CITES database and
were traded internationally between 1985-1997 (Table 7), 119 of which are
recognised scleractinian genera. All but two of these genera are zooxanthellate
scleractinian (‘reef-building') corals, and the majority (Heliofungia spp. are the
exception) are colonial, attached, species which have to be removed from the reef
substrate by force. The non-scleractinians are Heliopora spp. which belongs to the
Order Coenothecalia (Heliopora coerulea is the only species in the genus) and
Tubipora spp. which belong to the Order Stolonifera (Tubipora musica is the only
species in the genus). Transactions in Fungia spp., Pocillopora spp., Acropora
spp., Porites spp., Euphyllia spp., Goniopora spp., Catalaphyllia spp., Heliopora
spp., Trachyphyllia spp., Tubipora spp., Seriatopora spp., Pavona spp.,
Heliofungia spp., Platygyra spp., Lobophyllia spp., constitute 47% of all coral
traded between 1985-1997 (Figure 7). A minority of records, 15% in 1997,
classified the taxon as 'Scleractinia spp.’ but over the period 1985-1997
Scleractinia spp. accounted for 8841t or 46% of the total weight of coral traded.
The 1997 database records indicate that transactions of Scleractinia spp. appear to
be larger (mean quantity = 188 + 28kg) than those identified to genus level (mean
quantity = 21 + 3kg). Traffic in all other groups of coral accounted for just 7% of
the traded weight in the last twelve years.
Figure 7. The most frequently traded genera of coral recorded under CITES
1985-1997
2,400
1,600
wo”
3 13% 13%
5
- 800
LE ey ee ee 2%
0
RX
oe ae ae vats YS oe Se s se
FR SP eo SF OF SL & es s S
CM CS MP KKH SH FS RX
I SE
Notes:
The labels are the percentage by weight of the trade, excluding transactions recorded as Scleractinia spp.,
which occurred in each genus.
4. Thirteen Years of International Trade in Hard Coral
There are some interesting oddities in the CITES records including a shipment of
1.1t of Crispatotrochus spp. for commercial trade in 1996. Crispatotrochus,
however, is an extinct genus, and is only known from the fossil record. Likewise
some species of azooxanthellate coral, such as the microscopic Holcotrochus spp.
or Deltocyathus spp. which grow in extremely deep water (80-2300m), can only
have been collected using highly specialised techniques.
Table 7. Taxonomy and general ecology of corals in trade
A = attached, C = colonial, F = free living, SC = some colonial species, some solitary (single polyp) species,
SF = some free living, some attached species, S = solitary (single polyp) species. Ten most traded (dead)
genera are in bold type, ten most traded (live) genera are in boxes.
Zooxanthellate scleractinian corals ( = approximately, 'reef corals’), n = 84.
Acanthophyllia spp. C,A Diploastrea spp. C,A _ Lithophyllon spp. C,A_ Plesiastrea spp. CA
Acrhelia spp. C,A __ Diploria spp. C,A C,A_ Pocillopora spp. ers
C,SF Echinophylliaspp. C,A Manicina spp. C, SF Podabacia spp. CA
Agaricia spp. C,A — Echinopora spp. C,A Merulina spp. C,A_ Polyphyllia spp. (ie
Alveopora spp. C,A C,A Montastrea spp. C,A CA
Anacropora spp. C,A Favia spp. C,A — Montipora spp. C, A Psammocora spp. C,A
Astreopora spp. C,A Favites spp. C,A _ Moseleya spp. C,A_ Sandalolitha spp. (C18
Australogyraspp. C,A Fungia spp. S,A Mussa spp. C, A Scapophyllia spp. CA
Barabattoia spp. C,A Galaxea spp. C,A -Mycedium spp. C, A Scolymia spp. S,A
Blastomussa spp. C,A Gardineroseris spp. C,A Mycetophyllia spp. C,A_ Seriatopora spp. CLA
C,F Goniastreaspp.” C,A “ C,A_ Siderastrea spp. C,A
Caulastarea spp. CA C,SF Oulastrea spp. C, A Simplastrea spp. C,A
Coeloseris spp. C,A Halomitra spp. C,F Oulophyllia spp. C,A_ Solenastrea spp. C,A
Colpophyllia spp. C,A C,F § Oxypora spp. C,A Stephanocoenia spp. C,A
Coscinastrea spp.” C,A Herpolitha spp. C,F — Pachyseris spp. C,A_ Stylocoeniella spp. C,A
Ctenactis spp. C,A Heteropsammia spp. C,F — Pavona spp. C,A_ Stylophora spp. CA
Cycloseris spp.” S,F Hydnophora spp. C,A Pectinia spp. C, A Symphyllia spp. C,A
Cynarina spp. S,SF Jsophyllia spp. C,A Physogyra spp. CA [Trachyphylia spp)” C, SF
Cyphastrea spp. C,A Leptastrea spp. C,A — Physophyllia spp. C,A Turbinaria spp. CLA
Dendrogyra spp. C,A _ Leptoria spp. C,A Platygyra spp. C,A Zoopilus spp. (Cae.
Scleractinian corals which are partly zooxanthellate and partly azooxanthellate,
n=5.
Astrangia spp. Cy Balanophyllia spp. CA Heterocyathus spp. Sa
Madracis spp. C,A Oculina spp. C,A
Zooxanthellate scleractinian corals (= approximately 'reef corals’) but suprageneric category,
n=2.
Pectiniidae spp. [a family] Scleractinia spp. [an order]
The Global Trade in Coral
Table 7 continued....
Azooxanthellate scleractinian corals‘, n= 34.
‘Caryophylliaspp.+~«A«F,S_ Kionotrochusspp...+~«~*FYS ~Premocyathusspp.—~SCS*~SS
Culicia spp. SC, A Lophelia spp. CA Sphenotrochus spp. FAS)
Cyathelia spp. CLA Madrepora spp.’ A,C Stephanocyathus spp. Fas
Deltocyathus spp. Sk Monomyces spp A,S Tethocyathus spp S,A
Dendrophyllia spp. CLA Notophyllia spp. F,S Thecopsammia spp S,A
Desmophyllum spp. S,A Odontocyathus spp ES Trematotrochus spp. SF
Flabellum spp. S, SF Oulangia spp. A,S Trochocyathus spp.” SF,S
Fungiacyathus spp. ES Paracyathus spp. A,S Trochopsammia spp. S,A
Gardineria spp A,S Phyllangia spp. C,A Truncatoflabellum spp. SF,A
Goniocorella spp. C,A Placotrochus spp. SF,A Tubastraea spp.” C,A
Guynia spp. S,A Platytrochus spp. F,S
Holcotrochus spp. F,S Polycyathus spp. C,A
Azooxanthellate scleractinian coral but junior synonyms of a name not in the above
list, n = 1.
C rispatotrochus spp. (= Turbinoliay
Extinct scleractinian coral known only from fossil record, n = 1.
Actinastrea spp.
Suprageneric octocoral groups, n = 2.
a eee ee eee ee ee ee
Alcyonaria spp. (‘soft corals’) Coenothecalia spp.
Octocoral genera, n = 2.
—SS——————
Heliopora spp. Tubipora spp.
Antipatharians (includes the black corals), n = 8.
Antipathes spp. Aphanipathes spp. Cladopathes spp. Leiopathes spp.
Sibopathes spp. Bathypathes spp. Hexapathes spp. Schizopathes spp.
Hydrocorals (Stylasterina), mostly found in deeper water, n = 7.
Conopora spp. Crypthelia spp. Distichopora spp. Stylaster spp.
Cheiloporidion spp. Gyropora spp. Phalangopora spp.
Hydrocorals (Milleporina), n = 1.
Millepora spp.
Notes:
(1) Coscinaraea occurs in some records but is probably a mis-spelling for Coscinastrea
(2) Diaseris occurs in some records but is regarded as a junior synonym of Cycloseris
(3) Coelastrea occurs in some records but is regarded as a junior synonym of Goniastrea
(4) Nemenzophyllia has been considered a synonym of Plerogyra but now considered to be a valid genus.
(5) Wellsophyllia occurs in some records but is regarded as a junior synonym of Trachyphyllia
(6) Thalassiotrochus occurs in some records but it is not a valid genus.
(7) Amphelia is an azooxanthellate scleractinian coral but is a junior synonym of Madrepora.
(8) Platycyathus occurs in some records but it is a sub-genus of Trochocyathus.
(9) Coenopsammia occurs in some records but is regarded as a junior synonym of Tubastraea.
20
4. Thirteen Years of International Trade in Hard Coral
THE PURPOSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE
The majority of the trade (76% by weight) was for commercial purposes,
presumably with dead corals supplying the ornamental trade and the live aquarium
industry. Goniopora and Porites spp. were the only two genera to be traded for
biomedical purposes, peaking at 26t in 1992, but declining to extremely low levels
since. These transactions probably supplied a specialised market for the use of
coral in bone grafts. Hydroxyapatite (HA) is made from the rigid exoskeletons of
marine corals and is used to fill voids caused by fractures or other trauma in the
upper, flared-out portions of long bones because its structure is similar to human
bone. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the HA product Pro
Osteon Implant 500, made by Interpore International, in 1992. When HA is
implanted into a bone void, its web-like structure allows surrounding bone and
fibrous tissue to infiltrate the implant and make it biologically part of the body.
The US Food and Drug Administration has also approved coral-derived implants
for applications such as bone loss around the root of a tooth and in certain areas of
the skull.
THE SOURCE OF CORALS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE
The vast majority (96%) of coral in trade is supplied from the wild with a
minuscule quantity (0.03%) coming from aquaculture (bred in captivity). The
remainder is accounted for by those records which fail to specify source.
21
ln apes weg ip cla
7 = oe = ene ie ~~ tne, id is ae ee
: ao, Oy oe . myiontigst aa — - = > .
rg — ees " aS, . Fass scene
ae
oy ¥ 4 i
Min ny in
1
1
i i a
a nar i i 7
i fe a
amet 2
7 ~~ <n
a 1 -
‘ q
1 ‘ L
, tha hae Me -
pe wv i
Cow 7
” i 7
ww
5. THE LIVE CORAL TRADE
During the period 1985-1997 most coral (86% by weight) was traded dead, 84% as
pieces and 2% (mainly Cataphyllia spp., Euphyllia spp. and Goniopora spp.) as
carvings. The remainder (14% by weight) was traded alive (trade in other forms,
e.g. scientific specimens, is negligible).
The reported imports of live coral amounted to 2691t or 5,940,000 pieces from 93
genera between 1985-1997. The taxonomy of the live and dead trade differs:
species of Fungia spp., Pocillopora spp., Porites spp. and Acropora spp. constitute
the majority of the dead trade (Figure 8), while the live trade concentrates on
genera whose species tend to be more colourful or have larger polyps which can be
seen during the day (e.g. Euphyllia spp., Goniopora spp., Catalaphyllia spp.,
Trachyphyllia spp., Heliofungia spp. and Plerogyra spp., Figure 8). These
characteristics are particularly desirable for the aquarium industry.
Figure 8. The relative amounts of the ten most frequently traded genera in the
live and dead coral trade as recorded under CITES 1985-1997
Taxonomy of the Trade in Live Corals
O Euphyllia spp.
© Goniopora spp.
§ Catalaphyllia spp.
& Trachyphyllia spp.
@ Heliofungia spp.
DB Acropora spp.
& Plerogyra spp.
E Lobophyllia spp.
(4 Nemenzophyllia spp.
Porites spp.
Dead Corals
0 Fungia spp.
G Pocillopora spp.
§ Porites spp.
Acropora spp.
© Euphyllia spp.
© Heliopora spp.
& Seriatopora spp.
& Tubipora spp.
2 Goniopora spp.
Catalaphyllia spp.
1,112
Notes:
Labels are tonnes of coral.
23
The Global Trade in Coral
Weights and linear dimensions of pieces of live coral were obtained from seven
shipments from Indonesia (Bali and Jakarta) and Fiji arriving at two aquarium
wholesale companies, one in the UK and one in the USA. A total of 622 pieces
from 20 genera, including nine of the genera in Figure 8, were measured (Table 8).
UK corals were measured by WCMC staff, USA corals by staff of Quality Marine
Ltd. The UK corals were significantly heavier than the USA corals (t-test, p<0.05,
d.f.= 620). These specimens were not larger in the sense that they were ‘taller’,
there was no significant difference in the height of the pieces (t-test, p>0.05, d.f.=
612), but because the surface area was larger (t-test, p<0.05, d.f.= 453). However
the UK data were disproportionately influenced by a few very large pieces of
Porites spp., all more than 590g in weight. The median weights of UK and USA
corals were similar and there was no significant difference between them (median
test, Mood, 1950).
Table 8. The weight and linear dimensions of pieces of live coral in the UK
and USA aquarium trade
Weight (g) Height (mm) Area (cm’)
median 172.4 53 156.8
3 mean DNiSed: Si 185.8
5 +95% 16.4 3 7
o n 464 456 361
<< s maximum 1703.0 144 793.2
minimum 27.8 10 9.8
median 150.6 65 143.7
2 mean 177.9 64 158.0
é + 95% 17.4 9 18.0
< n 158 158 94
iS maximum 632.4 75 444.9
minimum 31.4 5 4.7
Notes:
UK data were measured from coral arriving at The Tropical Marine Centre, Solesbridge Lane, Chorleywood,
Hertfordshire, WD3 SSX, United Kingdom. USA data were obtained from Quality Marine, 5420W, 104th
Street, Building 2 East, Los Angeles, CA 90045, USA.
There were significant differences between the weights of corals from different
genera (i.e. the variation in weight of live corals within genera was significantly
different to the variation of weight between genera, ANOVA, p<0.01, F<Fcrit,
d.f.=11, 535), although an insufficient number (<15) of corals were weighed in
some genera and had to be excluded from statistical analysis (Table 9). For
example Goniopora spp., Trachyphyllia spp. and Caulastrea spp. appear to be
traded in smaller pieces than Euphyllia spp., Lobophyllia spp. and Tubipora spp.
According to the data in Table 9 the mean weight of a piece of live coral is
24
5. The Live Coral Trade
considerably less than 0.5kg per piece of massive coral and somewhat less than the
0.25kg per piece of branching corals, defined in the Amendments to Appendices |
and II of CITES (Anon., 1989). A single figure of 0.2kg would be more
appropriate.
Table 9. The mean weights and dimensions of pieces of live coral in the
aquarium trade
Weight (g) Height (mm) Area (cm’) n
Euphyllia spp. 170.8 + 19.3 71.9+3.9 169.6 + 24.8 114
Goniopora spp. 112.8 + 28.3 51.54+3.9 138.8 + 15.3 120
Catalaphyllia spp. 203.4 +54.0 56.0 - 9
Trachyphyllia spp. 101.5+15.1 44.9+2.4 121.4+17.0 84
Heliofungia spp. 138.4+45.1 19.1+2.6 192.2 + 24.4 28
Acropora spp. 180.4 + 35.0 96.5 + 10.5 259.2 + 42.1 27
Plerogyra spp. 206.0 + 39.0 66.5 + 1.6 170.7 + 30.7 24
Lobophyllia spp. 287.4+77.9 75.2+45.0 260.7 + 66.7 31
Porites spp. 729.5 + 145.0 72.0 + 6.6 241.3 + 81.8 13
Caulastrea spp. 95.7+ 40.4 74.1+5.9 181.1 + 54.3 20
Favia spp. 361.1 + 70.1 54.3 236.0 6
Fungia spp. 159.0 + 27.8 14.0+2.3 153.4 + 55.8 36
Montipora spp. 185.2 + 60.6 68.0 166.0 + 31.8 8
Pavona spp. 161.1 +33.4 67.6+5.5 126.0 + 37.2 8
Physogyra spp. 232.7 + 73.8 99.7 + 10.8 226.9 + 90.5 16
Seriatopora spp. 214.9+95.9 92.7+ 17.0 116.8 + 19.6 6
Tubipora spp. 221.3 + 79.0 67.5 44.7 338.8 + 54.7 40
Turbinaria spp. 319.8 + 138.1 71.2+ 18.2 230.8 + 31.9 6
Wellsophyllia spp. 214.8 +39.2 42.5+2.8 241.3 + 28.8 26
e Maximum = _ 1703.0 144.0 793.2
— 5 Minimum 27.8 5.0 4.7
<5 Median 166.4 56.0 154.8
© Mean 206.1 + 13.1 58.6 +3.1 180.1 + 10.1
Notes:
Area was calculated as an ellipse from the longest horizontal surface axis and the axis perpendicular to the
longest surface horizontal axis. Measurements were obtained from specimens in nine of the top ten genera in
the live trade (shaded in order, see Figure 8). Means are given with + 95% confidence interval.
The volume of live coral traded has been calculated as a proportion of global trade
in Figure 9. The global trade in live corals was calculated from CITES data in two
different ways:
(i) Values of 0.5kg per piece of massive coral and 0.25kg per piece of branching
corals, as defined in the Amendments to Appendices I and II of CITES (Anon.,
1989) were used to convert transactions which had been recorded in numerical
The Global Trade in Coral
units into units of weight. The global trade in coral was calculated by adding live
and dead coral transactions together, and the proportion of the global trade which
had occurred in live coral was calculated as a simple fraction (Figure 9a).
(ii) A value of 0.2kg per piece of live coral, from Table 9, was used to convert
transactions of live coral which had been recorded in numerical units into units of
weight. Global trade was calculated in the same way (i.e. by using the
Amendments to Appendices I and II (Anon., 1989) to convert numbers of dead
coral to weight of dead coral), and the live trade again calculated as a simple
fraction (Figure 9b).
Figure 9. The trend in live coral trade 1985-1997
800
| —{— Global trade in live corals (CITES weights)
[ses A- - Trade in live corals as a proportion of global trade
600
200
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
800
|} Global trade in live corals (aquarium industry samples)
600 +--\-- 4- - Trade in live corals as a proportion of global trade
400
Tonnes
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Notes:
The global trade in live corals was calculated from CITES data in two different ways (a) by using values of
0.Skg per piece of massive coral and 0.25kg per piece of branching corals, as defined in the Amendments to
Appendices I and II of CITES (Anon., 1989), and (b) by using a value of 0.2kg per piece of live coral, from
Table 9.
The live trade was a small proportion (<5%) of global trade in the 1980s.
However, both methods indicate that there has been an order of magnitude
26
5. The Live Coral Trade
increase in live coral trade over the past decade: the 1997 trade in live corals as a
proportion of the global trade in all coral is either (1) 56% or (ii) 53% respectively.
Calculating trade using a conversion value based on Table 9 did not alter the result
to any great extent because a lower estimate of the weight of live coral being
traded was compensated by a lower estimate of the global trade in all corals. In
both cases the conclusion is clear. The live coral trade has increased greatly during
the 1990s to the point where it constitutes about half of all coral trade (Figure 9).
THE MARINE HOME AQUARIUM - THE MARKET FOR CORALS
This dramatic increase in the live coral trade has undoubtedly been driven by the
large increase in home aquaria across North America and Europe. At the same
time the increase has been made possible with the advent of very fast and frequent
airline services between the major markets and exporting countries such as
Indonesia and Fiji. A coral may now spend only 30 hours in transit, and
transportation times of more than 50 hours are rare (these times refer to export-
import delivery time, not time from collection in the wild). Consequently there is
now a greater selection of specimens of superior quality for the home aquarist to
choose from than in previous years. As aquarium technology has improved
throughout the 1990s, and costs fallen, there has been an increase in the number of
people setting up coral reef aquaria, typically changing from a freshwater system
after a few years. According to industry figures produced by the Pet Industry Joint
Advisory Council in 1999, 0.6% of American households maintain almost 622,000
marine aquaria. It would be reasonable to assume that the vast majority, perhaps
90% or 560,000, of these aquaria are tropical. There are also more than 1.1 million
tropical freshwater aquaria in the USA.
Selected results of a survey of 683 home aquarists are presented in Table 10. Data
on size of aquaria, number of colonies per litre and hard corals as a proportion of
all colonies can be combined to estimate the amount of coral being kept in the
aquaria of the USA: approximately 6 million pieces (at an average weight of 200g
per piece this is 1200t). The corollary of this calculation is that there are also some
18 million colonies of soft corals. The amount of live rock in aquaria of the USA
can be estimated in a similar way. It is approximately 50,000t.
CORAL GROWTH RATES AND AGES
The dimensions of pieces of coral in the live trade (Table 9) suggest a preference
for corals which are roughly elliptical in surface view, measuring approximately
10 x 6cm in cross section, and about 6mm in height. Corals of this size are more
easily handled and are more resistant to the rigours of transportation (Wells ef al.,
1994), although larger colonies are certainly collected for the live trade (5% of the
pieces measured were larger than 10mm in height and 10 x 10cm in cross section).
This is in distinct contrast to the Amendments to Appendices I and II of the CITES
(Anon., 1989) which assumed the average size of a piece of coral to be 50cm in
diameter, though in 1989 there was much less live coral being traded. The trade in
iy
The Global Trade in Coral
Table 10. Selected results of a survey of 683 aquarists
USA GER ROW
Size of aquarium:
<100 litres 7 1 6
101-200 litres 22 3 10
201-500 litres 46 37 40
501-1000 litres 18 39 34
>1000 litres 4 19 10
Description of aquarium contents:
a mixed show aquarium with a variety of invertebrates and fishes 62 76 70
an aquarium where the fishes dominate 8 2 8
an aquarium for clown fishes and host sea anemones 2 3 I
a stony coral aquarium 15 18 13
a soft corals aquarium 8 10 8
other 5 0 2
Material used for structure:
live rocks 89 79 89
calcareous rocks or other type of rocks 14 50 22
artificial material 2 1 3
dead coral skeletons 6 7 8
Amount of live rock in the aquarium (kg per litre):
<0.1 16 50 31
0.1-0.2 38 28 40
0.2-0.3 1] 10 13
0.3-0.4 7 3 3
0.4-0.5 5 ] ]
>0.5 9 1 2
Number of coral colonies in aquarium (number per litre):
<0.05 47 70 54
0.06-0.10 17 18 15
0.11-0.15 6 2 3
0.16-0.20 1 0 3
>0.20 3 ] ]
Proportion of colonies which were fragments from other colonies:
none 21 5 13
1-10% 20 18 21
11-20% 10 16 12
21-30% 10 14 10
31-40% 2 8 4
41-50% 5 7 3
Hard corals as a proportion of the corals in the aquarium:
none 10 8 5)
1-10% 10 22 15
11-20% 7 14 1]
21-30% 8 10 8
31-40% 4 4 5
41-50% 12 5 6
>50% 23 21 23
Do you have regular access to cultured corals?
yes 25 7 8
no 49 76 68
If available, would you prefer cultured corals to wild?
yes 67 74 70
no 8 10 7
If available, would you prefer cultured corals to wild only if they were
cheaper?
yes 14 49 32
no 60 32 46
If available, would you prefer cultured corals to wild only if they were
more colourful?
yes 29 iNy/ 20
no 46 64 56
Notes:
USA (n=297), Germany (n=155) and the rest of the world, ROW, (n=231).
Data (%) taken from Fossa and Nilsen (1998a).
5. The Live Coral Trade
dead material does seems to involve larger pieces than the live trade - for example
Wells et al. (1994) state that pieces 12-50cm are preferred in the curio trade, and
the average size of pieces in an illegal shipment of corals from the Philippines (see
Box 1) was 20 x 20cm (42cm, n = 94). Ross (1984) reported that the average
colony size collected for the ornamental coral trade in the Philippines in the late
1970s and early 1980s was 13-18cm in diameter.
In theory it is possible to estimate the age of coral pieces if the growth rate for a
particular species is known. However in practice it is difficult because (1) corals
with porous skeletons increase in size more rapidly than those with dense
structures, and (ii) different environmental conditions can produce tremendous
variation in growth rates. Coral growth is affected by temperature, light and depth.
There is also considerable difference in growth rate between different species, and
corals grow at different rates during their life history, irrespective of these
environmental parameters. It is not clear how well measurements of rates taken
from colonies on artificial reefs or in aquaria relate to growth rates in the wild
under conditions of competition, predation, disease and, in many cases, pollution
and sedimentation. Only a few groups of species are sufficiently well understood
to make predictions about their age from measurements of size and growth rate: as
in many other branches of science research has focused on just a few species, or
groups of similar species. Growth rate data is available for only ten of the most
frequently traded genera, and of these there are only single measurements for three
genera (Table 11). Therefore it is difficult to make general yet meaningful
comments about coral growth rates, and predictions of age for pieces of coral of a
certain size should be conservative.
Table 11. The growth rates of species in ten genera of commonly traded coral
Most Important Genera in the Live Trade Linear Growth Rates Area Growth Rates
(cm year") (cm? year")
min max min max
Acropora spp. 2.3 20 19 1404
Catalaphyllia_ spp. 0.8 15.2 - -
Euphyllia spp. 4.6 7.9 96.5 -
Fungia spp. 0.8 2.8 DD -
Goniopora spp. 1.8 - - -
Lobophyllia spp. 1.6 - - -
Pavona spp. 2.1 3.4 33.1 561.6
Porites spp. 0.9 2.8 22.9 44
Seriatopora spp. 1.6 6 17.9 53
Tubipora spp. 16 - - -
Notes:
Growth rates were taken from Veron 1986, and references cited in Buddemeier and Kinzie, 1976, and Gomez
et al. 1985.
Acknowledging these constraints, however, it is possible to estimate roughly the
age of corals. It is known that wild corals rarely grow more than 10mm in their
first year of life (Harrison and Wallace, 1990). After that the average growth rate
29
The Global Trade in Coral
for massive corals under optimum conditions, is 10-12mm per year (Buddemeier
and Kinzie, 1976). The branches of some species of Acropora grow extremely fast
(100-200mm per year) but 30-40 mm per year is a more representative rate for
finely branching species (Buddemeier and Kinzie, 1976). There is then some
considerable variety in the /inear extension rates, but when colony growth is
normalised to a standard mean solid radius, this apparent variability is much
reduced (Maragos, 1978). On this basis most corals growing under good
conditions have an equivalent extension rate of 0.5-1.0cm per year (Kinzie, 1996).
Relatively fast growing species have growth rates of 3cm per year diameter
increase, or more (UPMSC 1979, 1980, 1982, cited in Ross 1984). These
published data would therefore seem to suggest that the 'typical' piece of coral in
the live trade, i.e. a piece that has been collected from the wild with mean
dimensions similar to the specimens in Table 9, is at least three years old - perhaps
one year's growth after settlement to 1 cm in size, then 3-4 years growth to attain a
colony of 10 x 6cm in cross section. Some pieces of Acropora, for example, may
be younger, but many other pieces would possibly be much older. Three years is
therefore a reasonable but conservative estimate of the age of the corals which are
traded live, while six years would be better for dead corals in the ornamental trade
(Ross, 1984).
30
5. The Live Coral Trade
BOX 1 THE ILLEGAL TRADE IN CORALS
Several large consignments of coral entered the UK illegally during the temporary lifting of the
export ban by the Philippines government in 1992. Acting on an anonymous tip concerning a
company called Trilcott HM Customs and Excise searched a freighter at Tilbury and discovered 17t
of corals from the Philippines described as “driftwood and rock” (Wood, personal communication).
Further seizures were made from Trilcott, including another 27t at Tilbury and 53t at Felixstowe.
The corals had been harvested quite recently since fresh organic matter was still attached to some
of the corals and so the shipments were in clear violation of the regulations permitting trade which
were issued solely for the clearance of pre-1986 stockpiles. The trader was fined out of court and
the corals confiscated. It is thought that the corals originated from the area around Cebu City
(Wood, personal communication) because it was one of the main ports for the export of corals in
the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Much of the coral seized in 1992 was distributed to national aquariums, museums and zoos for use
in education and displays. Some was ground down for use in aquarium filtration systems.
Approximately 20t was donated to London Zoo in July 1992 part of which has been used to
construct a public exhibit at the entrance to the aquarium: the remainder is stored.
Over 300 pieces of coral were selected at random from the London Zoo collection. With the
exception of Fungia spp. each piece had been meticulously wrapped in newspaper by the trader and
labelled with trade names (e.g. ‘lace coral’, 'mushroom coral’). The specimens were from 18
different genera:
Genus ie 5-2 : a Number —
Acroporaspp. Se Ss oe Se. 45 =
Echinophyllia spp. 2
Euphyllia spp. 1
Fungia spp. 145
Heliopora spp. 6
Lobophyllia spp. 1
Merulina spp. 2
Millepora spp. 9
Montipora spp. l
Plerogyra spp. 1
Pocillopora spp. 43
Sandalolitha spp. 17
Seriatopora spp. D)
Stylophora spp. 11
Trachyphyllia spp. ]
Tubipora spp. 16
Turbinaria spp. 3
Wellsophyllia spp. 1
Total fia, 307
The average weight of these pieces was 580 + 121g, average dimensions were 20 x 20 + 2cm, 12 +
1.5 cm in height (n=94).
These data were obtained in coliaboration with Helen Hendry, Department of Zoology, University
of Cambridge.
31
Cos
‘ . RB ‘
Sa, A ’
wens Sie ay
Anh pion A
he vibe ‘ A :
Da Wire f 7 af
ie et
rig analy
i Ls wea hy
Ril cyte pr Ne Ss
iG hire
7a V
“4 -
Lay Be
,
WT,
x
’ oe
”
f
i
4 =
7 vi red | j
a. :
j
_* _
r, OR
ans ; j |
‘
, ious 1
' -
4 > 7 ?
i f
mw Aree ( ‘ i
7 ; j 4 ¥,
\)
i
f
i
rF)
6. THE TRADE IN BLACK CORAL
Species from eight genera were traded (Table 7), the majority being Antipathes
spp. or Cirripathes spp. Problems with coral identification and taxonomy are again
suggested by the 47% by weight of transactions which are recorded simply as
Antipatharia spp. In fact the species was classified in only 18% by weight of
transactions - the rest of the records transactions were recorded as Antipathes spp.
(25%) or Cirrhipathes spp. (10%).
Table 12. Trade links between the largest importers and exporters of black
coral
Trade from exporters recorded as number of Trade from exporters recorded
pieces (1000s) in units of weight (tonnes)
2 a=
rr} Ss
a. Z 3 2
~ = oe a2 &
8 2 2 ca S $s 2 2
2 = BS © milo S Ge & © ray eS
2 & & irs SUE Si asia ion cele Sho
i} & Ge & Ess s & Ss op & OS
= Bie 2 5 sa bee Be eS 8 Se ee
£ SG fee Sa) Ss es en ee, (ess te
USA 5,793 283 13 11 5 7 5 Oye 6 O28 Ol 0.3 10.7
Japan 354 1 0.4 0.5 356 «17 0.01 17.01
France 76 0.7 77
Cuba 235 235
Korea 46 40
Germany 0.5 25 0.06 25.6
Netherlands 15 15
Greece 9 9
Cayman 0.1 7 7.1 0.8 0.8
Islands
Total 6,458 334 40 13 1147.6 5 7 5 6,881 21 6 0.3 0.1 0.81 0.3 28.5
Notes:
It was not possible to convert between weight and number of pieces for black coral so trade is expressed
separately in tonnes and number of pieces traded, as recorded under CITES for the years 1985-1997. A large
amount of black coral was traded with permits which did not specify the exporting (14,600 pieces and 421t) or
importing nation (9,986 pieces): this is not included in Table 12.
It was not possible to convert between weight and numerical units for black coral:
trade data therefore have to be stated separately in tonnes and numbers of pieces.
Together they indicate the total traded volume of black coral. A total of 72t and
7,100,000 pieces of black coral were recorded as being traded between 1982-1997.
The USA totally dominated this trade importing 14% of those transactions
recorded by weight and 82% of those recorded by number of pieces (Table 12).
Japan was the next largest importer of black corals (24% of transactions recorded
by weight and 5% of those recorded by number of pieces). Although it is
33
The Global Trade in Coral
interesting to note that countries absent from Table 4 and therefore not active in
the hard coral trade, such as Cuba, the Republic of Korea and the Cayman Islands,
feature in Table 12, in the global context the amount of coral that they have
imported has been negligible. Most of the USA black coral imports came from
Taiwan (99% of transactions recorded by number) and the Philippines (55% of
transactions recorded by weight).
An average of 430,000 pieces of black coral have been traded internationally per
annum since 1982 and trade in pieces of black coral is comparable in the late
1990s to levels in the early 1980s (Figure 10). To calculate a similar average from
transactions recorded by weight would not be meaningful because annual totals
have varied considerably, occasionally by two orders of magnitude in successive
years (1989-1993, Figure 10), from a minimum of 24kg in 1983 to a maximum of
41,213 kg in 1992. The 1997 total was 174 kg.
Figure 10. The annual variation in the global trade in black coral
1,000,000 100,000
Number of pieces |
= ©- -Weight (kg)
8 800,000 10,000
3 =
a 2
i
© 600,000 14,000 =
_ o
o oa
S s
S 400,000 100
10
© ch oh > of oP of ch
DD 6D * 6D" D* (O_O ~~)
PPP PP PP? GP FAS
Notes:
It was not possible to convert between weight and numerical units for black coral: trade data therefore have to
be stated separately in kg and numbers of pieces. Together these figures indicate the total trade in black coral.
Note that the secondary y-axis is logarithmic.
34
7. IS CITES AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR
MONITORING TRADE IN CORAL?
Parties to CITES are obliged under Article VIII, paragraph 6(b), to identify
specimens to the species level. With species being identified in a very small
proportion (2% in 1997) of records there is a widespread failure to fulfil this
obligation for corals. Reasons can only be inferred but a predominance of coral
derived products such as gravel, sand and rock in the trade is unlikely to cause this
situation. Transactions in materials which are clearly derived from corals, but
where more precise identification is impossible, are frequently recorded as
Scleractinia spp. However, while this type of transaction may be significant in
terms of the weight of material being exported (46%), they constituted a minority
of records (in 1997). Therefore it does not seem that Scleractinia spp. is being used
as a general option when closer identification is problematical. Instead the failure
to record species is most likely symptomatic of the very real difficulties in
identifying coral species, per se (Box 2). This is apparent in genera such as Porites
spp. with many closely related species only distinguishable by close examination
of the structure of the coral skeleton (Table 13).
Table 13. The number of coral species per genus recorded in the CITES
Trade Database compared with the number of coral species per genus listed
in CITES Appendix II
Fifteen most traded Percentage of Number of coral species Number of coral
genera of coral records which are recorded in CITES species listed in
(after Figure 7) identified to species Trade Database CITES Appendix IT
Fungia spp. 12 5 25
Pocillopora spp. 35 12 19
Porites spp. 5 6 70
Acropora spp. 40 69 165
Euphyllia spp. 30 7 10
Goniopora spp. 9 5 34
Heliopora spp. 26 1 1
Catalaphyllia spp. 28 4 4
Tubipora spp. 27 1 1
Seriatopora spp. 19 3 7
Trachyphyllia spp. 7] 1 1
Pavona spp. 23 9 24
Heliofungia spp. 11 1 1
Platygyra spp. 15 8 8
Lobophyllia spp. 9 4 6
Notes:
*Source of data WCMC (1999).
35
The Global Trade in Coral
Surprisingly, more species are identified in the genus Acropora than any other
even though the taxonomy of Acropora is particularly difficult. Identification keys
do exist but have been typically produced for a scientific audience orientated
towards research (e.g. Wallace and Wolstenholme, 1998). Less technically
demanding, more general, keys also exist but are rarely complete. The CITES
Identification Manual (CITES, 1984) implicitly recognises this issue in that only
five corals are identified to species, including the two unusual species Tubipora
musica and Heliopora coerulea. However, despite being relatively easily
identifiable, and the only species in their genera, just a quarter of CITES records
for Tubipora musica (bright red skeleton consisting of a mass of vertical tubes
connected by horizontal plates) and Heliopora coerulea (distinctive blue coloured
skeleton with a smooth surface perforated by pits of two sizes) were completed to
the species level (Table 13). In total the CITES Identification Manual describes 5
species and 17 genera. With over 2000 species listed under Appendix II (WCMC,
1999) and approximately 120 genera being traded CITES does not therefore
appear to be effective in monitoring trade in individual species of coral. As a
consequence it is not possible to be sure whether species of coral listed under
Appendix II but not recorded in the CITES Trade Database (Table 13) are not
being traded or whether they are being misidentified.
However the response of the international coral trade to events affecting it can be
detected using CITES trade data at the generic level. For example, the FDA gave
approval for skeletal material from Goniopora spp. and Porites spp. to be used in
clinical trials for bone grafts in 1992. This is clearly seen in the CITES records -
the volume of dead Goniopora and Porites imported to the USA for biomedical
purposes increased 500% from 1991 to 1992. Similarly CITES permits began to be
used more commonly for coral sand, gravel and rock following several
prosecutions in the early 1990s for importing undeclared coral derived material.
This material is normally labelled as Scleractinia spp. and is imported in bulk. The
effect of this change in habit is clearly detectable in the CITES trade data which
reveal that the total quantity of Scleractinia spp. shipments increased from an
average of 13kg per year between 1986-1989 to 1829kg in 1991. The ability to
detect changes which are attributable to factors such as these indicates that CITES
trade data are effective in monitoring international trade in coral, albeit at
taxonomic levels higher than the species level (but see Box 3).
36
7. Is CITES an Effective Tool for Monitoring Trade in Coral?
BOX 2 PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF IDENTIFYING CORAL SPECIES
CITES requires Parties to the Convention to identify corals to species on permits yet in the
overwhelming number of cases the practice is to record taxon as genus only. This is certainly a
result of many factors, but the sheer number of species (2000+), the availability and accessibility
of identification guides, the familiarity with taxonomic terminology which is required to use
existing guides effectively and the time necessary to identify a coral specimen to species are
probably the most significant.
The practicalities of identifying species in a coral genus which is important in both the dead and
live trade was illustrated using specimens of Acropora spp. This is a highly speciose genus with
368 nominal species and an unknown number of true species. Branched growth forms are common
but show enormous variety even within species. Massive or encrusting forms are rarely found.
Acropora is characterised by its mode of growth, in which a central or axial corallite extends and
buds off subsidiary or radial corallites. The axial corallites are often larger and positioned at the
end of branched forms (in many cases this makes the identification of the genus relatively easy) or
scattered over the rarer lobed or semi-massive forms. The identification of Acropora species
requires the determination of the growth form of the specimen (ten growth forms are recognised)
and detailed microscopic observations of:
(i) |The arrangement and form of the axial and radial corallites, their size and orientation and the
shape of the septa. Thirteen categories of corallite shape are recognised.
(ii) The texture of the coenosteum on the radial and axial corallites and inter-corallite areas. The
coenosteum is the skeletal material between the corallites and in Acropora is also the wall of the
axial corallite, due to the nature of budding of new corallites.
A recent and comprehensive guide to the genus exists in the scientific literature (Wallace and
Wolstenholme, 1998) and was used to identify nine specimens, and the time recorded:
Acropora digitifera(Dana,1846) ————t—~CS~S 25 minutes
Acropora pulchra (Brook, 1891) 20 minutes
Acropora millepora (Ehrenberg, 1834) 20 minutes
Acropora florida (Dana, 1846) 8 minutes
Acropora subulata (Dana, 1846) 35 minutes
Acropora nasuta (Dana, 1846) 30 minutes
Acropora cerealis (Dana, 1846) 30 minutes
Acropora solitaryensis (Veron & Wallace, 1984) 35 minutes
Acropora palifera (Lamark, 1816) 15 minutes
The nine specimens took a total time of 3 hours 38 minutes to identify to species. By way of
illustration approximately 63,000 pieces of Acropora spp. were imported into the EU in 1997.
Clearly there will never be enough human resources available to identify coral to species with a
worthwhile degree of accuracy.
These data were obtained in collaboration with Helen Hendry, Department of Zoology, University
of Cambridge.
37
The Global Trade in Coral
BOX 3 PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF IDENTIFYING CORAL GENERA
The CITES Trade Database provides very limited information on coral species, but genus is well
recorded (83% of records in 1997 and 47% by weight between 1985-1997). However the
identification of coral genera is still far from straightforward, and it would be fair to say that it is
probably quite challenging for people without particular experience in coral taxonomy, e.g.
customs personnel responsible for checking the contents of shipments against CITES export and
import permits.
The ability of non-specialists to identify coral genera accurately was tested experimentally. Two
replicate experiments were carried out in which a total of 32 volunteers, half of whom had a
graduate level zoological background, were asked to identify dead specimens from 10 genera of
corals. Four identification guides were used:
(i) Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific (Veron, 1986). This is a substantial volume with
photographs and descriptions of over 700 live and dead corals mostly to species level, without a
key.
(ii) Corals of the Indian Ocean CD-ROM (Sheppard, 1998). This is a CD ROM containing a
scrollable list of over 100 coral species with short description and one to several pictures of whole
specimens and polyp detail. Most pictures are of live corals.
(iii) Corals of the World (Wood, 1983). This book has photographs of over 80 live and dead
corals from the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific with description to genus level only, with a key.
(iv) The CITES Identification Manual (CITES, 1984). This guide does not include photographs
but has clear line drawings and descriptions of 17 genera of corals. Descriptions of species are very
limited, except for five genera that are mono-specific.
The experiment was designed so that equal numbers of zoological and non-zoological volunteers
used one of these guides to identify all specimens. The accuracy of the volunteers, expressed as a
score achieved from a maximum of eight, is tabulated below:
CITES, Wood, Sheppard, Veron, Total
(1984) (1983) (1998) (1986) (out of 32)
Fungia spp. 8 5) 6 i 26
Acropora spp. 5 6 8 6 25
Tubipora spp. 8 4 5 5 22
Millepora spp. 5 8 3 2 18
Pocillopora spp. 8 4 ] 4 17
Sandalolitha spp. 0 7 5 3 15
Halomitra spp. 5 6 2 0 13
Merulina spp. 5 3 4 1 13
Lobophyllia spp. 5 0 1 1 7
Hydnophora spp. 0 1 1 2 4
Total (out of 80) 49 44 36 31
Zoologists were not more successful at identifying genera than those people without a zoological
background (Wilcoxon paired sample test: T_> Toos (2) 16, see p. 167, Zar 1996). However the
accuracy of a volunteer (irrespective of background) using any guide was not the same across all
genera (Freidman analysis of variance by ranks: xe > xe 0.05,10,4, See p. 267, Zar, 1996). The
identification accuracy of volunteers in identifying genera irrespective of the guide used, and the
accuracy achieved with each guide irrespective of specimen, was tested (non-parametric Tukey
7. Is CITES an Effective Tool for Monitoring Trade in Coral?
type multiple comparisons, see p. 226, Zar 1996). Values of q for the genera comparison are
tabulated below (significant differences, where q > qo0s, are shaded):
Acropora Tubipora Millepora Pocillopora Sandolithia Halomitra Merulina Lobophyllia Hydnophora
SPp- Spp. SPP- SPP. spp. SPP. Spp- Spp- Spp.
Fungia 0.128 0.962 1.668 1.989 2.224 2.481 2.695 4.670 4356
SPP. See
Acropora - 0.834 1.540 1.860 2.096 2.352 2.566 AST =:
spp. oe
Tubipora - - 0.706 1.026 1.262 1.518 1.732 2.737
spp.
Millepora - - - 0.321 0.556 0.813 1.026 2.032
spp.
Pocillopora - - - - 0.235 0.492 0.706 1.711 2.267
spp.
Sandolithia - - - - - 0.257 0.470 1.476 2.032
spp.
Halomitra - - - - - - 0.214 1.005 0.556
spp.
Merulina - - - - - - - 1.005 1.561
spp.
Lobophyllia - - - - - - - - 0.556
spp.
A significantly higher accuracy was therefore achieved for Fungia, Acropora and Tubipora spp.
than for Hydnophora spp. Fungia and Acropora spp. were also identified more accurately than
Lobophyllia spp. Values of q for the guide comparison are tabulated below (significant differences,
where q > qoos, are shaded):
Wood, Sheppard, Veron,
(1983) (1998) (1986)
CITES, 1.799 2.746
(1984) ae
Wood, - 0.947 DSi
(1983)
Sheppard, - - 1.190
(1998)
The only significant difference in accuracy was between the CITES guide and Veron (1986). This
difference can be readily explained. Eight of the ten genera used in this experiment were included
in the CITES guide which includes so few genera in total that the probability of misidentification
was lower. The identification accuracy for the two genera not included in the CITES guide
(Sandalolitha and Hydnophora spp.) was, not surprisingly, zero for those volunteers using it.
Furthermore it was not possible to include live specimens in the experiment. The line drawings in
the CITES guide are ideal for identifying dead specimens but the majority of the photographs in
Veron (1986) are of live corals, in situ.
The experiment indicates that the identification of genera is indeed challenging for non-specialists,
with only three genera, Fungia, Acropora and Tubipora spp. being identified to more than 67%
accuracy (and the latter is monospecific and highly distinctive). Despite differing in format and
content the use of any one guide did not affect accuracy significantly. The content of the CITES
guide needs to be broadened to include at least those genera most prevalent in trade, and any guide
designed to assist identification of traded corals should contain both line drawings of skeletal
detail, growth forms and photographs of living colonies and polyps.
These data were obtained in collaboration with Helen Hendry, Department of Zoology, University
of Cambridge.
39
Mien.
8. THE IMPACT OF TRADE ON CORAL REEFS
The USA imported an average of 200t of coral per year in the 1960s, 440t per year
in the 1970s and 350t per year from 1980-1985 (source US Customs statistics
presented in Wells and Wood, 1989). Though estimates of 48,000t of coral per
year (Rubec 1988, cited in Cesar, 1996) being collected for the ornamental trade
must be erroneous, Mulliken and Nash (1993) estimated that the Philippines had
exported 13,000t of coral since 1960. Estimates of the amount of coral being
harvested on the Great Barrier Reef, about 50t year per year, go back to the late
1970s (Garrett, 1977 cited in Oliver and McGinnity, 1985). Clearly the coral trade
is not a new phenomenon and sufficient time has passed to observe the long term
effects of collecting corals for trade.
Grigg (1976) estimated the effect of commercial collection by comparing
undisturbed and harvested populations using a mathematical model of population
dynamics. For slow growing species of precious corals population changes and
reduced abundance were described by him as being inevitable (Grigg 1977). The
most thorough attempt to quantify the effect of collection in the field was carried
out by Ross (1984) who compared coral community parameters at two sites, one
heavily harvested, off Cebu in the Philippines. Driven by a market demand for
large, mature colonies for the ornamental trade collection had resulted in a
reduction in coral density (31%) and percent coral cover (64%) on the lower reef
crest (Ross, 1984). Seriatopora spp., common in the area, were completely absent
from the harvested site, and the population structure of one species, Pocillopora
verrucosa, had been altered by the extraction of large, sexually mature colonies to
consist predominantly of small, juvenile colonies (Ross, 1984).
So, not surprisingly, the intense extraction of corals at a particular location can
profoundly alter the community structure. However, as Figure 3 clearly shows, the
Philippines is no longer an important exporting nation having been superseded by
Indonesia in the early 1990s. An analogous study to Ross, 1984 has not been
carried out for Indonesia but the same effects are likely to occur in places where
collection is concentrated in a small area. This is especially likely to be the case in
the collection of live corals which are usually gathered from reefs no more than a
day's easy travel from an international airport (dead corals are usually shipped by
sea). In this sense Table 6 is slightly misleading as it assumes collection to have
occurred uniformly over the entire reef area. A more realistic calculation might
have considered the quantity of live coral as having come from the area of reefs
within, say, 50-100km of international airports. Bentley (1998) compared the live
and dead (ornamental) coral trade in Indonesia with other extractive and
destructive practices, namely the mining of reefs for construction material and the
production of lime from burning coral. Historically the amount of coral mined for
construction in the Jakarta area has been estimated at between 10,000-25,000m?
per year (Polunin, 1983) which equates to 15,000-37,500t at an intermediate
skeletal density of 1.25g per cm* (for measurements of density see Bosscher,
1993). Bentley (1998) estimated the quantity of coral being mined nowadays to be
4]
The Global Trade in Coral
no more than 5000t annually. Data on the production of lime from coral are
patchy, but the best documented case study is from West Lombok where 60
families produce six hundred 25kg bags of lime per year (Cesar, 1996), an annual
total of 900t which necessitates the collection of approximately 1600t of coral.
Considering that Indonesia has never exported more than 2000t of coral (Figure 4)
it is clear that there are processes extracting considerably more coral there than
either the live or ornamental trade. Elsewhere, the amount of coral mined in a
single year for construction in the Maldives, where other building materials are
particularly scarce, is 20,000m* (Brown and Dunne, 1988) or 25,000t at an
intermediate skeletal density of 1.25g per cm? - more than all the coral traded since
1985.
In a similar vein dynamite fishing is having a major impact on coral reefs in
Indonesia and has increased dramatically over recent years. Cesar (1996)
conservatively assumed a bombing rate of one bomb per day per km? which, over
a reef area of 41,960km? (Spalding and Grenfell, 1998), equates to a total of 15
million bombs per year. If each bomb destroyed only 1kg of coral then the amount
of coral killed annually in this manner would be approximately ten times that
exported from Indonesia each year during the 1990s. Unfortunately over
exploitative and destructive fishing practices are not the only pressure on coral
reefs. Fifty-eight percent of the world's reefs are threatened by human activity
ranging from coastal development, marine pollution, sedimentation and
eutrophication from inland deforestation and farming (Bryant ef al.1998). In
comparison with these factors, and climate change, the adverse but localised
effects of the international coral trade are tiny.
42
9. THE ECONOMICS OF THE LIVE CORAL
TRADE
Generally foreign companies wishing to import coral place orders with national
collecting agents whose stock is priced and sold free-on-board (FOB). The free-
on-board price is the cost of a single specimen, and excludes any transportation,
packaging and taxation costs which are incurred additionally by the importer. The
free-on-board price (Table 14) is therefore particularly useful in an economic
analysis of the international trade because it represents the revenue to exporters in
the country of origin generated by the sale of a piece of coral.
Table 14. The 1999 free-on-board prices of single pieces of live coral from
Indonesia
Minimum Maximum
Euphyllia spp. : 2.50 — e700
Goniopora spp. 2.25 : 2.50
Catalaphyllia spp. __ eee Ss £2 : 4.00. Se eee 500
Ti rachyphyllia ‘spp: - : : 2.00: 6.00
Heliofungia spp. 3 aoe LVI aa ee 3:50
Acropora spp. : 8.00 : 11.50
Plerogyra spp. 3.00 - 6.00
Lobophyllia spp. ee ee 225: 3.50
Nemenzophyllia spp. ; eee : 3.50 | 5.00
Porites spp. ; 2.00 — : 7.50
Blastomussa spp. 6.50
Cynarina spp. Dephs) 5.00
Favia spp. 2.00 2.50
Fungia spp. 2.25
Galaxea spp. 2.00 5.00
Herpolitha spp. 2.00
Hydnophora spp. 6.50
Merulina spp. 11.50
Physogyra spp. 3.00 6.00
Pocillopora spp. 11.50
Polyphyllia spp. Dens
Scolymia spp. 9.50
Seriatophora spp. 11.50
Symphyllia spp. 2.00
Tubastrea spp. 2.25 5.00
Tubipora spp. 5.00
Turbinaria spp. 2.50
Mean 2.30 5.68
Notes:
The ten genera most frequently traded live (Figure 8) are shaded. Prices are in USS.
Typically, the country of origin is a developing tropical nation and the free-on-
board price is payable in hard currency, usually US dollars. Table 14 lists the 1999
43
The Global Trade in Coral
Indonesian free-on-board prices for all the major genera in the live coral trade, and
can be considered to be reasonably representative given the dominance of that
country in the global trade. The revenue flowing from developed to developing
nations as a result of the international trade in corals can be estimated by
combining the prices in Table 14 with the volume of trade in each genus.
Catalaphyllia spp., Acropora spp., Merulina spp., Seriatophora spp. and
Pocillopora spp. are the most expensive corals. The former is relatively rare, and
therefore may be more expensive to collect, and the others are delicate, highly
branched, corals which require careful collection and handling techniques. Species
in other genera cost just a few dollars each and Table 14 suggests that the mean
FOB price for a piece of coral is between US$2-5. In practice though the price of a
piece of coral varies not only according to the species, but also its size and colour,
and so it is difficult to be precise about the cost of a typical piece of Acropora spp.,
for example. The average price of a piece of coral imported to the USA was US$
2.04 between 1997-1999 (World Trade Atlas, 1999) which may suggest that the
majority of corals are traded at low FOB prices. However, the range of revenue
generated by exporting coral reef nations can be estimated by using the maximum
and minimum free-on-board prices.
The value of the international trade in coral to exporting nations has increased
dramatically over the 1990s (Figure 11a), mirroring changes which are evident in
Figure 9. In 1997 the international trade in live coral generated between $2.8 - 7.4
million in revenue, depending on whether minimum or maximum free-on-board
prices were used in the calculations, respectively. It therefore seems reasonable to
state that the global trade in live coral sees a sum of approximately $5 million pass
from developed importing nations of the northern hemisphere (primarily the
countries in Figure 1) to developing exporting nations of the tropics (primarily the
countries in Figure 2).
However these calculations may contain a bias which has its cause in the CITES
data and the transactions (29% in 1997) involving live coral which recorded the
taxon as Scleractinia spp. The database records in 1997 indicate that the mean
weight of these transactions (332 + 34kg, n= 1,691) is two orders of magnitude
greater than those transactions in which taxon is recorded to at least the generic
level (9 + 1kg, n= 29,967). One explanation for this discrepancy in mean weight is
that the Scleractinia spp. transactions were large shipments of coral rubble and
coraline algae, destined to be used in aquaria as live rock. Live rock is so called
because it is collected from the wild and is colonised by bacteria and algae.
Aquarists consider live rock to be the healthiest and most beneficial (to aquarium
organisms) means of biological filtration. It is also the material most commonly
used to provide a structural framework to the aquarium and living space for some
reef fish and invertebrates (Table 10). Although it is not possible to be absolutely
certain that Scleractinia spp. is not being used as a general term where more
accurate identification is difficult, or to describe a shipment of mixed coral
species, this is unlikely because it is difficult to know how else such amorphous
material, which is obviously derived from coral, could be described. The term live
is probably reliable as it implies that the specimens were shipped wet or moist.
44
9. The Economics of the Live Coral Trade
Indonesia and Fiji were the largest exporters of live Scleractinia spp. between
1985-1997, accounting for 37% and 35% of the global trade (1561t) respectively.
The next largest supplier was the Marshall Islands with 10%, 154t, over the same
period. However in 1997 Fiji recorded exports of live Scleractinia spp. totalling
386t (86% of the international trade in live Scleractinia spp. in that year) whereas
Indonesia recorded only 9t. Fijian live rock sold for $3.2 per kg free-on-board in
1999, and is usually supplied in boxes of 20kg. In the USA live rock is sold to
aquarists by weight, for between $5.5-11 per kg, depending on the amount of
curing (a process which preserves the bacteria, coralline algae and other beneficial
organisms associated with live rock, such as clams, sponges, starfish and snails,
while eliminating potentially harmful organisms such mantis shrimp and bristle
worms). The aquarium supply companies surveyed in Table 16 only offered live
rock from Fiji.
The previous financial calculations, which produced Figure 11, assume that all live
Scleractinia spp. transactions were live corals of species not in the ten most traded
genera. If instead we assume that all live Scleractinia spp. transactions were indeed
live rock, then the calculations can be refined to take into account the different
free-on-board price of live rock. This requires the relative amounts of (i) species in
the ten most traded genera, (ii) species in other genera, and (iii) live rock (live
Scleractinia spp.) to be known. All these can be derived from the CITES database.
Doing so produces a slightly tighter estimation of the revenue accruing to reef
nations from the international trade in corals, i.e. the difference between the
maximum and minimum revenue is reduced (Figure 11). If we assume that all the
trade in live Scleractinia spp. to have been trade in live rock then the revenue
which flows from importing nations to exporting nations was between $2.8-6.8
million in 1997. It must be stressed, however, that there is no direct evidence that
live rock is indeed recorded as Scleractinia spp., and that in any case making this
assumption does not appreciably change the estimated value of the global trade in
coral of $5 million in 1997.
Table 15. The value to exporting nations of different genera in the live coral
trade, as percentages
Minimum FOB Maximum FOB
Acropora spp. 14 8
Catalaphyllia spp. 7 18
Euphyllia spp. 5 6
Goniopora spp. 4 2
Heliofungia spp. 2 1
Lobophyllia spp. 2 1
Nemenzophyllia spp. 1 1
Plerogyra spp. 3 3
Porites spp. ] 2
Trachyphyllia spp. 3 4
Species in other genera 49 51]
Live rock 9 4
Notes:
Minimum and maximum FOB refer to whether minimum or maximum free-on-board prices were used to estimate revenue.
45
The Global Trade in Coral
Although more Euphyllia spp. and Goniopora spp. are traded than any other genus
(Figure 8) their value to exporting nations as a proportion of the live coral trade is
relatively low at 5-6% and 2-4 % respectively (Table 15). Catalaphyllia spp. and
Acropora spp. are traded in lesser quantities but are more valuable to coral reef
nations by virtue of their higher free-on-board price. Approximately half of the
revenue to exporting nations is derived from species in genera other than those
represented in Figure 8 and live rock accounts for 4-9% of income earned through
the live coral trade (Table 15).
Figure 11. The value of the international trade in live coral in terms of the
revenue in 1997 US dollars accruing to exporting nations
Revenue (1999 US$)
Revenue (1999 US$)
Notes:
Revenue is calculated in two ways: (top) assuming that all records of live Scleractinia spp. involved corals of
species not in the ten most traded genera, and (bottom) assuming that all records of live Scleractinia spp.
describe shipments of live rock. See text for further discussion.
46
9. The Economics of the Live Coral Trade
Table 16. The average retail prices in US dollars for 805 pieces of live coral
from seven retail outlets in the USA in 1999
Acropora spp. (66)
S M L U
40. 53 73 105
Catalaphyllia spp. (33)
See Mer eals U
3753 es
Euphyllia spp. (87)
S Wires U
22 2228: 33:25
Goniopora spp. (33) —
S M LeU:
26. 30-36
Heliofungia spp. (18) _
Sa aa
25. 33 S38
Lobophyllia spp-(43)
SE eg
23d
Caulastrea spp. (18)
Sw Ie
26WN 352) esi] 5
Cynarina spp. (13)
Sev Le U
27 34 41 38
Diploastrea spp. (3)
SIME 1 uy)
DOW 2550135
Diploria spp. (3)
ST RME PLS TEU
Key el
Favia spp. (30)
SMa ea
25 31 41
Merulina spp. (3)
3 Wt Ye U
80 100 125
Millepora spp. (3)
Sa Maoeel U
60 80 100
Psammocora spp. (3)
S M L U
50 70 110
Oxypora spp. (9)
See Meare U
242 Sees,
Montipora spp. (17)
S MM Je
41 54 75 45
Mycedium spp. (4)
S wl Ib
50 678
Pachyseris spp. (12)
S it 1 WY
29 44 52
Scolymia spp. (18)
S mM Ji U
28) 32" "4248
Seriatopora spp.(16)
SMa 0)
307405 52
Stylaster spp. (3)
SD WM 1G. WY
20S
Favites spp. (20)
S Ww ib
22 OS.
Pavona spp. (9)
S>oM £ U
sh 45 XS
Stylophora spp. (15)
SIM EU
36 650) =—65
Nemenzophyllia spp. (12) Fungia spp. (21)
pen es Bee
Porites spp.(28) - _
SloMaeSt ae
31 45-63. 48
Trachyphyllia spp.(30)-
SMa ie
D6 3B eat
Blastomussa spp. (12)
S M L U
366 T4959
SMa EU
Pectinia spp. (12)
Ss IM ih \y
Symphyllia spp. (12)
S Wl Jb U
Heliopora spp. (9)
Si Mee aU)
268) 335639
Physogyra spp. (6)
SSM ee
34 47 68
30 38 35 31 43 54 Sil gy ety
Galaxea spp. (12) Pocillopora spp.12) Tubastraea spp.(30)
a Se OMe sr US Mi i Ue Se Nie ele)
- 30 37 48 g3 48 PU Bl BS
Tubipora spp. (15)
SSM ibe
24 29 34
Herpolitha spp. (3)
S OOM ES eu
40 60 80
Hydnophora spp. (22)
Se M aa eu
41 55 37h
Platygyra spp. (12)
SIM ie
33 45 52
Turbinaria spp. (24)
S VM wee U)
29) 37) 45
Polyphyllia spp. (24)
Sr aMiPe U
AS a) +)
The price of a 'typical' piece of live coral from the ten most traded genera
S M
Minimum 22 28
Maximum 39 53
L
33
78
The price of a 'typical' piece of live coral from other genera (Blastomussa - Turbinaria spp.)
Ss M
Minimum 19 24
Maximum 71 80
Notes:
L
32
100
The ten genera most frequently traded live (Figure 8) are shaded.
S = small, M = medium, L = large and U = unspecified size. The number of coral in each genus is
given in parentheses.
47
The Global Trade in Coral
Table 17. The retail prices in pounds sterling of 73 pieces of live coral in the
UK in 1999
Price in £ S M ML L XL U
Acropora spp. 8-11.5
Blastomussa spp. 6.5
Catalaphyllia spp. 4-10 12 14 25
Caulastrea spp. 325) 6.5 5-6.5
Cynarina spp. 2.25-5
Euphyllia spp. 2.5-5 5-7
Favia spp. 2
Favites spp. Died)
Fungia spp. WP h5)
Goniopora spp. 2.25-2.5
Galaxea spp. 2-5
Heliofungia spp. 2.25-3.5
Herpolitha spp. 2
Hydnophora spp. 6.5
Lobophyllia spp. 2.25-3.5
Merulina spp. 11.5
Nemenzophyllia spp. 335 5
Physogyra spp. 3 5 6
Plerogyra spp. 3 6 6
Pocillopora spp. 11.5
Polyphyllia spp. 22d
Porites spp. 4.5 6 eS 2
Scolmyia spp. 9.5
Seriatopora spp. IES
Symphyllia spp. 2
Trachyphyllia spp. 3 4.5-6 2
Tubastrea spp. 2.25 3.5 5 5
Tubipora spp. 3
Turbinaria spp. 2)
Notes:
S = small, M = medium, ML = medium large, L = large, XL = extra large and U = unspecified size. Data
source was the Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association, UK.
A survey of seven companies in North America selling live coral was conducted in
February 1999. Corals appear in the catalogues of companies which supply
organisms for the home aquarium, and are usually listed by species or genus, and
by size and colour. Prices among the ten most traded genera do not show much
variation - Acropora and Catalaphyllia spp. are again slightly more expensive for
a given size, presumably for the reasons previously given - and prices do not seem
to vary widely between different suppliers (Table 16). A superficial survey of
retail prices in the UK suggested that corals may be sold more cheaply than in the
USA at about £4.50 ($8) a piece (Table 17). Given the relative sizes of the USA
and UK markets (Figure 1) the prices in the former were taken as being the most
representative of the global trade.
48
9. The Economics of the Live Coral Trade
Figure 12. Size-frequency distribution of corals in the live trade
Frequency
Cumulative percentage
o Oo ¢ ooo 8
oN DO TOON DT TT FO ON DO
- = o Oo FY FS
Cross sectional area (cm?)
Notes:
Data taken from the specimens measured at two wholesale marine aquarium companies, and summarised in
Table 9. Ignoring small groups of specimens which are either very small or very large then small corals
(between 60-120 cm?) constitute 25% of trade, medium corals (between 120-340 cm?) constitute 65% and
large corals (between 340-540 cm?) constitute 10%.
The variation in retail price with size poses a problem when trying to calculate the
retail value of the international trade in live corals because it is necessary to have
some understanding of the relative amounts of different sized pieces being sold.
This can be obtained if the sample of live corals in Table 8 are assumed to be
globally representative: the size data can be used to determine the proportion of
‘small’, 'medium' and ‘large’ pieces in the international trade. Ignoring small groups
of specimens which are either very small or very large it would appear that 'small'
corals (between 60-120 cm?) constitute 25% of trade, 'medium' corals (between
120-340 cm”) constitute 65% and 'large' corals (between 340-540 cm?) constitute
10% (Figure 12). These quantitative definitions of size are somewhat arbitrary
because the classification of coral pieces for sale is undoubtedly qualitative, but
they are reasonable estimates based on the size frequency distribution of a large
number of live corals from different sources (Figure 12).
The total retail value of the live coral trade can then be estimated by combining the
size frequency of traded corals, the maximum and minimum retail value of 'typical'
pieces (Table 16) and the quantities traded (from the CITES database). Doing so
reveals that the retail value of the international trade in live corals has quadrupled
during the 1990s (Figure 13) and generated between $27-78 million in sales in
1997. The range occurs depending on whether the minimum or maximum retail
prices are used, and the actual retail value of the trade lies between the two.
Similarly the figures can be adjusted to take into account the trade in live rock: if
all records of live Scleractinia spp. are assumed to be live rock then the retail value
of the trade in 1997 was between $24-68 million (Figure 13).
49
The Global Trade in Coral
Figure 13. The retail value in 1997 US dollars of the international live coral
trade between 1985 and 1997
Retail value (1999 US$)
Retail value (1999 US$)
Notes:
Retail value is calculated in two ways: (top) assuming that all records of live Scleractinia spp. involved corals
of species not in the ten most traded genera, and (bottom) assuming that all records of live Scleractinia spp.
describe shipments of live rock. See text for further discussion.
Either way, at a first approximation, during the 1990s the international trade in live
corals generated increasing amounts of revenue to those tropical nations exporting
coral, who received $5 million (in 1999 US$) in 1997. This was converted into
approximately $50 million (in 1999 US$) of sales, primarily in the markets of
North America and Europe.
The sums in Figure 11 are estimates of the annual income of national coral
collecting agents who are the point of contact for foreign importers. In socio-
economic terms it is equally important to calculate the proportion of this revenue
which passes down the supply chain to people in coastal communities, whose
welfare is highly dependent on the reefs which supply the corals. This can be done
if an important assumption is made. Fishermen collecting corals for the ornamental
50
9. The Economics of the Live Coral Trade
trade from the waters around Cebu city, which was once the centre of the
Philippines trade in corals, were paid US$0.20 per piece of coral in 1983 (Ross,
1984). These fishermen were collecting 28 species of 17 genera, many of which
are still important in the global live trade today. After adjustment for inflation the
value of an item costing US$0.20 in 1983 is US$0.24 in 1999. If we assume that
this rate of pay is representative of what fishermen everywhere were being paid to
collect corals in 1997, then their revenue can be estimated. In 1997 a total of 3.3
million pieces of coral were traded globally. Under this assumption the coral
collectors received US$792,000 (in 1999 US$) from this trade. This is
approximately 15% of the revenue accruing to the collecting agencies, and 1.5% of
the retail value of the corals in the world market.
Figure 14. Schematic representation of the economics of the live coral trade
Home Aquarists North America and Europe
~ $50,000,000 ee
cole
Aquarium Wholesalers/Importers_|
~ $5,000,000 687 T (3,287,091 pieces)
of coral
De 4
National Collecting Agencies
~ $792,000
ee
Coral Collectors Developing Nations
of the Tropics
These figures may have to be adjusted if coral collectors are paid more for live
corals than dead but in the absence of this type of information the revenue flowing
along the chain of supply for live corals can be summarised as in Figure 14.
Conversely it should be noted that coral collectors could have received much less
than US$0.24 per piece because in 1980 coral divers in Mindanao were earning
just US$1 per day for gathering between 30-50 pieces (Alcera 1981, cited in
Mulliken and Nash, 1993). Using Alcera's figures in this calculation suggests that
collectors may have received only US$105,000 (in 1999 US$) or 2% of the
revenue generated in exporting nations by the sale of coral and a fraction of 1% of
its retail value in the market place. Typically collectors sell their harvest to village-
based dealers who in turn sell to the national collecting agencies/exporting
companies. Clearly statements concerning collector's income cannot be anything
but broad generalisations as the price which a village-based dealer receives for a
51
The Global Trade in Coral
piece of coral may vary substantially: Bentley (1998) states that these dealers
receive between 300-3000 Indonesian rupiahs (US$0.10-1.00) per piece. However
from this it should also be noted that the collectors, and village-based dealers, are
paid in local currency (and the Indonesian rupiah was very vulnerable in 1998)
while the national collecting agencies/exporting companies are paid in US dollars.
Ross (1984) also states that coral collectors can gather an average of 100 pieces
per day. Assuming that it takes the same amount of time to gather live and dead
corals then the 1997 harvest represents approximately 33,000 hours of labour for
the collectors who earned in the region of US$25 (in 1999 US$) per day.
52
10. THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE LIVE CORAL
TRADE
It is interesting and sensible to compare the possible effects of the coral trade with
other extractive and destructive practices on reefs. However the conclusion that
other factors are having worse impacts on coral reefs than collection for the
international trade is, in itself, hardly cause for satisfaction. On one hand the coral
trade may simply be another addition to the litany of pressures which have brought
about a decline in much of the world's coral reefs (Wilkinson, 1993). Alternatively
it may be a sustainable low impact, high value trade which, if managed properly,
could bring a much needed economic impetus to coral reef conservation. At the
global scale, comparison with other extractive and destructive practices illustrates
that the impact of the international coral trade is low: approximately 1000t
annually. Unlike many anthropogenic impacts on coral reefs it is relatively
straightforward to assess the value of allowing this trade to occur: approximately
$5 million per year. However it is far more difficult to judge whether the
international trade in live corals is sustainable in the sense that it is not removing
more coral than can be replaced by reproduction, recruitment and growth in the
wild.
Data on the age of corals in trade and their longevity in aquaria are central to a
discussion of the sustainability of the international trade. At the simplest level if a
three year old piece of coral is harvested from the wild and survives in an
aquarium for more than three years then sufficient time has passed for it to have
been replaced by natural processes. However this is not the case if that piece of
coral dies in less than three years, and the trade which brought the coral to the
aquarium cannot be sustainable by reproduction. The problems associated with
ageing corals in trade have already been discussed, but how long can they be
expected to survive in aquaria?
Again, answering this question is not straightforward as survival varies with many
factors, some within the control of the aquarist (e.g. quality of equipment, light and
heat regimes, pH, nutrient depletion, water movement, mechanical and chemical
filtration etc.) and some outside (e.g. care taken during collection and
transportation, condition of the coral on import). Furthermore keeping corals
successfully in an aquarium is time consuming, expensive and requires a thorough
understanding of biology and the technology associated with husbandry. The
willingness of aquarists to invest the necessary time and money, and the expertise
to do so efficiently, will vary. There is little doubt that some corals can survive for
long periods, in some cases almost indefinitely. The best documented case is that
of an Acropora species originally imported to Germany in the early 1980s.
Although it is impossible to ascertain the species of this coral (possibly because of
morphological changes induced by the aquarium environment), it is well known by
aquarium hobbyists and traders by the name of the owner of the mother colony,
Dietrich Stuber. Herr Stuber is credited with being the first person to
successfully grow hard corals in a closed aquarium system. He also freely
53
The Global Trade in Coral
Table 18. Characteristics of some common aquarium corals, summarised
from Fossa and Nilsen (1998b)
Species General Aquarium Suitability Toxicity Sensitivity
+
t
t
Acropora gemmifera
Acropora microphthalma
Acropora selago
Acropora cytherea
Acropora latistella
++ + + +
+ + + + +
Acropora elseyi
Acropora cervicornis
+++ + + +
2
Blastomussa spp.
Catalaphyllia jardinei
Caulastrea furcata
Cynarina lacrymalis
Euphyllia ancora
Euphyllia divisa
Euphyllia glabrescens
Favites abdita
Favites flexuosa
Fungia spp.
Galaxea fascicularis
Goniastrea retiformis
Heliofungia actiniformis
Herpolitha limax
v
Hydnophora spp.
Lobophyllia hemprichii
Montastrea valenciennesi
Montastrea curta
Montipora spp.
Oulophyllia crispa
Pavona cactus
Pectinia paeonia
Platygyra spp.
Plerogyra sinuosa
Pocillopora damicornis
++ ete et eeererteree te t+ + ++ + t+ t+
i
+++ ++ + + t+ +
a
t
'
+ +
2
Pocillopora verrucosa
Porites rus
+ +
Psammocora contigua
Seriatopora hystrix
Stylophora pistillata
Tubipora musica
t
+++ + + + +
2
2
Turbinaria mesenterina
Turbinaria peltata
Turbinaria reniformis
+++ oF ¢ 4+ ¢+ 4+ 4+
2
+++
+ + +
Notes:
The relative toxicity of the species is a measure of how dangerous it is to other aquarium inhabitants.
Sensitivity refers to how sensitive the species is to unfavourable environmental factors in general, but also to
how strongly it is likely to react to toxins from other species. The + sign indicates a characteristic favourable
for a mixed species aquarium, i.e. General Aquarium Suitability = good spp. (+), intermediate spp. (~) or poor
spp. (-), toxicity = weak spp. (+), intermediate spp. (~) or strong spp. (-) and sensitivity = not sensitive spp.
(+), intermediate spp. (~) or very sensitive spp. (-). Unavailable data are indicated by a zero.
10. The Sustainability of the Live Coral Trade
distributed fragments so that there are several hundred aquarists who keep clones
of 'Stuber's Acropora’ not only in Germany but also Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
the Netherlands, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Bahrain, the USA and
Canada. For the last 5-6 years clones have been commercially available from an
American company (Fossa, personal communication). There are similar examples
from Blastomussa spp., Cycloseris sp., Fungia spp., Pavona cactus, Pocillopora
damicornis and P. verrucosa, Seriatopora hystrix, and Stylophora pistillata
(Fossa, personal communication) and the Waikiki Aquarium in Hawaii has many
colonies between five and ten years of age (Atkinson et al., 1995). Aspects of the
biology of these corals appear to make them generally suitable and successful in
aquaria (Table 18), although it would be misleading to assume that their care is
simple.
However examples of long lived colonies perpetually propagated by fragmentation
must be exceptions. Otherwise it is hard to see how the industry could thrive if
aquarists only bought corals from a desire to vary the species they have on display.
Corals other than those listed in Table 18 do not fare so well. For example,
Heliopora and Goniopora spp. usually do not survive much more than a year
(Delbeek, personal communication). Obviously, there is a world of difference
between what is possible and what is actually achieved in the home aquarium. For
example, a survey of UK aquarists revealed that corals do not survive much longer
than two years (Jarvis, personal communication). Similar claims have been made
for home aquaria in the USA; Derr (1992) cites work which concluded that
complete mortality occurs after 18 months. A study by Baquero (1991) registered
76% mortality in Scleractinian corals kept in aquaria of various sizes over 18
months. Even species believed to survive robustly in aquaria, such as Plerogyra
sinuosa (54%) and Catalaphyllia jardinei (60%), suffered high mortality (Table
19).
Table 19. The mortality of Scleractinia corals in aquaria
33 50 80 100 125 180 Mortality
Catalaphyllia spp. 1 (2) 1 (4) 1 (3) 2 (3) 3 (7) 0d) 60%
Euphyllia ancora 0(7) 0 (5) 1 (2) 0 (2) 4 (16) 0d) 84%
Euphyllia glabrescens 3 (7) 3 (9) 2 (10) 1 (6) 4 (24) 0(2) 77%
Goniopora spp. 1 (6) 1 (9) 0 (8) 0 (3) 0 (15) 0d) 95%
Heliofungia spp. 0 (3) 0 (2) 0 (3) 0 (1) 0 (9) 0d) 100%
Plerogyra spp. 3 (5) 3 (5) 1 (2) 1 (1) 4 (13) - 54%
Scolymia spp. 4(5) 2 (4) 2 (2) 1(1) 4 (4) 1 (1) 17%
Tubastrea spp. 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (3) 0() 100%
Total 12 (37) 10(40) 7(32) 5 (19) 19(91) 1(8) 76%
Notes:
A total of 228 pieces were maintained in aquaria ranging from 33-180US gallons (125-680litres) over 18
months. Figures are total number of pieces alive after 18 months (total number of pieces). Data taken from
Baquero (1992).
Although reef aquarists in the UK are regarded as being years behind those in
North America and Europe (Fossa and Delbeek, personal communications) some
mortality must occur everywhere. An estimated 1200t of live coral is presently
maintained in USA aquaria yet twice this amount (2427t) was imported during the
55
The Global Trade in Coral
1990s (Figure 15). Presumably the rest died (as re-exports of coral from the USA
to third party nations are not included in this calculation).
Corals may die in the first few weeks after import because of insufficient packing,
handling and delays in transport. They may also die during the first few months in
an aquarium (i) as a result of the long term effects of stress, (ii) because they end
up with aquarists who lack the necessary knowledge on coral husbandry, (iii)
because they belong to less hardy species or (iv) because sufficient knowledge on
husbandry does not exist. The mortality at these different stages has been
estimated at: less than one month, 3-6%; 1-18 months, 20-25%; 1.5-5 years, 17-
20%; more than 5 years 52-58% (Fossa, personal communication).
Figure 15. Cumulative imports of live corals to the USA, as recorded by
CITES 1985-1997
SS PF FP LS
SF FF FF LF LK
CV ga SS
PF FF fF FL
The uncertainty associated both with the age of corals in trade, and more so with
coral longevity in aquaria, means that it is not possible to state categorically that
the global trade in live coral is sustainable. Conversely it is not possible to
condemn the trade for being unsustainable. What is more likely is that the trade in
those species known to flourish in aquaria (i.e. those with the ability to establish
viable colonies from fragments, fast growth rates, good reattachment ability) is
probably sustainable and that the trade in other species is probably not.
Improvements in husbandry techniques and in the spread of this expertise amongst
aquarists will serve to improve the situation. Conversely if the hobby expands so
rapidly that large numbers of poorly prepared, semi-committed people are attracted
to the hobby then the opposite may occur.
PROPAGATION OF CORALS BY FRAGMENTATION
Two activities, fragmentation and mariculture, may potentially serve to reduce the
quantity of coral being collected in the wild.
Fragmentation is an important means of asexual reproduction for many coral
species (Richmond and Hunter, 1990) and these species typically survive well in
aquaria (Table 20). Fragments of these species are frequently traded between
56
10. The Sustainability of the Live Coral Trade
Table 20. The viability in aquaria of some coral species which may be
propagated by fragmentation spp.
Species Fragment Viability Husbandry
Acropora cervicornis Good Difficult
Acropora palmata Good Difficult
Pocillopora damicornis Good Marginal
Acropora cytheria Fair Marginal
Porites compressa Good Marginal
Turbinaria spp. Good Marginal
Pocillopora meandrina Unknown Unsuccessful
Acropora monticulosa Poor Unsuccessful
Acropora florida Good Probable
Seriatopora hystrix Good Successful
Stylophora pistillata Good Successful
Acropora aspera Good Successful
Acropora digitera Poor Successful
Acropora echinata Good Successful
Acropora elseyi Good Successful
Acropora formosa Excellent Successful
Acropora glauca Good Successful
Acropora microphthalma Excellent Successful
Acropora pulchra Good Successful
Acropora subglabra Good Successful
Acropora verweyi Good Successful
Acropora valida Good Successful
Montipora digitata Excellent Successful
Montipora verrucosa Good Successful
Anacropora spp. Excellent Successful
Goniopora spp. Good Successful
Goniopora stokesi Good Successful
Pavona cactus Good Successful
Diaseris fragilis Excellent Successful
Zoopilus echinatus Good Successful
Herpolitha limax Unknown Successful
Polyphyllia talpina Good Successful
Cynarina lacrymalis Poor Successful
Lobophyllia hemprichii Good Successful
Hydnophora rigida Good Successful
Caulastrea furcata Good Successful
Euphyllia spp. Good Successful
Catalaphyllia jardinei Good Successful
Plerogyra sinuosa Good Successful
Montipora ramosa Good Unknown
Notes:
Taken from Yates and Carlson, 1992
57
The Global Trade in Coral
aquarists who need to regularly 'prune' their colonies to prevent overcrowding or
antagonistic behaviour between adjacent species. This provides an alternative
supply source to corals harvested from the wild, one which would only be
monitored by CITES records if the fragments were shipped internationally.
The Waikiki Aquarium distributed 780 in fragments 1997 and 505 in 1998,
although it had more orders than could be processed (Carlson, personal
communication) and about 40% of aquarists have obtained up to a third of their
hard corals from fragments (Table 10). Fragments therefore seem to be a useful
source of some species on occasions, but the majority of colonies in the majority
of aquaria have been harvested from the wild and traded internationally, and this is
unlikely to change.
CORAL FARMING (MARICULTURE)
It is possible to grow corals in the wild and over the past few years coral farms
have been established, especially in the Solomon Islands which appears to supply
most of the cultured coral for the USA. The species being grown are again those
with fast growth rates which can be easily propagated by fragmentation, mainly
Acropora spp. and some Pocillopora spp. (Table 20). Many of these farms are
small scale local businesses, frequently managed by women who collect growing
tips from large colonies in the wild. These fragments are cultivated in the sea
suspended from fishing line until the colonies are large enough to be sold into the
aquarium trade. Although there is an initial impact on wild colonies, the collection
sites can be rotated so that the mother colonies can recover.
The retail prices of cultured corals (Table 21) are comparable to those harvested
from the wild (Table 16), presumably because the amount of labour involved in
collecting seed fragments is comparable to that involved in collecting larger,
saleable pieces. Importantly aquarists seem to be willing to buy them (Table 10).
However it is difficult to find outlets which sell cultured corals (Kirda, personal
communication). A survey of marine wholesale companies in the USA in 1999
found only two selling cultured corals, in both cases from the Solomon Islands.
Outlets may either fail to appreciate that aquarists are willing to buy cultured
corals, or perhaps aquarists, who in the past have shown a reluctance to buy
cultured fish if they were less colourful or differently patterned to wild animals,
over estimate their readiness to buy.
However it is more likely that the opportunity of purchasing cultured corals is
constrained by supply. CITES data reveal that the amount of cultured (‘bred in
captivity’) coral being traded internationally is tiny, much less than 1% of the
annual total in terms of either weight or numbers of pieces. Whilst trade in some
cultured coral may not be recorded by CITES permits (e.g. because the Solomon
Islands are not a signatory to the Convention) it would appear that culturing
schemes have a long way to go before they can supply coral in quantities which
are significant compared to those harvested directly from the wild. Having said
that there has been a steady increase in the amount of cultured coral being traded
58
10. The Sustainability of the Live Coral Trade
with no records up to 1989, just 11kg in 1990, 110kg in 1996 and 2442kg in 1997.
However the term 'bred in captivity' is strictly defined under Resolution 10.16 of
CITES. This definition, which requires amongst other criteria specimens to have
been ‘maintained without the introduction of specimens from the wild, except for
the occasional addition of animals, eggs or gametes' and to have ‘produced
offspring of second generation (F2) or subsequent generation (F3, F4, etc.) ina
controlled environment’, would not include the products of these coral farms. In
this sense the coral recorded as being ‘bred in captivity’ is an error in reporting.
Table 21. The retail price of cultured corals from two USA suppliers surveyed
in 1999
Species
Acropora austera
Acropora cerealis
Acropora digitifera
Acropora echinata
Acropora horrida
Acropora millepora
Acropora millepora
Acropora millepora
Acropora millepora
Acropora secale
Acropora secale
Acropora selago
Acropora spp.
Acropora tenuis
Acropora tenuis
Acropora valida
Acropora valida
Caulastrea furcata
Fungia spp.
Hydnophora spp.
Monitpora spp.
Montipora digitata
Montipora stellata
Montipora verrucosa
Pachyseris spp.
Pectinia spp.
Pocillopora damicornis
Pocillopora damicornis
Pocillopora spp.
Pocillopora verrucosa
Pocillopora verrucosa
Stylophora pistillata
Heliopora spp.
Montipora capricornis
Small
$25
$30
$40
$40
$40
$30
$35
$30
$30
$30
$35
$29
$50
$30
$30
$25
$30
$25
$15
$20
$30
$25
$35
$30
$30
$40
$30
$40
$40
$35
Large
$30
$50
$50
$50
$35
$35
$60
$40
$35
$35
$25
$60
$30
$30
$40
$50
$35
$50
$50
Fragments $20 up to full colonies @ $35
Fragments $10 up to full colonies @ $35
Montipora digitata Fragments $20 up to full colonies @ $35
59
The Global Trade in Coral
INDONESIAN EXPORT QUOTAS
The imposition of quotas in certain species is one method that attempts to restrict
trade to sustainable levels. There are many reasons for setting quotas - one is to
ensure an annual export that can be theoretically sustained by wild populations
without detriment. Trade in these species is supposed to cease once the quota has
been filled. In practice for most species listed under CITES, including corals, the
quotas are based on very limited data and it is frequently difficult to ascertain
whether there is any real basis for accepting that trade at the quota level is in fact
sustainable.
Indonesia has established quotas for some corals in consultation with the CITES
Secretariat. In 1997 these applied to 39 genera (Table 22). Table 22 demonstrates
that for eight of the most important genera in the live trade, and two of the most
important genera in the dead trade (Tubipora spp. and Fungia spp.), the number of
pieces being exported were much less than the quota. In other words the quotas
were meaningless in terms of the amount of coral being traded in 1997 and could
be reduced substantially. More pieces of Euphyllia spp., Goniopora spp.,
Catalaphyllia spp., Trachyphyllia spp. and Heliofungia spp. are traded than any
other genera. These genera have the highest quotas despite there being no
scientific reason to suppose that they are capable of supporting higher harvests
than other genera. It is therefore easier to believe that these quotas have been set at
levels which will not interfere with trade than at levels which will ensure
sustainability. Acropora and Pocillopora spp. are probably more resilient to
collection by virtue of their success at asexual reproduction through fragmentation.
However the number of pieces of Acropora and Pocillopora spp. traded, as
recorded on export permits issued by the Indonesian CITES authorities (and not
including unused or cancelled permits as occurred in years prior to 1997), greatly
exceeded the quota (Table 22). Clearly there was a failure to regulate, and stop,
trade in these species once the quota had been filled.
Up to 1998 export quotas were based on genera, but those for 1999 are based on
individual species. Wellsophyllia spp. is now considered to be a synonym of
Trachyphyllia spp. (Table 7) and so was not assigned a separate quota for 1999
(Table 22). When the quotas for 1997 and 1999 are compared, by summing the
quotas for congeneric species, it is clear that while some have been reduced
substantially (e.g. Tubipora spp., Favia spp., Hydnophora spp., Favites spp. and
Cataphyllia spp.) the majority of quotas have been increased. In fact 24 of the 39
quotas have been increased from 1997. Furthermore problems of species'
identification (Box 2) will probably make the application of these quotas more
difficult. There is no obligation for Indonesia or any other country to set quotas,
and it may be argued that a willingness to do so is commendable. However if
quotas are set at levels which are unrealistically high in comparison to the levels of
trade, and if trade in some genera exceeds the quota without being restricted, then
their value as a management tool for the sustainability of trade must be questioned.
60
10. The Sustainability of the Live Coral Trade
Table 22. Indonesian coral export quotas (numbers of pieces) for 1997
compared to the number of pieces traded, as calculated from the CITES
database, and the quotas set for 1999
Genera 1997 Pieces Difference 1999 % change
Quota traded between quota Quota from
in 1997 and amount traded 1997
Euphyllia spp. 124,200 65,169 -59,031 126,000 +]
Goniopora spp. 111,600 66,115 -45,485 135,000 +21
Catalaphyllia spp. 89,775 51,698 -38.077 67,500 -25
Trachyphyllia spp. 72,000 42.177 -29,823 83,700 +16
Heliofungia spp. 45,000 23,227 -21,773 57,600 +28
Tubastraea spp. 32,850 14,162 -18,688 NQ
Turbinaria spp. 27,000 11,793 -15,207 34,700 +29
Plerogyra spp. 45,000 29,871 -15,129 36,000 -20
Lobophyllia spp. 24,750 12,805 -11,945 27,900 +13
Caulastrea spp. 18,000 8,053 -9,947 21,600 +20
Nemenzophyllia spp. 18,000 8,537 -9,463 NQ
Pa Galaxea spp. 15,750 6,303 -9,447 22,950 +46
ES Hydnophora spp. 15,750 6,895 -8,855 19,440 +23
= Physogyra spp. 15,750 7,090 -8,660 10,800 -31
3 Tubipora spp. 19,350 11,439 -7,911 10,350 -47
= Blastomussa spp. 8,550 2,471 -6,079 8,100 -5
3 Fungia spp. 9,000 4,304 -4,696 13,000 +44
= Favia spp. 9,000 4,332 -4,668 4,500 -50
= Favites spp. 9,000 5,074 -3,926 5,850 -35
Z Polyphyllia spp. 6,300 2,384 -3,916 900 -85
3 Wellsophyllia spp. 9,000 5,282 -3,718 NQ*
a Montastrea spp. 4,500 1,904 -2,596 5,760 +28
Cynarina spp. 7,200 4,840 -2,360 9,900 +38
Scolymia spp. 3,600 1,298 -2,302 3,600 0
Symphyllia spp. 2,250 568 -1,682 1,440 -36
Merulina spp. 1,800 1,043 -757 2,700 +50
Herpolitha spp. 900 288 -612 1,260 +40
Pavona spp. 675 201 -474 1,080 +60
Goniastrea spp. 450 116 -334 810 +80
Distichopora spp. 225 12 -213 NQ
Diploastrea spp. 225 22 -203 270 +20
Montipora spp. 900 700 -200 2,070 +130
Seriatopora spp. 225, 59 -166 900 +300
Pectinia spp. 675 517 -158 900 +33
3 Stylophora spp. 450 502 52 900 +100
3 3 Porites spp. 25,200 25,727 527 33,750 +34
= = Millepora spp. 675 1,253 578 NQ
rs 3 Acropora spp. 31,600 34,484 2,884 33,300 +5
z = Pocillopora spp. 2,700 13,005 10,305 6,300 +133
n
Notes:
The top ten genera in the live coral trade spp. (Figure 8) are shaded. Note that 1997 was the first year in which
Indonesia reported on the basis of actual items traded, not permits issued, so reducing the over-estimation of
trade which had occurred in previous years. NQ = no quota for 1999 spp. (Wellsophyllia is now considered to
be a synonym of Trachyphyllia and so was not assigned a separate quota for 1999).
61
ee Me ee
eye fee aie Gwe. dale
11. CONCLUSIONS
Thirteen years of data of the international trade in hard corals are available in the
CITES Trade Database and no comparable source of information exists. The
volume of information available (more than 300,000 database records) and the
scope of coverage (permits for transactions between 143 parties to the Convention)
allow the trade to be set in a truly global context. However, it soon becomes
apparent when using CITES coral data in this way that there are two aspects of the
reporting process which have to be emphasised clearly before drawing summary
conclusions from them.
Firstly, only a tiny minority of records identified specimens to species despite an
obligation under CITES to do so (Chapter 3). With the majority of records (98% in
1997) not recording species any analysis at that taxonomic level would be
pointless, and therefore the effectiveness of CITES in monitoring trade in
individual coral species is low. There can be little doubt that this feature of the
CITES data is a direct result of the practical difficulties of coral taxonomy and the
detailed examination of large numbers of specimens which would be necessary to
record the species in trade accurately. Data presented in Box 2 would suggest that
about 20 minutes is required to identify a single piece of Acropora spp., a genus
which is important in both the live and dead trade. Millions of pieces of coral are
exported on an annual basis and so the recording of coral species under CITES is
never likely to be a practical, or even desirable, use of available monitoring
resources. While it may be constitutionally difficult within the framework of the
Convention to make an exception in the case of corals, nonetheless we would
propose that consideration be given to reporting corals at the genus level only,
given that this appears to be common practice now and that it is unlikely to
change. Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrate that the global trade can be monitored using
generic data, and Chapters 8-10 illustrate that generic data can then be used to
assess the effects and value of trade. However, it would be misleading to assume
that the identification of coral genera is highly accurate simply because the
problems of species identification are avoided by recording specimens to a higher
taxonomic level (Box 3). Investment in measures which would increase the
capacity of personnel involved in the reporting process to identify coral genera
appears to be needed. These measures might include the development of a
comprehensive identification guide specifically designed for a non-scientific
audience having to record the taxa of both live and dead corals in trade. Ideally
any such guide should include (i) colour photographs of live corals, (ii) diagrams
of common growth forms, and (iii) line diagrams of skeletal detail, especially
polyp structure. This is not to imply that past CITES data, at genus level, do not
provide detailed information on the taxonomy of the coral trade (see Table 7 and
Figure 8) — indeed they can be used to monitor changes in the international trade to
factors affecting it (Chapter 7).
Secondly, the use of different units on CITES permits means that a global analysis
of the coral trade is absolutely dependent on the use of a conversion factor based
63
The Global Trade in Coral
on the weight of a typical piece of coral in trade. This was used to convert
numerical records to weight and vice versa, and any error in this conversion factor
will therefore have skewed the results proportionately. The need for a reliable
conversion factor is evident from only a superficial glance at CITES trade data for
corals — without it one is faced with the difficult task of trying to interpret data of
different units. Furthermore in the absence of a reliable conversion factor
shipments would have to be recorded only by a number of pieces, a qualitative
measure of limited use, or weighed directly. Weighing live corals will always be
problematical because of the care necessary to avoid bias in the measurement by
including water, yet the specimens must be kept wet in order to avoid damage and
undue disturbance to the living coral. We propose therefore, on the basis of data
presented in Chapter 5, that a value of 200g per piece be used for live corals. We
would also recommend that renewed attention be give to the USA resolution that
reports of trade in specimens of coral transported in water should record the
number of pieces traded (Chapter 2) and that these records should then be
converted to kilograms. In contrast shipments of dead coral can be weighed
directly more easily than live. For those shipments of dead coral recorded by
number of pieces we propose that a conversion value of 500g per piece is reliable.
This value is based on the data presented in Box 1, for corals which were
presumably intended to supply the same market as legally imported items, and
which were also in close agreement to the conversion factor suggested in the
Amendments to Appendices I and II of CITES (Anon., 1989). In the case of dead
corals there are no advantages to using a conversion factor and it would therefore
be preferable to avoid one altogether, if possible. For these reasons the second
component of the USA resolution, that reports on trade on coral specimens other
than specimens of coral transported in water should record the weight in kilograms
(Chapter 2), seems as sensible as the first. Indeed given the importance of records
which identify taxa as Scleractinia spp., 46% by weight of all coral traded between
1985-1997, then renewed attention to the third component of the USA resolution
(Chapter 2) is probably also necessary so that the reporting of coral rock and
derived material might be standardised.
Acknowledging these two features of CITES coral data it was possible to estimate
the quantity of coral that has been traded between 1985-1997, and to use the
weight of coral to illustrate the trade links between exporting and importing
nations, and trading regions (Chapter 4). Seventy nations imported a total of
19,262t of coral from 120 exporting nations over this period. The USA has
accounted for more than half of the global trade, being supplied mainly by both the
Philippines and Indonesia in the 1980s, and Indonesia in the 1990s. In total the
USA imported more than three times the amount of coral going into the EU and
about twice as much as the rest of the world combined. Over these thirteen years
Taiwan and China, important exporters of coral in the 1980s and early 1990s
respectively, reduced their coral exports by several orders of magnitude, while Fiji
and the Solomon Islands have increased theirs substantially (Figure 5). Regionally
exports from South East Asia were an order of magnitude greater than those from
the Pacific and two orders of magnitude more than the Caribbean and Indian
Ocean. Present levels of traded coral, about 1000t per year, are comparable with
the 1980s. The value of a reliable conversion factor was illustrated in the analysis
64
11. Conclusions
of data for black corals — the lack of data on the weight of a typical piece of black
coral precluded meaningful interpretation of the data for those genera (Chapter 6).
The recording of the term ‘live’ on CITES permits is probably very reliable as
specimens shipped in water or damp containers are clearly intended to be live
rather than dead. This means that the trade in live corals for aquaria can be
examined separately from the trade in dead corals for curios and ornaments
(Chapter 5), revealing that very different genera are targeted by the live and dead
coral trades. Genera with delicate branching or mushroom growth forms dominate
the trade in dead corals, while the live trade mainly consists of genera with large
colourful polyps which can be seen during the day; features of obvious interest to
aquarists. In the 1980s the coral trade consisted almost entirely of these dead
corals, but there was a substantial increase in the amount of live coral traded each
year throughout the 1990s so that in 1997 more than half of the global trade was in
live specimens. Although quantitative data are not available, anecdotal information
would suggest that there has been a similar substantial increase in the number of
home aquaria in the USA, the principal importing nation. Certainly the 1990s saw
great advances in techniques for coral husbandry, falling prices of equipment and a
large expansion in international air freight services all of made such a large
increase in the live coral trade possible.
CITES trade data allow the environmental impact of the global trade in coral to be
estimated. The effects on coral populations of harvesting specimens for the
aquarium trade can be profound but are likely to localised and, on a global scale,
minimal because the amount of coral harvested is small (Chapter 8). Although
small, is the global harvest in live corals for the aquarium trade sustainable
through natural rates of reproduction and regeneration? An answer to this question
is not readily available because of the difficulty of (i) assessing the age of corals in
trade, and (ii) the variability in rates of mortality in aquaria. It is best then to
conclude that trade in those species known to flourish in aquaria may be
sustainable and that trade in other species is probably not (Chapter 10).
An economic assessment of the global trade in coral is possible when CITES data
are combined with export and retail prices (Chapter 9). The trade in live corals
generated a revenue to exporting nations of approximately $5 million (in 1999
US$) in 1997, the most recent year for which CITES data are available. While this
revenue is certainly tiny in the context of international trade, the aquarium industry
is unusual in the context of human impacts on coral reefs in that the monetary
value of the disturbance can be estimated. In 1997 $5 million dollars were
generated by the sale of 687t of live coral, so the trade can be valued at
approximately $7000 per tonne (in 1999 US$).By comparison the value of lime
produced from coral reported by Cesar (1996) was approximately $60 per tonne
(in 1999 US$).The value of the trade in live coral may be relatively high compared
with some other extractive activities but globally it is neither a high value nor a
high impact industry. On the basis of the data presented here it would be more
realistic to conclude that, globally, it is a low value business with little long term
impact.
65
en ademas nim Cin nhs a : an tial = a *
pase A nae a aa oa LN TP iS Seg aay eet ae
feat! i <
REFERENCES
Alcera, V.B. 1981. The coral industry of Zamboanga-Basilan-Sulu area. In: Coral
Reef, Proceedings of Symposium Workshop, December 1980. Quezon City,
Philippines.
Anon. 1989. Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention, Other
Proposals. 3rd Meeting of Conference of the Parties to CITES, Lausanne,
Switzerland, 9-20th October 1989. p85-104.
Armstrong, J. and Crawford, J. 1998. Convention on international trade in
endangered species of wild fauna and flora. Coral reefs, challenges and
opportunities for sustainable management. Eds: Hatziolos, M.E., Hooten,
A.J. and Fodor, M. Proceedings of an associated event of the 5th Annual
World Bank Conference on Environmentally and Socially Sustainable
Development. The World Bank, Washington D.C., 65-67.
Atkinson, M.J., Carlson, B. and Crow, G.L. 1995. Coral growth in high nutrient,
low pH seawater: a case study of corals cultured at the Waikiki Aquarium,
Honolulu, Hawaii. Coral Reefs, 14:215-223.
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, M.B. 1997. Trade in living corals and stones. Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Coelenterate Biology, 1995. p47-52.
Bosscher, H. 1993. Computerised tomography and skeletal density of coral
skeletons. Coral Reefs, 12:97-103.
Brown, B.E, and Dunne, R.P. 1988. The impact of coral mining on coral reefs in
the Maldives. Environmental Conservation, 15:159-165.
Bryant, D., Burke, L., McManus, J and Spalding, M. 1998. Reefs at Risk, A Map-
Based Indicator of Threats to the World's Coral Reefs. World Resources
Institute, Washington D.C. 56pp.
Buddemeier, R.W. and Kinzie, R.A. 1976. Coral growth. Oceanography and
Marine Biology Annual Reviews, 14:179-200.
Cesar, H. 1996. Economic analysis of Indonesian coral reefs. The World Bank,
Washington D.C., USA. p97.
67
The Global Trade in Coral
CITES. 1984. CITES Identification Manual, Volume 4.
Derr, M. 1992. Raiders of the reef. Audubon Magazine, 48(2): 48-54, 56.
Edwards, S.R. and Nash, S.V. 1992. Wild bird trade: perceptions and management
in Indonesia. In: Thomsen, J.B., Edwards, S.R. and Mulliken, T.A. (Eds.).
Perceptions, conservation and management of wild birds in trade. TRAFFIC
International, Cambridge, UK. 165pp.
Fossa, S.A. and Nilsen, A.J. 1998a. Korallenriff-Aquarium, Band 6. Birgit
Schmettkamp Verlag, Bornheim, Germany, 592pp.
Fossa, S.A. and Nilsen, A.J. 1998b. The modern coral reef aquarium. Volume 2.
Birgit Schmettkamp Verlag, Bornheim, Germany, 479pp.
Garrett, R.N. 1977. Impact of commercial coral collecting. Unpublished report.
Research Session, Northern Fisheries Committee, CSIRO, Cleveland. 157-
159.
Gomez, E.D., Alcala, A.C., Yap, H.T., Alcala, L.C. and Alino, P.M. 1985. Growth
studies of commercially important Scleractinians. Proceedings of the 5th
International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti. Volume 6: p199-204.
Grigg, R.W. 1977. Fishery management of precious corals in Hawaii. Proceedings
of the 3rd International Coral Reef Symposium, 609-616.
Grigg, R.W. 1976. Fishery management of precious and stony corals in Hawaii.
Sea Grant Technical Report, NUIHI. Sea Grant TR-77-03, University of
Hawaii, 48pp.
Harrison, P.L. and Wallace, C.C. 1990. Reproduction, dispersal and recruitment of
scleractinian corals. In Ed. Z. Dubinsky, Ecosystems of the World: Coral
Reefs. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 550pp.
Kinzie, R.A. 1996. Reefs happen. Global Change Biology, 2: 479-494.
Kirkby, D.L. 1992. A historical overview of CITES with emphasis on the import
and export of corals. American Association Zoological Parks and Aquariums
/Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums 1992 Annual
Conference Proceedings. p 534-542.
Maragos, J. 1978.Coral growth: geometrical relationships. In: Eds. Stoddart, D.R.
and Johannes, R.E., Handbook of coral reef research methods, Unesco,
Paris, Vol. 5: 543-550.
McManus, J.W. 1980. Philippine coral exports: the coral drain. ICLARM
Newsletter, January, 18-20.
68
References
Mood, A.M. 1950. An introduction to the theory of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New
York, USA. 433pp.
Mulliken, T and Nash, S. 1993. The recent trade in Philippine corals. TRAFFIC
Bulletin, 13(3): 97-105.
O'Brien Shoup, C. and Gaski, A.L. 1995. Trade in CITES listed hard corals.
TRAFFIC USA, Washington D.C., USA. 133pp.
Oliver, J. and McGinnity, P. 1985. Commercial coral collecting on the Great
Barrier Reef. Proceedings of the 5th International Coral Reef Congress,
Tahiti. Volume 5, p563-568.
Polunin, N.V. 1983. The marine resources of Indonesia. Oceanography and
Marine Biology Review, 21, 455-531.
Richmond, R.H. and Hunter, C.L. 1990. Reproduction and recruitment of corals:
comparisons among the Caribbean, the tropical Pacific and the Red Sea.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 60:185-203.
Ross, M.A. 1984. A quantitative study of the stony coral fishery in Cebu,
Philippines. P.S.Z.N.I. Marine Ecology, 5 (1):75-91.
Rubec, P.J. 1988. The need for conservation and management of Philippine coral
reefs. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 23 (1-2):141-154.
Sheppard, C. 1998. Corals of the Indian Ocean. CD-ROM.
Spalding, M and Grenfell, A. 1998. New estimates of global and regional coral
reef areas. Coral Reefs, 16:225-230.
University of the Philippines Marine Sciences Center. 1982. Investigation of the
coral resources of the Philippines. Phase III Final Report. Marine Sciences
Center, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
University of the Philippines Marine Sciences Center. 1980. Investigation of the
coral resources of the Philippines. Phase III-A Final Report. Marine Sciences
Center, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
University of the Philippines Marine Sciences Center. 1979. Investigation of the
coral resources of the Philippines. Phase II Final Report. Marine Sciences
Center, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
Veron, J.E.N. 1986. Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific. Angus and
Robertson, North Ryde, Australia.
69
The Global Trade in Coral
Wallace, C.C. and Wolstenholme, J. 1998. Revision of the coral genus Acropora
(Scleractinia: Astrocoeniina: Acroporidae) in Indonesia. Zoological Journal
of the Linnean Society, 123:199-384.
Wells, S.M. and Barzdo, J.G. 1991. International trade in marine species: is CITES
a useful control mechanism? Coastal Management, 19:135-154.
Wells, S.M. and Wood, E. 1989. A strong case for hard corals in CITES.
TRAFFIC Bulletin, 10(3/4):40-44.
Wells, S.M. 1985. Stony corals, a case for CITES. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 7(1):9-11.
Wells, S.M. 1981. The coral trade in the Philippines. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 3(5):50-
51.
Wilkinson, C. 1993. Coral reefs are facing widespread devastation: can we prevent
this through sustainable management practices? Proceedings of the 7th
International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam, 1992, Volume 1.p11-21.
Wood, E.M. 1983. Corals of the World. T.F.H Publications, Redhill, Surrey.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1999. Checklist of fish and invertebrates
listed in the CITES Appendices and in the Annexes of the Council of the
European Union Regulation (EC) No. 338/97. 4th edition. Joint Nature
Conservation Committee Report No. 292. 239pp.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1996. A guide to interpreting outputs
from the WCMC CITES Trade Database Version 3.1 September. Wildlife
Trade Monitoring Unit, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge,
UK.
World Trade Atlas. 1999. World Trade Atlas, US Edition. Source data, US
Department of Commerce.
Yates, K.R. and Carlson, B.A. 1992. Corals in aquariums: how to use selective
collecting and innovative husbandry to promote reef conservation.
Proceedings of the 7th International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam, 1992,
Volume 2. p1091- 1095.
Zar, J.H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
USA. 662pp.
70
WORLD CONSERVATION
MONITORING CENTRE
The Global Trade in Coral
This study assesses the global trade in coral in an ecological and
economic context. Throughout the report emphasis is placed on the trade
in live coral for aquaria because the last decade has seen an enormous
increase in this business. The taxonomic composition of the trade is
identified and the quantities of coral passing between nations illustrate the
links between major exporters and importers. Subsequent chapters
present data on the practicalities of monitoring international trade in coral
at the global scale. In the last two chapters size and growth rate data are
used to assess the sustainability of the trade in live coral: export and retail
prices are used to estimate the revenue to exporting nations.
The WCWC Biodiversity Series presents the results of projects carried
out by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, often in partnership
with other organisations.
Other titles in the series:
Biodiversity Data Sourcebook
The Biodiversity Clearing House - Concept and Challenges
Priorities for Conserving Global Species Richness and Endemism
The Diversity of the Seas: a regional approach
Assessing Biodiversity Status and Sustainability
Biodiversity Conservation in the Tropics
Industrial Reliance on Biodiversity
Freshwater Biodiversity: a preliminary global assessment
DANAaARWN =
The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, based in Cambridge, UK,
was established in 1988 as a company limited by guarantee with
charitable status. WWCMC is managed as a joint venture between the three
partners in the World Conservation Strategy and its successor Caring
For The Earth: IUCN - The World Conservation Union, UNEP - United
Nations Environment Programme, and WWF - World Wide Fund for
Nature. WCMC provides information services on the conservation and
sustainable use of the world's living resources and helps others to
develop information systems of their own.
fe @
(Co) Ky
XN
Wee lo
Meuewcmminines LU NEP WWE
Further information is available from
World Conservation Monitoring Centre
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1223 277314
Fax: +44 (0)1223 277136
Email: info@wcmc.org.uk
ISBN 1 899628 13 4
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11