Rapid Ecological Assessment - Indo-Pacific Images

FINAL DRAFT 

Report on a rapid ecological assessment 

of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua, Eastern Indonesia 

held October 30 – November 22, 2002 

PEMDA 

KABUPATEN 

RAJA AMPAT

Report on a rapid ecological assessment 

of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua, Eastern Indonesia, 

held October 30 – November 22, 2002 

Final Draft 

November 2003 

The Nature Conservancy - Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas 

Jl Pengembak 2, 

Sanur, Bali, INDONESIA 

phone +62 361 287272, fax +62 361 270737 

Compiled and edited by Ryan Donnelly, Duncan Neville and Dr Peter J. Mous 

Lay-out by Muhammad Barmawi

Table of contents 

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................... 7 

Chapter 1 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 9 

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 9 

1.2 Methodology.......................................................................................................................................... 10 

1.3 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 14 

1.3.1 Socio-economic Conditions............................................................................................................ 14 

1.3.2 Coral Reef Fishes ........................................................................................................................... 14 

1.3.3 Coral Diversity and the Status of Coral Reefs................................................................................ 15 

1.3.4 Status of Sea Turtle Populations..................................................................................................... 16 

1.3.5 Coastal Botanical Survey................................................................................................................ 16 

1.3.6 The Live Reef Food-Fish Trade ..................................................................................................... 17 

1.3.7 Shark Fin Fishery ........................................................................................................................... 18 

1.3.8 Priority Conservation Areas ........................................................................................................... 18 

1.4 Current Conservation Initiatives............................................................................................................ 19 

1.5 Conservation Recommendations and Follow-up................................................................................... 20 

1.6 References ............................................................................................................................................. 20 

Chapter 2 Socio-Economic Conditions in the Raja Ampat Islands................................................................ 21 

2.1 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 21 

2.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 22 

2.3 Aims and Objectives.............................................................................................................................. 22 

2.4 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 23 

2.5 Population Structure and Dynamics ...................................................................................................... 25 

2.5.1 Old Migrants................................................................................................................................... 25 

2.5.2 New Migrants ................................................................................................................................. 25 

2.6 Population Dynamics............................................................................................................................. 26 

2.7 Government Structure ........................................................................................................................... 27 

2.8 Government Services............................................................................................................................. 28 

2.8.1 Education........................................................................................................................................ 28 

2.8.2 Health ............................................................................................................................................. 29 

2.8.3 Security........................................................................................................................................... 29 

2.8.4 Transportation................................................................................................................................. 29 

2.9 Economic Activities and Income Levels ............................................................................................... 30 

2.9.1 Indigenous People .......................................................................................................................... 30 

1

2.9.2 Old Migrants................................................................................................................................... 31 

2.9.3 Destructive Fishing Practices ......................................................................................................... 31 

2.9.4 Logging........................................................................................................................................... 33 

2.9.5 Pearl Farming ................................................................................................................................. 35 

2.10 Tenure Issues and Cultural Regulations Governing Resource Use ..................................................... 35 

2.11 Influence and Involvement of Outside Parties on Resource Use......................................................... 36 

2.11.1 Blast Fishermen ............................................................................................................................ 37 

2.11.2 Potassium Cyanide Fishermen...................................................................................................... 37 

2.11.3 Ikan Teri Fishermen and the Tuna Fishing Companies................................................................ 38 

2.11.4 Philippine Fishermen.................................................................................................................... 38 

2.11.5 Balinese Fishermen ...................................................................................................................... 38 

2.12 Community Development Issues in Raja Ampat.................................................................................39 

2.13 Immediate Challenges Faced by the Raja Ampat Government........................................................... 39 

2.14 What Can Be Done to Help the People and Government of Raja Ampat? ......................................... 40 

2.15 Areas Likely to Achieve Greatest Conservation Success.................................................................... 40 

2.16 References ........................................................................................................................................... 40 

Chapter 3 Coral Reef Fishes of the Raja Ampat Islands ................................................................................ 42 

3.1 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 42 

3.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 43 

3.3 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 43 

3.4 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 43 

3.4.1 General faunal composition............................................................................................................ 43 

3.4.2 Fish community structure ............................................................................................................... 45 

3.4.3 Richest sites for fishes .................................................................................................................... 45 

3.4.4 Coral Fish Diversity Index (CFDI)................................................................................................. 46 

3.4.5 Zoogeographic affinities of the Raja Ampats fish fauna ................................................................ 49 

3.4.6 Endemism....................................................................................................................................... 50 

3.5 New records for Indonesia..................................................................................................................... 51 

3.6 Historical background ........................................................................................................................... 52 

3.7 Overview of the Indonesian fish fauna.................................................................................................. 53 

3.8 Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 54 

3.9 Conservation.......................................................................................................................................... 55 

3.9.1 Priority areas................................................................................................................................... 56 

3.9.2 Freshwater collection...................................................................................................................... 56 

2

3.10 References ........................................................................................................................................... 56 

Chapter 4 Coral Diversity and the Status of Coral Reefs in the Raja Ampat Islands..................................... 59 

4.1 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 59 

4.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 61 

4.3 Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................................... 61 

4.4 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 63 

4.4.1 Coral Biodiversity .......................................................................................................................... 63 

4.4.2 Community types............................................................................................................................ 64 

4.4.3 Reef Health..................................................................................................................................... 80 

4.5 Discussion.............................................................................................................................................. 81 

4.6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 82 

4.7 References ............................................................................................................................................. 83 

Chapter 5 Status of Sea Turtle Populations in the Raja Ampat Islands.......................................................... 85 

5.1 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 85 

5.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 86 

5.3 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 87 

5.4 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 88 

5.5 Discussion.............................................................................................................................................. 92 

5.5.1 South Misool .................................................................................................................................. 92 

5.5.2 Northwest Waigeo .......................................................................................................................... 93 

5.5.3 Kofiau............................................................................................................................................. 94 

5.6 Threats to Turtle Populations in Raja Ampat. ....................................................................................... 94 

5.7 Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................................... 94 

5.8 References ............................................................................................................................................. 95 

Chapter 6 An Ecological Summary of the Raja Ampat Vegetation ............................................................... 97 

6.1 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 97 

6.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 98 

6.3 Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................................... 98 

6.4 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 98 

6.5 Principal Communities .......................................................................................................................... 99 

6.5.1 Mangroves (M)............................................................................................................................... 99 

6.5.2 Swamp woodland (Wsw)................................................................................................................ 99 

6.5.3 Littoral or beach forest (B) ............................................................................................................. 99 

6.5.4 Lowland forest on deep mineralized soil (Pl, Hm)....................................................................... 100 

3

6.5.5 Secondary forests (W) .................................................................................................................. 100 

6.5.6 Savanna (SaMl) ............................................................................................................................ 101 

6.5.7 Lowland forest on limestone karst (Hs, HsCp) ............................................................................ 101 

6.5.8 Lowland ultrabasic scrub and forest (W, HsCp) .......................................................................... 102 

6.6 Discussion............................................................................................................................................ 103 

6.6.1 Conservation Assets ..................................................................................................................... 103 

6.6.2 Ecosystem Threats........................................................................................................................ 104 

6.7 References ........................................................................................................................................... 106 

Chapter 7 Extension Workshop on the Raja Ampat Rapid Ecological Assessment Saonek, 20-21 August 

2003............................................................................................................................................................... 147 

7.1 Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 147 

7.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 148 

7.3 Opening Speeches ............................................................................................................................... 148 

7.4 Presentations........................................................................................................................................ 149 

7.4.1 Introducton to the Workshop, by Agus Sumule ........................................................................... 150 

7.4.2 Presentation on the concept of Marine Protected Areas, by Abdul Halim ................................... 150 

7.4.3 Introductions to The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International, by Yohanes Subiyanto 

and Muhammad Farid............................................................................................................................ 150 

7.4.4 Presentations on the Raja Ampat REA, by Peter Mous, Ferry Liuw, Agus Sumule, and Teta 

Hitipeuw ................................................................................................................................................ 150 

7.4.5 Video Documentary on the Raja Ampat REA, by Joe Yaggi....................................................... 151 

7.4.6 Presentations on Ecoregional Planning, by Peter Mous and Teta Hitipeuw................................. 151 

7.5 Closing Speeches................................................................................................................................. 151 

7.6 Group Discussions............................................................................................................................... 151 

7.7 Evaluation and suggestions for future workshops............................................................................... 152 

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 155 

Appendix 1. List of the Reef Fishes of the Raja Ampat Islands................................................................ 156 

Appendix 2. Full list of zooxanthellate scleractinian corals found at 51 sites at the Raja Ampat Islands. 187 

Appendix 3A. Biological and physical characteristics of survey sites...................................................... 201 

Appendix 3B. Reef characteristics. ........................................................................................................... 203 

Appendix 4. Full list of zooxanthellate scleractinia family, genera and species for Raja Ampat and East 

Indonesia. .................................................................................................................................................. 205 

Appendix 5. Other non-zooxanthellate and non-scleratinian hard corals, and soft corals recored at the Raja 

Ampat Islands............................................................................................................................................ 221 

Appendix 6. Reefs at Risk Maps ............................................................................................................... 222 

Appendix 7. Vegetation Maps................................................................................................................... 228 

4

Appendix 8. List of participants of the Raja Ampat workshop ................................................................. 232 

Appendix 9. Transcripts of issues brought forward by workgroups during the Raja Ampat workshop ... 233 

Appendix 10. Proposed conservation actions............................................................................................ 242 

5

Acknowledgements 

The Raja Ampat REA survey owes its success to the support of many people, from a wide range of 

organizations. These include: Ir. Constant Sorondanya, Kepala BKSDA Papua II, Bpk. Yos Fanataba 

(Assisten II Bupati Sorong), Bpk. Dr. Ir. Ono Kurnaen Sumardiharga and Bpk Zainal Arifin (LIPI 

Oseanografi), Ibu Dr. Iriawati (LIPI Herbarium Bogoriensis), Bpk Kristanto (Sekretaris Dirjen PHKA), Ir. 

Widodo Ramono, MSc., Direktor Konservasi Kawasan PHKA, Bpk. Onny Jebelauw (Wakil Kepala Polisi 

Resor Sorong), 

In preparing for the survey, Martin Hardiono (GIS Consultant) and Mimi Natalia (Yayasan Terangi) 

provided pre-survey maps and references. Ruth Pakpahan (TNC Indonesia Program) and Icha (TNC 

SEACMPA) ensured the myriad flight schedules were handled efficiently. The WWF Sorong office also 

assisted in arranging preparatory meetings and permits for the survey. 

Dr Rod Salm (TNC) led the field expedition. Contributing their time and expertise to the survey were Dr. 

Gerry Allen (CI) and Dr. Wayne Takeuchi (Harvard Herbarium). The REA team also included Dr. Emre 

Turak (AIMS), Jemmy Souhoka (LIPI Bitung), Creusa Hitapeuw (WWF Sahul), Dr. Agus Sulmule (Unipa), 

Dr. Johanis Mogea (LIPI), Duncan Neville (TNC), Julianus Thebu (WWF Sahul), Fery Liuw (BKSDA 

Papua II), Aldaltris Sambite (Polres Sorong), and Ryan Donnelly. A documentary record of the proceedings 

was made by the ineffable Jungle Run Productions team, comprising Joe Yaggi, Djuna Ivereigh, Morgan 

Gabereau, and Pawel Achtel. Bpk. Setia Lesmana of Suara Pembaruhan accompanied the survey in its early 

stages. Marco Nordeloos of Reefbase was extremely helpful in managing a website for the survey and in 

keeping up logbook reports. 

The master of the dive-vessel Pindito, Edi Frommenwiler, and his crew delivered the REA team to research 

sites safely and in good cheer. The terrestrial survey team owes a big thank you to Frans Inwasef and 

Barnabas Kondoligit, boat driver and assistant on the WWF Sahel launch. Logistic support in the field was 

provided my Max Ammer (Irian Diving); Jan Jorgensen and colleagues at the PT. Cendana Indopearls 

provided access to important fuel, communications, and health facilities. Johnny Oesadi and Danny Anggoro 

of PSN Jakarta loaned a satellite telephone for evaluation. 

Finally, we would like to express our most sincere gratitude and regard to the various communities of the 

Raja Ampat islands for their hospitality and openness in meeting with the REA team during the survey. 

7

Chapter 1 

Executive Summary 

1.1 Introduction 

The Raja Ampat Islands, situated adjacent to the northwest coast of Papua, Indonesia is an area of 

outstanding biological diversity and stunning marine and terrestrial habitats. Raja Ampat is located near the 

heart of the ‘Coral Triangle’, an area encompassing northern Australia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Papua 

New Guinea, which has the highest coral diversity on Earth. The archipelago has one of the world’s richest 

coral reef fish faunas, consisting of at least 1,074 species and contains large rookeries of endangered turtles. 

It is also an area of astounding beauty above the water, including eerie limestone pinnacles, sandy palm 

fringed islets and unusual ridges to reefs ecosystems. 

The Raja Ampat Islands encompass over four million hectares of land and sea. This area includes the four 

large islands of Waigeo, Batanta, Salawati, and Misool and hundreds of smaller islands (Figure 1). 

Oceanographically and bio-geographically, the Raja Ampat islands lie in a region that is on the western 

border of the equatorial Pacific Ocean and at the northeastern ‘entrance’ of the Indonesian Throughflow from 

the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. The vast majority of the archipelago rests on one of two continental shelf 

areas separated by the narrow Sagewin Strait. The presence of the continental shelf edge creates a strong 

gradient from clear water, to wave-washed open oceanic conditions, to sheltered and turbid bays (Erdmann 

& Pet 2002). 

These remote and sparsely populated islands contain a wealth of natural resources. Depletion of similar 

wealth elsewhere in Indonesia and in the Philippines has resulted in fishing vessels from outside the 

archipelago, and the sphere of local custom ownership, visiting the area to exploit resources for the lucrative 

markets that deal in live reef food-fish, turtle shell and shark fin. Non-residents have introduced destructive 

fishing techniques, including the use of explosives and cyanide. 

Whilst the majority of the population live within subsistence economies, integration into the cash economy is 

a rapidly growing phenomenon. Villagers feel powerless and disenfranchised by outsiders depleting the 

natural capital held within customary estates. This has lead to some local people becoming involved in the 

illegal activities in a desperate bid to gain from the exploitation of ‘their’ resources. Recent devolution of 

central government power to the regions has seen the establishment of the Raja Ampat Regency. This is seen 

as an opportunity for the remote communities of the archipelago to have representation that will exhibit 

greater custodial responsibility for natural resource management. This also offers a unique opportunity to 

assist the new administration to include conservation in its development planning. 

This report stems from a three-week voyage through the Raja Ampat archipelago. It describes an integrated 

rapid biodiversity assessment for the eastern and southern areas of the Raja Ampat Islands. The survey was 

conducted from 31st October to 22nd November 2002 and involved a partnership that included The Nature 

Conservancy and WWF Sahul. Focal areas of the research were marine species biodiversity and ecosystems 

quality, terrestrial ecosystems and threats, and socio-economic studies of local communities utilizing natural 

resources. Information gathered will be used in developing conservation actions under the Ecoregions of 

New Guinea program being developed by multiple partners in Papua (Indonesia) and Papua New Guinea. 

The survey built upon similar surveys in the northern areas of Raja Ampat by Conservation International in 

collaboration with the University of Cenderawasih and LIPI-Oseanologi (McKenna et al. (2002) and by TNC 

in collaboration with the Henry Foundation and NRM/EPIQ (Erdmann and Pet, 2002). 

9

Chapter 1 – Executive Summary 

The goal of the REA was to identify potential conservation targets, sites, and to recommended strategies by 

building on previous studies and assessments and indigenous knowledge. To achieve this goal, the REA team 

sought the objectives listed in Table 1. 

Table 1. Objectives of the Rapid EcologicalAssessment in Raja Ampat 

OBJECTIVE 

Complement and 

complete existing data 

on marine biodiversity 

and ecosystem 

condition. 

Determine and map 

vegetation types and 

condition, including 

biodiversity indicators 

and species of special 

interest. 

Implement socioeconomic 

assessments, 

including: 

Recommend priority 

conservation actions. 

ACTION 

• Implement assessments around Salawati, southwestern Fam, and south and west 

Kawe Islands 

• Implement comprehensive assessments at Misool (particularly the southeastern 

area) and eastern Wayag Islands 

• Generate data on sea turtles and dugongs, including species occurrence, 

distribution, status, threats and uses through direct observation and community 

consultations 

• Record seabird and cetacean occurrence and activities, especially evidence of 

seabird nesting 

• Document coral bleaching and identify resistant sites and correlation with 

resistance factors if relevant. 

• Collect quantitative and qualitative data on forest type and species 

• Implement general assessment of forest condition and frequency assessments of 

species of interest 

• Identify specific conservation assets 

• Determine uses of and threats to forest communities 

• Determine forest conservation needs, opportunities, and possible approaches. 

• Uses and degree of dependence on different resources, marine and terrestrial 

• Extent of immigrant (non-Papuan) activities and their impacts on coral reefs and 

other marine resources 

• Traditional user rights, customary land/sea tenure and participatory mapping of 

areas of perceived traditional ownership 

• Customary laws and practices governing resource use and control mechanisms 

(e.g., sasi gereja). 

• Assess value, condition, and conservation needs of existing MPAs and include or 

exclude from recommended network of sites 

• Identify potential new conservation sites 

• Identify conservation targets based on conservation value, measures of viability 

(including prospects for long-term survival, threat status and opportunities) 

• Identify priority conservation strategies and actions for follow-up, including 

activities to: 

! Strengthen management of existing sites 

! Establish new conservation areas 

! Engage communities and local government in conservation planning 

and action 

! Approach and process the establishment of a cluster of resilient and 

mutually replenishing MPA sites. 

1.2 Methodology 

Site selection for the REA involved a pre-survey analysis of nautical charts, existing literature and satellite 

images (cf. Appendix 7) to give a broad cross-section of marine habitats (fringing reefs, drop-offs, lagoon 

reefs, etc.) and to complement rather than duplicate existing studies. Logistical considerations, including 

10


landing the terrestrial, socio-economic and turtle teams were also factors that determined site selection. Local 

dive operators were consulted, including Edi Frommeweiler who runs the live-aboard dive boat Pindito, 

which served as a floating survey station. Detailed site selection was decided upon arrival at the general area 

for survey and was dependent on weather and sea conditions. Teams were serviced by three Zodiac tenders 

plus a 9m speedboat tender made available by WWF Sahul, Sorong Office. 

The marine survey team visited a total of 59 sites (Table 2). Coral, mangrove, seagrass, other marine habitats, 

and turtle nesting beaches were plotted and surveyed. A list of fishes was compiled for 50 sites. The survey 

involved about 70 hours of scuba diving to a maximum depth of 52m and relied on the experience and depth 

of knowledge of the specialist. Each dive included a representative sample of all major bottom types and 

habitat situations, for example rocky intertidal, reef flat, steep drop-offs, caves, rubble and sand patches. A 

formula for predicting the total reef fish fauna was employed, based on the number of species in six key 

indicator families. 

Coral reefs at 51 locations were characterized. At 43 of the locations, sites were surveyed at two depths and, 

at each site, the reef was assessed through an inventory of coral species, health, and habitat characteristics 

over sections of reef from 100 to 300m in length. At the end of each swim, the inventory was reviewed and 

each taxon was categorized in terms of its relative abundance in the community. 

The terrestrial survey team identified areas of natural habitat, disturbed habitat, unusual vegetation types, 

cleared areas, and identified through observation key floral and faunal groups. Based on analyses of natural 

vegetation types, values were assigned to islands with regard to area, shape, topography, geology, vegetation 

types, natural habitats, and disturbance factors. Using a weighted ranking system, these values were used to 

identify areas of high biodiversity/conservation value, and which represent the diversity of terrestrial habitats 

in the islands. 

The turtle nesting component focused on scouring beaches for nesting evidence and the incidence of 

disturbance and predation. A member of the dive team recorded underwater sightings and village interviews 

sought local knowledge on patterns of seasonality and exploitation. 

The socio-economic team conducted interviews with local communities to gain information on economic 

activities (subsistence, artisanal, commercial), the roles of external and local players, and scale of threats to 

livelihood. Discussions were held with a range of stakeholders to assess local capacity for protected area 

and/or natural resource management. Focus group discussions were organised in major centres to hear the 

range of issues confronting natural resource management in the remote communities. Later, interviews were 

conducted with officials in Sorong from Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation departments. 

11

Saving the Last Great Places 


129°30' E 130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

0°30' N 

RAJA AMPAT ISLANDS 

PAPUA 

0°30' N 

20 0 Kilometers 20 40 

Scale 1:500.000 

N 

W 

E 

S 

0°00' 

0°00' 

0°30' S 

0°30' S 

1°00' S 

1°00' S 

1°30' S 

1°30' S 

2°00' S 

2°00' S 

Location Map Map 

SERAM 

PAPUA 

PAPUA 

ARAFURU SEA 

Source: Geography and Location of Reefs: Nautical Chart no. 402 and 406 DISHIDROS TNI-AL 2001/2000 

129°30' E 130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

COASTAL AND MARINE PROGRAM INDONESIA 

Prepared by Muhammad Barmawi 

Figure 1. Raja Ampat archipelago indicating the route of the Pindito during the REA. 

12


Table 2. Sites surveyed during the REA. 

REF # DATE SITE NAME LATITUDE LONGITUDE 

D1 01/11/02 Salawati: Pulau Senapan/Jef Doif 0°53.089’S 131°01.677’E 

D2 01/11/02 Salawati: Pulau Senapan/Jef Doif 0°54.002’S 131°01.835’E 

D3 02/11/02 NE Batanta: long inlet 0°47.900’S 130°51.977’E 

D4 02/11/02 N Central Batanta: divided bay E of Warai Bay 0°48.856’S 130°38.861’E 

D5 03/11/02 Batanta: Tanjung Mabo 0°55.428’S 130°23.279’E 

D6 03/11/02 Batanta: Bulbous headland E of Tg Mabo 0°55.283’S 130°28.606’E 

D7 04/11/02 Misool: N Wagmab (island chain) 2°00.149’S 130°37.893’E 

D8 04/11/02 Misool: N Farondi (island chain E) 2°00.306’S 130°38.630’E 

D9 04/11/02 Misool: S Wagmab (island chain E) 2°00.518’S 130°37.943’E 

D10 05/11/02 Misool: E Bajampop 1°59.212’S 130°29.545’E 

D11 05/11/02 Misool: Mesemta 1°57.163’S 130°29.500’E 

D12 05/11/02 Misool: Bajampop 1°58.814’S 130°28.927’E 

D13 06/11/02 Misool: Papas Tip Pale 1°57.179’S 130°21.495’E 

D14 06/11/02 Misool: Papas Tip Pale 1°56.642’S 130°22.499’E 

D15 07/11/02 Misool: N Djam 2°07.253’S 130°32.758’E 

D16 07/11/02 Misool: SW Kalig 2°13.802’S 130°30.076’E 

D17 07/11/02 Misool: SW Mate 2°07.542’S 130°22.372’E 

D18a 08/11/02 Misool: Los 2°06.970’S 130°18.454’E 

D18b 08/11/02 Misool: Los 2°06.970’S 130°18.454’E 

D19 08/11/02 Misool: Jef Pelee (inner W bay) 2°11.423’S 130°14.961’E 

D20 08/11/02 Misool: Watjoke (W of Jef Pelee) 2°11.600’E 130°11.600’E 

D21 08/11/02 Misool: Jef Pele (outer W bay) 2°11.500’S 130°13.600’E 

D22 09/11/02 Misool: Pulau Tiga (SW side middle island) 2°01.949’S 130°00.587’E 

D23 09/11/02 Misool: opposite middle P. Tiga 2°01.446’S 130°01.128’E 

D24 09/11/02 Misool: Jef Bi 2°00.968’S 130°00.918’E 

D25 10/11/02 Misool: Cot Malankari 1°49.184’S 129°38.380’E 

D26 10/11/02 Misool: Nampale NW 1°46.539’S 129°36.937’E 

D27 10/11/02 Misool: channel between Kanari & Kamet 1°48.306’S 129°38.978’E 

D28 12/11/02 Kofiau: S Walo 1°16.549’S 129°39.622’E 

D29 12/11/02 Kofiau: Anjoean 1°15.299’S 129°44.452’E 

D30 12/11/02 Kofiau: S Miatkari Island 1°13.886’S 129°48.195’E 

D31 13/11/02 Kofiau: Wambong Bay 1°12.370’S 129°55.385’E 

D32 13/11/02 Kofiau: Tg Sool 1°10.053’S 129°57.638’E 

D33 13/11/02 Kofiau: Deer island 1°08.894’S 129°51.058’E 

D34 14/11/02 Waigeo: Selpele 0°12.030’S 130°14.278’E 

D35 14/11/02 Waigeo: N of pearl farm 0°10.784’S 130°15.157’E 

D36 14/11/02 Waigeo: E of pearl farm 0°11.384’S 130°15.935’E 

D37 15/11/02 Sayang: N-center 0°19.465’N 129°52.806’E 

D38 15/11/02 Sayang: small island W 0°17.332’N 129°52.299’E 

D39 15/11/02 Sayang: Ai Island S 0°20.248’N 129°51.556’E 

D40 15/11/02 Sayang: bommies W 0°17.756’N 129°51.680’E 

D41 16/11/02 Wayag: small island W 0°10.715’N 129°59.686’E 

D42 16/11/02 Wayag: large bay W 0°10.068’N 130°01.402’E 

D43 17/11/02 Wayag: center-east 0°08.594’N 130°03.817’E 

D44 17/11/02 Quoy: islets to south 0°07.491’N 130°07.580’E 

D45 17/11/02 Bag: southeast 0°05.707’N 130°14.267’E 

D46 17/11/02 Uranie: east 0°06.095’N 130°16.290’E 

D47 17/11/02 Uranie: west bay 0°06.297’N 130°15.102’E 

D48 18/11/02 Kawe: middle E bay, S side 0°01.997’S 130°07.886’E 

D49 18/11/02 Kawe: southern peninsula E bay 0°02.153’S 130°09.280’E 

D50 18/11/02 Kawe: inner E bay, S side 0°2.419’S 130°7.886’E 

D51 19/11/02 Waigeo: rocks at mouth of Tl Fofak 0°1.183’S 130°44.193’E 

D52 19/11/02 Waigeo: island S Tl Fofak opposite mouth 0°2.806’S 130°43.917’E 

D53 19/11/02 Waigeo: reef W of Delphine Is, E Fofak Bay 0°2.720’S 130°46.056’E 

D54 20/11/02 Waigeo: Boni island, N reef 0°0.646’S 131°03.510’E 

D55 20/11/02 Waigeo: bay W of Boni Island 0°3.516’S 131°2.961’E 

D56 20/11/02 Waigeo: Boni island, S reef 0°3.787’S 131°4.506’E 

D57 21/11/02 Waigeo: Wayam island S side 0°23.938’S 131°15.358’E 

D58 21/11/02 Waigeo: Wayam island N side 0°23.534’S 131°15.529’E 

13


1.3 Results 

Detailed presentation of findings from the individual components of the REA is contained within the 

chapters that follow. The key findings of the research in each component is as follows: 

1.3.1 Socio-economic Conditions 

Soon after the completion of the REA, the administrative structure of Raja Ampat changed significantly. The 

central government of Indonesia is in the process of devolving power to the regions. In so doing, fourteen 

new Regencies (Kabupatens) have been created in Papua, including Kabupaten Raja Ampat, whose Regency 

seat will be located at Waisai on Waigeo Island. The new government will be required to implement certain 

basic activities, including mapping of land-use plans for the area. This offers a unique opportunity to assist 

the new administration to include conservation in its development planning. 

Speakers of indigenous Raja Ampat languages number just 10% of the population. Descendent communities 

of migrants from Ceram, Biak and elsewhere – known collectively as old migrants – also claim access rights, 

beyond subsistence use, to customarily held resources. In general, old migrant communities tend to be more 

integrated into the cash economy and are, consequently, more market oriented. The majority of the 

population of Raja Ampat, however, live within subsistence economies, supplemented when possible by 

small-scale trade in marine invertebrates. Growing cash dependence, in combination with increased prices of 

basic commodities and a decline in the price of copra, severely impact villager’s livelihood. This has caused 

an increase in the dependence on marine resources as a commercial commodity, which has prompted some to 

adopt illegal fishing practices, including the use of explosives and cyanide, in order to meet cash needs. In 

some cases, village leadership has sold access to forestry resources in designated conservation areas that fall 

within areas of customary ownership as a means of easing the cash burden. 

Claim to traditional ownership of resources and adherence to custom law is relatively strong among 

villagers. However, the archipelago is a very large and sparsely populated area. Consequently, vigilance 

against resource exploitation from non-residents is limited. The prevalence of destructive fishing, practiced 

primarily by outsiders and often endorsed by figures of authority, leave villagers feeling powerless to act in 

the face of depletion of their natural capital. Some young people feel disenfranchised by outsiders exploiting 

customarily held marine resources and so choose to participate in destructive fishing activities because they 

see no alternative. However, whilst there exists some erosion of regard for customary resource management, 

traditional councils and church and youth groups provide useful vehicles for implementing some 

conservation initiatives at the community level. 

The establishment of Kabupaten Raja Ampat is an opportunity for government to develop social services and 

infrastructure in remote communities that were not apparent under the wider governance of Sorong. 

Opportunity exists to integrate long-term conservation planning into this process and to focus administrative 

and enforcement capacity to deliver sustainable community development that does not deplete the natural 

resources that underpin the way of life enjoyed by village communities. 

1.3.2 Coral Reef Fishes 

The Raja Ampat islands have one of the world’s richest coral reef fish faunas, consisting of at least 1,074 

species of which 899 (84%) were observed or collected during the present survey. Allen (2002) previously 

reported 970 species from this area. The present REA resulted in 104 new records for the Raja Ampats, 

including four new records for Indonesia. This is the third highest count for any similar-sized location, being 

surpassed only by Milne Bay Province, PNG (1,109 species) and Maumere Bay, Flores, Indonesia (1,111 

species). However, the Milne Bay and Maumere data is based on long-term surveys, featuring more intense 

14


collecting activity. The Raja Ampat total is the world’s highest for a survey based mainly on visual 

observations. 

The dominant fish families of the Raja Ampat islands are typically well represented on coral reefs 

throughout the vast Indo-west and central Pacific region. The most speciose families are gobies (Gobiidae; 

137 species), damselfishes (Pomacentridae; 114 species), wrasses (Labridae; 109 species), cardinalfishes 

(Apogonidae; 73 species), groupers (Serranidae; 58 species), butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae; 40 species), 

blennies (Blenniidae; 35 species), surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae; 34 species), snappers (Lutjanidae; 32 

species), and parrotfishes (Scaridae: 28 species). These 10 families collectively account for 660 species or 

62.5 percent of the total reef fauna. 

Regression statistics based on the number of species in the families Chaetodontidae, Pomacanthidae, 

Pomacentridae, Labridae, Scaridae, and Acanthuridae indicates that the total projected reef fish fauna of the 

Raja Ampat islands consists of approximately 1,149 species. Therefore, at least another 75, mainly cryptic 

species could be expected from the area. 

Four of the six richest sites were located at Kofiau. Moreover, the highest count recorded by Gerry Allen for 

a single dive, 284 species, was obtained at Wambong Bay. The previous high of 283 species was recorded 

during the CI Raja Ampat RAP survey in 2001 at Kri Island. A total of 200 or more species is generally 

considered as the benchmark for an excellent fish count at a given site. This figure was obtained at 50 

percent of Raja Ampat sites, the highest percentage for any area that has been previously surveyed in the 

“Coral Triangle.” 

1.3.3 Coral Diversity and the Status of Coral Reefs 

Raja Ampat is known to have the highest diversity of hard corals for an area of similar size anywhere in the 

world. The archipelago is expected to harbor over 75% of worlds known coral species. A total of 488 

scleractinian corals were identified during this REA. In addition, at least a further 35 species are awaiting 

identification in consultation with reference collections. Of these, 13 are expected to be new to science. This 

compares to 445 species in North Sulawesi, 379 species in Milne Bay and 347 in Kimbe Bay, PNG. 

Including a similar survey in 2001, this brings the total number of species confirmed for Raja Ampat to at 

least 537 scleractinian species of coral. Soft coral diversity was also very high. At least 41 of the 90 

Alcyonacean genera known worldwide were recorded. 

Overall, reefs and coral communities in the Raja Ampat area were in very good health. Coral cover was 

moderate at about 33%. However, reefs did not appear to be suffering from any recent serious detrimental 

effects. There was no obvious evidence of the bleaching events that caused extensive mortality to reefs in the 

region in 1998. No evidence of current or recent crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks or other coralivorous 

impacts. There was very little sediment and pollution impact. 

Raja Ampat had many unusual coral habitat and coral community types. This was particularly apparent 

around Misool Island and Wayag Island. Many reefs did not show known or predictable zonation of coral 

communities. In addition, vertical (depth related) distribution of many coral species was different than what 

would be expected. Community types also did not demonstrate strong geographic separation. However, 

water movement, clarity and exposure appears to play a much stronger role in determining community types. 

Raja Ampat has high hard coral richness because of its regional position near the center of the ‘coral 

triangle’. It contains high diversity of habitat types, both typical and atypical, and a large variety of coastal 

and bathymetric profiles. The relatively unspoiled aspect of the reefs in this area helps maintain its high 

diversity. However, development and an increase of exploitation by human activities in the area would 

threaten this situation. 

Many of the reefs of Raja Ampat appear to have high resilience. Reef complexes around Misool and Kofiau 

in the southern region demonstrated high survival from the 1998 bleaching event and support strong 

15


recruitment in the form of numerous established young coral colonies. This high survival may be attributable 

to the cooling of heated water by current-induced vertical mixing with deeper cooler water, protection of 

some communities from damage by sunlight through high island shading, and stress hardening for those 

shallow coral communities exposed during low tides. 

1.3.4 Status of Sea Turtle Populations 

This component of the REA identified two areas that host major sea turtle rookeries. The small beaches and 

coves of the south Misool island chain contain nesting areas for, primarily, Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys 

imbricata). The scattered nature of this nesting habitat provides this species with some protection against the 

typically large subsistence egg harvest and commercial exploitation of the turtle shell. Beaches located on 

islands contained the highest frequency of nesting evidence. Nesting abundance on mainland Misool beaches 

was not so prominent. This is thought to be due to proximity of human populations, the frequency of use by 

transiting fishermen and the occurrence of wild boar that are known to predate eggs from nests. 

The islands of Sayang and Piai in northwest Waigeo contain large and concentrated rookeries of Green 

turtles (Chelonia mydas). The timing and magnitude of nesting on these islands is well known to local 

villages and to commercial turtle poachers. The islands are remote from populated islands and this allows 

turtle poachers greater ease to carry out their trade. Amid the hundreds of Green turtle nesting depressions 

lay the evidence of egg collectors and the carapaces of 68 Green turtles. Additional to this subsistence 

mortality, there is anecdotal evidence from villagers claiming that boats from outside of Raja Ampat visit the 

area to capture Green turtles for the Bali market. 

The archipelago is not known to contain nesting habitat for Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). 

However, there are seasonal sightings of this species by villagers in the straits that separate the main islands. 

As there is a large Leatherback rookery on the north coast of the Birdshead Peninsular, it is thought that Raja 

Ampat is a major migration route for Papuan Leatherbacks. 

1.3.5 Coastal Botanical Survey 

The botanical component of the REA categorised eight principal communities (mangroves, swamp forest, 

beach forest. lowland forest on deep mineralized soil, secondary forests, savanna, lowland forest on 

limestone karst, and lowland ultrabasic scrub and forest). 

Raja Ampat mangroves are markedly depauperate except in a few places where estuarine flats and tidal 

rivers have provided ample habitat for the Bruguiera-Rhizophora associations. Among investigated sites, the 

best examples of this community were seen on Misool, along the lower Gam and Kasim rivers. At the second 

locality, there is a well-developed upstream sequence of mangrove succession. However in most parts of the 

archipelago, mangroves are sparingly represented. 

Sago forests are scattered through the Raja Ampat islands, wherever inundated soils are present. Although 

floristic diversity is very low, the sago association is of considerable subsistence value as a source of dietary 

starch obtained from the pith. Beach forests are mostly composed of widely distributed or pantropical taxa, 

but have been reduced over much of their former range because of anthropogenic pressures. A good example 

of typical beach forest is present at north Kofiau. On uninhabited Sayang Island, a different sort of 

beachfront association was recorded on sandy flats. 

Lowland forest was found on deep mineralized soil near Kapatlap on Salawati, and on the north and south 

shores of Batanta. This was probably the most species-rich environment from the survey. In western Raja 

Ampat, deep soil habitats are generally absent except in the flood plain of large rivers, or in the ravines on 

limestone karst. Such areas have tall forests comparable to the Batanta/Salawati formations, but are speciespoor 

and of limited size. 

16


Grassy savannas were recorded only at western Misool, at the mouth of the Kasim River and further inland 

near the Waitama tributary. Both communities are Melaleuca dominant. The communities at both sites are 

apparently under substrate control, with characteristic occurrences on flat or gently rolling terrain underlain 

by hardpan and alumina deposits. Although the savannas in Raja Ampat are affected to some degree by fire, 

the substrate patterns suggest the communities are a long-term response to stable edaphic factors. 

Excellent examples of karst vegetation are found in the Misool chain, particularly in the southwest complex 

of small islets and at the western end of the Misool mainland. Within the Waigeo group, extensive limestone 

habitats were explored near Aljoei and at Wayag. The survey team explored the ultrabasic zone in a series of 

ascents along buttress ridges. Most of the vegetation consisted of xeromorphic scrub or woodland. 

Endemism in such environments was very high, but fire influence was noted at several sites. 

1.3.6 The Live Reef Food-Fish Trade 

Net cages that hold fishes that are commonly targeted for sale in the live reef food-fish trade contained a very 

narrow range of species. The contents of holding facilities were inspected whenever they were encountered. 

Overwhelmingly, the nets contained a moderate number of female coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus) and 

a few juvenile Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus). Conspicuous by their absence was species of rock 

cod (Epinephelus spp.) and the square tailed coral trout (P. areolatus). Gerry Allen reported 14 Napoleon 

wrasse and rare grouper sightings in 70 hours of scuba diving during the current REA. 

A fisherman in Waigama confirmed that divers used cyanide to stun and capture Napoleon wrasse and that 

grouper spawning aggregations were intensively targeted using hook and line. The general impression gained 

from interviews was that while some local fishermen participated in the poison fishery, it was primarily nonresidents 

that carried out this activity and that local fishermen targeted known aggregations using hook and 

line. This is consistent with the findings of Erdmann and Pet (2002). 

There are a number of conclusions that might be made from the limited information gathered during this 

REA and previous assessments. The clearest of these is that Napoleon wrasse is overfished. Just one large 

male was encountered in the water and one other in a net cage at PT Yellu Mutiara pearl farm. All others 

were juvenile, indicating that spawning stock could be severely depleted. The species is long lived and has a 

low replacement capacity, making it highly susceptible to overexploitation (Sadovy, 2002). The second 

conclusion is that, given the absence of male (larger than about 60cm) P. leopardus, it could be presumed 

that spawning aggregations have been targeted heavily. This species spawn in multiple small aggregations on 

patch reefs and bommie fields. It is generally only the large dominant males that attend the spawning 

aggregations and they tend to arrive prior to, and leave later than, the females and are known to visit multiple 

sites, thereby making themselves more susceptible to aggregation fishing (Zeller, 1998). Spawning P. 

areolatus, Epinephelus fuscoguttatus and E. polyphekadion tend to gather in large aggregations in deepwater 

passages that are highly susceptible to rapid overexploitation. Consequently, the third conclusion could be 

that such aggregations have been fished beyond critical levels, which elsewhere has precluded reformation 

(Jennings and Lock, 1996). 

The pattern that typifies live fish trade operations elsewhere in Indonesia and in the Pacific is that an export 

peak is attained followed by decline within a small number of years. Based on observations and interviews in 

this and previous assessments, it can be reasonably concluded that the fishery is in decline and that it will 

inevitably prove unviable. Fishermen at Fafanlap said that stocks of bêche-de-mer and trochus were severely 

depleted. As cash needs become greater and incomes from fishing decline, there is a possibility that blast 

fishing could re-emerge as the illegal fishing method of choice following its partial displacement by the 

higher value poison fishery. Erdmann and Pet (2002) found a high frequency of evidence of blast fishing. 

Yet, this survey as with McKenna et al. (2002), found little to endorse this finding. Notwithstanding this, 

blast fishing clearly occurs and there is an urgent need to augment, or at least activate, the existing 

enforcement capacity currently based at Sorong. 

17


1.3.7 Shark Fin Fishery 

One of the more disturbing features of the REA in Raja Ampat was the dearth of shark sightings. Sharks 

were virtually absent at nearly every survey site, which is typical for most areas in Indonesia and the 

Philippines (G. Allen – Chapter 3). The paucity of reef sharks is at least partly explained by the shark-fin 

trade, which has operated steadily throughout Indonesia for at least the past three or four decades. Anecdotal 

information regarding shark fishing in the Kapadiri area of Waigeo indicated that villagers were paid from 

Rp1,800,000 to Rp3,000,000 per kilogram of shark fin, depending on quality. The village has a deal with a 

company in Sorong to concede access to the company fleet. According to villagers, the company pays only 

Rp500,000 for access, but in return has the carcasses of small and medium-sized sharks brought to shore for 

the villagers to eat. The larger sharks are dumped. The villages have an ongoing relationship with fishing 

boats from the Philippines. Virtually all of the support to the village of Kapadiri comes from the Philippine 

fishing companies who have donated roofing, generators and outboard motors. Again, it seems that nonresidents 

are the primary perpetrators of unsustainable and illegal fishing activity. They are also the greatest 

beneficiaries. The natural capital of traditional owners is dissipated for a small amount of compensation and 

the provision of some basic needs that are otherwise unavailable to villagers in remote communities. 

Figure 2. Shark fins at a Sorong restaurant 

(photo by Pawel Achtel). 

1.3.8 Priority Conservation Areas 

Each component of the REA identified the areas of greatest conservation value and priority. Misool and 

Kofiau emerged as the highest priority areas for conservation effort, followed closely by islands in Waigeo 

including P. Sayang, P. Ai and the Wayag group. 

The socio-economic component of the REA emphasised that the main issue to be taken into account when 

devising a conservation initiative for Raja Ampat is that it should provide for the needs of local communities 

in relation to the ability to earn enough cash to purchase goods and services that cannot be fulfilled from 

their subsistence way of living. Encouraging local communities to terminate non-sustainable exploitation of 

resources without providing cash generating alternatives will fail. Secondly, it is important that conservation 

programs acknowledge and strengthen customary ownership of resources through a participatory process. 

Considering that there are significant areas in Raja Ampat that have already been declared as protected areas, 

18


plus the plan to promote certain areas to be World Heritage (e.g. Kofiau and Wayag), any protected areas in 

Raja Ampat has potential for successful implementation of a conservation program, so long as the conditions 

proposed above are met. 

General fish diversity was high throughout the Raja Ampat islands. Kofiau consistently had the highest 

species counts per site (a remarkable average of 228 species). However, other factors need to be considered 

in assessing the conservation potential of various sites. Underwater and above water aesthetic quality needs 

to be considered but is difficult to quantify. The following areas are priorities: Kofiau Group, the 

southeastern “tail” of Misool, and the Wayag Islands. 

Misool had the highest diversity of coral community types. Nine out of the 11 distinct coral community types 

that were identified in Raja Ampat were found in this area. The most uniform area was Kofiau Island. The 

Misool area, particularly the southwest, has a tremendous variety of habitat types, mostly unusual and 

unexplored. This would be a priority area for conservation. Second is Kofiau Island, which has probably the 

highest diversity of coral species for a small island. Wayag Island and its surrounds have outstanding natural 

beauty and the reefs probably harbour many unusual coral communities. 

The botanical survey component of the REA judged conservation priorities on the basis of endemism. The 

ultrabasic and limestone vegetation are the highest value communities in the Raja Ampat. As presently 

known, the ultrabasics have more species endemic to its habitats than any of the other communities. The 

most valuable survey locations are thus the Misool karst and Waigeo. In most Raja Ampat forests, the 

canopy is composed of major exportable timbers. Although the current concession areas are habitats with 

good capacities for tree growth, the ultrabasics and limestone karst have stunted vegetation of little value as 

logging targets, and are at lesser economic risk. 

The sea turtle component of the REA judged the south Misool island chain and the northwestern islands of 

Waigeo as the areas of highest conservation value based on the rookery habitat for Green and Hawksbill 

turtles at these locations. 

1.4 Current Conservation Initiatives 

Sorondanya (2003) listed the protected areas that have been established and proposed within the Raja Ampat 

archipelago (listed below). Of the six established protected areas, five are strict nature reserves, cagar alam, 

and there is one marine wildlife sanctuary, suaka margasatwa laut. The designation of areas as strict nature 

reserves seems to mean little to villagers and the management and enforcement issues that accompany 

designation would appear to be insufficient if existent. There is a need to convert these “paper parks” to 

meaningful protected areas that allow a variety of activities and engender real custodial responsibility for 

resource management with enforcement and prosecution support from the Regency government. 

Established Conservation Areas: 

• S.M.L. – Kepulauan Raja Ampat – 60,000ha SK Menhut No.81/Kpts-II/1993. 

• C.A. – P. Salawati Utara – 62,962ha SK Menhut No.1829/Menhut-VI/96, 31st Dec 1996. 

• C.A. – P. Batanta Barat – 10,000ha SK No.912/Kpts/Um/7/82, 30th Oct 1982. 

• C.A. – Misool Selatan – 84,000ha SK No.716/Kpts/Um/1/82, 18th Oct 1982. 

• C.A. – Waigeo Barat – 153,000ha SK No.395/Kpts/Um/5/81, 7th May 1981. 

• C.A. – Waigeo Timur – 119,500ha SK No.251/Kpts-II/1996, 25th Nov 1996. 

Proposed Conservation Areas: 

• S.M.L. – P. Misool Selatan - 4,319ha Rek Bupati No.522.5/477, 25th May 1992. 

19


• S.M.L. – P. Kofiau – 7,197ha Srt. No.375/PPA.030/XII/SBKSDA IRJA I/1992, 21st Dec 1992. 

• S.M.L. – P. Asia – 7,000ha Srt. No.151/PPA.030/IV/SBKSDA IRJA I/92 16th Apr 1992. 

• S.M.L. – P. Sayang – 96,000ha Srt. No.1308/PPA.030/VII/SBKSDA IRJA I/1992, 20th Jul 1992. 

• S.M.L. – Kepulauan Ajue – 168,630ha Rek. Bupati No.050/110, 19th Jan 1994. 

1.5 Conservation Recommendations and Follow-up 

This extraordinary area clearly is the heart of the heart of marine biodiversity, with approximately 60% of 

the world’s reef building corals (more than 500 identified species) and at least 1,074 species of fishes. 

Conservation of marine biodiversity in the area is an overriding priority and of major interest to the global 

community. Four areas of over-riding conservation value and opportunity were identified: the islands of 

eastern and southern Misool, Kofiau, Sayang and Pulau Ai, and the Wayag islands. While the forests provide 

no equivalent, compelling argument for conservation based on species richness, they show many elements of 

special adaptation to the harsh karst and ultrabasic conditions of the islands and consequently harbour a 

number of endemic species. Further surveys reaching the montane forests will likely yield additional new 

and endemic species. The four general areas of priority for marine conservation also corresponded to areas of 

interest for karst forests and it was indicated that conservation areas should be selected on the basis of marine 

criteria, and then extended to include adjacent forests to capture representative samples of their special 

features. However, any conservation strategy for the Raja Ampat islands must include sustainable 

community development options. 

A first step in implementing a conservation program was to organize a workshop to disseminate results of 

this survey. This workshop, held in Saonek (South Waigeo) on August 20-21 2003, would also be 

instrumental to initiate partnerships and to consult with local communities and local government agencies. 

Results of the workshop are presented in Chapter 7. Other suggested conservation actions are summarized in 

Appendix 10. 

1.6 References 

Allen, G.R., 2002. Chapter 3. Reef Fishes of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. In: S.A. 

McKenna, G.R. Allen and S. Suryadi (eds.) A marine rapid assessment of the Raja Ampat Islands, 

Papua Province, Indonesia. (RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 22. Conservation International, 

Washington, DC: 46-57 and 132-185. 

Erdmann, M.V. and Pet, J., 2002. A Rapid Marine Survey of the Northern Raja Ampat Islands. Henry 

Foundation/The Nature Conservancy/NRM/EPIQ June 2002. 

Jennings, S. and Lock, J.M., 1996. Population and ecosystem effects of reef fishing. In: N. Polunin and C. 

Roberts (eds) Reef Fisheries Management. Chapman and Hall, London. 

Sadovy, Y.J., 2002. The Humphead wrasse: a threatened reef fish. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 

10: 6. 

Sorondanya, C.K., 2003. (comm.BKSDA Papua II, 2003) 

Zeller, D.C., 1998. Spawning aggregation – patterns of movement of the coral trout Plectropomus leopardus 

(Serranidae) as determined by ultrasonic telemetry. Marine Ecology Progress Series 162: 253-263. 

20

Chapter 2 

Socio-Economic Conditions in the Raja Ampat Islands 

AGUS SUMULE and RYAN DONNELLY 

2.1 Summary 

Raja Ampat area has recently become an autonomous Regency as part of the central government 

policy of devolution of authority to the regions. This should, in time, be an opportunity for 

government to develop social services and infrastructure in remote communities that were not apparent 

under the wider governance of Sorong. It also brings opportunities for planning development and 

conservation, but could mean that the new administration will be aiming to increase fiscal revenues 

through resource utilization. 

The majority of the population live within subsistence economies but integration into the cash 

economy is a rapidly growing phenomenon. Speakers of indigenous Raja Ampat languages – about 

10% of the population – rely heavily on subsistence and the sporadic and seasonal access to markets to 

sell marine invertebrates. Descendent migrant communities tend to have a greater market orientation 

and are more likely to actively seek opportunities to participate in commercial enterprise. 

A custom tenure system exists whereby resources are owned by clans in a defined land-sea continuum. 

The traditional sasi system of resource management, however, is now severely eroded. The area is 

large and sparsely populated, making vigilance against contravention of customary laws almost 

impossible. 

Overwhelmingly, it is people from outside Raja Ampat that facilitate the unsustainable exploitation of 

natural resources. This is exemplified in the occurrence of cyanide fishing for the live reef fish trade, 

blast fishing and the shark fin and turtle trades. There is little effective enforcement capability and 

there are compelling accusations of collusion between the outside syndicates and military officials. 

A range of regulations exists that apply to fisheries, forestry and environmental protection. There are 

also a number of gazetted conservation areas. However, these regulations were not readily enforced 

under the Sorong governance. An opportunity exists now for Raja Ampat to direct all administrative 

resources to the good of the archipelago and its people. 

Whilst there are barriers to achieving conservation initiatives, there is scope for widening the private 

sector involvement in non-extractive development, such as pearl farming, into tourism development 

and value-added industries related to the pearl farm industry. 

Provided that village communities are given income earning alternatives in the short term and are 

made fully aware of the long term financial benefits of conservation initiatives, the foundations for 

greater custodial management of natural resources clearly exists. 

21

Chapter 2 - Socio-Economic Conditions in the Raja Ampat Islands 


This study builds on previous assessments carried out in Raja Ampat Islands (e.g. MeKenna et al. 2002; 

Erdmann and Pet, 2002). The primary focus of this section is the socio-economic conditions faced by local 

people and the government of the Raja Ampat Islands, especially in relation to conservation and the 

utilization of natural resources. 

The most comprehensive works on the socio-economic conditions in Raja Ampat was conducted from the 

late 1970s to early 1980s (e.g. Masinambouw, 1983). The intervening period has witnessed changes to 

population structure, commercial exploitation of natural resources and the enactment of laws that compound 

upon the current socio-economic conditions in the archipelago. 

It is expected that this report will provide comprehensive information on the most recent situation in the Raja 

Ampat area, especially in relation to community development and the conservation of Raja Ampat resources. 

Since the enactment of Law No.26 (2002) as the legal basis for Raja Ampat to become an autonomous 

Regency, this information is crucial. Its availability will play a significant role in supporting development 

plans for better governance of the area. 

2.3 Aims and Objectives 

The aim of this report is to describe the socio-economic conditions of local communities of the Raja Ampat 

Islands and to gauge the capacity for community based conservation initiatives. Specifically, information 

will pertain to: 

• Population structure and dynamics; 

• Government structure and services; 

• Role of communities in the natural resource use; 

• Income levels and economic activities; 

• Tenure issues; 

• Cultural regulations governing resource use; 

• Influence of outside agencies on resource use; 

• Community development issues; and 

• Key issues for future conservation and development. 

22


2.4 Methods 

Transport logistics involved in the coordination of the various components of the REA precluded a ‘normal’ 

type of social research, where a researcher would spend approximately one week with the local community 

at each site in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of socio-economic conditions. However, the 

“snow-ball technique” of qualitative research, described by Babbie (1992), was adopted. According to this 

method, survey results at a particular village confirm issues that had been identified and discussed in 

previous villages that had been visited. These issues are built upon in discussion until a clearer picture is 

drawn. No formal questionnaire was employed. 

Information used in the development of this report was derived primarily from interviews. Secondary 

information was derived from reviewing relevant literature. Interviews were conducted with key individuals 

at the village level and from the conduct of focus discussion groups (Table 1.). 

Table 1. Summary of villages interviewed and topics discussed. 

Villages 

Source Interviewees Topics 

Interviews 

Focus Group 

Discussion 

Village leaders at: 

• Tomolol; 

• Yellu; 

• Harapan Jaya; 

• Fafanlap; 

• Kapacol; 

• Tolobi; 

• Selpele; 

• Saliyo; 

• Kapadiri; 

• Kabare; and 

• Urbinasopen. 

Open meetings in: 

• Waigama; 

• Deer; and 

• Kabare. 

• Migration history and peopling; 

• Economic activities and income levels; 

• Tenure issues and cultural regulations; 

• Influence of outside agencies on resource use; 

• Government development plans; 

• Government regulations and law enforcement; 

• Community development issues; and 

• Key issues for conservation and development. 

Also: 

• Involvement of outside agencies e.g. pearl farms, logging 

and commercial fishing; and 

• Access and compensation issues. 

• Availability/depletion of marine resources; 

• Use of bombing and cyanide, identity of offenders; 

• Problems encountered whilst attempting to stop bombing 

and cyaniding; and 

• The effectiveness of customary mechanisms in dealing 

with outsiders who exploit community resources. 

Interviews were also conducted with commercial operators in Raja Ampat, particularly those that enter into 

access and compensation agreements with customary owners. Details of these interviews are outlined in 

Table 2. 

23


Table 2. Summary of outside agencies interviewed and topics discussed 

Source 

Outside 

Agencies 

Interviewees 

Topic 

Pearl Farms • PT Yellu Mutiara; 

• PT Cendana 

Indopearl. 

Logging 

Operation 

• PT Usaha Sumber 

Abadi 

Other • “Ratu Sayang” 

Seafood Restaurant; 

• Role of company security in protecting the surrounding 

waters from cyaniding and bombing; 

• Relationship with the local communities; and 

• Compensation and other benefits to the local communities. 

• Obtaining permission from community leadership; 

• Relationship with the local communities; and 

• Compensation and other benefits to the local communities. 

• Illegal trading of seafood products. 

• Irian Diving, Sorong • Experiences with the conservation efforts in Raja Ampat; 

• Relationships with the local communities; and 

• Fish bombing and cyaniding. 

• Local trader • Products purchased from local communities, prices. 

Further interviews were conducted, beyond the timeframe of the REA, with government officials at the 

District (kabupaten) level (Table 3.). 

Table 3. Summary of government officers interviewed and topics discussed. 

2.5 Population Structure and Dynamics 

Source 

Interviewees 

The population structure of Raja Ampat should Topics be understood within the context of Papua’s contact with 

regional Government neighbours. These early contacts are significant to the presence of certain communities in Raja 

Ampat, namely from the Biak region of Papua as well as the people of Ceram and other Molucca’s islands. 

Fisheries • Fabanyo, Head of • Government policies on fisheries development and 

Kamma (1982) stated that Fisheries, the Biak-Numfor Sorong people conservation. of Cenderawasih Bay made voyages to areas far away 

from their homeland • from Agus the Kadiwaru, 14th century. • However, Issues related Mampioper to commercial (1988) fisheries claimed and the that involvement such voyages of 

occurred as early as the Fisheries 9th century, Dept when the Biak-Numfor local people. people sailed west to Ternate and Tidore, 

• Israq Abdullah, crime • Law enforcement. 

Salayar, Timor and Java, 

investigator 

including 

at 

areas in the Birdshead region of Papua. These areas were customarily the 

lands of the Arfak, Karon, Fisheries Kawe, Siam, and Patani/Sawai people. The voyages were conducted for trade, 

slavery, Forestry warfare, or • the Habel pursuit Refassy, of the Head belief • that Procedures their ancestors for logging originated permit issue from by the areas community. to the west of Papua. 

of Forestry 

As a consequence, descendent Biak-Numfor communities are now found in various places, including the 

• Din Tafalas, logging • Community’s decision to cooperate with the investor to 

Raja Ampat Islands. agreements 

exploit the forest resources. 

intermediary from the 

However, the population Forestry structure Dept. of Raja Ampat is diverse and this complicates the issue of customary 

resource Administration ownership. • Whereas John Wanane, indigenous Regent peoples • Development have been Policy conceptually Raja Ampat. described as a group of people who 

have continuously inhabited of Sorong an area but presently live side by side with migrants (e.g. Burger, 1987; 

• Head of Provincial • Responsibilities of the appointed administrative Bupati; and 

Brownlie, 1992), the concept is not easily defined in the context of Raja Ampat. Almost every community in 

Governance Bureau of • Relations between the new Raja Ampat Regency with Sorong 

Raja Ampat that has lived Papua there for a long period Regency. of time would claim to be indigenous, including those who 

freely admit descent • from Costant people Sorondanya, who originated • Cooperation from the with Molluca’s the Regency and Government other non-Papuan of Sorong islands on of Ceram, 

Bureau of Natural conservation issues; 

Ternate and Bajo, as well the Biak people from the Gelvink Bay of Papua Island. Other groups, including the 

Resources 

• Regency Regulations on conservation; and 

Matbat, Salawati, Kawe Conservation or Lengenyem people • would The need also for master claim plan to be for the Raja indigenous Ampat conservation. people of Raja Ampat. 

• Head of Misool • Law enforcement in relation to the protection of natural 

District police/army. resources in Misool District from illegal use. 

24


2.5 Population Structure and Dynamics 

The population structure of Raja Ampat should be understood within the context of Papua’s contact with 

regional neighbours. These early contacts are significant to the presence of certain communities in Raja 

Ampat, namely from the Biak region of Papua as well as the people of Ceram and other Molucca’s islands. 

Kamma (1982) stated that the Biak-Numfor people of Cenderawasih Bay made voyages to areas far away 

from their homeland from the 14th century. However, Mampioper (1988) claimed that such voyages 

occurred as early as the 9th century, when the Biak-Numfor people sailed west to Ternate and Tidore, 

Salayar, Timor and Java, including areas in the Birdshead region of Papua. These areas were customarily the 

lands of the Arfak, Karon, Kawe, Siam, and Patani/Sawai people. The voyages were conducted for trade, 

slavery, warfare, or the pursuit of the belief that their ancestors originated from areas to the west of Papua. 

As a consequence, descendent Biak-Numfor communities are now found in various places, including the 

Raja Ampat Islands. 

However, the population structure of Raja Ampat is diverse and this complicates the issue of customary 

resource ownership. Whereas indigenous peoples have been conceptually described as a group of people who 

have continuously inhabited an area but presently live side by side with migrants (e.g. Burger, 1987; 

Brownlie, 1992), the concept is not easily defined in the context of Raja Ampat. Almost every community in 

Raja Ampat that has lived there for a long period of time would claim to be indigenous, including those who 

freely admit descent from people who originated from the Molluca’s and other non-Papuan islands of Ceram, 

Ternate and Bajo, as well the Biak people from the Gelvink Bay of Papua Island. Other groups, including the 

Matbat, Salawati, Kawe or Lengenyem people would also claim to be the indigenous people of Raja Ampat. 

2.5.1 Old Migrants 

The old migrants of Raja Ampat mainly originated from Biak and Numfor islands and from the central 

Molluca and Halmahera areas. They are called migrants in this sense because they admit that their ancestors 

originated from elsewhere. For example, Kasim, a 60-year-old leader of Yelu Village, stated that he was the 

third generation of a Ceram community in South Misool. However, he also stated that many of his 

contemporaries were not pure Ceramese but have local blood as well, since their ancestors intermarried with 

the indigenous people of Misool. This was the reason for their claim to be the indigenous people of Misool. 

In another example, Mahmud Duatan claimed to be the Customary Head of Waigama, Misool, even though 

he was not a Matbat person. He was a descendant of Ceramese migrants who had lived in Waigama for 

generations. He stated that he owned an area of land, reef and sea, which he claimed to be part of his 

customary right. Biak speaking communities in Kofiau and the Ayau islands and other scattered locations in 

Waigeo have their own land that they claim as their customary land. This was found to be consistent with 

descendent communities of old migrants from the Mollucca’s in Raja Ampat. 

Alfred Russell Wallace observed the situation in Weigeo in 1860 (Wallace, 1869), indicating that migration 

is, and has been, an ongoing phenomenon: 

“The people of Waigiou [Waigeo] are not truly indigenes of the island… They appear to be a mixed race, 

partly from Gilolo, partly from New Guinea. Malays and Alfuros from the former island have probably 

settled here, and many of them have taken Papuan wives from Salawatty [Salawati] or Dorey [Doreh], while 

the influx of people from those places, and of slaves, has led to the formation of a tribe exhibiting almost all 

the transitions from a nearly pure Malayan to an entirely Papuan type.” 

2.5.2 New Migrants 

New migrants, for example those from Molluca or Halmahera, are related to the old migrants who also 

originated from the same places. Consequently, the new and old migrants can collaborate in the use of 

natural resources. New migrants can utilize resources so long as the older settlers or indigenous people grant 

permission. 

25


The question of identifying the real indigenous people of Raja Ampat might not have been important in the 

past, but has become increasingly sensitive due to ownership disputes over resources, particularly fisheries 

and forestry. Silzer and Clouse (1991) charted the indigenous languages of Raja Ampat and their speakers. A 

summary of this information is listed in Table 4. 

Table 4. The indigenous languages of Raja Ampat and an estimation of the number of speakers. 

Language Dialect Location Speakers 

Matbat (Me, Biga) Misool and the surrounding smaller islands 550 

Salawati (Maya) Maya, Kawit, Banlol, 

Batanta Island 

Salawati and Batanta islands 1,600 

Kawe 

Legenyem 

Amber (Amberi, 

Waigeo, Waigiu) 

Kawe Island, western end of Waigeo and its 

neighboring smaller islands 

North-west of the main bay of Waigeo and on the 

southern coast of Waigeo 

North-center of Waigeo Island, and is scattered in 

various other parts of Waigeo 

300 

100* 

300 

* This figure did not originate from Silzer and Clouse (1991), but was estimated based on advice that the 

number of speakers of the Legenyem language was approximately one-third of the Kawe or Amber speakers. 

Based on the estimated number of indigenous Raja Ampat language speakers, it can be estimated further 

that, in 2002, the total number of indigenous people of Raja Ampat was about 3,250, or about 10% of the 

32,800 extrapolated from the 2000 population total at an annual growth rate of 1.2% (Table 5). 

2.6 Population Dynamics 

Population statistics for Raja Ampat are presented in Table 5. The data indicates that in 2000, the total 

population of Raja Ampat was approximately 32,000 people, or nearly 22% of the population of Sorong 

Regency. The indigenous component of the population is 10%, a figure that is likely to decrease with the 

onset of anticipated migration from other parts of Indonesia with the opening of the nickel mine at Gag and 

other large-scale commercial ventures anticipated in the natural resources sector. This figure indicates that 

indigenous people in Raja Ampat are underrepresented in political decision-making, including the 

management of natural resources. 

Table 5. Raja Ampat population figures, 2000. 

Population Indicator 

Raja Ampat Districts of Sorong Regency 

Misool N. Waigeo S. Waigeo Samate Salawati* 

Total population 8,716 5,760 8,161 7,370 2,017 

Population density per km 2 3.90 5.52 3.64 9.49 n.a 

Sex ratio 102.43 97.75 101.25 96.82 n.a 

Household 2,415 1,649 2,484 2,934 n.a 

Village 19 15 29 11 n.a 

26


It could be speculated that, due to a relative abundance of resources, an increasing number of people from 

outside will migrate into the Raja Ampat area, either permanently or temporarily. This phenomenon has been 

occurring throughout Papua, where net immigration was recorded at just less than 192,000 in 1995. The 

establishment of the new Raja Ampat Kabupaten will likely increase immigration from various parts of 

Papua, Mollucas, and Indonesia as a whole, as it is likely to encourage more investment in natural resource 

based industries. Kompas Daily reported that the population of Timika, where the PT Freeport Indonesia 

mine is located, reached nearly 90,000 people in July 2002, of which only 36,000 were local people. 

2.7 Government Structure 

Raja Ampat became part of the Sorong Regency (Kabupaten) when Indonesia assumed control of Papua in 

1963. There were only four Districts (Kecamatan) in Raja Ampat until 26th October 2000. After the issue of 

the Regency Regulation (Peraturan Daerah) of Sorong No.9 (2000), these four Kecamatans were divided into 

seven (Table 6). Then on the 24th December 2002, a bill regarding the establishment of 14 new Regencies in 

Papua Province was enacted as Law No.26 (2002). This law established the new Regency of Raja Ampat. 

The seven Kecamatans remain unchanged but the new capital city is Waisai on Waigeo Island. 

Table 6. Government structure in Raja Ampat. 

Prior to 26 th October 2000 

Sorong Regency 

26 th October 2000 to 24 th December 2002 – Sorong Regency. 

After 24 th December 2002 – Raja Ampat Regency 

District (Kecamatan) District (Kecamatan) District Capital 

• Waigeo Utara (North Waigeo) • Waigeo Utara (North Waigeo) 

• Kabare 

• Kepulauan Ayau (Ayau Islands) 

• Dorehkar 

• Waigeo Selatan (South Waigeo) • Waigeo Selatan (South Waigeo) 

• Urbinasopen 

• Waigeo Barat (West Waigeo) 

• Selpele 

(Pagalol) 

• Misool (including the Kofiau • Misool (including the Kofiau islands) • Waigama 

islands) 

• Misool Timur Selatan (East-South Misool) • Folley 

• Samate (including Batanta and other 

surrounding islands) 

• Samate (including Batanta and other 

surrounding islands) 

• Samate 

Although there have legally been seven Districts in Raja Ampat since 26 October 2000, it was not until late 

November 2002 that the Camats (Heads of Districts) of the new Kecamatans were appointed and 

inaugurated. With the current financial crisis in Indonesia, it will likely take at least five years for the new 

District administrations to function properly. Until 2004, management of the area will lie with an interim 

Kabupaten administration, with little organizational capacity, and virtually no control from an elected 

legislature. Until that period there may be some oversight from Kabupaten Sorong government (as the 

‘parent’ administration) but this is likely to be minimal. From early 2003, there will be an immediate 

shortage of qualified and capable civil servants for both Kabupatens Raja Ampat and Sorong (Sorondanya, 

2003). 

As an autonomous Regency, Raja Ampat will undertake all government, development, and community 

service activities as stipulated in the general regional autonomy laws (Laws No.22 (1999) and No.25 (1999)) 

as well as in the special autonomy law of the Province of Papua (Law No.21 (2001)). Since Raja Ampat is a 

new Kabupaten, the first Bupati (Regent) will not be elected by the parliament, but is recommended by the 

Governor of Papua for the approval of the Minister of Interior Affairs. The Parliament of Raja Ampat will 

elect the definitive Bupati six months after the parliament is established, based on the outcome of the 2004 

general election. To date, the Bupati of Kabupaten Raja Ampat has not been appointed by the central 

government regardless of a candidate being proposed by the Governor of Papua Province. 

27


2.8 Government Services 

The Sorong Regency government was expected to play a significant role in providing social services to 

communities in Raja Ampat. Those services include, but are not limited to, education, health, security, and 

transportation. In practice, however, access to these services is poor, as will be illustrated in the following 

discussion. 

2.8.1 Education 

The official statistics of the Sorong Regency demonstrate impressive education facilities in the Raja Ampat 

area, as can be seen in Table 7. Note that the data in Table 7 was prior to the division into seven Districts 

within Sorong Regency. The introduction of the new Districts had not changed the situation in the field. It is 

predicted that most of the District government efforts for the first five years will be to develop government 

administration infrastructure. 

Table 7. Education facilities in Raja Ampat. 

Education Facilities 

District in Raja Ampat 

South Waigeo North Waigeo Misool Samate 

Primary School (PS) 27 15 16 14 

Junior High School 2 2 3 2 

Senior High School 0 0 0 0 

PS Teachers 102 59 81 82 

Ratio of PS pupils to school 65.30 76.40 117.31 94.50 

Ratio of PS pupils to teacher 17.28 19.42 23.17 16.13 

Source: Statistics of the Sorong Regency, 2001 

As there are approximately 75 villages in the Districts of South Waigeo, North Waigeo, Misool, and Samate 

of Raja Ampat, there is basically one primary school for every village in Raja Ampat (Table 7). The reality is 

that not all of the schools operate properly. For example, at Saliyo village (visited on 18th November), we 

found that the school had not operated since August. This meant that, for half of the semester, none of the 

children in the village had access to formal learning. This situation was encountered in other villages in 

remote areas. Primary schools in some villages in Misool, such as in Tomolol, Fafanlap, and Yelu, were 

operating but only by two or three teachers. The physical condition of the schools was often inadequate, even 

in the District capital of Waigama. 

Junior high schools at Waigama, Deer, and Kabare, however, were all found to be operating properly. The 

schools were well built and the availability of teachers was reasonably adequate. These schools were 

equipped with simple libraries and were well used, even though the quantity of reading material was limited. 

There is no senior high school in Raja Ampat. The community at Fafanlap village attempted to establish a 

community-sponsored high school but was forced to close the school down because there is a lack of 

teachers who are willing to commit to working in remote areas. Consequently, all junior high school 

graduates from Raja Ampat must travel to Sorong to further their education. 

This lack of commitment to work in remote areas from some teachers must be seen as one of the main 

reasons for poor quality education in Raja Ampat. However, it also demonstrated the lack of accountability 

that is demanded by government of teachers who do not fulfil contractual obligations. An old teacher in 

Tolobi, Kofiau islands lamented: 

“I should have retired a couple of years ago, but who would teach these children? What would be their future 

if there were no education? Should I just sit if others [teachers] do not fulfil their responsibilities? I have no 

other choice but to continue teaching. These kids are my own grandchildren. I am from this village. This is 

my call. I will continue to teach, even though with very little honorarium.” 

28


2.8.2 Health 

Raja Ampat is poorly serviced by government health care. Community Health Centres (Puskesmas) are 

found only in the four District capitals of the former Sorong Kabupaten. Even then, however, not all of the 

Puskesmas are served by a medical doctor. Medical supplies in the Puskesmas are dependent upon 

availability at the Regency level and the availability of transport to remote areas. Many of the village clinics 

do not have paramedics. The sick and injured must travel to the Puskesma in the District capital or travel as 

far as Sorong to receive medical assistance. If the patient can afford the cost of transport, and if the sea is 

navigable, then there is good quality health care available to them. There are six hospitals in Sorong, two of 

which are owned by the government. If, however, transport is unavailable or unaffordable, the patient has 

limited, if any, access to modern medical services. 

2.8.3 Security 

In the context of this report, the issue of security focuses on the capacity of law enforcement authorities to 

deter or apprehend perpetrators of illegal natural resource exploitation, primarily dynamite and cyanide 

fishing. The socio-economic team visited the District capitals of Waigama and Kabare partly to assess the 

capacity of the police service to adequately enforce the law. 

On arrival at Waigama, the team inadvertently met the chief of police of Misool District, as he was about to 

depart for Sorong to join the other 15 officers posted at Waigama. The officers had left the post due to a 

fasting holiday. The police chief’s departure would leave the District capital with no civilian law 

enforcement capacity. 

The Waigama barracks, a former Dutch police post, was decrepit. It had not been maintained since the 

1960s. The walls and floor were broken and the roof leaked. Residential facilities were austere, and there 

was no secure storage for the antiquated weapons. The Waigama police did not have a boat or outboard 

motor. The chief of police claimed that there was no District police unit in Raja Ampat that possessed an 

outboard motor, and that this was the main reason for the inability of the police to enforce the law, especially 

in relation to illegal exploitation of marine resources. Consequently, it was no surprise to learn that the use of 

potassium cyanide and dynamite was rampant throughout Raja Ampat. 

A Focus Group Discussion was held, involving prominent community figures from Waigama and Salafen 

villages, as well as with government officials. The chief of the Misool army post stated that the government 

apparatus was dependent on the generosity of the community for the use of a boat and outboard motor. He 

noted that the illegal operations often had 150hp motors fitted to their boats, which could easily outrun the 

slow locally assembled inboard motors of the local vessels. 

There is little wonder that some police officers suffer the same lack of commitment to working in remote 

areas of Raja Ampat that afflicts the teachers. Enforcement facilities are inadequate and the basic 

infrastructure that is necessary for them to serve the community is not provided. A similar situation was 

found to exist in Kabare, the capital of North Waigeo. Most of the police officers were in Sorong. The Army 

post (Koramil) was manned by one soldier and the commandant of Koramil (Danramil). 

2.8.4 Transportation 

Sea transport is the only means possible for the people of Raja Ampat to travel from village to village, or 

their District capitals and to Sorong. Almost every household in Raja Ampat has access to row boat, but only 

about 10% of those households have access to outboard motor. This makes the travel over longer distances 

very difficult, even prohibitive during the windy season. 

The government operates a pioneer ship (kapal perintis) to connect the District capital cities of Raja Ampat 

with Sorong. It is essentially a cargo ship that also carries passengers. The ship is usually crowded with 

passengers and their belongings, and lacks basic safety and health facilities. 

29


The pearl farming company, PT Yellu Mutiara, allows villagers residing in proximity to their lease to board 

their ships to and from Sorong for free. This applies to people from Fafanlap, Yelu, Lilinta, Gamta, Usaha 

Jaya and Harapan Jaya villages of Misool District. 

2.9 Economic Activities and Income Levels 

Village communities in Raja Ampat depend on the resources from their coastal waters for food and for their 

livelihood. However, the pattern and intensity of the exploitation of marine resources is shaped by the 

season, and also the ethnicity of the various communities. The discussion that follows outlines how the 

pattern and extent of cash dependence in the archipelago, now and in the future, is linked to population 

growth and dynamics. This section will describe the challenges faced by local communities as outside 

commercial interests seek to profit from the natural resources in Raja Ampat, and how the short term 

financial gain can be too much of a temptation to resist. 

2.9.1 Indigenous People 

Most indigenous people of Raja Ampat live in predominately subsistence economies, more so than other 

communities in the archipelago. Most cash income is obtained when they can access the resources and when 

traders can access them. This mostly occurs when the sea is calm enough to be sailed. In Fafanlap village, for 

example, this period is mostly from October to April. It is estimated that, during this time, householders 

could earn from Rp300,000 to Rp1,500,000 per month, depending on the nature of their transport. 

From May to September, when the seas are rough, indigenous people of Raja Ampat spend most of their 

time tending their gardens, which provide most of their staple food and contribute to the family income. For 

indigenous people in Fafanlap and surrounding villages, this entails producing sago, manihot and bananas, as 

well as beetle nuts, mango, langsat, and durian. Rice is bought from traders. It appears that the closer an 

indigenous village is to an urban area (e.g. villages in Salawati or Batanta islands to Sorong), the greater the 

dependence on rice. 

Indigenous people are greatly dependent on collecting and selling invertebrate sea products, such as bia lola 

(top shells, Trochus niloticus), bia mata bulan (green snails, Turbo marmoratus) and varieties of teripang (sea 

cucumbers, Holothuria sp) as the main sources of income. They irregularly sell live grouper and Napoleon 

wrasse to the collectors in their village, as well as lobsters. Drying of molluscs (e.g. bia garo) for food or for 

sale is common. People also slaughter turtles for food and harvest the eggs from nests (see Chapter 5 of this 

compilation). Prices paid to collectors of marine invertebrates by a trader in Fafanlap are listed in Table 8. 

Table 8. Price of marine commodities at Fafanlap village (November 2002). 

Commodity 

Price (Rp/kg) 

Bia lola (top shells, Trochus niloticus) 24,000 

Bia mata bulan (green snails, Turbo marmoratus) 110,000 

Teripang gosok (sea cucumbers, Holothuria sp) 200,000 

Teripang kongkong (sea cucumbers, Holothuria sp) 150,000 

Teripang susu (sea cucumbers, Holothuria sp) 150,000 

Teripang malam (sea cucumbers, Holothuria sp) 110,000 

Teripang polos (sea cucumbers, Holothuria sp) 30,000 

Teripang minyak (sea cucumbers, Holothuria sp) 12,500 

The ease with which access is gained to these commodities varied among villages. Whilst Fafanlap villagers 

are restricted by season, those in Tomolol, for example, are able to collect bêche-de-mer and other 

invertebrates throughout the year. This alters the pattern of harvest among different villages. People from 

Fafanlap and surrounding villages establish camps in the calm season and intensively target the resources, 

whereas people from Tomolol are able to accumulate the catch throughout the year. Villagers in Tomolol 

30


estimated that a family could collect around 800kg of bêche-de-mer per year. However, it was also reported 

that, in recent years, stocks of bêche-de-mer, trochus and giant clam had been drastically reduced. People 

from other areas of Indonesia (Buton, Ceram, and even Sumatra) make fishing camps on isolated islands, an 

issue that will be discussed later in this chapter. 

2.9.2 Old Migrants 

There are many similarities in the economic activities of the indigenous people of Raja Ampat and the old 

migrants. The differences primarily relate to the rate of commercialization, and the additional avenues of 

economic activity explored by people from old migrant communities. In Kofiau islands, for example, the 

production of copra is a major source of income for Biak speaking communities. However, the price of copra 

has dropped significantly in recent years and there is no protective pricing policy applied to copra, as there is 

to rice production. Consequently, copra production has scaled down and people in old migrant communities 

are forced to seek other sources of income. 

This market orientation increases the potential to earn cash in an environment of growing cash need. 

However, this willingness sometimes manifests in a propensity to join commercial exploitation of natural 

resources by people from outside the sphere of customary ownership. This is exemplified in Tomolol, where 

descendent migrants from Ceram reside in satellite villages located within the customary estate. These 

communities are said to have “the right to eat but not to own”. There is an absence of defined property rights 

for old migrant communities, save for ambit claims to rights of access. Consequently, there is scant 

recognition of a custodial responsibility for resource exploitation and conservation. Interviews in Tomolol 

revealed that fishermen from other parts of Indonesia were granted permission, for a fee, to exploit resources 

within the customary area by migrant villagers with no authority to do so. As there was neither institutional 

arbitration from the outside, nor communal consensus from the inside, incidents such as this can create 

frustration and division between communities, an unlikely situation prior to commercially based competition 

for resources. 

2.9.3 Destructive Fishing Practices 

Blast fishing has caused the destruction of reefs throughout the greater Indonesian archipelago. Its practice in 

Raja Ampat is reportedly conducted primarily by people from outside of the area, mostly by Butonese people 

from southeast Sulawesi. These operations are said to involve some local people and are often endorsed by 

the armed forces. The enforcement capacity of authorities in Raja Ampat is inadequate. However, when the 

authorities collaborate with the perpetrators of illegal and destructive fishing, any measurement of 

enforcement capacity is irrelevant. Villagers reported feeling powerless when they approached a vessel 

practicing blast fishing. If a uniformed officer didn’t confront them, then it was a fisherman armed with 

dynamite. 

The live reef food-fish trade that transports large and colorful reef predators, such as groupers and Napoleon 

wrasse, to the restaurant markets in Hong Kong and other Chinese centers is practiced in Raja Ampat. It is 

important to note that export of Napoleon wrasse from Indonesia is banned. A major destructive element in 

this fishery is the use of potassium cyanide to stun individual fish for capture to keep alive for export. The 

toxic cloud is sufficient to stun the large fish that are targeted, but is deadly to smaller organisms including 

coral. Again, we were told that fishing operations from Sulawesi and the Mollucca’s drive the trade in Raja 

Ampat, employing some local fishermen. At a Focus Group Discussion at Waigama, we were told that live 

fish transport vessels from Hong Kong arrive periodically to collect fish from major holding pens. The 

District Commissioner was in attendance and he stated that Indonesian military personnel were usually on 

board. 

At Fafanlap village, we were told that villagers that choose to participate in the poison fishery were supplied 

with boats and all the necessary equipment. In Waigama, we were told that a live fish buyer from Sorong 

offers fishermen a large down payment in return for sole purchasing rights to that fisherman’s catch. The 

31


lump sum is irresistible to some. Unfortunately, once the fisherman starts fishing for his exclusive buyer, he 

is coerced into fishing heavily every day in order to clear his ‘debt’. Young fishermen know that the poison 

fishery is a bad thing, but as stocks of marine invertebrates had declined so drastically, this was a source of 

income that could not easily be ignored. 

A live fish trader in Fafanlap village emphasised that the fish are caught using a hook and line. He told us 

that the best time for catching the targeted species was between November and May. This likely indicates 

that the seasonal and highly predictable spawning aggregations occur during the middle period of this range 

on a particular lunar phase. Local fishermen have an intimate knowledge of the location, timing and duration 

of spawning aggregations on their home reefs. Participation in the live fishery was an opportunity to earn a 

much-desired income. 

Inspection of net cages at this location, as at others in Raja Ampat during this REA, revealed a moderate 

number of female coral trout Plectropomus leopardus and a small number of juvenile Napoleon wrasse 

Cheilinus undulatus. There were no rock cods. There were no large (male) groupers evident in any holding 

facility and there were only rare in situ sightings of groupers by the marine team. The relative scarcity of 

these reef predators, particularly the absence of males, is a sign of overfishing. Moreover, the scarcity of 

breeding males undermines the viability of spawning aggregations. Overfishing has been implicated in the 

disappearance of spawning aggregations throughout the world (e.g. Colin, 1992; Aquilar-Perera and Aguilar- 

Davila, 1996; Domeier and Colin, 1997). Johannes et al. (1999) listed five locations where grouper stocks 

had been eliminated as a result of fishing spawning aggregations. These aggregations were intensively 

targeted using hook and line. 

Napoleon wrasse is a slow growing, long-lived species with a low replacement capacity. Consequently, the 

species is highly vulnerable to overexploitation (Sadovy, 1997). They often exhibit shy behavior and are 

known to be difficult to catch using a hook and line. Johannes and Riepen (1995) explained that these large 

fish rove across the reefs by day and sleep in reef caves and under coral ledges at night. Consequently, they 

are easy targets for divers, particularly at night, even without using cyanide. It is suspected that the majority 

of Napoleon wrasse caught in Raja Ampat for the live fish trade is caught using potassium cyanide. 

Enforcement of the trade ban on this species is clearly non-existent. 

Interviews in Selpele, western Waigeo, indicated that the best time of the year to catch live fish trade target 

species was January and February. The catch could weigh up to 500kg, with about 50kg of mamen/mulut 

tikus and 450kg of tongseng and geha provided by 40 fishermen. Prices paid to fishermen are listed in Table 

9. Given that the Napoleon wrasse were all juvenile and the coral trout female, it can be estimated that the 

gross earnings for Selpele fishermen from the live fish trade, concentrated in January and February, is less 

than Rp25,000,000 or about Rp580,000 per fishermen. This income is supplementary at best and clearly a 

fraction of the earnings that would have been garnered at the height of the trade. Since the establishment of a 

pearl farm by PT Cendana IndoPearl, the number of Selpele villagers involved in the live fish trade is 

significantly reduced. 

32


Table 9. Prices paid to fishermen for live grouper and Napoleon 

wrasse at Selpele village. 

Type of fish (local names) Category Price (Rp/kg) 

Tongseng 

Big (1.5 kg up) 50,000 

Super 45,000 

Baby 15,000 

Geha Average 15,000 

Mamen/mulut tikus 

Big 120,000 

Super 90,000 

Baby 60,000 

Communities in the villages visited in Kofiau stated that local people participated in both the poison and 

blast fisheries. Some of these participants reside in Sorong, and it was these people, in particular, who raise 

the ire of village elders. The following remark was made by a prominent figure in Deer village: 

“It’s very difficult for me to understand. It was our own customary children [anak-anak adat] who are 

destroying our marine resources, even though they were educated in the city. We have tried to use customary 

rules to rebuke them, but they did not want to listen. They said custom [adat] never gave them money, but 

the people from outside give them money. They also refused to listen to the church [leadership]. It’s hard for 

us to confront our own children.” 

Growing cash dependence has seen Raja Ampat enter a period of flux. Villagers, in turn, merely respond 

accordingly to the economic signals. Fishermen in Waigama, for example, say they once caught whale 

sharks because there was a market for the oil from their liver. There are very few sharks in the Raja Ampat 

archipelago (Erdmann and Pet, 2002; Chapter 2 of this compilation). Anecdotal information regarding shark 

fishing in the Kapadiri area of Waigeo indicated that villagers were paid from Rp1,800,000 to Rp3,000,000 

per kilogram of shark fin. Philippine fishing boats regularly visit small islands to the north of Waigeo, such 

as Dorekar, as the islands are an important trading place for protected parrots. In Fafanlap, we were told by a 

village leader that integration into the cash economy has led young people to capture birds, cut down trees 

and to disregard future needs for the sake of earning money now. The money, he said, was not only to meet 

cash needs but also to buy coveted items. 

2.9.4 Logging 

Since the introduction of the Kopermas (Koperasi Peranserta Masyarakat or Community Cooperative 

Enterprise) for managing natural resources in Papua in April 1999, the forestry sector in Raja Ampat has 

been dominated by collaborative arrangements between the leadership of local communities, government 

officials, military and police, and local timber companies. Such associations have suffered accusations of 

collusion, and practices that have has led to a sharp increase in forest destruction, both within areas covered 

by permits, but also in protected areas and nature reserves (Down to Earth Newsletter, 2002). 

It was expected that, through Kopermas, local people could manage commercial exploitation of natural 

resources on their own ancestral lands. The cooperative arrangements with outside companies would allow 

local people to learn this process whilst maintaining control over their resources. The concept built on Article 

33 of the 1945 Constitution that endorsed cooperative enterprise as the embodiment of the principle of 

brotherhood. However, there is little evidence to suggest that cooperative enterprises have provided 

prosperity to local people. 

The concessions are often poorly managed, destructive, with little transparency and low returns to 

communities, and allow for smuggling and hence real loss of fiscal opportunity to the area. There is a severe 

33


conflict between logging concessions and existing protected areas, most notably on Misool and Salawati 

islands (Sorondanya, 2003). 

Kopermas involved in the exploitation of forest resources have attracted criticism based on the following: 

• Due to the capital-intensive nature of the enterprise and the outsourcing of capital investment, it is 

believed that outsiders stand to reap the majority of the profit, and that local people would be 

inadequately compensated. This is a valid fear given the external costs of erosion resulting in water 

quality decline and sedimentation of nearshore reefs, together with loss of amenity and wildlife habitat. 

There are also longer term cash needs associated with these and other social costs. 

• Kopermas forest concessions are typically 250 hectares, which is usually clear-cut. Consequently, forest 

destruction from Kopermas activity is likely to be more severe than that caused by big forest concession 

holders (perusahaan pemegang Hak Pengusahaan Hutan) 

• Forest management by Kopermas has been linked with illegal logging in protected areas. Participating 

communities legally own Kopermas. However, if the community is also the customary owner of a 

specific protected area, logging the area is seemingly in the hands of community leadership. This opens 

the possibility of the application of pressure from outside investors and can potentially undermine 

conservation efforts. 

These issues were discussed at Kapacol, Waigama and Saliyo, where exploitation of forest resources was 

examined during the REA. We were told that the logging company initiated contact with the community 

leadership and the relevant statutory authority in Sorong. Then an advance payment was made to the local 

community to signal the sincerity of the company’s intentions. The company and community leadership then 

negotiated the benefits to accrue to the community. Inevitably, some community leaders would be recruited 

by the company to act as overseers, thereby joining the company payroll. 

The 2000 Yearly Work Plan previously determined payment for particular timbers (Table 10). However, 

dissatisfaction from the participating communities resulted in logging companies agreeing to pay extra from 

1st May 2001. It is unknown whether this scale is adhered to or whether the price is negotiated pursuant to 

other benefits. Communities insisted that compensation should cover payments to local government, the use 

of land for roads and log ponds, and the utilization of plants and trees. They also insisted that the company 

meet its community development responsibilities. 

Table 10. Prices paid to communities for particular timbers. 

Type of Timber 2000 Yearly Work After 1 st May 2001 

Plan 

Merbau Rp3,000m -3 Rp25,000m -3 

non-Merbau Rp10,000m -3 

Indah Rp50,000m -3 

Rimba Rp2,000m -3 

Mangrove Rp600m -3 Rp1,000m -3 

Payment for co-operative logging rights to outside interests often resulted in disputes among members of the 

community. This indicated that insufficient consultation within the community had occurred prior to entering 

into the Koperma. It might also suggest that self-interest was a factor during negotiations or that the final 

deal lacked transparency. 

At Kapacol village, Misool, logging had occurred in a designated conservation area. Our arrival coincided 

with the departure of logging company representatives, who were leaving after paying community fees for 

logs they had harvested. It seems that around $US20,000 (about Rp180,000,000) was shared between three 

34


villages. Theoretically, this is paid at a rate of about $US5m-3 of timber loaded, and it seems that the 

company is harvesting around 4,000m3 every three months. The figures may not be exact, but clearly the 

incentives for villagers to sell timber rights are enormous. The head of the village in Kapacol was not 

concerned about logging in a protected area. He said that he knew that the area was protected but asked how 

else his village could make money from their forest. 

Community leaders at Saliyo entered into a logging agreement with a company called Masindo, who 

initiated negotiations and made an advance payment. However, the customary chief rejected the proposal. In 

response, a representative of Masindo donated sporting equipment, an outboard motor and Rp7,000,000 in 

cash to the “people” and appointed the customary chief as foreman, paying him Rp500,000 per month. 

After the first shipment from Saliyo of 1,200m3, Masindo paid the community with two 40hp outboard 

motors and six 15hp outboard motors. For the second shipment of 600m3, the community was paid 

Rp57,000,000. There were only two shipments. The company left, leaving behind a further 600m3 to sold by 

the community themselves. When asked what had become of the money, one of the elders replied that the 

money too easily evaporated, although he had used some for his children’s education in Sorong. In Saliyo 

village, there is no tangible benefit to be seen for the exploitation of the timber resource. 

2.9.5 Pearl Farming 

We visited pearl farms in Misool (PT Yellu Mutiara) and Waigeo (PT Cendana Indopearl). Both companies 

have negotiated lease arrangements with customary owners for use of an expansive marine area and both 

companies rely on local labour. Both operations maintain a close working relationship with communities. 

The operations are committed to long term production and are now part of the mosaic in Raja Ampat 

PT Yellu Mutiara has a 20-year lease that was renewed in 1997. The company employs approximately 200 

villagers from neighboring communities, such as Tomalol and surrounding villages. Part of the agreement 

entails provision of an electricity generator in Tomalol and the fuel to power it. The generator was not in 

operation during our visit but it is anticipated in the near future. The company also assisted the people in the 

construction of a church and mosque. Workers are paid in accordance with the provincial minimum standard, 

which allows each employee to earn at least Rp600,000 per month. 

Villagers stated that the company provides free transport, including freight, to and from Sorong. 

Consequently, some villagers have purchased building materials that would otherwise have incurred 

prohibitive transport costs. This is seen as a boon to villagers but it has also increased the level of cash 

dependence in the villages. 

The pearl farms maintain a well resourced monitoring and security capability. This has proved invaluable in 

curbing the incidence of destructive fishing in the area. Since 1996, security from PT Yellu Mutiara has 

apprehended four vessels with cyanide and turned them over to the authorities. The cyanide could potentially 

kill many oysters. 

Interview respondents in Selpele reported that PT Cendana Indopearl employed 41 local people who were 

paid in accordance with the provincial minimum standard. PT Cendana Indopearl also undertook community 

development activities in their neighboring villages, including Selpele. The company assisted the local 

people with electricity and selling petroleum at a subsidized price. An employee told us that the company 

had hired a schoolteacher because the government appointed teacher had not stayed long in the remote 

village. 

2.10 Tenure Issues and Cultural Regulations Governing Resource Use 

Tenure issues in relation to access to, and the management of, resources in Raja Ampat are similar to the 

practice of many indigenous communities in Papua Province, Melanesia and the wider Pacific. 

35


As is the case in the Pacific, which has experienced various waves of transmigration over the millennia, new 

arrivals have limited rights of access to natural resources. Subsistence fishing or harvesting is always free to 

everyone. Decisions regarding patterns of resource use, including seasonal closure of fishing areas or taboos 

on the harvest of certain species, are made by the clan hierarchy and must be adhered to by all that reside in, 

or transit through, an area that is subject to custom ownership and management. Activities of a commercial 

nature must be approved by the clan hierarchy and this might entail some form of compensation should 

permission be granted. Continuity of residence and association with a particular area and its people through 

generations is at the root of the allocation of access rights. Intermarriage and various forms of patrilineal and 

matrilineal lineage usually contribute to the extent of access rights afforded to an individual. Customary 

ownership of resources is an evolutionary phenomenon. It is adaptable by necessity, but like other forms of 

property rights structure, it must be adequately enforced. 

Several characteristics of the tenure rights and cultural regulations governing resource use in Raja Ampat 

have been identified as follows: 

• Resources are owned communally rather than individually; 

• The sasi system is part of the culture of the Raja Ampat communities. Sasi is mechanism designed to 

regulate use of natural resources. Based on advice from community members, the clan hierarchy might 

decide to utilize (buka sasi) or conserve (tutup sasi) particular resources or areas. Sanctions are imposed 

on those that do not comply with such dictates; 

• Access rights granted to third parties are conditional and non-permanent; 

• The granting of access rights to resources requires community consensus but the final decision rests with 

the customary head of the clan; 

• The concept of “right to use but not to own” was becoming more popular among the indigenous people of 

Raja Ampat. This is likely a response to increasing population and commercial activity threatening a 

long-standing status quo; 

• Raja Ampat communities recognize and respect traditional ownership of natural resources and the 

concomitant rights of access to those resources; and 

• Raja Ampat communities expect reciprocity to be practiced when resources are exploited. On a small 

scale, this might include transiting fishermen sharing subsistence catch. On a commercial scale, it entails 

the sharing of wealth through the provision of social services and infrastructure. 

It must be noted that the system of custom tenure and access rights to natural resources is strong from the 

community viewpoint, expressed particularly by older members of the community. However, some younger 

people reject the limitations on resource exploitation imposed by customary measures designed for 

moderation. This is exacerbated by the disregard for customary rights exhibited by people who come from 

outside Raja Ampat to exploit resources without permission or compensation with complicity from figures of 

authority. 

2.11 Influence and Involvement of Outside Parties on Resource Use 

A question asked repeatedly of communities throughout the REA involved the current status of marine 

resources compared to that of bygone times. Overwhelmingly, villagers replied that resources had been 

significantly depleted. Villagers spoke of the minimal effort required to catch a fish for a meal, or to collect 

sea cucumber and molluscs for sale. The reasons offered by villagers for such depletion unanimously pointed 

to the exploitation of marine resources by people from outside of Raja Ampat. 

This section will explain the involvement of some of those outsiders. The logging and the pearl farming 

companies have already been explained in previous sections. To a certain degree, these industries are 

36


different to other outside parties. The pearl farms, in particular, make a significant and ongoing contribution 

to communities as part of the reciprocity alluded to in a previous section, whereby social and economic 

benefit is attained through the provision of some social services and infrastructure, and through the provision 

of employment. This is not necessarily the case with other outside interests. 

2.11.1 Blast Fishermen 

It is widely understood and accepted throughout Raja Ampat, and in Sorong, that blast fishing is one of the 

main reasons for the destruction of marine resources in Raja Ampat. However, the use of explosives for 

fishing is not a new phenomenon in Raja Ampat. Local people admitted that fish bombing has been practiced 

since the 1970s, or even earlier, mostly by assembling a ‘local bomb’ (called dopis by the Biak speaking 

community) using ammunition from unexploded World War II bombs or bullets. 

However, the current bomb is made from urea fertilizer and is usually contained in small plastic jerry cans. 

This means that the fish bomb is much easier to produce. Local communities in Raja Ampat claimed that 

they were no longer involved in collecting fish using bombs because it was very difficult for them to obtain 

urea in Raja Ampat. But, in Sorong mainland, it was relatively easy to obtain fertilizers as they were freely 

sold in agricultural shops. Also, Sorong was one of the main areas in Papua for the government sponsored 

transmigration program, which saw the establishment of colonies of settlers from Java and other islands. The 

Javanese transmigrants used fertilizers intensively to grow food crops. 

Fish bombing is conducted without consent from the customary resource owners. Even though the bombing 

activities are illegal and destructive, it appears that local people do not have any mechanism to control it. 

Despairingly, when local people decided that it was physically dangerous to deal directly with the 

perpetrators and to expel them from their customary area, they asked the fishermen to share some of their 

catch, arguing that “it’s better than we have nothing at all.” 

The bombed fish are sold fresh or as salted fish in Sorong. A teacher in Kapadiri village told the senior 

author that it is easy to identify the bombed fish in the market. “They are usually of a similar size and of the 

same species. Also, there will be no sign that those fish were caught using our traditional method, such as 

with hook or spear.” 

According to the local communities, people from outside of Raja Ampat were mostly responsible for the use 

of bombs and potassium cyanide. They include the people from Sorong (such as Pulau Buaya or Rufei/ 

Lampu Merah areas) as well as people from outside of Papua, such as from Mollucas, various parts of 

Sulawesi including Buton, and as far as Madura. We obtained a report from the local community that a fleet 

of Butonese fishermen from Sorong had been operating in the area and collecting fish by using bombs. The 

fishermen denied using bombs, claiming they collected their fish using hook and line. However, the local 

people claimed that the Butonese fishermen from Sorong using these types of fleets often came to their area 

and collected the fish using bombs. 

2.11.2 Potassium Cyanide Fishermen 

The use of potassium cyanide to collect certain types of live fish was seen by local people as one of the main 

threats to the sustainability of their marine resources. Potassium cyanide was not made locally, or in Sorong, 

but is imported from outside. 

There are various ships from outside of Papua involved in collecting live fish. This information was learned 

from interviews with villagers in Saliyo Village: 

“There have been a couple of ships operating in our area. These are MV Mioskopal from Ambon, MV 

Kawan Setia from Makassar, and MV Regina. Each of these ships carried 18 to 20 speedboats equipped with 

compressors for diving. Compressors allow their divers to stay for a long time under the water, and with 

potassium cyanide they collected a lot of live fish.” 

37


“We caught MV Regina two years ago. It’s crew, from Salayar Island in Sulawesi, stole the fish near our 

islands. We confiscated one of their speedboats with a 15hp outboard motor. We also confiscated their 

compressors. But later, when only our women and children were left in the village, the ship’s crew came 

back and threatened our families with knives. They took back the motor and compressors.” 

2.11.3 Ikan Teri Fishermen and the Tuna Fishing Companies 

The Raja Ampat Islands is a primary source for tiny fish (known locally as ikan teri), used by tuna fishing 

companies as bait to catch different types of tuna. These companies usually employ or contract specific 

fishermen, called nelayan bagan. A bagan is a fishing platform with a cantilevered fish trap. The bagan 

fishermen operate at night and attract large schools of ikan teri using lights. These fishermen were mostly of 

Buton origins from South East Sulawesi. There were many bagan camps encountered throughout the 

archipelago. More often than not, the ikan teri was dried for human consumption. 

Three or four fishermen usually man each bagan. If a tuna company employs the fishermen, every second 

day a company ship would collect the live ikan teri. Each bagan earns from Rp1,200,000 to Rp1,500,000 per 

month from the company, which would then shared by the fishermen according to their own agreement. 

Regardless of whether the bagan fishermen dry the ikan teri or keep them alive for bait, they generally have 

to pay local resource owners for access. However, at one such camp, elders from a migrant village near 

Tomolol granted access for a fee of Rp100,000 causing a strain in relations with the indigenous owners of 

the area. 

2.11.4 Philippine Fishermen 

Philippine fishermen are quite active in the northern parts of the archipelago, particularly in Waigeo. Local 

people in these remote communities are happy to deal with these people from outside the archipelago 

because they provide villagers with sought after commodities that are otherwise unavailable to them. The 

activities of the fishermen, however, are neither legal nor of a sustainable nature, including shark fishing for 

fins and the trade in exotic birds. The Philippine fishermen reputedly do not employ blast or poison fishing 

methods. The fishermen have nurtured a relationship with local villagers based on an exchange of gifts, 

which range from liquor to electricity generators and outboard motors. 

One or two Sanger fishermen from South Sulawesi were usually employed by each group of Philippine 

fishermen to help them in translation when they communicated with the local people. In Saleo village, for 

instance, we learned that the local people were given a quantity of Tandawai and Klavo liquors. The 

fishermen donated two electrical generators to the people of Kapadiri village. They were also given two 

outboard motors. An elder in Kapadiri told us: “If we obtained information that patrolling activities were 

conducted by the Navy, I would tell those Philippinos. We would hide them if necessary.” 

2.11.5 Balinese Fishermen 

The threat to populations of sea turtles in Raja Ampat was not only due to the traditional use by indigenous 

people, such as to be used as for making kawes – a local delicacy, but is also caused by the capture of these 

endangered species by Balinese fishermen on a much larger scale. 

Solomon, a native of Saliyo, whom the senior author met at a fishing camp at Wayag Island, described the 

exploitation of tuturuga (the local name for sea turtles) in his customary area: 

“The people from Gebe [of the North Maluku Province, but culturally related to Raja Ampat] took the eggs 

and brought home about five or six big tuturuga. People from Ayau also came here to kill tuturuga and took 

the eggs. They asked permission first from us. But the Balinese just came, anchored their boats near Sayang 

Island, and collected the live tuturuga, as much as they want. I have seen on one occasion approximately 20 

live-big-size tuturuga on the deck of a Balinese ship. Those were in one ship only. And those were only what 

I could see. I did not know how many more [tuturuga] were inside the ship. They took everything: big, small, 

eggs …” 

38


The five examples of the external exploitation of marine resources in Raja Ampat presented above clearly 

demonstrates that despite the fact that there are activities conducted by the population of Raja Ampat that can 

be categorized as threats to the sustainability of the resources, the involvement of outsiders (the non-Raja 

Ampat population) was clearly the main reason for the depletion of the marine resources in the archipelago. 

The fact that most of the outsiders were not residents of Sorong, or even the province of Papua, makes any 

attempt to limit the depletion to require a highly coordinated effort. 

2.12 Community Development Issues in Raja Ampat 

There is no formal government development plan for the Raja Ampat islands. The current Sorong Regency 

Strategic Plan itemizes 20 developmental sectors, including industry, security and law enforcement, but no 

details are provided on how development within the sectors will be conducted in such a unique area as Raja 

Ampat. However, the Bupati of Sorong stated in an interview that Raja Ampat would rely on fisheries, 

marine tourism, and mining as key sectors for generating income after it became an autonomous Regency. 

The devolution of authority to the regions in Indonesia has tended to occur without adequate measures to 

improve the capacity of the local government. Such capacity building is crucial for the Raja Ampat Regency, 

which lacks physical and governmental infrastructure. Based on previous experiences, such as the 

establishment of Mimika, Paniai and Puncak Jaya Regencies in Papua Province in 1996, it can be anticipated 

that the presence of a government institution does not necessarily mean that that institution will function 

properly in the short term. Political decisions by the new Raja Ampat government regarding natural resource 

exploitation would be of little consequence unless the government was able to improve and strengthen its 

capacity to fulfil its obligations in the shortest time possible. The failure to do so might result in the increase 

of illegal and unsustainable uses of marine and forestry resources – a situation that might be worse than 

when Raja Ampat was still part of Sorong Regency. 

Marine tourism is potentially the backbone of the Raja Ampat economy. However, there was no 

infrastructure developed by the Sorong Regency that could be developed further by the Raja Ampat 

government. The Bupati of Sorong admitted that the contribution of the tourism industry as a whole was 

insignificant to the Sorong government budget, even though he realized its potential. Opportunities now exist 

for the new government to guide the development of a sustainable low impact tourism sector in conjunction 

with plans aimed at meeting conservation objectives. 

2.13 Immediate Challenges Faced by the Raja Ampat Government 

Raja Ampat is in a period of transition, both politically and economically. Communities within the 

archipelago are becoming more cash dependent yet the interim parent administration from Sorong is unlikely 

to fund the establishment of infrastructure necessary to facilitate a long-term development vision for Raja 

Ampat given the limited nature of their tenure and the inherent shortage of development funding from the 

central government. 

It is likely that the fiscal capacity of the Raja Ampat Regency will be very limited in the first five to ten 

years. The annual provision of the General Allocation Fund (Dana Alokasi Umum) from the central 

government will only be sufficient to cover administrative costs, which will increase now that there are three 

additional Districts, each requiring staff and facilities. It is unlikely that excess funds will be available to 

fund the real developments at the community level. It is therefore necessary for the new government to 

generate it’s own revenue. It must recognise the value of the uniqueness of Raja Ampat and that nonextractive 

means of resource use should be developed. Consequently, protection of biodiversity is central to 

long term prosperity. 

Sustainable development in partnership with the private sector seems a likely vehicle. A prime example is 

the lease in Alyui Bay, Waigeo held by PT Cendana Indopearl whereby the local communities gain 

employment and other benefits, whilst the environment that maintains food provision is unaffected. Unless 

39


other passive, non-extractive sources of income are developed, the government might feel compelled to 

exploit marine and forestry resources in a manner that cannot be sustained. 

Any conservation initiative in Raja Ampat must provide local communities with income generating 

alternatives that satisfy the immediate needs to purchase goods and services that cannot be fulfilled from 

their subsistence way of living. Conservation organisations must work closely with the new administration 

and customary resource owners to ensure access entitlements are agreed upon and duly observed. The new 

government must also strengthen law enforcement, given the relative freedom with which people from 

outside Raja Ampat can exploit resources within the archipelago using illegal and destructive methods. 

2.14 What Can Be Done to Help the People and Government of Raja Ampat? 

Within a five-year time frame, it is proposed that the following practical initiatives be addressed: 

• Public education concerning the various socio-economic and environmental issues in Raja Ampat: Whilst 

the archipelago is well known among marine scientists, it is still an unknown area for many, including the 

people of Indonesia. The majority of published material, including web-based material, is available only 

in English. Consequently, its role to educate the people of Indonesia is limited. More articles about Raja 

Ampat should be published in the popular media in Indonesia. 

• A workshop on the development and conservation of Raja Ampat should be conducted: Workshops are a 

valuable tool that allows people from the different sections of society to discuss relevant issues in a forum 

of open discussion. The present REA revealed that there has never been an opportunity for the people of 

Raja Ampat to sit down with the private sector, government agencies and conservation organisations to 

understand the socio-economic and environmental dynamics of Raja Ampat and to actively participate in 

the identification and agreement of steps to be taken so that a win-win situation can be achieved. 

• Combined efforts of conservation and research institutions should be in place in Raja Ampat: Creation of 

the Raja Ampat Regency should be seen by conservation organisations and research institutions as an 

opportunity to intensify their efforts in Raja Ampat and to be actively involved in collaborative and 

holistic planning with the new administration and resource owners. The establishment of research and 

community outreach facilities in the new capital, Waisai, is proposed. The purpose of the facility is to 

create a permanent outlet in close proximity to the Bupati and the new parliament that integrates the 

conservation and research effort and application from such bodies as The Nature Conservancy (TNC), 

World Wide fund for Nature (WWF), Conservation International (CI), The Indonesian Science Institute 

(LIPI), The State University of Papua (UNIPA), The Cenderawasih University (Uncen), the Nature 

Conservation Bureau of the Department of Forestry (PHPA), and the Research Institute of the Department 

of Forestry (Litbang Kehutanan), etc. 

2.15 Areas Likely to Achieve Greatest Conservation Success 

There are significant areas in Raja Ampat that have already been declared as protected areas and there are 

plans to promote certain areas, such as Kofiau and Wayag, to World Heritage status. Any of the protected 

areas in Raja Ampat has the potential for the successful implementation of a conservation program, provided 

the conditions proposed above can be implemented. 


Aguilar-Perera, A. & Aguilar-Dávila, W., 1996. A spawning aggregation of Nassau grouper Epinephelus 

striatus (Pisces, Serranidae) in the Mexican Caribbean. Environmental Biology of Fishes 45(4): 351- 

361. 

40


Babbie, E., 1992. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont. 

Brownlie, I., 1992. Treaties and Indigenous Peoples. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 

Burger, J., 1987. Report from the Frontier: The State of the Indigenous World. Anchor Books, New York. 

Colin, P.L., 1992. Reproduction of the Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus (Pisces: Serranidae) & its 

relationship to environmental conditions. Environmental Biology of Fishes 34: 357-377. 

Domeier, M.L. & Colin, P.L., 1997. Tropical reef fish spawning aggregations - defined and reviewed. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 60(3): 698-726. 

Down to Earth Newsletter, 2002. Accessed on 13th January 2002 at http://www.kabaririan.com/pipermail/kabar-irian/2002-November/000053.html 

Erdmann, M.V. and Pet, J., 2002. A Rapid Marine Survey of the Northern Raja Ampat Islands. Henry 


Johannes, R.E. & Riepen, M., 1995. Environmental, economic & social implications of the fishery for live 

coral reef food fish in Asia & the Western Pacific. Report to The Nature Conservancy & the South 

Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency. 83pp. 

Johannes, R.E., Squire, L., Graham, T., Sadovy, Y. & Renguul, H., 1999. Spawning aggregations of groupers 

(Serranidae) in Palau. Marine Conservation Research Series Publ.#1, The Nature Conservancy. 144pp. 

Kamma, F.C., 1982. Ajaib di Mata Kita: Masalah Komunikasi antara Timur dan Barat Dilihat dari Sudut 

Pengalaman selama Seabad Pekabaran Injil di Irian Jaya [Seeing Miraculous Things: Problems of 

Communication between East and West During Hundred Years of Evangelisation in Irian Jaya], 

Volume 1. BPK Gunung Mulia, Jakarta. 

Mampioper, A., 1988. Sistem Birokrasi dan Institusi Budaya Irian Jaya: Pokok Bahasan tentang Sejarah 

Perjalanan Pemerintahan di Irian Jaya Sebelum Tahun 1963 sampai dengan UU No. 5 tahun 1979 

[The Bureaucracy and the Institutional Culture of Irian Jaya: A Review of the Histoy of the 

Governmental Activities Pre 1963 until the Implementation of the Law No. 5/1979] Paper Presented in 

the Seminar on Irian Jaya Development and Research on Eastern Indonesia (II), 18-23 July 1988, 

Jayapura. 

Masinambouw, E.K.M. (ed). 1983. Halmahera dan Raja Ampat sebagai Kesatuan Majemuk [Halmahera 

and Raja Ampat as a Multiple-Unity]. LIPI-LEKNAS, Jakarta. 

McKenna, S.A., Allen, G.R., and Suryadi, S. (eds). 2002. A Marine Rapid Assessment of the Raja Ampat 

Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment No. 22. Washington: 

Conservation International. 

Mealey, G.A., 1996. Grasberg. New Orleans: Freeport-McMoRan Copper&Gold Inc. 

Sadovy, Y.J., 1997. Live reef-fishery species feature prominently in first marine fish IUCN red list. SPC Live 

Reef Fish Trade Information Bulletin 2: 13-14. 

Silzer, J.P. and Clouse, H.H., 1991. Index of Irian Jaya Languages. Uncen and SIL, Jayapura. 

Sorondanya, C.K., 2003. Bureau of Natural Resources Conservation (comm. BKSDA Papua II, 2003). 

Sumule, A.I., 1994. The Technology Adoption Behaviour of the Indigenous People of Irian Jaya: A Case 

Study of the Arfak Tribals. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia. 

Wallace, A.R., 1869. The Malay Archipelago. Periplus, Singapore. 

41

Chapter 3 

Coral Reef Fishes of the Raja Ampat Islands 

GERALD R. ALLEN 

3.1 Summary 

• A list of fishes was compiled for 50 sites in the Raja Ampat Islands. The survey involved about 70 

hours of scuba diving to a maximum depth of 52m. 

• The Raja Ampat Islands have one of the world’s richest coral reef fish faunas, consisting of at least 

1,074 species of which 899 (84%) were observed or collected during the present survey. The 

present REA resulted in 104 new records for the Raja Ampats, including four new records for 

Indonesia. 

• A formula for predicting the total reef fish fauna, based on the number of species in six key 

indicator families, indicates that at least 1,149 species can be expected to occur at the Raja Ampat 

Islands. 

• Gobies (Gobiidae), damselfishes (Pomacentridae), and wrasses (Labridae) are the dominant groups 

at the Raja Ampat Islands in both number of species (137, 114, and 109 respectively) and number 

of individuals. 

• Species numbers at visually sampled sites during the REA survey ranged from 59 to 284, with an 

average of 185.9. 

• 200 or more species per site is considered the benchmark for an excellent fish count. This figure 

was achieved at 50 percent of Raja Ampat sites. 

• Although fish diversity was relatively high, there were signs of overfishing. Napoleon wrasse, 

which are a good indicator of fishing pressure, were relatively rare. Only 14, mainly small, 

individuals were observed at nine sites. 

• The vicinity of Kofiau was the richest area for reef fishes with an average of 228 species per site. 

The highest recorded species count (284) for a single scuba dive in the Indo-Pacific region was 

recorded at site 31 at Kofiau. 

• Areas with the highest concentration of fish diversity and consequent high conservation potential 

include: Kofiau, Alyui Bay on Waigeo, and islands off western Misool (sites 22-27). 

42

Chapter 3 – Coral Reef Fishes of the Raja Ampat Iskands 


The primary goal of the fish survey was to provide a comprehensive inventory of reef species inhabiting the 

Raja Ampat Islands. This segment of the fauna includes fishes living on or near coral reefs down to the limit 

of safe sport diving or approximately 50m depth. It therefore excludes deepwater fishes, offshore pelagic 

species such as flyingfishes, tunas, and billfishes, and most estuarine forms. 

Survey results facilitate comparison of the Raja Ampat’s faunal richness with adjoining regions in the Indo- 

Australian Archipelago (“Coral Triangle”). However, the list of Raja Ampat fishes is still incomplete, due to 

the rapid nature of the survey and secretive nature of many small reef species. Nevertheless, a basic 

knowledge of the cryptic component of the fauna in other areas, coupled with an extrapolation method 

utilizing key “index” families can be used to predict the Raja Ampat’s overall species total. 

3.3 Methods 

The fish portion of this survey involved approximately 70 hours of scuba diving by G. Allen to a maximum 

depth of 52m. A list of fishes was compiled for 50 sites. The basic method consisted of underwater 

observations made during a single, 60-90 minute dive at each site. The name of each observed species was 

recorded in pencil on a plastic sheet attached to a clipboard. The technique usually involved rapid descent to 

20-50m, then a slow, meandering ascent back to the shallows. The majority of time was spent in the 2-12m 

depth zone, which consistently harbors the largest number of species. Each dive included a representative 

sample of all major bottom types and habitat situations, for example rocky intertidal, reef flat, steep dropoffs, 

caves (utilizing a flashlight if necessary), rubble and sand patches. 

Only the names of fishes for which identification was absolutely certain were recorded. However, very few, 

less than one percent of those observed, could not be identified to species. This high level of recognition is 

based on more than 25 years of diving experience in the Indo-Pacific and an intimate knowledge of the reef 

fishes of this vast region as a result of extensive laboratory and field studies. 

The visual survey was supplemented with occasional small collections procured with the use of the 

ichthyocide rotenone and several specimens collected with a rubber-propelled, multi-prong spear. The 

purpose of the rotenone collections was to flush out small, crevice and sand-dwelling fishes (for example 

tiny gobies) that are difficult to record with visual techniques. 

3.4 Results 

The total reef fish fauna of the Raja Ampat Islands reported herein consists of 1,074 species belonging to 91 

families (Appendix 1). A total of 899 species were actually recorded during the present REA. The author 

recorded the additional 175 species during three previous visits in 1998-2001 (see Allen, 2002). Allen (1993 

and 1997), Myers (1989), Kuiter and Tonozuka (2001), and Randall et al. (1990) illustrated the majority of 

species currently known from the area. 

3.4.1 General faunal composition 

The fish fauna of the Raja Ampat Islands consists mainly of species associated with coral reefs. The most 

abundant families in terms of number of species are gobies (Gobiidae), damselfishes (Pomacentridae), 

wrasses (Labridae), cardinalfishes (Apogonidae), groupers (Serranidae), butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae), 

surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae), blennies (Blenniidae), parrotfishes (Scaridae), and snappers (Lutjanidae). 

These 10 families collectively account for 61 percent of the total reef fauna (Figure 1). 

43


Figure 1. Ten largest families of Raja Ampat fishes. 

Scaridae 

Lutjanidae 

Blenniidae 

Acanthuridae 

Chaetodontidae 

Serranidae 

Apogonidae 

Labridae 

Pomacentridae 

Gobiidae 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

No. species 

Figure 1. Ten largest families of Raja Ampat fishes 

The relative abundance of Raja Ampat fish families is similar to other reef areas in the Indo-Pacific, although 

the ranking of individual families is variable as shown in Table 1. Although the Gobiidae was the leading 

family, it was not adequately collected, due to the small size and cryptic habits of many species. Similarly, 

the moray eel family Muraenidae is consistently among the most speciose groups at other localities, and is no 

doubt abundant in the Raja Ampats. However, they are best sampled with rotenone due to their cryptic 

habits. 

Table 1. Family ranking in terms of number of species for various localities in the Indo- Pacific region. Data for 

Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea is from Allen (in press (a)), Togean-Banggai Islands, Indonesia from Allen (2001a), 

for Calamianes Islands, Philippines from Allen (2001b), for the Chagos Archipelago from Winterbottom et al. (1989), 

and for the Marshall Islands from Randall and Randall (1987). 

Family 

Raja 

Ampats 

Milne Bay 

Province 

Togean- 

Banggai 

Islands 

Calamianes 

Islands 

Chagos 

Arch. 

Marshall 

Islands 

Gobiidae 1 st 1 st 1 st 3 rd 1 st 1 st 

Pomacentridae 2 nd 3 rd 3 rd 1 st 3 rd 4 th 

Labridae 3 rd 2 nd 2 nd 2 nd 2 nd 2 nd 

Apogonidae 4 th 4 th 4 th 4 th 6 th 8 th 

Serranidae 5 th 5 th 5 th 5 th 4 th 3 rd 

Chaetodontidae 6 th 6 th 7 th 6 th 11 th 8 th 

Acanthuridae 7 th 8 th 8 th 7 th 8 th 7 th 

Blenniidae 8 th 6 th 6 th 8 th 9 th 6 th 

Lutjanidae 9 th 9 th 9 th 9 th 7 th 18 th 

Scaridae 10 th 10 th 10 th 10 th 12 th 10 th 

44


3.4.2 Fish community structure 

The composition of local reef fish communities in the Indo-Pacific region is dependent on habitat variability. 

The incredibly rich reef fish fauna of Indonesia directly reflects a high level of habitat diversity. Nearly 

every conceivable habitat situation is present, from highly sheltered embayments with a large influx of 

freshwater, to oceanic atolls and outer barrier reefs. To a certain degree, the Raja Ampat Islands present a 

cross-section in miniature of this impressive array of reef environments. However, due to prevailing weather 

conditions and the protective influence of the large islands of Waigeo, Batanta, Salawati and Misool, much 

of the surrounding sea is inordinately calm for most of the year. Therefore, fishes usually associated with 

sheltered reefs are perhaps over-represented. 

Similar to other reef areas in the Indo-Pacific, most Raja Ampat fishes are benthic (or at least living near the 

bottom) diurnal carnivores with 79% and 62% of species being assigned to these respective categories. 

Approximately 10% of Raja Ampat fishes are nocturnal, 4% are cryptic crevice dwellers, 4% are diurnal 

mid-water swimmers, and about 3% are transient or roving predators. In addition to carnivores, the other 

major feeding categories include omnivores (15.1%), planktivores (14.7%), and herbivores (8.2%). 

The number of species found at each site is indicated in Table 2. Totals ranged from 59 to 284, with an 

average of 185.9 per site 

. 

Table 2. Number of fish species observed at each site during TNC survey of the Raja Ampat Islands. 

Site Species Site Species Site Species Site Species 

7 170 21 201 34 217 48 191 

8 200 22 210 35 235 49 189 

9 216 23 202 36 162 50 162 

10 192 24 134 37 174 51 163 

11 174 25 203 38 69 52 166 

12 124 26 211 39 221 53 155 

13 59 27 219 40 138 54 211 

14 65 28 245 41 113 55 156 

15 206 29 240 42 169 56 226 

16 261 30 241 43 208 57 204 

17 174 31 284 44 239 58 204 

18 205 32 203 45 188 

20 275 33 157 46 64 

3.4.3 Richest sites for fishes 

The total species at a particular site is ultimately dependent on the availability of food, shelter and the 

diversity of substrata. Well developed reefs with relatively high coral diversity and significant live coral 

cover were usually the richest areas for fishes, particularly if the reefs were exposed to periodic strong 

currents. These areas provide an abundance of shelter for fishes of all sizes and the currents are vital for 

supporting numerous planktivores, the smallest of which provide food for larger predators. 

Although silty bays (often relatively rich for corals), mangroves, seagrass beds, and pure sand-rubble areas 

were consistently the poorest areas for fish diversity, sites that incorporate mixed substrates (in addition to 

live coral) usually support the most fish species. Sites that encompass both exposed outer reefs as well as 

sheltered back reefs or shoreline reefs are also correlated with higher than average fish diversity. 

The 10 most speciose sites for fishes are indicated in Table 3. The average total for all sites (185.9) was high, 

especially considering that several of the dive sites involved relatively impoverished habitat situations, such 

as the highly sheltered waters of bays and narrow channels between clusters of limestone islands. 

45


The total of 284 species at site 31 on Kofiau was the highest total recorded by the author for a single dive 

anywhere in the Indo-Pacific. It surpassed the previous mark of 283 species recorded at Kri Island, also in 

the Raja Ampat group. 

Table 3. Ten richest fish sites during Raja Ampat survey. 

Site no. General locations No. spp. 

31 Kofiau 284 

20 SE Misool 275 

16 SE Misool 261 

18 Kofiau 245 

30 Kofiau 241 

29 Kofiau 240 

44 Wayag 239 

35 Alyui Bay 235 

56 E. Waigeo 226 

39 Sayang 221 

Table 4 presents a comparison of the reef fish fauna of major geographical areas that were surveyed. The 

highest average number of species (228) was recorded at Kofiau with the lowest value from the 

Kawe/Wayag/Sayang area. 

Table 4. Average number of fish species per site recorded for geographic areas in the Raja 

Ampat Islands. 

Rank General Area Site nos. Avg. species/site 

1. Kofiau 28-33 228.3 

2. Alyui Bay (sites 34-36) 34-36 204.7 

3. W Misool (sites 22-27) 22-27 196.5 

4. SE Misool (sites 7-21) 7-21 187.2 

5. N & E Waigeo 51-58 185.6 

6. Kawe/Wayag/Sayang 37-50 163.5 

3.4.4 Coral Fish Diversity Index (CFDI) 

Allen (1998) devised a convenient method for assessing and comparing overall reef fish diversity. The 

technique essentially involves an inventory of six key families: Chaetodontidae, Pomacanthidae, 

Pomacentridae, Labridae, Scaridae, and Acanthuridae. The number of species in these families is totaled to 

obtain the Coral Fish Diversity Index (CFDI) for a single dive site, relatively restricted geographic areas (e.g. 

Raja Ampat Islands) or countries and large regions (e.g. Indonesia). 

CFDI values can be used to make a reasonably accurate estimate of the total coral reef fish fauna of a 

particular locality by means of regression formulas. The latter were obtained after analysis of 35 Indo-Pacific 

locations for which reliable, comprehensive species lists exist. The data were first divided into two groups: 

those from relatively restricted localities (surrounding seas encompassing less than 2,000km2) and those 

from much larger areas (surrounding seas encompassing more than 50,000km2). Simple regression analysis 

revealed a highly significant difference (P = 0.0001) between these two groups. Therefore, the data were 

separated and subjected to additional analysis. The Macintosh program, Statview, was used to perform 

simple linear regression analyses on each data set in order to determine a predictor formula, using CFDI as 

the predictor variable (x) for estimating the independent variable (y) or total coral reef fish fauna. The 

resultant formulae were obtained: 

46


1. Total fauna of areas with surrounding seas encompassing more than 50,000km2 = 4.234(CFDI) - 114.446 

(d.f = 15; R2 = 0.964; P = 0.0001); 

2. Total fauna of areas with surrounding seas encompassing less than 2,000km2 = 3.39 (CFDI) - 20.595 (d.f 

= 18; R2 = 0.96; P = 0.0001). 

The CFDI regression formula is particularly useful for large regions such as the Philippines, where reliable 

totals are lacking. Moreover, the CFDI predictor value can be used to gauge the thoroughness of a particular 

short-term survey that is either currently in progress or already completed. For example, the CFDI for the 

Raja Ampat Islands now stands at 345, and the appropriate regression formula (3.39 x 345 - 20.595) predicts 

an approximate total of 1,149 species, indicating that at least 84 more species can be expected. 

On a much large scale, the CFDI can be used to estimate the reef fish fauna of the entire Indo-west Pacific 

region, a frequent subject of conjecture. Using this method, Allen and Adrim (2003) estimated a faunal total 

of 3,764 species, a figure that compares favourably with the approximately 3,950 total proposed by Springer 

(1982). Moreover, Springer’s figure covers shore fishes rather than reef fishes and therefore include species 

not always associated with reefs (e.g. estuarine fishes). 

The total CFDI for the Raja Ampat Islands has the following components: Labridae (109), Pomacentridae 

(114), Chaetodontidae (40), Acanthuridae (34), Scaridae (28), and Pomacanthidae (20). Table 5 presents a 

ranking of Indo-Pacific areas that have been surveyed to date, based on CFDI values. It also includes the 

number of reef fishes thus far recorded for each area, as well as the total fauna predicted by the CFDI 

regression formula. 

The only other areas ranked higher than the Raja Ampats are Milne Bay, PNG and Maumere Bay on the 

Indonesian island of Flores. However, both of these places were studied far more intensively. Conservational 

International conducted two RAP surveys at Milne Bay (1997 and 2000) with a total of 110 sites. Moreover, 

additional records were obtained that covered a 20-year period. Maumere Bay was the focus of numerous 

field trips by G. Allen and R. Kuiter in the 1980s. Also, extensive rotenone collections were procured there 

during a government-sponsored workshop in 1992. Given the same effort of collecting, the Raja Ampats 

would certainly surpass both these locations. 

47


Table 5. Coral fish diversity index (CFDI) values for restricted localities, number of coral reef fish species as determined 

by surveys to date, and estimated numbers using the CFDI regression formula (refer to text for details). 

Locality CFDI No. reef fishes Estim. reef fishes 

Raja Ampat Islands, Indonesia 345 1074 1149 

Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea 337 1109 1313 

Maumere Bay, Flores, Indonesia 333 1111 1107 

Togean and Banggai Islands, Indonesia 308 819 1023 

Komodo Islands, Indonesia 280 722 928 

Madang, Papua New Guinea 257 787 850 

Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea 254 687 840 

Manado, Sulawesi, Indonesia 249 624 823 

Capricorn Group, Great Barrier Reef 232 803 765 

Ashmore/Cartier Reefs, Timor Sea 225 669 742 

Kashiwa-Jima Island, Japan 224 768 738 

Scott/Seringapatam Reefs, Western. Australia 220 593 725 

Samoa Islands 211 852 694 

Chesterfield Islands, Coral Sea 210 699 691 

Sangalakki Island, Kalimantan, 201 461 660 

Bodgaya Islands, Sabah, Malaysia 197 516 647 

Pulau Weh, Sumatra, Indonesia 196 533 644 

Izu Islands 190 464 623 

Christmas Island, Indian Ocean 185 560 606 

Sipadan Island, Sabah, Malaysia 184 492 603 

Rowley Shoals, Western Australia 176 505 576 

Cocos-Keeling Atoll, Indian Ocean 167 528 545 

North-West Cape, Western Australia 164 527 535 

Tunku Abdul Rahman Is., Sabah 139 357 450 

Lord Howe Island, Australia 139 395 450 

Monte Bello Islands, W. Australia 119 447 382 

Bintan Island, Indonesia 97 304 308 

Kimberley Coast, Western Australia 89 367 281 

Cassini Island, Western Australia 78 249 243 

Johnston Island, Central Pacific 78 227 243 

Midway Atoll 77 250 240 

Rapa 77 209 240 

Norfolk Island 72 220 223 

The world’s leading country for reef fish diversity, based on CFDI values, is Indonesia. A recent study by 

Allen and Adrim (2003), which lists a total of 2,056 species from Indonesia, strongly supports this ranking. 

Table 6 presents CFDI values, number of shallow reef fishes recorded to date, and the estimated number of 

species based on CFDI data for selected countries or regions in the Indo-Pacific. In most cases, the predicted 

number of species is similar or less than that actually recorded, and is thus indicative of the level of 

knowledge. For example, when the actual number is substantially less than the estimated total (e.g. Sabah) it 

indicates incomplete sampling. However, the opposite trend is evident for Indonesia, with the actual number 

being significantly greater than what is predicted by the CFDI. The total number of species for the 

Philippines is yet to be determined and is therefore excluded from Table 6. 

48


Table 6. Coral fish diversity index (CFDI) for regions or countries with figures for total reef and shore fish fauna (if 

known), and estimated fauna from CFDI regression formula. 

Locality CFDI No. reef fishes Estim. Reef fishes 

Indonesia 507 2056 2032 

Australia (tropical) 401 1627 1584 

Philippines 387 ? 1525 

Papua New Guinea 362 1494 1419 

S. Japanese Archipelago 348 1315 1359 

Great Barrier Reef, Australia 343 1325 1338 

Taiwan 319 1172 1237 

Micronesia 315 1170 1220 

New Caledonia 300 1097 1156 

Sabah, Malaysia 274 840 1046 

Northwest Shelf, Western Australia 273 932 1042 

Mariana Islands 222 848 826 

Marshall Islands 221 795 822 

Ogasawara Islands, Japan 212 745 784 

French Polynesia 205 730 754 

Maldive Islands 219 894 813 

Seychelles 188 765 682 

Society Islands 160 560 563 

Tuamotu Islands 144 389 496 

Hawaiian Islands 121 435 398 

Marquesas Islands 90 331 267 

3.4.5 Zoogeographic affinities of the Raja Ampats fish fauna 

Papua Province, Indonesia, belongs to the overall Indo-west Pacific faunal community. Its reef fishes are 

very similar to those inhabiting other areas within this vast region, stretching eastward from East Africa and 

the Red Sea to the islands of Micronesia and Polynesia. Although most families, and many genera and 

species, are consistently present across the region, the species composition varies greatly according to 

locality. 

The Raja Ampat Islands are part of the Indo-Australian region, the richest faunal province on the globe in 

terms of biodiversity. The nucleus of this region, or Coral Triangle, is composed of Indonesia, Philippines 

and Papua New Guinea. Species richness generally declines with increased distance from the Triangle, 

although the rate of attenuation is generally less in a westerly direction. The damselfish family, 

Pomacentridae, is typical in this regard. For example, Indonesia has the world’s highest total with 138 

species, with the following totals recorded for other areas (Allen, 1991): Papua New Guinea (109), northern 

Australia (95), western Thailand (60), Fiji Islands (60), Maldives (43), Red Sea (34), Society Islands (30), 

and Hawaiian Islands (15). The damselfishes also provide evidence that the Raja Ampat Islands are very 

close to the much-debated center of marine diversity. Its total of 114 species is the highest recorded for any 

similar-sized area in the world. Indeed, only a few countries can match this number. 

Allen (2002) analyzed the zoogeographic composition of the Raja Ampat fish fauna. The vast majority 

(about 60%) of species have wide-ranging distributions in the Indo-Pacific region. A further 17% are widely 

distributed in the tropical west Pacific. Twenty percent have a more restricted regional distribution that is 

confined to the Indo-Australian Archipelago. The latter category includes about 25 species that are either 

confined to Indonesia or the Australia-New Guinea region. These are mainly species that seem to lack 

efficient dispersal capabilities and are therefore unable to exploit oceanic habitats. 

49


The large number of widely distributed species is not surprising considering that nearly all coral reef fishes 

have a pelagic larval stage of variable duration. Dispersal capabilities and length of larval life of a given 

species are usually reflected in its geographic distribution. 

3.4.6 Endemism 

Considering the broad dispersal capabilities via the pelagic larval stage of most reef fishes, it is not 

surprising that relatively few fish species are endemic to the Raja Ampat Islands. Six species are presently 

classified as endemics, but this status is provisional, pending further collecting in adjacent areas, particularly 

Halmahera, and the adjacent mainland of the Birdshead Peninsula. All of these species belong to families 

that exhibit parental care and presumably have brief larval stages. The “endemic” species are discussed in the 

following paragraphs. 

Hemiscyllium freycineti (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) (Hemiscyllidae) - The species is known on the basis of 

five specimens deposited at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris and an additional specimen at 

the Western Australian Museum. French naturalists collected the original specimens between 1817 and 1825 

in the vicinity of Waigeo Island. The species is relatively common on shallow reefs, and is mainly seen at 

night. 

Pseudochromis sp. (Pseudochromidae) – This species was commonly sighted on rubble bottoms at the base 

of steep slopes in about 18 to 20m depth. It was generally seen solitarily or in pairs. It is apparently new and 

closely related to P. eichleri Gill and Allen from the Philippines. Several specimens were collected by the 

author on previous trips to the Raja Ampats and are presently being studied by Gill and Allen (Figure 2). 

Apogon leptofasciatus Allen, 2001c (Apogonidae) – This species was described on the basis of three 

specimens collected by the author at Batanta Island in 2001. Only about 15 individuals were sighted at 

depths between 12-15m. It is apparently rare as none were observed during the TNC survey. 

Apogon oxygrammus Allen, 2001c (Apogonidae) – This is another cardinalfish that is apparently rare. Three 

specimens were collected by the author in 45-50m depth at Pef Island, off the western tip of Gam Island. 

They were hovering a short distance above a Halimeda-covered rubble bottom among a large aggregation of 

Apogon ocellicaudus. It differs from all known species in the genus on the basis of color pattern (overall 

whitish with tapering black mid-lateral stripe that extends onto the caudal fin) and jaw dentition (enlarged 

teeth in relatively few rows). 

Meiacanthus crinitus Smith-Vaniz, 1987 (Blenniidae) – This species was previously known on the basis of 

11 specimens collected in 1979 from the vicinity of Batana Island. During the TNC survey, it was 

occasionally sighted, usually on sheltered reefs with abundant live coral in 1-20m depth. Meiacanthus 

possess poison fangs and are frequently mimicked by other fishes (Smith-Vaniz, 1976). Juveniles of the 

threadfin bream Pentapodus trivittatus (Nemipteridae) are very similar in appearance to M. crinitus and 

Smith-Vaniz et al. (2001) suggested that mimicry is involved. 

Eviota raja Allen, 2001d (Gobiidae) – This tiny, mid-water hovering goby is common in sheltered water 

with rich coral growth. It is very similar E. bifasciata, a sympatric species that is distributed across the Indo- 

Australian Archipelago. The two species differ in colour pattern, most notably the mid-lateral stripe (white in 

E. bifasciata, yellow in the new species) and the dark markings at the upper and lower caudal-fin base 

(horizontal streaks in E. bifasciata, vertically elongate spots in the new species). They also differ in counts 

for segmented rays in the second dorsal fin and lateral scale rows (usually 9 and 22 respectively for E. 

bifasciata and 10 and 25 in the new species) (Figure 3). 

50


Figure 2. New species Pseudochromis sp 

Figure 3. New species Eviota raja. 

3.5 New records for Indonesia 

Four species were observed during the present survey, which represent new records for Indonesia. 

Rabaulichthys altipinnis Allen, 1984 (Anthiinae: Serranidae) - About 15 individuals were seen (site 25, off 

W. Misool) in 25-30m at the base of a steep outer slope on a rubble-Halimeda bottom. Several males were 

engaged in spectacular courtship displays, consisting of rapid swimming and frequent erection of dorsal and 

pelvic fins. The species was previously known only from the type locality, Rabaul on the island of New 

Britain, PNG. In addition, it was recently sighted by divers in the Coral Sea. 

Cheilodipterus intermedius Gon, 1993 (Apogonidae) – A small aggregation with six fish was seen sheltering 

near the reef in 9m depth at site 51 off northern Waigeo. The species has previously been recorded from 

Palau, Vietnam, Great Barrier Reef, Solomon Islands, and Manu Island, PNG. 

51


Hologymnosus rhodonotus Randall and Yamakawa, 1988 (Labridae) – About five individuals were observed 

(site 25, off W. Misool) in 30m at the base of a steep outer slope on a rubble-Halimeda bottom. The species 

has a distinctive pattern of bright red stripes. It was previously known from Okinawa, Philippines, and 

Hibernia Reef off northwestern Australia. 

Echinogobius hayashii Iwata, Hosoya, and Niimura, 1998 (Gobiidae) – Several individuals were observed on 

a clean, white sand bottom at Sayang Island (site 40) in 12m depth. Two specimens were collected with a 

muliti-prong spear. It was previously recorded from the Ryukyu Islands, Palau, and Seringapatam Reef off 

northwestern Australia. 

3.6 Historical background 

The Raja Ampat Islands have attracted the attention of naturalists and scientists ever since they were first 

visited by European explorers. Waigeo Island, in particular, was the focus of early French visits by several 

vessels including L’Uranie (1818-1819), La Coquille (1823), and L’Astrolabe (1826). Consequently, 

approximately 70 fish species were recorded and Waigeo is an important type locality for a variety of fishes 

described mainly by Quoy and Gaimard (1824 and 1834), Lesson (1828-1830), and Cuvier and Valenciennes 

(1828-1849). Fishes that were originally described from Waigeo by early French researchers include such 

well-known species as the Black-tipped Shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus), Bluefin Trevally (Caranx 

melampygus), Bigeye Trevally (Caranx sexfasciatus), Semicircular Angelfish (Pomacanthus semicirculatus), 

and Sergeant Major (Abudefduf vaigiensis). 

Following the early French explorations, most ichthyological activity was provided by Dutch researchers. 

The famous surgeon-naturalist Pieter Bleeker periodically received specimens from government agents, and 

in 1868, published on a collection of Waigeo fishes that included 88 species. He added a further 12 species in 

subsequent papers. Albert Günther, the Curator of Fishes at the British Museum, recorded 28 species from 

the island of Misool, during the cruise of the “Curacao” in 1865 (Günther, 1873). The Dutch ichthyologists, 

Weber and de Beaufort, were keenly interested in New Guinean freshwater and marine fishes and 

contributed to our knowledge of Raja Ampat fishes during the first half of the past century. The work of de 

Beaufort (1913), in particular, was the most extensive effort on Raja Ampat fishes until recent times, and 

includes accounts of 117 species based on 748 specimens. These were obtained by de Beaufort during a visit 

to the East Indies in 1909-1910, and were mainly collected at Waigeo in the vicinity of Saonek Island and 

Mayalibit Bay. Weber and De Beaufort and various co-authors, including Koumans, Chapman, and Briggs 

included an additional 67 records from Waigeo and Misool in the Fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago 

(E.J. Brill, Leiden; 11 volumes published between 1921-1962). The Denison-Crockett South Pacific 

Expedition made small collections at Batanta and Salawati consisting of 29 species that were reported by 

Fowler (1939). The only other fish collection of note was that by Collette (1977) who reported 37 species 

from mangrove habitat on Misool and Batanta. The known reef fish fauna of the Raja Ampats prior to the 

author’s investigations stood at approximately 236 species. 

The author made the first comprehensive underwater observations of Raja Ampat fishes during two brief 

visits in 1998-1999. Although the main focus was to document the freshwater fauna, approximately 20 hours 

of scuba and snorkel diving yielded observations of more than 500 coral reef fishes. The first major survey of 

the islands was conducted in 2001. The author participated in a marine rapid assessment survey (RAP) 

organized by Conservation International. A total of 45 sites were assessed during a 15-day period. This effort 

raised the known reef fish to 970 species (Allen, 2002). 

A total of 104 additional species were recorded during the present survey, thus raising the total species count 

to 1,074. This does not include the following 40 species that were listed by earlier workers, but were not seen 

during the author’s three previous visits or during the present TNC survey: Moringua abbreviatus, M. 

javanicus, M. macrochir, Muraenichthys gymnopterus, Enchelynassa canina, Ecidna delicatula, E. zebra, 

52


Gymnothorax boschi, G. meleagris, G. chilopilus, G. richardsoni, Ophichthys misolensis, Encheliophis 

homei, E. gracilis, Antennarius hispidus, A. nummifer, A. striatus, Hyporhamphus quoyi, Atherinomorus 

endrachtensis, Micrognathus brevirostris, Parascorpaena bandanensis, Scorpaenopsis diabolis, 

Richardonichthys leucogaster, Centrogenys vaigiensis, Epinephelus undulosus, Apogon melas, Carangoides 

dinema, Gerres abbreviatus, Upeneus sulphureus, Halichoeres timorensis, Calotomus spinidens, Alticus 

saliens, Blenniella bilitonensis, Istiblennius edentulus , Paralticus amboinensis, Salarias guttatus, 

Synchiropus picturatus, Eviota zonura, Bathygobius fuscus, and Chelonodon patoca. 

3.7 Overview of the Indonesian fish fauna 

The Indonesian Archipelago is the world’s premier area for marine biodiversity, mainly due to the 

extraordinary wealth of coral reef organisms. Allen and Adrim (2003) recorded 2,056 species from 

Indonesia, confirming its position as the richest country in the world for coral reef fishes. This total is 

compared with other leading countries in Table 9. 

Table. 9. The world’s leading countries for reef fish 

diversity (updated from Allen, in press b). 

Country 

No. species 

Indonesia 2,056 

Australia 1,627 

Philippines 1,525* 

Papua New Guinea 1,494 

Japan 1,315 

Palau 1,254 

* Estimated. 

Randall (1998) proposed the following factors to account for the extraordinary richness of the Indo- 

Australian region: 

1. Sea temperatures have been very stable during past glacial periods, preventing mass extinctions that 

occurred elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific; 

2. The huge contiguous area of Indonesia and large number of island stepping-stones have formed a “buffer” 

against extinction; 

3. The area is populated by numerous species with relatively short larval periods that are unable to cross 

deep-water oceanic barriers; 

4. Some species have evidently evolved in peripheral regions and were subsequently transported to 

Indonesia via ocean currents, adding to the overall species richness; and 

5. Lowered sea levels during past glacial periods have formed barriers that divided populations that 

eventually evolved into numerous geminate species pairs. Randall presented examples of 52 such 

pairings. 

Judging from the present REA and other Indonesian fish surveys conducted by the author since 1974, it 

appears that the area extending from central and northern Sulawesi to the western tip of Papua Province is 

possibly the world’s richest area for reef fishes. The Raja Ampat group is especially rich and appears to be a 

“cross-roads”, containing faunal elements from Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands to the east, 

Palau and the Philippines to the north, and the Moluccas and rest of the Indonesian Archipelago to the west. 

Although most of Indonesia’s reef fish fauna consists of widely distributed species (largely due to pelagic 

larval dispersal as already mentioned), there is a significant endemic element, consisting of at least 90 

species (Allen and Adrim, 2003). The endemics are scattered widely around the archipelago, but there are 

53


several “hotspots”, including the Java Sea, Lesser Sunda Islands (especially the Komodo area), northern 

Sulawesi, and the Raja Ampat Islands (Allen and Adrim, 2003). Most of the endemics, or about 83%, are 

included in just eight families; particularly prominent are the pseudochromids, blenniids, and pomacentrids. 

Well over half the species are confined to just nine genera. With the exception of the wrasse genus 

Cirrhilabrus, these are fishes that invariably exhibit parental egg care with a relatively short pelagic larval 

stage or have completely abandoned the pelagic stage. 

3.8 Discussion and Recommendations 

Although illegal fishing with explosives and cyanide occurs at the Raja Ampats, there appears to be less 

impact from these activities compared to other parts of Indonesia. The majority of sites visited were in good 

condition with an abundance of fishes. Little, if any, damage to reef habitats due to explosives was noted. 

Villagers informed us that cyanide is sometimes used to catch groupers and Napoleon wrasse for the live fish 

trade. Limited underwater observations of Napoleon wrasse, a conspicuous indicator of fishing pressure, 

show that it is indeed heavily exploited, a typical situation in Indonesia. It was far more common at the 

mainly uninhabited Phoenix Islands in the mid Pacific, and at Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea, 

where illegal fishing methods are seldom used (Table 10). With the exception of four large (>100cm) adults, 

most of the Napoleon wrasse seen during the TNC survey were juveniles under 30-40cm in length. 

Table 10. Frequency of Napoleon Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) for various locations in the Indo-Pacific. 

Location No. sites where seen % of total sites Approx. no. seen 

Phoenix Islands 2002 47 83.92 412 

Milne Bay, PNG – 2000 28 49.12 90 

Milne Bay, PNG – 1997 28 52.83 85 

Raja Ampat Islands – 2002 9 18.00 14 

Raja Ampat Islands – 2001 7 15.55 7 

Togean/Banggai Islands – 1998 6 12.76 8 

Weh Island, Sumatra – 1999 0 0.00 0 

Calamianes Is., Philippines – 1998 3 7.89 5 

Sharks were virtually absent at nearly every survey site, which is typical for most areas in Indonesia and the 

Philippines. The paucity of reef sharks is at least partly explained by the shark-fin trade, which has operated 

steadily throughout Indonesia for at least the past 3-4 decades. 

Table 11 presents the average number of species per site, number of sites where more than 200 species were 

observed, and the greatest number seen at a single site for recent marine surveys by the author in the “Coral 

Triangle.” Despite a deliberate attempt to sample all habitats, including a relatively high proportion of 

sheltered environments where fish numbers are often poor, the Raja Ampats exhibited extraordinary faunal 

richness. A total of 200 or more species is generally considered by the author as the benchmark for an 

excellent fish count at a given site. This figure was obtained at 51% of Raja Ampat sites, well over twice as 

many times as its nearest Indonesian rival, the Togean-Banggai Islands 

54


Table 11. Comparison of site data for marine surveys in the coral triangle 1997-2002. 

Location No. sites Average 

spp./site 

No. 200+ sites Most spp. 

one site 

Milne Bay, PNG (CI, 1997 and 2000) 110 192 46 (42%) 270 

Raja Ampat Islands (CI, 2001; TNC, 2002) 95 184 49 (52 %) 284 

Togean/Banggai Is., Sulawesi (CI, 1998) 47 173 9 (19%) 266 

Calamianes Is., Philippines (CI, 1998) 21 158 4 (10.5%) 208 

Weh I., Sumatra (CI, 1999) 38 138 0 186 

Table 12 lists the 12 leading sites for fishes recorded by the author, during nearly 30 years of survey work in 

the Indo-Pacific region. Eight of the best sites are located in the Raja Ampat Islands, overwhelming evidence 

for the special status of this area. 

Table 12. G. Allen’s 12 all-time best dive sites for fishes. 

Rank Location No. spp. 

1 Wambong Bay, Kofiau, Raja Ampat Is. 284 

2 Kri Island, Raja Ampat Is. 283 

3 SE of Miosba I., Fam Is., Raja Ampat Is. 281 

4 Watjoke Island, off SE Misool, Raja Ampat Is. 275 

5 Boirama Island, MBP, PNG 270 

6 Irai Island, Conflict Group, MBP, PNG 268 

7 Dondola Island, Togean Is., Indonesia 266 

8 Keruo Island, Fam Is., Raja Ampat Is. 263 

9 Pos II Reef, Menjangan I., Bali, Indonesia 262 

10 Kalig Island, off SE Misool, Raja Ampat Is. 

11 Equator Islands, Raja Ampat Is. 258 

12 NW end Batanta Island, Raja Ampat Is. 246 

3.9 Conservation 

Every effort should be made to conserve the reefs of the Raja Ampat Islands. Although the present survey 

was by no means comprehensive, the very rich fauna that was documented over a relatively short period of 

time indicates an area of extraordinary fish diversity. The author has wide experience throughout the 

Indonesian Archipelago, and it is my opinion that no other area has as much potential for marine 

conservation. There are several reasons for this opinion: 

• The exceptional habitat diversity and consequent rich fish fauna; 

• Good condition of reefs compared to most other parts of Indonesia; 

• A high aesthetic value based on the area’s superb above-water and underwater scenery; 

• A relatively low human population; 

• Cultural values by indigenous Papuan people that are highly compatible with reef conservation; and 

• The islands harbour a rich, and unique (many endemics) terrestrial fauna, which affords a rare 

opportunity to implement both marine and terrestrial conservation at the same time. 

Given the interest in this area by both TNC and CI, it seems like a wonderful opportunity for these 

organizations to join forces in designing and implementing an effective conservation program. There is an 

urgent need to curtail the activities that have already ruined so many reef areas throughout the Indonesian 

55


Archipelago. Community programs need to be designed that allow local villages to regain control of their 

traditional reef areas, with stiff fines and/or imprisonment facing anyone that uses illegal fishing methods. 

Also, the practice of outsiders fishing for live groupers and Napoleon wrasse on traditional reefs needs to 

halted or at least controlled for the benefit of local communities. 

3.9.1 Priority areas 

Based on a combination of factors, including faunal richness and uniqueness (i.e., presence of fishes not 

readily seen at most sites), reef characteristics (including general underwater scenery), and above water 

landscape, the following sites are recommended for possible reserve status. 

Southeastern Misool Archipelago (sites 7-13): Although not exceptionally rich for fishes, the area has 

spectacular above-water scenery consisting of a vast array of highly sculptured limestone islands surrounded 

by fringing reefs. The area contains an excellent example of a sheltered reef community. There are also some 

special dive sites, such as site 8, with its unusual underwater tunnel and abundance of soft corals and 

gorgonians. 

West Misool islands (sites 25-27): The cluster of low islets just off the western end of Misool was among the 

richest for fishes. Although the islands were largely covered by mangrove, a traditionally species-poor 

habitat for fishes, the channel between Kamet and Kanari islands was incredibly rich. Tidal flushing 

apparently creates favourable conditions for reef growth and supports an extraordinary amount of 

biodiversity. In addition, the outer slope off the west side of Kanari Island (site 25) appeared to be affected 

by cool-upwellings and supported a rich fauna with a high percentage of normally rare fishes such as 

Rabaulichtys altipinnis and Hologymnous rhodonotus. 

Kofiau (sites 28-33): The reefs of Kofiau are exceptionally rich for fishes, with an average of 228 species per 

site. No other area of the Coral Triangle surveyed to date can compare with this figure. The Wambong Bay 

site (31) yielded the highest number (284) of fishes ever recorded by the author for a single scuba dive. 

Wayag Island (sites 41-43): Although we did not comprehensively survey the area, the Wayag group 

possesses a rich variety of sheltered and outer-reef habitats. Its biggest attraction, however, is the maze of 

picturesque limestone pinnacles. This is one of the most scenic reef areas in Indonesia. 

3.9.2 Freshwater collection 

A single collection was made in freshwater during the survey on Misool Island. Three species were collected 

with rotenone from a small tributary of the Wai Tama River: a rainbowfish (Melanotaeniidae) Melanotaenia 

misoolensis Allen, 1982, a gudgeon (Eleotridae) Oxyeleotris fimbriata (Weber, 1908), and an apparently 

undescribed plotosid catfish in the genus Neosilurus. These fishes will be studied by the author in connection 

with a paper on Raja Ampat freshwater fishes currently in progress. 


Allen, G.R., 1982. A new species of freshwater rainbowfish (Melanotaeniidae) from Misool Island, 

Indonesia. Rec. West. Aust. Mus. 10(2): 105-109. 

Allen, G.R., 1984. A new genus and species of anthiid fish from Papua New Guinea. Rev. Fr. Aquariol. 

11(2): 47-50. 

Allen, G.R., 1991. Damselfishes of the world. Aquarium Systems, Mentor, Ohio. 

Allen, G.R., 1993. Reef fishes of New Guinea. Christensen Research Institute, Madang, Papua New Guinea 

Publ. No.8. 

Allen, G.R., 1997. Marine Fishes of tropical Australia and South-east Asia. Western Australian Museum, 

Perth. 

56


Allen, G.R., 1998. Reef and shore fishes of Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. In: T.B. Werner and 

G.R. Allen (eds.). A rapid biodiversity assessment of the coral reefs of Milne Bay Province, Papua 

New Guinea. RAP Working Papers 11. Conservation International, Washington D.C. pp. 39-49, 67- 

107. 

Allen, G.R., 2001a. Chapter 4. Reef of the Togean and Banggai Islands, Sulawesi, Indonesia. In: G.R. Allen 

and S. McKenna (eds.). A Marine Rapid Assessment of the Togean and Banggai Islands, Sulawesi, 

Indonesia. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 20, Conservation International, Washington, DC. 

Allen, G.R., 2001b. Reef and Shore Fishes of the Calamianes Islands, Palawan Province, Philippines. In: 

T.B. Werner, G.R. Allen, and S. McKenna (eds.). A Rapid Marine Biodiversity Assessment of the 

Calamianes Islands, Palawan Province, Philippines. Bulletin of the Rapid Assessment Program 17, 

Conservation International, Washington, DC. 

Allen, G.R., 2001c. Two new species of cardinalfishes (Apogonidae) from the Raja Ampat Islands, 

Indonesia. Aqua, J. Ichthy. Aquat. Biol. 4(4): 143-149. 

Allen, G.R., 2001d. Description of two new gobies (Eviota, Gobiidae) from Indonesian seas. Aqua, J. Ichthy. 

Aquat. Biol. 4(4): 125-130. 

Allen, G.R., 2002. Chapter 3. Reef fishes of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. In: S. 

McKenna, G.R. Allen, and S. Suryadi (eds.) A Marine Rapid Assessment of the Raja Ampat Islands, 

Papua Province, Indonesia. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 22, Conservation International, 

Washington, DC. 

Allen, G.R. In press a. Reef Fishes of Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. In: G.R. Allen and T.B. 

Werner (eds.) A Rapid Marine Biodiversity Assessment of Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. 

Bulletin of the Rapid Assessment Program, Conservation International, Washington, DC. 

Allen, G.R. In press b. Indo-Pacific coral reef fishes as indicators of conservation hotspots. Proc. Ninth 

Intern. Coral Reef Symposium, Bali. 

Allen, G.R. and Adrim, M., 2003. Coral reef fishes of Indonesia. Zool. Stud. 42(1): 1-72. 

Bleeker, P., 1868. Notice sur la faune ichthyologique de l’ile de Waigiou. Versl. Akad. Amsterdam (2) II: 

295-301. 

Collette, B.B. 1977. Mangrove fishes of New Guinea. In: H.J. Teas (ed.) Tasks for vegetation science. W. 

Junk Publishers, The Hague: 91-102. 

Cuvier, G. and Valenciennes, A., 1828-1849. Histoire naturelle des poissons. 22 volumes. Paris. 

de Beaufort, L.F., 1913. Fishes of the eastern part of the Indo-Australian Archipelago with remarks on its 

zoogeography. Bijd. Neder. Dierk. 19: 95-163. Amsterdam. 

Fowler, H.W., 1939. Zoological results of the Denison-Crockett South Pacific Expedition for the Academy 

of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1937-1938. Part III. – Fishes. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 91: 77-96. 

Philadelphia. 

Günther, A., 1873. Reptiles and fishes of the South Sea islands. In: J.L. Brenchley. Jottings during the cruise 

of H. M. S. Curaçao among the South Sea Islands in 1865. Cruise Curaçao: 1-487, Pls. 1-59. 

Kuiter, R.H. and Tonozuka, T., 2001. Pictorial guide to Indonesian reef fishes. Volumes 1-3. Zoonetics, 

Melbourne. 

Lesson, R.P., 1828. Description du noveau genre Ichthyophis et de plusierus espéces inédites ou peu connues 

de poissons, recueillis dans le voyage autour du monde de la Corvette “La Coquille”. Mem. Soc. Nat. 

Hist. 4: 397-412. Paris. 

Lesson, R.P., 1830-31. Poissons. In: L. Duperrey (ed.) Voyage austour du monde, …, sur la corvette de La 

Majesté La Coquille, pendant les années 1822, 1823, 124 et 1825…, Zoologie. Zool. v. 2 (part 1): 

66-238. 

57


Myers, R.F., 1989. Micronesian reef fishes. Coral Graphics, Guam. 

Quoy, J.R.C. and Gaimard, J.P., 1824. Voyage autour du monde, Enterpris par ordre du Roi exécuté sur les 

corvettes de S.M. “L’Uranie” et “La Physicienne” pendant les années1817, 1818, 1819, et 1820, par 

M. Louis de Freycinet. Zool. Poissons: 183-401. 

Quoy, J.R.C. and Gaimard, J.P., 1834. Voyage de découvertes de “L’Astrolabe” exécuté par ordre du Roi, 

pendant les années1826-1829, sous le commandement de M. J. Dumont d’Urville. Poissons III: 647- 

720. 

Randall, J.E., 1998. Zoogeography of shore fishes of the Indo-Pacific region. Zool Stud 37: 227-268. 

Randall, J.E. and Randall, H.A., 1987. Annotated checklist of fishes of Enewetak Atoll and Other Marshall 

Islands. In: Vol 2. The natural History of Enewetak Atoll. Office of Scientific and Technological 

Information U.S. Dept. of Energy: 289-324. 

Randall, J.E., Allen, G.R. and Steene, R.C., 1990. Fishes of the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea. Crawford 

House Press, Bathurst (Australia). 

Smith-Vaniz, W.F., 1976. The saber-toothed blennies, tribe Nemophini (Pisces: Blenniidae). Monograph 19, 

Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. 

Smith-Vaniz, W.F., Satapoomin, S., and Allen, G.R., 2001. Meiacanthus urostigma, a new fangblenny from 

the northeastern Indian Ocean, with discussion and examples of micmicry in species of Meiacanthus 

(Teleostei: Blenniidae: Nemophini). Journ. Ichthy. Aquatic Biol. 5(1): 25-43. 

Springer, V.G., 1982. Pacific plate biogeography with special reference to shorefishes. Smith Contrib Zool. 

367: 1-182. 

Weber, M., 1908. Süsswasserfische von Neu-Guinea ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem früheren 

Zusammenhang von Neu-Guinea und Australien. In: Nova Guinea: Résultats de l'expédition 

scientifique Néerlandaise à la Nouvelle-Guinée. Süsswasserfische Neu-Guinea v. 5 (Zool.) pt 2: 201- 

267, Pls. 11-13. 

Winterbottom, R.A., Emery, R. and Holm, E., 1989. An annotated checklist of the fishes of the Chagos 

Archipelago, Central Indian Ocean. Roy. Ontario Mus. Life. Sci. Contrib. 145:1-226. 

58

Chapter 4 

Coral Diversity and the Status of Coral Reefs in the Raja Ampat Islands 

EMRE TURAK and JEMMY SOUHOKA 

4.1 Summary 

• Reefs and coral communities were surveyed at 51 stations, covering the full range of area that was 

visited. All except 8 of these stations were surveyed at two depth ranges. 

• A total of 488 scleractinian corals were identified in the field. In addition, at least a further 35 

species are awaiting identification in consultation with reference collections. Of these, 13 are 

expected to be new to science. This compares to 445 species in North Sulawesi, 379 species in 

Milne Bay and 347 in Kimbe Bay, PNG. Including a similar survey in 2001, this brings the total 

confirmed for Raja Ampat to at least 537 scleractinian species of coral. Raja Ampat is expected to 

harbor over 75% of worlds known coral species. 

• To date, Raja Ampat is known to have the highest diversity of hard corals for an area of similar size 

anywhere on the planet. 

• Soft coral diversity was also very high. At least 41 of the 90 Alcyonacean genera known worldwide 

were recorded. 

• Overall, reefs and coral communities in the Raja Ampat area were in very good health. Coral cover 

was moderate (~33%). However, reefs did not appear to be suffering from any recent serious 

detrimental effects. 

• There was no obvious evidence of the bleaching events that caused extensive mortality to reefs in 

the region in 1998. No evidence of current or recent crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks or other 

coralivorous impacts. There was very little sediment and pollution impact. 

• Raja Ampat had many unusual coral habitat and coral community types. Around Misool Island and 

Wayag Island, this was particularly apparent. Many reefs did not show known or predictable 

zonation of coral communities. In addition, vertical (depth related) distribution of many coral 

species was different than what would be expected. 

• Misool had the highest diversity of coral community types. Nine out of the 11 distinct coral 

community types that were identified in Raja Ampat were found in this area. The most uniform 

area was Kofiau Island. 

• Different to anywhere else I have visited so far, the strongest separation of community types in 

Raja Ampat only followed the depth gradient weakly. Neither was there a strong geographic 

separation. However water movement, clarity and exposure appears to play a much stronger role in 

determining community types. 

• Raja Ampat has high hard coral richness because of its regional position near the center of the 

‘coral triangle’. It contains high diversity of habitat types, both typical and atypical, and a large 

variety of coastal and bathymetric profiles. 

• The relatively unspoiled aspect of the reefs in this area helps maintain its high diversity. However, 

development and an increase of exploitation by human activities in the area would threaten this 

situation. 

• The Misool area, particularly the southeast has a tremendous variety of habitat types, mostly 

unusual and unexplored. This would be a priority area for conservation. Second is Kofiau Island, 

which has probably the highest diversity of coral species for a small island. Wayag Island and its 

59

Chapter 4 - Coral Diversity and the Status of Coral Reefs in the Raja Ampat Islands 

surrounds have outstanding natural beauty and the reefs probably harbor many unusual coral 

communities. 

60



Reefs in the Raja Ampat Islands of West Papua province of Indonesia are known to support some of the 

richest reef fauna in the world (McKenna et al., 2002, Erdman and Pet, 2002). Veron (2002) noted that in 

this area 565 scleractinian coral species were recorded or are likely to occur. This would make the Raja 

Ampat Islands one of the richest areas for coral species in the world for areas of a similar size. Fenner (2002) 

recorded 294 species of scleractinian corals at 45 sites, with ten sites having close to 100 species or above 

per site. These per site figures already put Raja Ampat among the richest areas of coral diversity in the 

region. 

Raja Ampat is at the eastern end of the coral triangle, an area between the Philippines, western Indonesia and 

Papua New Guinea, which has the highest coral diversity in the world (Veron, 2000). Recent studies even 

put the eastern corner of the coral triangle to east PNG. In this case, Raja Ampat would be in the center, in 

the ‘heart of hearts’ (Rod Salm), of maximum coral diversity. Its geographic position puts it in an area 

affected by the Indonesian Throughflow, a southerly flow carrying waters into the Halmahera and Ceram 

Seas (Erdman and Pet, 2002). This position means that it is bathed by waters from the western equatorial 

Pacific and provides source material to reefs further to the west in Indonesia, in the Maluku Sea. 

This study of corals in Raja Ampat was two fold. At the first level, a complete species inventory of coral and 

several other sessile reef benthos taxa was compiled. This inventory was both site specific and for the whole 

area. In addition, the position of Raja Ampat in the region, in terms of species richness, was assessed. 

At the second level, the status of the coral reefs and coral communities was assessed. This will provide 

information for identifying current and potential threats, which would lead to designation of areas needing 

specific protection and conservation management measures. 

4.3 Materials and Methods 

The biodiversity of corals includes their habitats, communities, and species and genetic composition. Reefs 

at 51 locations (GPS stations that were allocated a site number) in Raja Ampat were characterized (Figure 2). 

At 43 of the locations, sites were surveyed at two depths i.e. Deep: ~10m to maximum depth (.1); and 

shallow: ~8m to minimum depth (.2). The cutoff point corresponded roughly to the reef ‘crest’ (margin 

between the horizontal upper surface of the reef and the slope or drop-off). At six stations, only the shallow 

sites were sampled, and at two stations, only deep sites were sampled. At each site, the reef was assessed 

through a careful inventory of coral species, health, and habitat characteristics over sections of reef from 100 

to 300m in length. The surveys were conducted using a two tiered method described in DeVantier et al. 

(1998, 2000). At the first level, a complete inventory of coral species was compiled per site. At the end of 

each swim, the inventory was reviewed and each taxon was categorized in terms of its relative abundance in 

the community (Table 1). These broad categories reflect relative numbers of individuals in each taxon at 

each site, rather than its contribution to benthic cover. For each coral taxon present, a visual estimate of the 

total amount of injury present on colonies at each site was made, in increments of 0.1, where 0 = no injury 

and 1 = all colonies dead. 

61


Table 1. Categories of abundance used for 

recording sessile reef benthos. 

Score 

Meaning 

1 Rare – 1 to 2 colonies seen 

2 Uncommon 

3 Common 

4 Abundant 

5 Dominant 

In addition, for each species a damage score was attributed and the population, sorted in three size classes - 

up to 10cm, 10 to 50cm and greater than 50cm colony diameter. 

Where sight identification of coral species was not possible, notes and photographs were taken and, if 

necessary, samples collected to consult with references (Wallace, 1999 and Veron, 2000). When necessary, 

small coral samples were collected, labeled and taken to Australia to consult with reference collections in the 

MTQ and AIMS for identification. 

At this level, in addition to hard coral species, the same type of data was recorded for soft corals, zoanthids, 

sponges, macro-algae and other sessile macro-benthos. 

Taxa were identified in the field to the following levels: 

• Hard corals - species wherever possible, (Veron and Pichon, 1976, 1980, 1982; Veron et al., 1977; Veron 

and Wallace, 1984; Wallace and Wolstenholme, 1998; Wallace, 1999; Veron, 2000), otherwise genus and 

growth form (e.g. Porites spp. of massive growth-form). 

• Soft corals, zoanthids, corallimorpharians, anemones and some macro-algae - genus or family (Allen and 

Steene, 1994, Colin and Arneson, 1995, Goslinger et al., 1996; Fabricius and Alderslade, 2001). 

• Other sessile macro-benthos, such as sponges, ascidians and most algae - higher taxonomic level, usually 

phylum plus growth-form (Allen and Steene, 1995, Colin and Arneson, 1995, Goslinger et al., 1996). 

At the second level, a series of site characteristics were noted in a semi-quantitative manner: depth range, 

slope, bottom cover of the major benthic groups, physical structure, reef development level, exposure rating, 

and visibility (Appendix 2). 

To assist in relating community patterns to reef development and the physical environment, each site was 

classified into one of four categories. For reef development, the categories were: 

1. Coral communities developed on rock, sand or rubble; 

2. Reefs with no flats but with some carbonate accretion (incipient reefs); 

3. Reefs with moderate flats (50m wide). 

For exposure to wave energy, the categories were: 

1. Sheltered; 

2. Semi-sheltered; 

3. Semi-exposed; and 

62


4. Exposed. 

The Statistica software package was used to produce a hierarchical cluster analysis, which was used to define 

the major community types present in Raja Ampat. The distance measure used was Squared Euclidean 

Distance and the clustering strategy was Wards Sum of Squares, after Done (1982), who demonstrated their 

effectiveness in defining recurrent assemblages within the present type of data set. 

4.4 Results 

4.4.1 Coral Biodiversity 

A total of 488 scleractinian coral species were identified in the field, either in situ or from collected 

specimens and underwater photographs. A further 35 species are awaiting consultation with reference 

material in Australia. Of these, at least 13 species might prove to be new to science. This total figure 

compares to 445 species in North Sulawesi, 379 species in Milne Bay and 347 in Kimbe Bay, PNG (Table 

2). 

Table 2. Raja Ampat hard coral survey results compared with several other areas in the region and western Indian 

Ocean. All are values by the same observer using the same method and include material from some unpublished 

sources by E. Turak 

Raja Ampat N Sulawesi 

Indonesia 

This study Turak, 2002 

Banda 

Islands 

Turak et al. 

2002 

East Kimbe 

Bay 

Turak and 

Aitsi, (in 

prep) 

Milne Bay 

PNG** 

Turak, 

2000^ 

North GBR 

Australia 

Turak, 

2001^ 

NW 

Madagascar 

Turak, 2001 

Total species 488 445 301 351 393 318 318 

Av. no. sp/site 131 100 106 124 147 100* 103 

% sites with over 18 8 61 74 82 60 

1/3 recorded sp. 

Sites surveyed 51 52 18 27 28 26 29 

Area (x1000 km 2 ) 30 23 0.4 1.1 15 0.8 1.2 

Average % hard 33 21.3 40.3 30 33.3 34.8 35.1 

coral cover 

* Is an estimate based on a combination of values for two depths per site 

** Incorporates observations of the two authors 

^ Turak (2000) and Turak (2001) are from unpublished sources 

Including a similar survey in 2001 (Veron 2002), this brings the confirmed total for Raja Ampat to at least 

537 scleractinian species of coral (Appendix 3). In total Raja Ampat is expected to harbor over 75% of 

worlds known coral species. 

As well as overall diversity, average site richness and locality richness was very high (Table 3). The Kofiau 

Island group had the highest average species diversity per site, but southeast Misool was the richest location. 

Coral species diversity in these locations of relatively small area was comparable to species diversity in 

much larger areas in different parts of the world (Table 2). 

63


Table 3. Average species richness per site and locality within Raja Ampat. 

Average species per site 

Location total 

Number of sites 

East Southeast Kofiau Wayag 

East 

Kawe 

Misool Misool Islands Islands 

Waigeo 

130 144 156 135 138 141 

314 339 292 288 247 330 

8 8 6 5 3 6 

The other hard corals were not very common or abundant. Three species of the non-zooxanthelate 

scleractinia in Dendrophyllidae were recorded on few of the sites. In addition, eight species in three genera, 

and another two genera of non-scleractinian corals, were recorded. Of these, the organ pipe coral Tubipora 

musica was the most common, found at half the sites. Five species of the fire coral, genus Millepora, were 

found at a good proportion of sites, but never very abundant (Appendix 4). 

Soft corals were common and very abundant at some sites. In addition, soft coral diversity was very high. 

Forty of the 90 Alcyonacean genera in 14 families known worldwide were recorded. In addition, two 

Pennatulacean and two Antipatharian corals were recorded (Appendix 4). 

4.4.2 Community types 

Many coral communities in the Raja Ampat area were unusual. Zonation of assemblages did not always 

follow predicted distribution. Some species that are usually found at greater depths were often found in the 

shallows, and vice versa. In addition, some assemblages had species composition different than what would 

usually be expected in that region. For this reason, characteristics of community types listed below, which 

were identified following analysis, were not always very distinct. 

A cluster analysis identified four main groups among all sites, comprising all depths (Figure 1). At the first 

level, sites of extremely low energy environments were separated, particularly far inside bays, narrow inlets 

and deep sites. Three clusters were then found in a mixture of clearer water environments. The first cluster 

contained sites of a mixture of depths, found in clear water, low wave energy environments. A second 

distinct cluster comprised shallow water sites that were subject to some wave action, and a third cluster 

comprised mostly deep sites found in areas of high water movement. 

It was the combination of deep and shallow water assemblages that formed the more distinct community 

types, rather than the four main groups themselves. Four major community types, with a total of 10 subtypes, 

were distinguished (Table 4). A single station of two sites (forming a fifth community type) remained 

distinct from the rest. These two sites had the highest coral species diversity. Only two sites, each at a single 

depth, represented two of the sub-type communities. Despite that, community characteristics remained 

relatively strong, in particular was community type B2 (Table 5). All community types were found 

throughout the area of survey. However, types A1 and D2 were found mostly in the north, types D3 and D4 

mostly in southeast Misool, and type D1 was mostly found around smaller islands (Figure 2). A number of 

hard and soft coral species were common to all sites and thus formed some of the most abundant species for 

many community types. 

64


(Dlink/Dmax)*100 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Calm water 

Small wave 

action but 

clear water 

Shallow waters 

subjected to 

some wave 

action 

High water 

movement 

s55.2 

s53.2 

s52.2 

s19.2 

s4.2 

d4.1 

s3.2 

d56.1 

d55.1 

d50.1 

d47.1 

d48.1 

d42.1 

d35.1 

d15.1 

d30.1 

d12.1 

d24.1 

d19.1 

d18.1 

d11.1 

d9.1 

s14.2 

s13.2 

d53.1 

d52.1 

d3.1 

s15.2 

s11.2 

s33.2 

s10.2 

s58.2 

s9.2 

s8.2 

s23.2 

s18.2 

s31.2 

s30.2 

s56.2 

s24.2 

s7.2 

d44.1 

d43.1 

s36.2 

s35.2 

d26.1 

d25.1 

d32.1 

d29.1 

d28.1 

d31.1 

d2.1 

d45.1 

s40.2 

s49.2 

s48.2 

s28.2 

s26.2 

s44.2 

s34.2 

s32.2 

s37.2 

s25.2 

s54.2 

s16.2 

s47.2 

s43.2 

s29.2 

s50.2 

s42.2 

s12.2 

s22.2 

d49.1 

s27.2 

s17.2 

s6.2 

d6.1 

s5.2 

d5.1 

d39.1 

d37.1 

s39.2 

s1.2 

d36.1 

d34.1 

d16.1 

d22.1 

d17.1 

d27.1 

d10.1 

d8.1 

d7.1 

d54.1 

d1.1 

Figure 1. Hierarchical cluster analysis of 94 sites in 52 stations showing the four main groups that form in 

deep and shallow combinations, and the 11 community types. 

65


Table 4. Brief description of environmental and biological characteristics of the community types with some 

of the major taxa found in each type. In parenthesis is the number of sites found in each type. Color-coding 

corresponds to shallow (above) and deep (below) sites that form distinct groups in the cluster analysis. 

Community type 

Sites 

A (11) Very protected communities in bays 

A1 Communities very far in bays and inlets 3, 4, 19, 52, 53, 55 

(6) Pachyseris, Hydnophora, Seriatopora, alcyoniid, macro-algae 

A2 Communities in protected bays 12, 42, 47, 48, 50 

(5) Fungia, Echinopora, Seriatopora, Isis, alcyoniid 

B (8) Single depth communities 

B1 Shallow communities between small islands and coast 2, 23, 33, 58 

(4) Acropora, Pocilloporid, alcyoniid 

B2 Communities found far in very narrow inlet 13, 14 

(2) Porites cylindrica, Favia, macro-algae, Isis, Heliopora coerolea 

B3 Deep reef falt communities far from shallow areas 40, 45 

(2) Pocilloporid, Acroporid, Xenia, Aglaophenia, Millepora 

C (7) Communities around headlands with strong currents 1, 5, 6, 17, 22, 27, 39 

Porites, Favia, table Acropora, alcyoniid, sponge 

D (24) Mixed community types 

D1 Very clear open water communities 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 43, 44 

(7) Platygyra, Pocillopora, Acropora palifera, Aglaophenia, Nephthea 

D2 Wave impacted hard bottom communities 16, 34, 37, 49, 54, 

(5) Acoropora, Pocillopora, Favia, Halimeda, alcyoniid 

D3 Communities with high species diversity and coral cover 9, 11, 15, 18, 24, 30, 35, 56 

(8) Fungia, Acropora, Oxypora, Pectinia lactuca, akcyoniid 

D4 Communiites with high soft coral cover 7, 8, 10, 36 

(4) Mycedium, favid, Pectinia lactuca, Alcyoniid 

E (1) Very high coral species diversity 31 

Montipora, Acropora, alcyoniid 

66


Table 5. Site habitat and physical characteristics of the four main, and eleven sub-community types. In parenthesis 

next to the main type letters is the number of sites found in each group. 

Community type A (11) B (8) C (7) D (24) E (1) 

A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 D1 D2 D3 D4 

Shallow 

Deep 

Number of stations 6 5 4 2 2 7 7 5 8 4 1 

Site 

Max. depth (m) 19 19 16 13 22 21 20 20 19 18 28 

Min. depth (m) 5 5 3 1 6 6 5 6 5 5 6 

Slope (degrees) 29 17 26 40 5 23 19 20 29 29 23 

Hard Substratum (%) 72 78 55 70 83 78 80 83 82 79 73 

Benthos 

Hard coral (%) 48 44 35 35 40 22 31 14 41 24 20 

Soft Coral (%) 4 8 25 0 7 16 9 12 12 24 4 

Macro-algae (%) 8 2 6 6 3 6 1 3 2 4 3 

Turf-algae (%) 10 10 9 10 10 15 10 13 13 11 10 

Coralline algae (%) 0 4 2 8 10 6 9 8 2 4 8 

Dead coral (%) 4 2 2 1 1 6 3 1 2 2 0 

Substratum 

Continuous pavement (%) 54 58 28 45 60 45 58 69 61 64 60 

Large blocks (%) 7 10 15 5 15 19 8 6 11 8 5 

Small blocks (%) 12 10 13 20 8 13 14 9 9 8 8 

Rubble (%) 17 8 11 8 3 13 13 7 5 5 0 

Sand (%) 11 15 34 23 15 10 8 11 13 16 28 

Visibility (m) 8 10 15 4 23 21 28 20 15 12 25 

Water temperature 29 28 28 29 29 28 27 28 28 28 28 

Reef development (1-4) 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 

Exposure to waves (1-4) 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 

Average no. of species 140 131 128 99 103 87 151 120 161 135 174 

67

% 

% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% % % 

% % 

% % 

% % 

% % 

% % 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%%%% % 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

%% %%%% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%% % 

% % % 

%%% %% 

% % 

%%% 

% 

%%% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% %% 

%% %% % 

%% 

% 

%% % 

%%%% %%%% 

% % % 

%% % 

%%% 

% % 

%% %% 

% % 

% 

% % % % % 

% 

%%%%%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% % % 

%% %%%% 

%%%% %% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

% % 

%% 

%%% % %% %% %%%%% % 

%% 

%% %% 

%%%% % % 

%%% %%% % 

% % % % 

%%% % 

%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

% %% 

% % % 

% %% % 

% % % 

% % 

% 

% 


129°30' E 130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

2°00' S 1°30' S 1°00' S 0°30' S 0°00' 0°30' S 

LEGEND 

Threat 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Very Low 

SERAM 

Sofa C. 

HALMAHERA SEA 

Ubulie C. 

Boo I 

Fau I. 

Gebe Island 

%% 

% %% 

%%%%%% % 

Ju 

% % 

%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% % 

Ilingelyo C. 

Ngetagelyo C. 

Ai I. 

% 

% 

Sayang 

%% 

% 

%% % % 

%% %% %% 

%% %% % 

Gag I. 

%%% % 

%% % 

%% %% 

%% 

%% 

Wayag I. 

% %% 

% % 

In I. %%%%%% 

%% %% %% 

%%%% % 

%%%%%%%%%%% 

% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% 

% 

Penemu I. 

%% 

% 

% % 

%% %% 

%% % % % 

%% % %% 

% %%% 

%% % %% 

% % % %% %% 

%% % Inus I. 

WRuwarez I. 

%% %% % 

% 

%% %% %% % %% %%% 

% %% %% %% %% 

% 

%% %% %%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

Mios I. 

%%% %% %% %% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%%% %% %% %% Dayang I. 

%% 

%%%%% % 

Biri e I. 

Mios Ging 

Mios Ga 

Warwarai Bay 

% %% % 

%% % % 

%% %% % 

%% %% 

%%% 

% %% %%%%%% %% 

%% %% %% %% Jailolo I. %%% 

%%% %% 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%%%% 

%% %% 

%% 

Metkamap I. 

%%% % % 

%% %% 

Coastline 

Depth < 200 m 

Depth > 200 m 

Coral Reef 

Land 


%% %%% % 

%% % 

Mangimangi 

PAPUA 

PAPUA 

Taudore I. 

26 

25 

Nampale I. 

% 

% 

Uta I. 

% 

%%%%% 

Kanari I. 

Eftorobi 

% % 

%%%% 

Nanisa I. 

27 

39 

28 29 

40 

33 

KOFIAU 

% %% % % 

%% %% % % % % % 

30 

Wambong Bay 

Senyu I. 

Kananowat I. 

Gam I. 

Balbalak I. 

%% 

% 

BATANME 

%% 

%%% 

%%% 

13 

%%% 

%%% 23 

%% % % 

% %%% % % 

%%% %%% 

% %%% %% 

SERAM SEA 

37 

42 

REEF POINTS 

BY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT THREAT 


PAPUA 

43 

50 

31 

32 

% %%%%% 

%% %% 

24 

44 

Kawe 

Ju I. 

Yar I. 

22 


Quoy I. 

49 

34 

Kodor I. 

Misool 

%%%% 

%% 

19 

47 

Bag I. 

Bougenville Strait 

Minyaifun I. 

Me I. 

Uranie I. 

45 

48 

Batangpele I. 

Babi I. 

18 

35 

Ta ma gu i I. 

Yetpelle I. 

Wunoh I. 

Alyui Bay 

5 

W 

Scale 1:500.000 

36 

Yeben I. 

Fam I. 

Yamtu C. 

Lilinta Bay 

14 

N 

S 

Mabo C. 

17 

E 

Tamulol Bay 

12 

Katimkerio I. 

Wayilbatan I. 

6 

Efmo I. 

Sehun I. 

WAIGEO 

Warparim Bay 

15 

Kalig I. 

16 

4 

11 

Kabui Strait 

GAM 

Myanel I. 

Kabui Bay 

Mansuar I. 

Dampir Strait 

Waray Bay 

BATANTA 

Sagewin I. 

Igiem I. Kebu I. 

Lenkafal I. 

Wagmab I. 

10 

52 

9 

Warakaraket I. 

Puan 

Mayalibit Strait 

Tapokreng 

Sagewin Strait 

Kapalbogin C. 

7 

Denie I. 

53 

Salebioket C. 

8 

3 

% 

% 

Manuran I. 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%% % %% 

% % 

% %% 

%% %% 

%% % 

% % 

% %%%%%% %% 

Lawak I. 

%% %% 

Pitsyor 

SALAWATI 

%% 

% 

%% 

% % Manonket C. 

% 

%% 

%% 

Kamyolo C. 

%% %%% 

%%% % % % % % % 

%%%%% %% 

Evanas C. 

Ayemi I. 

Kandorwa C. 

1 

Daram I. 

55 

WAIGEO 

Mayasalava C. 

Sele C. 

54 

Boni I. 

2 

%% % 

%%% 

Warir I. 

% 

%% 

% %%% 

%%%%% 

56 

58 

Yefyus I. 

Sorong C. 

%% % 

Sele Strait 

Imbikw 

Soro 

P 

ARAFURU SEA 

Sources : 

1. Geography and Location of Reefs: Nautical Chart no. 402 and 406 DISHIDROS TNI-AL 2001/2000 

2. Threat Status: Reef at Risk, WRI 2002 

COASTAL AND MARINE PROGRAM 

Drawn by Muhamm 

129°30' E 

130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

Figure 2. Map of Raja Ampat area survey sites and community types. For color-coding of community types refer 

to Tables 3 and 4. 

68


A - Very Protected Communities in Bays 

Type A1. Communities very far in bays and inlets - Pachyseris, Hydnophora, Seriatopora, alcyoniid, macroalgae. 

This community type was found far inside bays and inlets where reefs were extremely sheltered with 

virtually no wave action. These reefs had low underwater visibility, but where it was sufficiently deep, two 

depths were sampled. Reefs of this type had the highest hard coral (48%) and macro-algae (8%) cover, and 

relatively high coral species diversity (140) (Table 5). In the deeper sites, Pachyseris speciosa (Figure 3) 

were the most common corals. In the shallower sites, Hydnophora rigida, Porites cylindrica and Merulina 

ampliata were most common. The macro-algae Padina, Halimeda and Dictyota, and alcyoniid soft corals 

were common (Table 6). With the exception of Jef Pelee Island, south of Misool, this community type was 

mostly found in the northern half of Raja Ampat, in Batanta and Waigeo (Figure 2). 

Figure 3. Pachysris beds in Fofak bay, Waigeo 

Type A2. Communities in protected bays - Fungia, Echinopora, Seriatopora, Isis, alcyoniid. 

This community type was found in relatively protected bays on reefs subjected to minor wave action and 

very little water current movement. Reefs had relatively low underwater visibility (Table 5), though high 

coral cover (44%) and high hard coral species diversity (131). The solitary mushroom coral Fungia, 

Echinopora lamellosa and Paltygyra daedelea were common corals. The soft corals Sinularia, Isis and 

Sarcophyton (Figure 4) were also common (Table 6). This community type was mostly found in the north, 

around Wayag and Kawe Islands (Figure 2). 

69


Figure 4. Sarcophyton and Issi soft corals on a reef flat in west Wayag. 

B - Single Depth Communities 

Type B1. Shallow communities between small islands and the coast - Acropora, pocilloporid, alcyoniid 

This type is a shallow water community found inside channels between smaller islands and adjacent coasts 

of larger islands. They were found in areas of relative exposure, particularly to currents running through the 

channels. Reef development was relatively low with the hard substrate, typical of all the community types. 

Hard coral cover was just above average (35%), though soft coral cover was the highest of all the community 

types (25%) (Table 5). The branching corals Acropora formosa, A. florida, and the encrusting coral 

Montipora grisea, were among the most common hard corals (Table 6). The alcyoniid soft corals (Figure 5) 

and sponges were also common. This community type was found throughout the survey area, in Salawati, 

Misool, Kofiau and Waigeo (Figure 2). 

Figure 5. Nephthea and Seriatopora on the reef flat at Deer Island, 

north Kofiau. 

70


Figure 6. Unusual growth of Porites in low visibility waters of Papas 

Tip Pale, Misool 

Type B2. Communities found far in very narrow inlet - Porites cylindrica, Favia, macro-algae, Isis, 

Heliopora coerolea 

This community type was found at two stations in a narrow inlet in east Misool (Figure 2). It was found in 

shallow water with a muddy bottom at 13m depth. These reefs had low underwater visibility (Figure 6) and 

low coral diversity, but above average hard coral cover (Table 5). The most common corals were Pectinia 

lactuca, Lobophyllia hemprichii and Porites cylindrica. The macro-algae Sargassum, Padina and Halimeda 

were present at all sites without being abundant (Table 6). 

Type B3. Deep reef flat communities far from shallow areas - pocilloporid, acroporid, Xenia, Aglaophenia, 

Millepora 

This community type was found on flat reef areas far from shore, at a minimum depth of 6m. These reefs had 

high hard coral cover, though low species diversity. The reefs had the highest coralline-algae cover and the 

lowest slope of all the communities (Table 5). The Table corals Acropora clathrata, A. cytherea and A. 

hyacinthus, (Figure 7) and encrusting corals, Montipora efflorescens, M. grisea and M. tuberculosa were the 

most common. Soft coral Xenia, stinging hydroid Aglaophenia and fire coral Millepora dichotoma were the 

other benthos most common (Table 6). This community was found in the north at Sayang and Wayag (Figure 

2). 

71


Figure 7. Table Acropora, fire coral Millepora and, in the 

background, stinging hydroid Agloaphenia 

Type C. Communities around Headlands with Strong Currents - Porites, Favia, table Acropora, alcyoniid, 

sponge 

This community type was found around headlands or near channel areas between two islands where 

multidirectional currents are strong (Figure 8). In such areas, hard coral cover was low, species diversity was 

the lowest, and turf-algae cover was the highest of all communities (Table 5). However, dead coral cover 

was the highest on these reefs, mainly due to severe damage (possibly fish bombing) to one of the sites near 

Salawati. Coral species of the massive form, such as Porites massive, Favia matthai and Symphyllia 

agaricia, Acropora species were the most common. Alcyniid soft corals and sponges were also common 

(Table 6). This community type was found mostly in the southern half of the survey area, south of Batanta 

and Misool (Figure 2). 

Figure 8. Strong currents and large Acropora tables were typical of 

community type C 

72


Table 6. Top ten hard coral species and other benthos representing each community type. In color legends, 

sh: shallow; dp: deep. For each taxa, abn: accumulated abundance for all sites, site: number of sites where 

taxa was found. 

Type A1 sh dp Type A2 sh dp 

Taxa abn site Taxa abn site 

Porites massive 30 11 Porites massive 19 10 

Seriatopora hystrix 25 11 Galaxea fasicularis 17 9 

Fungia concinna 23 10 Seriatopora hystrix 16 8 

Pachyseris speciosa 21 11 Fungia paumotensis 16 8 

Hydnophora rigida 21 10 Echinopora lamellosa 15 7 

Porites cylindrica 21 9 Fungia fungites 14 7 

Goniasatrea pectinata 20 12 Platygyra daedelea 13 9 

Merulina ampliata 20 11 Porites vaughani 13 7 

Astreopora gracilis 20 10 Seriatopora caliendrum 13 6 

Galaxea fasicularis 19 11 Acropora formosa 12 6 

Padina 19 8 Sinularia 14 7 

Sarcophyton 16 9 Isis 13 5 

Sinularia brascica 15 8 Sarcophyton 11 6 

Halimeda 15 6 Clavularia 10 4 

Nephthea 13 8 Halimeda 9 4 

Sinularia 13 7 Sponge 7 3 

Sponge 13 6 Padina 6 4 

Dictyota 13 5 Lobophytum 6 3 

Briareum 11 5 Tridacna crocea 5 4 

Polycarpa 11 5 Tridacna squamosa 5 4 

Type B1 sh dp Type B2 sh dp 


Acropora formosa 9 4 Porites cylindrica 5 2 

Pocillopora verrucosa 8 4 Pectinia alcicornis 5 2 

Stylophora pistillata 8 4 Lobophyllia hemprichii 5 2 

Montipora grisea 8 4 Goniasatrea pectinata 5 2 

Acropora florida 8 4 Favia favus 4 2 

Porites massive 8 4 Favia matthai 4 2 

Goniasatrea pectinata 8 4 Favia speciosa 4 2 

Platygyra daedelea 7 4 Platygyra daedelea 4 2 

Symphyllia agaricia 7 4 Leptastrea transversa 4 2 

Merulina ampliata 7 4 Mycedium elephantotus 4 2 

Sinularia 10 4 Polycarpa 6 2 

Nephthea 9 4 Sargassum 4 2 

Polycarpa 9 4 Padina 4 2 

Sarcophyton 7 4 Halimeda 4 2 

Sponge 7 3 Isis 3 1 

Tubipora musica 6 4 Heliopora coerolea 2 1 

Paralemnalia 6 3 Sinularia brascica 2 1 

Dendronephthya 6 3 Gorgonian 2 1 

Aglaophenia 6 3 Zoanthus 2 1 

Cliona 6 3 Sponge 2 1 

73


Table 6. Top ten hard coral species and other benthos representing each community type. In color 

legends, sh: shallow; dp: deep. For each taxa, abn: accumulated abundance for all sites, site: number of 

sites where taxa was found. 

Type B3 sh dp Type C sh dp 


Favia matthai 5 2 Porites massive 29 13 

Acropora clathrata 4 2 Favia matthai 22 13 

Acropora cytherea 4 2 Pocillopora verrucosa 17 9 

Acropora hyacinthus 4 2 Symphyllia agaricia 15 12 

Montipora efflorescens 4 2 Pachyseris speciosa 14 11 

Montipora grisea 4 2 Montipora grisea 14 10 

Montipora tuberculosa 4 2 Acropora hyacinthus 14 9 

Pocillopora eydouxi 4 2 Acropora palifera 14 7 

Seriatopora caliendrum 4 2 Acropora subulata 13 8 

Stylophora pistillata 4 2 Platygyra daedelea 12 11 

Xenia 5 2 Sarcophyton 25 12 

Aglaophenia 5 2 Sinularia 25 11 

CRA 5 2 Sponge 24 11 

Millepora dichotoma 4 2 Halimeda 23 10 

Sarcophyton 4 2 Nephthea 20 10 

Sinularia 4 2 Dendronephthya 19 8 

Lobophytum 4 2 Xenia 19 8 

Paralemnalia 4 2 Gorgonian 19 8 

Nephthea 4 2 Polycarpa 18 8 

Pinnigorgia 4 2 Palythoa 15 9 

Type D1 sh dp Type D2 sh dp 


Platygyra daedelea 27 14 Porites massive 17 9 

Pocillopora verrucosa 26 13 Pocillopora verrucosa 15 9 

Acropora palifera 25 13 Favia matthai 14 10 

Porites massive 25 12 Astreopora myriophthalma 14 9 

Stylophora pistillata 23 11 Acropora palifera 14 7 

Galaxea fasicularis 22 13 Galaxea fasicularis 12 8 

Porites nigrescens 22 11 Acropora clathrata 12 7 

Favia matthai 22 11 Acropora austera 12 6 

Seriatopora hystrix 22 9 Acropora millepora 11 8 

Acropora subulata 21 12 Pocillopora eydouxi 11 7 

Aglaophenia 23 11 Halimeda 21 9 

Nephthea 22 11 Sarcophyton 19 9 

Halimeda 22 11 Sinularia 17 8 

Sinularia 20 10 Nephthea 16 7 

Xenia 20 8 Dendronephthya 15 7 

Sarcophyton 17 9 CRA 13 5 

Palythoa 15 10 Paralemnalia 12 6 

Paralemnalia 15 7 Xenia 12 6 

Sponge 15 7 Aglaophenia 12 6 

Tubipora musica 14 8 Polycarpa 12 6 

74


Table 6. Top ten hard coral species and other benthos representing each community type. In color legends, 

sh: shallow; dp: deep. For each taxa, abn: accumulated abundance for all sites, site: number of sites where 

taxa was found. 

Type D3 sh dp Type D4 sh dp 


Fungia paumotensis 28 14 Mycedium elephantotus 12 7 

Goniasatrea pectinata 27 14 Goniasatrea pectinata 12 7 

Acropora formosa 27 10 Porites massive 11 5 

Merulina ampliata 26 16 Favites complanata 9 7 

Fungia danai 26 14 Pectinia lactuca 9 6 

Fungia fungites 26 13 Pachyseris speciosa 9 5 

Pocillopora damicornis 25 15 Fungia concinna 9 5 

Oxypora crassispinosa 24 15 Favites flexuosa 9 5 

Pectinia lactuca 24 13 Platygyra daedelea 9 5 

Fungia concinna 24 12 Acropora formosa 9 4 

Sarcophyton 29 14 Sarcophyton 16 7 

Nephthea 26 13 Sinularia 15 6 

Sinularia 25 12 Nephthea 13 6 

Sponge 21 10 Dendronephthya 12 4 

Tubipora musica 19 12 Lobophytum 10 5 

Polycarpa 18 9 Gorgonian 10 4 

Paralemnalia 17 9 Palythoa 9 5 

Peyssonnelia 17 7 Isis 8 3 

Briareum 16 8 Polycarpa 8 3 

Dendronephthya 15 8 CRA 7 3 

Type E sh dp 

Taxa abn site 

Acropora formosa 5 2 

Porites cylindrica 5 2 

Montipora foliosa 4 2 

Montipora grisea 4 2 

Montipora informis 4 2 

Montipora monasteriata 4 2 

Acropora granulosa 4 2 

Acropora subglabra 4 2 

Pocillopora verrucosa 4 2 

Seriatopora caliendrum 4 2 

Halimeda 6 2 

Nephthea 5 2 

Sarcophyton 4 2 

Sinularia 4 2 

Lobophytum 4 2 

Sponge 4 2 

Palythoa 3 2 

Tubipora musica 2 1 

Paralemnalia 2 1 

Dendronephthya 2 1 

75


D - Mixed Community Types 

Type D1. Very clear open water communities - Platygyra, Pocillopora, Acropora palifera, Aglaophenia, 

Nephthea 

Found in areas of very clear and open water, this community type was wide spread, but mainly around 

smaller islands. Typified by low macro-algae and sand cover, the lowest water temperatures and the highest 

underwater visibility (Figure 9), these reefs also had reasonably high species diversity (Table 5). Coral 

species of the massive growth form, such as Platygyra daedelea, Porites and Favia Matthai, and Acropora 

palifera were common. Stinging hydroid Agloaphenia, soft coral Nephthea and other alcyoniid corals were 

also common (Table 6). Reefs with this community type were found around Kofiau, Wayag and islands 

northwest of Misool (Figure 2). 

Figure 9. Clear water communities with many nephtheid and alcyoniid soft 

corals in South Walo, Kofiau. 

Type D2. Wave impacted hard bottom communities - Acropora, Pocillopora, Favia, Halimeda, alcyoniid 

Most of the reefs with this community type were in areas open to strong wave and surge action (Figure 10). 

Hard coral cover (14%) and unconsolidated bottom cover was the lowest of the community types. Species 

richness was moderate (Table 5). The most common corals were the massive, such as Porites, Favia matthai 

and Astreopora myriophthalma, and different growth forms of Acropora. Alcyoniid soft corals and the green 

fleshy algae Halimeda were present at most sites (Table 6). Most of the reefs with this community were 

found in the far north section of Raja Ampat (Figure 2). 

76


Figure 10. Sparse wave swept community at North Boni Reef, Waigeo. 

Type D3. Communities with high species diversity and coral cover - Fungia, Acropora, Oxypora, Pectinia 

lactuca, akcyoniid 

These communities are usually found in areas facing open water, but relatively protected from direct high 

wave energy, including the lee side of open water reefs. This community type was found on reefs with 

maximum reef development value and very high hard coral species diversity (Table 5). In addition, live hard 

coral cover was high (41%) with some shallow water coral, in particular branching Acropora forming large 

mono- or multi-specific stands. Solitary mushroom corals such as Fungia concinna, F. danai and F. fungites, 

and Oxypora and Pectina corals were also common (Figures 11 and 12). In addition to alcyoniid soft corals 

and sponges, organ pipe coral Tubipora musica was also common (Table 6). Reef sites with this community 

type were found throughout the survey area, but mostly around Misool Island (Figure 2). 

77


Figure 11. Fungid corals were very abundant at north Mesemta reef, Misool. 

Figure 12. Foliose Oxypora intermingled in Acropora beds at Los Island reef, 

Misool. 

Type D4. Communities with high soft coral cover - Mycedium, favid, Pectinia lactuca, alcyoniid, nephtheid 

This community type is found in areas of strong current and under karst walls or overhangs where soft coral 

abundance was high. Reefs with this community type had moderately steep slopes with high hard bottom 

cover, lower than average hard coral cover, and moderate species diversity (Table 5). Most common corals 

were Mycedium elephantotus, favids (Figure 13) and Pectinia lactuca. Alcyoniid soft corals Sarcophyton, 

Sinularia and Lobophytum, nephtheids Nephthea and Dendronephthea, and gorgonian corals were common 

(Table 6). Three of the four sites with this community type were found on the chain of islands stretching east 

of Misool (Figure 2). 

78


Figure 13. Favids were common in community type D4. 

Type E. Very High Coral Species Diversity - Montipora, Acropora, alcyoniid 

This community type was more of an outlier rather than a community type as such, since it is represented by 

only one station with a shallow and deep site in Wambong Bay, east Kofiau Island (Figure 2). However, it 

remains distinct from the rest of the community types and has the highest diversity of hard corals. Habitat 

characteristics were also unusual. It was found in a very protected bay with very clear water, dropping down 

in several steps to very deep water with a distinct thermocline. Hard coral cover was relatively low, but with 

no dead coral (Table 5). Acropora, Montipora, Porites and pocilloporid corals were most common (Figures 

14 and 15). The green fleshy algae Halimeda and alcyoniid soft corals were also common (Table 6). 

Figure 14. Foliose and encrusting Montipora sometimes formed large beds in 

community type E. 

79


Figure 15. Rich community type E in clear water at Wambong Bay, Kofiau. 

4.4.3 Reef Health 

Reefs in the area were in overall good health. The two main exceptions were a small number of sites where 

we saw evidence of old and recent blast fishing damage, and bleaching and partial mortality of corals in a 

number of reef flat sites in Misool and Batanta. The most severe blast fishing damage was at a shallow reef 

site at Pulau Senapan, near Salawati (site 1.2), where dead coral was estimated to be 60% of bottom cover. 

However, most blast damage appeared to be old and not all of the observed dead coral could be confidently 

attributed to this effect. Another reef where we saw several bomb craters was site 26.2 on Nampale Island, 

west of Misool. In addition, a number of old bomb craters were seen at southwest Ai Island, Wayag and 

Uranie Islands. 

No large-scale coral bleaching damage was observed. However, on a number of reefs, particularly in 

southeast Misool, bleaching and associated mortality was observed in shallow reef flat corals, due to 

exposure during exceptionally low tides. In two sites in east Waigeo, small patches of corals were seen that 

were bleached or pale in color. At Jef Pelee Island (site 19.2), corals in the shallow reef flat were bleached, 

possibly following severe sedimentation. The whole reef flat was covered with a carpet of very fine, clean 

sand. It was not possible to learn the cause of this evidently very recent sedimentation. In total, seven sites 

showed evidence of some degree of bleaching, usually very minor. 

Although single crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) and a small number of feeding scars were seen at four 

sites, at just one site were there several, but with no major damage. There was no clear evidence of recent 

COTS damage to any of the sites visited. The coralivorous gastropod Drupella was seen only at Kawe Island 

(site 49.2) and coral disease was seen at just four sites. However, Cliona, an encrusting sponge that 

overgrows and kills usually massive corals, was quite common. 

Some very large and old corals in relatively good health were often seen. This is usually an indication of 

healthy well-established communities, which have not been seriously affected by severe impacts in a long 

time. Some of these colonies were 6-8m in diameter, possibly corresponding to 300-400 plus years of age. 

80


4.5 Discussion 

Most coral species had a full geographic spread of the survey area, with the exception of several rare species. 

The cluster analysis did not detect any strong geographic pattern in the distribution of sites. Habitat diversity 

was very high and complex. Whilst similar coral reef habitats were found across the full range of the Raja 

Ampat area, extremely different habitats with corresponding species assemblages were found within close 

proximity. 

The most interesting and unusual reef habitats were found in and around the ridge of islands that extend east 

from Misool. This long karst ridge was broken up ever more as it extended eastward and was usually cut by 

perpendicular channels in a north-south direction, thus providing strong tidal currents to rush back and forth 

through these sometimes very narrow channels. Where the karst drops directly into the sea, undercut 

overhangs provided unique conditions for unusual habitats and coral assemblages. In these conditions, some 

hard and soft coral species that are found at greater depths and low light were found just below the surface. 

Fast currents providing lots of particles for filter feeders, and good flushing, enabled the growth of extensive 

fields of Dendronephthea soft coral in the shallows. 

In several areas, coral reefs and mangroves intermingled. This was usually the case in bays and channels 

where water was very clear due to constant flushing by tidal currents. 

Kofiau contained the richest sites of the expedition. Kofiau reefs were the richest in terms of hard coral 

diversity. All sites recorded well in excess of 140 species, though they were all in different habitats. In 

addition, reefs in Kofiau were in excellent condition. There was no evidence of current or recent impact or 

threat. 

The only clear evidence of human impact to the reefs was of blast fishing damage. The highest level of bomb 

damage was seen on reefs in accessible distance to human populations. A lower level of bombing activity 

was observed on Ai Island, far from any permanent settlement but frequently visited by fishermen from 

Halmahera. The highest level of bomb damage was on the northeast corner of Salawati. Here, although we 

recorded 60% dead coral cover, it is possible that not all the damage could be attributed to bombing. Storm 

damage afte bombing might also have caused similar damage. Following blast fishing, moderate sized pieces 

of broken coral can cause further damage in a storm more easily by rolling around and smashing live coral. 

Our observations differed from Erdman and Pet (2002), who reported extensive blast fishing practice in the 

area. Our observations were more in concordance with McKenna et al. (2002), who found less evidence of 

bomb damage. This discrepancy of findings can be related to (as stated in Erdman and Pet, 2002) different 

methods in site selection and different study area. We worked in a much larger area in slightly different sites 

than the other two workers. 

Although it is quite possible that some level of cyanide fishing is practiced on the reefs in the area, it is rare 

to see evidence of the impact. The only way is to see the fishermen actually in action, and even so, unless 

long-term observations are made, it is not possible to evaluate the level of damage inflicted. The only 

possible evidence is holes of broken coral where the fishermen try to access poisoned fish. Although we did 

see such holes, it was not possible to confirm their direct connection to cyanide fishing and the extent of 

damage to the reef. 

Several oyster pearl farms are located in Raja Ampat (e.g. Misool, west Waigeo and Kawe). We dived in the 

vicinity of a pearl farm (site 48, Kawe), where we saw no evidence of impact. However, we also dived in 

close proximity of another (site 36, near Selpele), where the corals showed the maximum amount of stress. It 

was not possible, however, to attribute this stress directly to the pearl farm activity at this stage. 

81


4.6 Conclusion 

Reefs in Raja Ampat are of great natural beauty and biological richness. Today, it may be possible to 

consider the reefs of Raja Ampat as a reference, a baseline to reefs worldwide. Perhaps they come close to 

what we would understand a natural reef environment to appear. However, during the expedition, it was 

apparent that the ever approaching threat of human expansion and associated exploitation of natural 

resources was encroaching on the area. Evidence and experience from other parts of the world and Indonesia 

reminds us that, before long, this unique environment will follow the path of many other natural areas of the 

world. 

Several areas in the Raja Ampat islands were outstanding and unusual to the effect that they warrant further 

intensive research. This survey of one-hour dives in a few sparsely located sites cannot even begin to 

document the real riches of the reef habitats of particularly Misool, Wayag, Kofiau, Kawe, …etc. 

The main findings and conservation recommendations are: 

• Raja Ampat possibly harbors the greatest diversity of scleractinian corals for an area the same size 

anywhere in the world. 

• Raja Ampat has a great variety of reef habitats and many unusual and unknown habitat types. 

• Due to its geographic position, species richness and relative reef health, Raja Ampat may be an important, 

and even essential, source for reefs to the west in the Maluku seas and to the east towards PNG and the 

Bismarck Sea. 

• The main threat to reefs is from overfishing, particularly with destructive methods. Blast fishing and 

cyanide fishing are the primary offenders. 

• Three areas are of particular interest in terms of species diversity and composition, habitat diversity and 

uniqueness, and natural beauty and wonder (Figure 16). These were: 

o Southeast Misool. Particularly the ridge and string of karst islands extending to the east. This area has 

many unusual and unique coral and reef habitats waiting to be discovered and studied. 

o Kofiau Island group. Had incredible coral species richness and all reefs in very good condition. 

o Wayag Island group. An area of several possibly new coral species and unknown reef habitats hidden 

among the myriad of karst and lagoon formations. 

82


Figure 16. Spectacular coral gardens in Raja Ampat. 


Allen, G.R. and Steene, R., 1994. Indo-Pacific coral reef field guide. Tropical Reef Research 378p. 

Colin, P.L. and Arneson, C., 1995. Tropical Pacific Invertebrates. Coral Reef Press, California, USA. 

DeVantier, L.M., De’ath, G., Done, T.J. and Turak, E., 1998. Ecological assessment of a complex natural 

system: a case study from the Great Barrier Reef. Ecological Applications 8: 480-496. 

DeVantier, L.M., Turak, E., Al-Shaikh, K. and De’ath, G., 2000. Coral communities of the central-northern 

Saudi Arabian Red Sea. Fauna of Arabia 18: 23-66. 

Done, T.J., 1982. Patterns in the distribution of coral communities across the central Great Barrier Reef. 

Coral Reefs 1: 95-107. 

Erdmann, M.V. and Pet, J.S., 2002. A rapid marine survey of the northern Raja Ampat Islands Henry 


Fabricius, K. and Alderslade, P., 2001. Soft corals and sea fans: a comprehensive guide to the tropical 

shallow water genera of the central-west Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the Red sea. Australian 

Institute of Marine Science, 264 pp. 

Fenner, D., 2002. Reef corals of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. Part 2. Comparison of 

individual survey sites. In: S.A. McKenna, G.R. Allen and S. Suryadi (eds.) A marine rapid 

assessment of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. Bulletin of the Rapid Assessment 

Program 22, Conservation International, Washington, DC. 

Goslinger, T.M., Behrens, D.W. and Williams, G.C., 1996. Coral Reef Animals of the Indo-Pacific. Sea 

Challengers Publ., Monterey, USA. 

McKenna, S.A, Boli, P. and Allen, G.R., 2002. Condition of coral reefs at the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua 

Province, Indonesia. In: S.A. McKenna, G.R. Allen and S. Suryadi (eds.) A marine rapid assessment 

83


of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. Bulletin of the Rapid Assessment Program 

22, Conservation International, Washington, DC. 

Turak, E, Wakeford, M. and Done, T. 2002. Banda Islands rapid ecological assessment, May 2002: 

Assessment of coral biodiversity and coral reef health. In: P.J. Mous (ed), Report on a rapid 

ecological assessment of the Banda Islands, Maluku, Eastern Indonesia. 28 th April – 5 th May 2002. 

TNC and UNESCO publication, 150pp. 

Turak, E (in prep). Assessment of coral biodiversity and status of coral reefs of East Kimbe Bay, New 

Britain, Papua New Guinea, 2002. The Nature Conservancy report. 

Turak, E. (in prep). Corals and Reef status in the far Northwest of Madagascar. In: Marine RAP 

survey of northwest Madagascar. Bulletin of the Rapid Assessment Program, Conservation 

International, Washington, DC. 

Turak, E., 2002. Assessment of coral biodiversity and coral reef health of the Snagihe-Talaud Islands, North 

Sulawesi, Indonesia, 2002. The Nature Conservancy report. 

Veron, J.E.N., 2000. Corals of the World. 3 Volumes. M. Stafford-Smith (Ed.). Australian Institute of 

Marine Science. 

Veron, J.E.N., 2002. Reef corals of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. Part 1. Overview of 

Scleractinia. In: S.A. McKenna, G.R. Allen and S. Suryadi (eds.) A marine rapid assessment of the 

Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. Bulletin of the Rapid Assessment Program 22, 


Veron, J.E.N. and Pichon, M., 1976. Scleractinia of Eastern Australia. I. Families Thamnasteriidae, 

Astrocoeniidae, Pocilloporidae. Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series 1: 1-86. 

Veron, J.E.N. and Pichon, M., 1980. Scleractinia of Eastern Australia. III. Families Agariciidae, 

Siderastreidae, Fungiidae, Oculilnidae, Merulinidae, Mussidae, Pectiniidae, Caryophyllidae, 

Dendrophyllidae. Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series 4: 1-422. 

Veron, J.E.N. and Pichon, M., 1982. Scleractinia of Eastern Australia. IV. Family Poritidae. Australian 

Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series 5: 1-210. 

Veron, J.E.N. and Wallace, C., 1984. Scleractinia of Eastern Australia. V. Family Acroporidae. Australian 

Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series 6: 1-485. 

Veron, J.E.N., Pichon, M. and Wijsman-Best, M., 1977. Scleractinia of Eastern Australia. II. Families 

Faviidae, Trachyphyllidae. Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series 3: 1-233. 

Wallace, C.C., 1999. Staghorn corals of the world, a revision of the genus Acropora. CSIRO Collingwood, 

Australia. 

Wallace, C.C. and Wolstenholme, J., 1998. Revision of the coral genus Acropora in Indonesia. Zool. J. Linn. 

Soc. 123: 199-384. 

84

Chapter 5 

Status of Sea Turtle Populations in the Raja Ampat Islands 

CREUSA HITIPEUW 

5.1 Summary 

• Raja Ampat is a unique site. The archipelago contains a full range of marine and coastal habitats 

that are important for the breeding, foraging and migration of several species of sea turtles. 

• This survey aimed to characterize critical habitats across the Raja Ampat islands that are in use by 

sea turtles and to assess existing and potential threats to both habitats and population. At 23 

locations throughout the archipelago, 38 large and small beaches were scoured for evidence of 

nesting and predation. A member of a dive team conducted underwater sightings and anecdotal 

information was collected through interviews with 62 fishermen from 14 villages. 

• The survey confirmed the occurrence of Green (Chelonia mydas) and Hawksbill (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) nesting and foraging populations. Hawksbill nesting abundance was greatest in the 

southeastern islands of Misool, while a large rookery of Green turtles occurred on Pulau Sayang 

and Pulau Ai in northwest Waigeo. 

• Interview results revealed common sightings of migrating Leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea) 

through Sagawin Strait, Sele Strait and Dampier Strait following the prevailing southward current. 

These migration routes are likely to have originated from a large Leatherback rookery on the north 

coast of Papua. 

• Sea turtles have long been a source of protein for local villagers. However, the predictability of the 

timing and location of turtle abundance exposes nesting populations to exploitation on a 

commercial scale that cannot be sustained. 

• Servicing the demand for turtles from outside markets has resulted in illegal poaching from people 

not in possession of customary access rights. Enforcement capacity within the archipelago is 

insufficient to circumvent this trade. 

• Protection of major rookeries is seen as the best conservation option for sea turtles in Raja Ampat. 

This survey identifies the islands of southeastern Misool as a major Hawksbill nesting area and the 

islands of Pulau Sayang and Pulau Ai in northwestern Waigeo as a major rookery for Green turtles. 

It is strongly recommended that these areas be considered in any conservation initiative in the 

archipelago. 

85

Chapter 5 - Status of Sea Turtle Populations in the Raja Ampat Islands 


The main aim of this survey was to characterize critical habitats across the Raja Ampat islands that are in use 

by sea turtles and to assess existing and potential threats to both habitats and population. This type of 

information is critical to developing conservation strategies for these species. 

Turtle populations, globally, are experiencing dramatic population decline. This is due, primarily, to nesting 

habitat destruction and disturbance, the incidence of commercial fishing by-catch, hunting, shell marketing 

and raiding of nests by villagers in subsistence economies. Reviews of the status of sea turtle populations in 

Southeast Asia by Limpus (1994; 1997) determined that all marine turtle populations in the Indo Pacific 

region, outside Australia, are severely depleted through overharvesting and excessive incidental mortality. 

An example is the Sulu Sea turtle nesting islands of Sabah (Malaysia) and the Philippines, where a decline in 

Green turtle nesting populations of 75-90% was recorded from 1951-1985. Limpus (1997) noted the decline 

of turtle populations in the Pacific. Several of the largest breeding aggregations, such as Scilly Atoll (French 

Polynesia), had been depleted by 90% in the last 20 years. At Long Island rookery (northern PNG), it is 

likely that the annual nesting population of Green turtles has dropped to well below 1,000 females. It was 

concluded by Limpus (1997) that the rate of turtle harvest exceeds the replacement capacity of existing 

populations in the entire Pacific region. 

Turtle nesting beaches are often located on uninhabited islands, which are sometimes considered sacred to 

nearby communities. Sea turtles have been considered a central element in customs and beliefs in some 

communities. Compost (1980) reported a Green turtle rookery on the island of Enu-Karang, in the Arafura 

Sea that is respected by Arunese as the land of their origins. To Balinese Hindus, the turtle is well regarded 

for being able to retreat into its shell and for carrying the world on its back. Turtles are sacrificed and the 

meat is consumed during special ceremonies (WWF Indonesia, 2002). Traditional beliefs and rituals of the 

Kei islanders of Maluku are associated with the hunt of Leatherback turtles. The belief is equated with the 

will of the ancestors that requires villagers to hunt for ritual and subsistence. The belief, however, prohibits 

the trade in Leatherback meat, which is considered a violation of customary rules that may incur the wrath of 

ancestral spirits (Suáres, 1999). The cultural value of sea turtles in Raja Ampat is currently unknown, but to a 

Karon ethnic community of the north coast of the Birdshead Peninsular, the Leatherback turtle is believed to 

have originated from a sea princess who lays eggs for them for food. Bad luck results from disturbing the 

nesting Leatherback (Teguh, 2000). 

Raja Ampat’s remote islands and circulating currents make it ideally suited for the nesting and foraging of 

sea turtles. Schultz (1987) stated that the northern part of Papua is known to host four marine turtle species: 

1. Green (Chelonia mydas); 

2. Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata); 

3. Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea); and 

4. Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). 

The first three species have previously been noted as abundant in the Raja Ampat islands (e.g. Salm et al., 

1982; Petocz, 1987; Tomascik et al., 1997). Earlier reports noted the occurrence of nesting sites of Green and 

Hawksbill turtles (Salm and Halim, 1984; PHPA, 1992). This information formed the basis for proposed 

conservation areas in the Raja Ampat islands, including South Misool, Kofiau and Pulau Sayang. Nesting by 

Leatherback turtles has not been reported on Raja Ampat beaches but the species is suspected to migrate 

through straits and channels throughout the archipelago to foraging habitat in the Kei islands of southeast 

Maluku (Suárez and Starbird, 1995). 

The expansion of the Balinese turtle fishery towards eastern Indonesia in the mid 1970s caused the depletion 

of populations in Green turtle rookeries in Sulawesi, Maluku and Papua (Polunin and Nuitja, 1981). Tag 

86


recovery programs, reported by Limpus (1994), demonstrated that turtles captured in feeding areas in eastern 

Indonesia and sent to Bali originated not only from Indonesian rookeries but also from rookeries in Sabah, 

Papua New Guinea, and Australia. Commercial egg concessions are still issued in parts of Indonesia (e.g. 

Pangumbahan, West Java, Berau and East Kalimantan). However, population growth and the shift toward 

cash dependence in many village communities have rendered this practice unsustainable. Declining 

commercial yield, reported by Limpus (1994), implies a corresponding decline in turtle populations. 

Prior to a government ban on the trade of Green turtles in 1999, more than 20,000 specimens were caught 

annually from all over Indonesia to meet demand from Bali. However, Limpus (1994) estimated that this 

figure was likely to be as high as 30,000 when accounting for post harvest mortality. Following the 1999 

trade ban, additional pressure from the tourism industry in Bali and a campaign by NGOs (including WWF- 

Indonesia) has significantly reduced supplies of turtle to the Bali market. Mahardika, Turtle Campaign leader 

of WWF-Wallacea Program, recently observed about 300 turtles at three locations in Tanjung Benoa (Bali) 

that were kept in holding pens for religious feasts. Acceptance of the use of turtles for cultural purposes 

complicates enforcement of the trade ban. Local markets outside Bali are believed to trade in turtles and their 

eggs. However, the volume of trade is unknown. 

Groombrige and Luxemoore (1989) stated that populations of Hawksbill turtle on many nesting beaches in 

the Java Sea have declined by more than 70% as a result of exploitation of both shells and eggs. Large 

volumes of Hawksbill shells (bekko) have been exported to Japan and other Asian countries for decades 

(Limpus, 1997), limiting the chance of population recovery. There are currently no known large nesting 

populations remaining in the Indo-Pacific region. Hawksbill turtles were declared a protected species in 

1992. However, trade continues to drive the harvest of the species. Based on a small amount of tag 

recoveries of this species and the tag recovery patterns of other species, it is postulated that Hawksbills 

harvested in eastern Indonesia originated from stocks that breed in the north and west of Australia (Limpus, 

1997). 

The Raja Ampat islands have been described as the core of the world’s marine biodiversity. However, the 

threat to existing turtle populations in the archipelago is increasing in the presence of human population 

movement and rapid transformation to cash economies. Conservation effort, encompassing the nesting 

habitat of these ancient animals, must be seen as urgent. 

5.3 Methods 

This survey was not conducted during the nesting season, which occurs during the southeastern trade wind 

season. Consequently, a technique described by Schroeder and Murphy (1999) was adopted. The technique is 

designed to identify and characterize potential nesting beaches without actually seeing gravid turtles. 

Characteristics consistent with the various species were identified, such as crawl track markings and the 

dimension of nesting depressions. Frequency of such evidence is used as an index because eggs are laid 

above high tide, often amongst littoral vegetation, meaning that evidence is apparent for a long period. 

Evidence of predation, including the presence of eggshells and turtle remains (carapaces, skulls, plastron) 

was also considered in this survey. 

During the three-week survey period, three means of data collection were adopted (Table 1). Beach surveys 

were limited due to the expedition route, which aimed to facilitate all components of the REA. Consequently, 

only sandy beaches seen in proximity to the dive sites were surveyed due to transport constraints. Given this, 

there is clearly many potential nesting beaches that remain unsurveyed, particularly the small, narrow 

beaches favoured by Hawksbill turtles. 

87


Table 1. Type of data collected in the course of the REA. 

Method Type of Data Collected Notes 

• Nesting evidence: identification of species 

from crawl tracks and nest depressions; and 

• Predation evidence: slaughter of turtles, 

predation of eggs and probable source. 

Beach 

Survey 

Underwater 

Sightings 

Village 

Interviews 

• Species identification; and 

• Size (juvenile, adult) 

• Species of turtle most commonly sighted; 

• Nesting or underwater observations; 

• Seasonal trend of sightings; 

• Known nesting sites; and 

• Type of exploitation activities (subsistence and 

commercial activity) 

• Data collected by 

inspecting beaches and 

littoral vegetation. 

• 38 beaches at 23 

locations. 

• Incidental sightings in the 

conduct of the marine 

survey 

• 62 interviews in 14 

villages. 

• Data primarily collected 

in unison with socioeconomic 

research 

component. 

• Some interviews in 

proximity to nesting 

beaches. 

5.4 Results 

Evidence of turtle nesting was found at 17 of the 23 locations surveyed (Table 2). The rate of predation was 

found to be high. Monitor lizards commonly forage for eggs, evidenced by torn eggshells scattered around 

the surface. A disturbed nest devoid of eggs indicates human predation of eggs. Human predation on adult 

females was indicated by the presence of carcasses, which was clearly present on the long beaches of Pulau 

Sayang and Pulau Ai, northwest Waigeo. Hawksbill nesting activity dominated the small, narrow beaches 

that are scattered around the southeastern island chain of Misool. Green turtles also made use of these 

beaches, but were found in greater number on the long beaches of Sayang and Ai Islands. These two islands 

can be considered a significant Green turtle rookery in Raja Ampat, in particular, and Eastern Indonesia in 

general. 

88


Table 2. Beach survey results. 

Location (No. Beaches Surveyed) Green (C. mydas) Hawksbill (E. imbricata) 

Nests Predation Nests Predation 

Human Other Human Other 

Salawati: Pulau Senapan/Jef Doif 1 - - - - - - 

Batanta: SW Mainland 1 - - - - - - 

Misool: N Wagmab (island chain) 1 4 - 3 - - - 

Misool: N Farondi (island chain E) 2 5 - - 2 - - 

Misool: Papas Tip Pale 1 - - - - - - 

Misool: SW Mate 2 4 1 3 6 2 3 

Misool: N Djam 1 - - - 10 - 8 

Misool: SW Kalig 1 21 - 1 1 - - 

Misool: Waaf 1 2 1 - 17 - 14 

Misool: Watjoke (W of Jef Pelee) 1 11 - - - - - 

Misool: Mainland NW 2 1 - 1 - - - 

Misool: Nampale NW (light house) 1 - - - - - - 

Misool: Kamet 2 2 - - 3 - - 

Kofiau: NW islands 4 1 - - 1 1 - 

Kofiau: Wambong 1 3 6 2 1 1 - 

Waigeo: Pulau Sayang W 1 241 8 123 4 1 2 

Waigeo: Pulau Ai N 1 279 68 x - - - 

Waigeo: Wayag SW 2 5 2 - - - - 

Waigeo: Stephanie W 1 23 8 - - - - 

Waigeo: Quoy SW 3 20 13 - - - - 

Waigeo: Uranie 2 6 1 - - - - 

Waigeo: Kawe 2 - - - - - - 

Waigeo: Boni 4 - - - - - 

A member of the dive team made observations of sea turtles underwater during the conduct of the coral reef 

survey. Green and Hawksbill turtles were seen at sites predominately around Misool, Kofiau and Waigeo 

(Table 3). These species were commonly observed by local fishermen, particularly around seagrass beds and 

coral reefs (Table 4). 

89


Table 3. Results of underwater observation 

Green (Chelonia mydas) 

Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

No. Size No. Size 

Misool: Pulau Tiga (SW middle island) 2 juv Batanta: Tanjung Mabo 1 adult 

Misool: Cot Malankari 1 adult Batanta: Bulbous h’land E of Tg Mabo 1 adult 

Waigeo: P. Sayang - small island W 1 adult Misool: N Wagmab (island chain) 1 adult 

Waigeo: Wayag - large bay W 1 adult Misool: E Bajampop 1 adult 

Waigeo: Wayag - center-east 1 adult Misool: N Djam 1 adult 

Waigeo: Kawe - Inner Bay 1 adult Misool: SW Kalig 1 adult 

Misool: Watjoke (W of Jef Pelee) 1 adult 

Misool: Pulau Tiga (SW side middle is) 1 juv 

Misool: opposite middle P. Tiga 1 adult 

Misool: Cot Malankari 2 adult 

Misool: Nampale NW 6 adult 

Kofiau: S Walo 1 adult 

Kofiau: Anjoean 1 adult 

Kofiau: S Miatkari Island 1 adult 

Waigeo: P. Sayang - small island W 3 adult 

Waigeo: Wayag - center-east 2 adult 

Waigeo: Quoy - islets to south 3 adult 

Waigeo: Bag - southeast 1 adult 

Community interview respondents also acknowledged the occurrence of nesting populations of Green and 

Hawksbill turtles. One respondent, from Kabare, North Waigeo, stated that he had seen a Leatherback turtle 

nesting site (Table 4). Several of the locally known nesting sites of Hawksbill and Green turtles were clearly 

stated during interviews but were difficult to locate on existing maps. Further investigation to required to 

provide a complete overview of the nesting sites across Raja Ampat islands. 

Leatherback turtles (locally called as Tabom or Kumep) were sighted by local communities around larger 

straits of Raja Ampat islands. This species was reported in interviews as migrating across the islands, often 

in groups, from north to south around September. The appearance of Leatherbacks following the prevailing 

southward current is common along Sagawin Strait (between south Batanta and Salawati), Sele Strait 

(between Papua mainland and Salawati) and Dampier Strait (between north Batanta and Weigeo). There is a 

known Leatherback rookery on the north coast of the Birdshead peninsular. The breeding season for this 

rookery is March to September (Bhaskar, 1994; WWF, 2002). The prevailing southward current suggests the 

Raja Ampat archipelago is an important migratory corridor for Papuan Leatherback breeding populations. 

The occurrence of Olive Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) was not evident through the three survey 

methods. This species has similar characteristics to the Hawksbill and this might create confusion in 

underwater identification. Olive Ridleys prefer to nest along the beach zone, which makes observation of 

nesting evidence difficult, especially in areas such as the southern island chain of Misool, where wave 

energy is likely to obscure nesting evidence. 

90


Table 4. Summary of village interview results. 

Village 

(No. 

Interviews) 

Location 

Species Sighted 

Nesting 

U/water 

Kapatlap 5 Salawati H’bill Green, 

L’back 

Arefi 8 Salawati Green, Green, 

H’bill H’bill, 

L’back 

Tomolou 6 Misool Green, H’bill, 

H’bill 

Yellu 2 Misool Green, 

H’bill 

Fafanlap 3 Misool Green, 

H’bill 

Aduwei 2 Misool Green, 

H’bill 

Kapacol 4 Misool Green, 

H’bill 

Waigama 

4 NW 

Misool 

Green, 

H’bill 

Observed 

Nesting 

Season 

Known Nesting sites 

Exploitation 

Activities 

May-Aug Bam and Senapan 

Islands 

Egg harvest, 

underwater poaching 

Jun-Aug Doker and Kri Islands Egg harvest, 

poaching 

Aug-Oct Wowonta Cape, Egg harvest, 

L’back 

Mustika Isle poaching 

Green, Aug-Oct Pinang Island Egg harvest, 

H’bill 

poaching, tortoise 

shell collection 

Green Aug-Oct Pamali and Damar Egg harvest, shell 

Islands 

collection 

Green, Aug-Oct Lapong, Yan, Ombi, Egg harvest, 

H’bill, 

Leuw, Berlow Islands poaching 

L’back 

Green, 

H’bill, 

L’back 

Green, 

H’bill, 

L’back 

Tolobi 3 Kofiau Green Green, 

H’bill 

Deer 2 Kofiau Green, 

H’bill 

Green, 

H’bill 

Kapadiri 4 W. Waigei Green, 

H’bill, 

L’back 

Selpele 6 W. Waigeo Green, 

H’bill 

Saliyo 5 W. Waigeo Green, 

H’bill 

Kabare 8 N. Waigeo Green, 

H’bill, 

L’back 

July-Oct Waaf, Lii, and Yefbi , 

Yan Islands 

Aug-Oct 

Naupale, Nanisa, 

Maslat and Masel 

Islands 

Eggs harvest 

Egg harvest, adult 

poaching, 

commercial poaching 

Aug-Oct Boo Isle Egg harvest, adult 

poaching for 

subsistence 

Aug-Oct Mustika Isle Egg harvests 

Subsistence harvest 

from P. Sayang 

Jun-Sept P. Sayang, P. Ai Subsistence harvest 

Jun-Sept 

Jul-Aug 

P. Sayang and P. Ai; 

Wayag Islands 

Waribar (Yembekali 

Village) beach 


(eggs and meats), 

commercial harvests 

by outsiders for Bali 

market 


for village feasts 

91



Survey results indicate that the south Misool island group and the northwestern islands of Waigeo contain 

the most significant nesting populations of Green and Hawksbill turtles. One anecdotal account of a nesting 

Leatherback was found. However, the results attained in this survey were consistent with the assertion that 

this species migrates through the archipelago but does not use the area for nesting. 

5.5.1 South Misool 

Misool and its scattered island group comprise narrow beaches varying in length from 75m to 300m. The 

beaches are fringed by low-level littoral vegetation and are protected by fringing reefs, which are exposed at 

low tide. Most nesting remnants were found in association with evidence of predation by monitor lizards 

(Figure 1). This was identified by the presence of torn eggshells that remained on the surface. Hawksbill 

nests were found on most island beaches but evidence was scarce on mainland beaches, where wild boar is 

adding to the problem of egg predation. Nests were found beneath beach shrubs and trees. Due to the 

seasonality of wave energy, most beaches were eroded and remained very narrow with a half to one-meter 

sand wall. This caused some nesting evidence to be obscured. A small number of Green turtles were also 

found at the same type of beach. However, more abundant Green turtle nests were observed in southwest 

Kalig and Watjoke, to the west of Jef Pele, where access to the beaches is easier for these large turtles. 

Figure 1. The author with evidence of egg predation by 

monitor lizards at Wagmab Island, eastern Misool (photo 

by Duncan Neville). 

The underwater observation in this area confirmed the occurrence of Green and Hawksbill turtle of adult and 

sub-adult size around the reef area. The dominant species sighted was Hawksbills, with six individuals 

92


observed at northwest Nampale. Many beaches in the south Misool island group are used by passing 

fishermen as transit camps during the calm season. It is likely that egg harvests had occurred on these 

beaches for on-site consumption as eggshells were sighted in old camp areas. At several surveyed sites, 

carapaces of adult Green turtles were found with spear holes, which suggest that turtles were hunted whilst in 

the water. 

Green turtles mostly concentrate their nesting behavior on particular beaches. This makes them vulnerable to 

hunting and poaching during the nesting season. The dispersed nesting habits of Hawksbills, however, may 

save many populations from extinction when facing high exploitation pressures since poachers are largely 

unable to concentrate their effort on rookery aggregations. Hunters and poachers have instead been forced to 

net or spear the catch in foraging ground, such as coral reefs and seagrass beds. Considering the worldwide 

decline of Hawksbill turtle populations, the south Misool islands group can be considered an important 

rookery with high conservation status. The pit count of Hawksbills at the south Misool island group is 

comparable to several rookeries in the Java Sea, such as the Tambelan islands (Suganuma et al., 1999). 

5.5.2 Northwest Waigeo 

The northwestern islands of Raja Ampat serve as important rookeries for Green turtles. In 1992, the area was 

proposed as a wildlife sanctuary that comprised the islands of Sayang, Ai, Small Mutus, Wayag, Stephanie 

and Uranie. Concentrated Green turtle breeding populations are located on the islands of Pulau Sayang and 

Pulau Ai. 

Pulau Sayang is the largest island with approximately 9km of beaches, which are fragmented by karsts. A 

large number of nests were found on the western beach. Monitor lizards predated most of the 241 Green 

turtle nest pits, which were located beneath littoral vegetation. In addition, four Hawksbill turtle tracks were 

seen on a stretch of beach that is covered by coral rubble. The evidence varied from nest pits, carcasses, 

carapace, plastron, skulls and fresh crawling tracks. 

Pulau Ai, which is much smaller than Pulau Sayang, is also an important rookery for Green turtles. Sandy 

beaches, with an approximate length of 3km, are situated on the northern and southern parts of the island. 

Some 279 Green turtle nest pits were recorded during this survey. A remarkable observation on Pulau Ai was 

the finding of 68 Green turtle carapaces. This find implies high subsistence exploitation by nearby villagers. 

Interview respondents at Boni village, North Waigeo said that fishermen occasionally visited the island 

during the nesting season (August/Sept), as did villagers from Ayau (offshore of North Waigeo). 

Several sub-adult Green turtles and adult females were seen alive at fishermen’s campsites in Wayag. The 

fishermen admitted that the turtles were taken from Pulau Sayang. During the survey period, a typical turtle 

boat was sighted near Pulau Sayang and was confirmed by a local villager to have loaded turtles from Pulau 

Sayang and Pulau Ai. During an interview in Selpele, it was revealed that, in 1998, a Balinese boat loaded 

hundreds of turtles poached from Pulau Sayang and Pulau Ai. Areas such as these that are known to host 

large aggregations of nesting and foraging turtles are intensively targeted by poachers and must be afforded 

some kind of protection as part of any effective conservation endeavor. 

Green turtles use the small sandy beaches located on the islands of Wayag, Stephanie, Uranie and Quoy as 

nesting habitat. Northwest Stephanie, the western and southern parts of Quoy, and southwest Uranie 

contained more evidence of nesting under littoral vegetation. Nesting beaches preferred by Green turtles 

range from large, open beaches to small inlet beaches with an open offshore approach. It is clear that the 

islands of northwest Waigeo host significant Green turtle breeding populations. The finding of 68 carapaces 

and more than 500 nesting pits suggests that several hundred female Green turtles use these beaches to nest. 

This number is comparable to a known Green turtle rookery in Enu Island, southeast Aru, Maluku (Schultz, 

1996, Dethmers, 1999). This population is also subjected to commercial exploitation for the Bali market. 

93


5.5.3 Kofiau 

Another area of interest to conservation in Raja Ampat is Kofiau, which comprises several small islands with 

sandy beaches of varying length. The area is used for copra production, which is one of the main sources of 

income for local people. Villagers temporarily camped on the otherwise uninhabited islands to service the 

plantations. Little evidence of nesting was observed during the survey. However, local people encountered 

on the islands reported occasional nesting of several individual Hawksbill turtles. Visiting villagers 

ultimately take the turtles and eggs. Six carapaces of sub-adult Green turtles were sighted with spear holes in 

them. During underwater observation, Hawksbill turtles were sighted at three of the six dive sites located 

around Kofiau. 

5.6 Threats to Turtle Populations in Raja Ampat. 

Exploitation of sea turtles for both subsistence and commercial purposes is a long-standing practice in Raja 

Ampat. Sea turtles have long been a source of protein for local villagers. People from Boni, northern Waigeo 

admitted taking up to 20 individual nesting turtles from P. Sayang and P. Ai for consumption during 

Christmas and New Year feasts. Spears are often loaded in fishing boats for use in a chance encounter with a 

turtle in the water. Some fishers specifically catch turtles for consumption and for sale at nearby villages and 

occasionally to Sorong. Hawksbills are often the subject of trade because of their valuable shells and Green 

turtles are caught for consumption. Hunting for subsistence, and poaching for commercial benefit, is most 

likely to occur during the nesting season abundance. 

Given the depth of local knowledge on nesting Hawksbills and the number of clutches laid in a season, it is 

likely that any sign of nesting activity observed by local people will result in egg harvests. Shifting human 

population patterns and increasing cash dependence is likely to increase the seasonal depletion of nesting 

populations. A growing subsistence egg harvest on small populations of turtles, such as the Hawksbills in 

Raja Ampat, could prove unsustainable in the future, threatening the viability of existing populations. 

The commercial harvest is the major threat to turtle populations in Raja Ampat. Turtle meat, eggs, as well as 

living turtles (mostly Hawksbills), were seen by the author at local markets in Sorong and at the local airport. 

Interviews at the markets indicated that the turtles originated from Raja Ampat. In addition, village 

interviews indicated that Balinese boats periodically visited the islands around southern Misool and northern 

Waigeo. Local authorities arrested a boat loaded with 188 Green turtles, the result of a one-week hunting 

effort, at Waigama, Misool in 1995 (WWF, 1996). 

5.7 Conclusions and Recommendations 

The two areas under survey that are regarded as significant nesting areas for turtles in the Raja Ampat islands 

are the southern Misool islands group and the northwestern islands of Waigeo. The southern Misool islands 

are important for Hawksbills while the northwestern islands of Waigeo are important for Green turtles. 

Although there is a paucity of historical nesting data for these particular areas, the presence of a significant 

number of breeding adults could ensure adequate recruitment to maintain viable populations of these species 

when appropriate conservation measures are implemented. 

The small beaches in the southern Misool area provide critical habitat for breeding Hawksbill populations. 

The remoteness of the area limits human access, especially from May to September when the seas are rough. 

This period coincides with the nesting season. Consequently, hunting, poaching and egg harvesting rarely 

occurs during this time. The islands of Sayang and Ai are important and highly concentrated rookeries for 

Green turtles in the region. However, amid the large body of nesting evidence was sign of a high level of 

subsistence exploitation, including many carapaces and carcasses. The presence of the coconut plantation on 

P. Sayang Island ensures regular visits by local people. Located remote from inhabited islands, P. Sayang 

94


and P. Ai also attracts illegal turtle capture, especially for boats destined for distant markets. Turtle 

population numbers have not previously been recorded. However, it is precautionary in light of the current 

level of exploitation to include this area in any conservation initiative in Raja Ampat. 

The priority areas identified for turtle conservation in this study have previously been proposed for inclusion 

in a Marine Wildlife Sanctuary in 1992 (Supriatna, 1999). However, as time elapses, the conservation 

imperative becomes more urgent. Given the population growth and dynamics outlined in Chapter 1 of this 

compilation, natural resources in Raja Ampat will likely face increased pressure as the growing number of 

people seek income sources. It is necessary, therefore, that conservation measures be implemented that create 

alternative sources of income such that protected areas, and the natural resources therein, hold a tangible and 

ongoing value that stakeholders will take a custodial role in managing. 


Balasz, G.H., Jiunn Cheng, Hui-Cheng, W., 1999. Ancient Turtles: Traditions and Fossils. Turtle Sacrifice to 

the Temple Gods in the Penghu Islands of Taiwan. 19th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium, 1999 South 

Padre Island, Texas. 

Bhaskar, B., 1997. Management and Research of Marine Turtle Nesting sites on the north Vogelkoop coast 

of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Unpublished report, WWF/IUCN, Bogor. 38pp. 

Compost A., 1980. Pilot survey of exploitation of dugong and sea turtles in the Aru Islands. Unpublished 

report. Yayasan Indonesia Hijau. Bogor, 63 pp. 

Dethmers, E. M., 1999. The need for co-operation in conservation of Sotheastern Aru turtle. 2nd 

ASEAN Symposium and Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Sabah, 

Malaysia. 

Groombrige, B. and Luxemoore, R., 1989. The Green turtle and Hawksbills (Reptilia: Cheloniidae): World 

Status, Exploitation and Trade. Secretariat CITES. Lausanne, Switzerland. 601pp. 

Guinea, M.L., 1993. The Sea Turtles of Fiji. South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme. Apia, 

Western Samoa. Series No. 65. World Wide Fund for Nature South Pacific Programme. 

IUCN, 1975. Red data book, Volume 3. Amphibia and Reptilia. Morges Switzerland. IUCN. 

Limpus, C., 1994. Current decline in South east Asian Turtle Population. 13 th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. pp. 89-92. 

Limpus, C., 1997. Marine Turtle Populations of Southeast Asia and Western Pacific Region: Distribution 

and Status. Workshop Proceeding Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia. Wetland 

International-Indonesia Program. pp. 37-72. 

Mortimer, J., 1995. Teaching critical concepts for the conservation of sea turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 

71: 1-4. 

Paladino, F., 1999. Leatherback Turtle Workshop at the 19th Annual Symposium. Marine Turtle Newsletter 

86:10-11. 

Petocz, R.G., 1987. Nature Conservation and Development in Irian Jaya. Pustaka Grafiti, Jakarta. 

PHPA, 1992. Laporan Penilaian Potensi sumberdaya laut Misool Selatan dan sekitarnya. Dirjen 

PHPA.Bogor. 

PHPA, 1992. Laporan Penilaian Potensi sumberdaya laut P. P. Sayang dan sekitarnya. Dirjen PHPA Bogor. 

Polunin, N. and Nuitja, N., 1979. Sea Turtle Populations of Indonesia and Thailand. In: K. Bjorndal (Ed.) 

Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institute, WWF pp.353-361. 

Salm, R.V. and Halim, M., 1984. Indonesia Marine Data Atlas. PHPA Bogor/FAO. 

95


Salm, R.V., Petocz, R.G. and Soehartono, T., 1982. Survey on Coastal Area in Irian Jaya. UNDP/FAO 

National Park Development Project, WWF Indonesia Programme, Bogor. 

Schroeder, B., and Murphy, S., 1999. Population Surveys (Ground and Aerial) on nesting beaches. In: K.L. 

Eckert, K. Bjorndal and M. Donnelly (editors). Research and Management Techniques for the 

Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication. No. 4. 

Schultz, J., 1987. Observation of sea turtles in Indonesia. Unpublished report to IUCN, Bogor. 55pp. 

Schultz, J., 1996. Marine Turtles in Aru. In: H. Nooteboom (ed) The Aru Archipelago: Plants, Animals, 

People and Coservation. Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection. No. 30. pp. 

57-74. 

Suáres, A., 1999. The Sea Turtle Harvest in the Kai Islands, Indonesia. 2nd ASEAN Symposium and 

Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Sabah, Malaysia. 

Suárez, A. and Starbird, C.H, 1996. Subsistence hunting of Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in 

the Kai Islands, Indonesia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2): 190-195. 

Suganuma, H., Kamezaki, N. and Yusuf, A., 1999. Current Status of Nesting Population of Hawksbill. 

Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2): 337-343. 

Supriatna, J. (ed), 1999. Irian Jaya Biodiversity Conservation Priority Setting Workshop. Report for 

Conservation International, Washington DC. 

Teguh, H., 2000. Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Nesting in Jamursba-Medi Beach, Irian Jaya. 

WWF Indonesia Internal Report. 

Tomascik, T., Mah, A.J., Nontji, A. and Moosa, M.K., (eds), 1997. The Ecology of Indonesian Seas. Periplus 

Editions, Singapore. 

WWF Indonesia, 2002. Values of Sea Turtles. WWF Indonesia Website (www.wallaceawwf.org/indigenous_values_sea_turtles.php 

designed in 2002. 

WWF, 1996. Project Brief: Profile for Sorong Based (Turtle Conservation) Project. Internal Report. WWF 


WWF, 2002. Marine Turtle Conservation Program: Jamursba Medi Nesting Beach, North Coast of Papua, 

Indonesia. Western Pacific Workshop on Sea Turtle Research and Conservation. Western Pacific 

Fisheries Council. February 2002. 

96

Chapter 6 

An Ecological Summary of the Raja Ampat Vegetation 

WAYNE TAKEUCHI 

6.1 Summary 

• The Raja Ampat district of Indonesian Papua is one of New Guinea’s most unusual floristic 

environments. The islands contain three of the 22 Papuan areas recognized as centers of very high 

endemism. 

• This rapid-assessment survey examined vegetation patterns across the district, characterizing the 

major plant communities and identifying existing biodiversity threats. 

• Mangroves, beach forest, lowland hill forest, limestone karst, and ultrabasic (serpentine) woodland 

were the principal natural-growth habitats explored. 

• Conservation assets: When judged on the basis of endemism, the ultrabasic and limestone 

vegetation are the highest value communities in the Raja Ampat. As presently known, the 

ultrabasics have more species endemic to its habitats than any of the other communities. The most 

valuable survey locations are thus the Misool karst and Waigeo. 

• Ecosystem threats: Naturalized alien plants were not found on serpentine, or on most of the isolated 

karst islands. Although limestone areas near human settlements often have a few adventives, 

invasive taxa were absent. 

• Although concessional logging is degrading several lowland areas, most of the limestone 

communities remain in pristine condition. There are substantial prospects for future taxonomic 

discovery. 

97

Chapter 6 - An Ecological Summary of the Raja Ampat Vegetation 


Most of western New Guinea (including Misool and northern Salawati, Figures 1-2) is part of a Papuan 

microcontinent that separated from the Gondwanic landmass during the early Mesozoic, subsequently 

drifting into its present position independently of the Australian craton (Pigram and Panggabean, 1984; 

Pigram and Davies, 1987; Hall, 1998). Waigeo and adjacent islands comprise one of only two oceanic 

terranes in this region of New Guinea. Ultrabasic and limestone substrates have developed distinctive plant 

communities containing many endemic species, especially in the westernmost islands. 

Ironically, considering the overall paucity of information for such environments, the Raja Ampat archipelago 

was among the first areas to be visited by early explorer-naturalists to eastern Malesia. In 1792–93, the 

vessels Recherche and Esperance obtained plant collections from Waigeo as part of a general program of 

regional exploration. Botanical specimens were also taken during visits by the Uranie and Physicienne in 

1818–19, and during the cruise of the Astrolabe (1826–29). Early collectors included Beccari (1872–73) on 

Batanta and Kofiau, and Micholitz in 1890, also on Batanta. Frodin and Gressitt (1982) provide a general 

account of these early activities. Following the efforts of Cheesman on Waigeo (1938–39) and by Royen on 

Batanta and Waigeo (Royen, 1960), there was little serious work in the district. Most of the interior sections 

remain unknown because of the physical difficulties of access and the nearly total absence of service 

infrastructures. 

6.3 Materials and Methods 

TNC’s survey of the Raja Ampat archipelago was designed primarily to investigate the diverse reef 

ecosystems of the area, and secondarily to identify linked land-marine conservation targets for possible 

community-based initiatives. As ecologist for the forest assessment, the writer was responsible for describing 

the principal vegetation types and ground-truthing perceived community distributions against a preliminary 

classification developed from the RePPProT (Regional Physical Planning Program for Transmigration) plant 

typology maps (RePPProT, 1990; Hardiono, 2002). The floristic evaluations and botanical collecting were 

conducted with assistance by Duncan Neville (TNC Sulawesi Manager), Johanis Mogea (Herbarium 

Bogoriense), and Fery Liuw (Departemen Kehutanan Papua). 

Forest communities were examined in ad hoc fashion, via walk-through assessment of areas accessed by 

dinghy or speedboat (Figures 3–5). Community variation was documented by numerous photographs 

referenced with readings from a handheld GPS recorder. These onshore activities were necessarily 

constrained by the collateral marine studies and the corresponding movements of the Pindito. Because of the 

constantly shifting itineraries of the marine team, the forest participants could usually devote only one day to 

a given site, thus restricting survey coverage to areas near the coast. 

Botanical collections were typically made in sets of five duplicates whenever fertile specimens were found. 

Gatherings were field-packed in newsprint and plastic bags then soaked with 70% ethanol for subsequent 

processing at Herbarium Bogoriense (BO). Silica-dried samples for DNA sequencing were also obtained if 

specialists had placed earlier requests for assistance. In order to simplify the vouchering process, collections 

were numbered under the sequence of botanist J. Mogea. Specimen distributions will occur from BO, with 

A, K, L, and MAN as the principal recipients (Irawati, pers. comm.). Mogea is preparing a taxonomic 

account of the botanical findings for separate publication. 

6.4 Results 

Botanical observation and collecting were complicated by drought conditions caused by the recent El Niño 

disturbance. The collections tally (550 nos.: Mogea et al. 7,726–8,276) includes about 100 sterile numbers 

because of the unfavorable phenology. Although the entire district showed signs of drought stress, the 

severity of the disturbance was greatest in the outer islands (Misool, Kawe, and Waigeo; Figure 6). At 

98


Batanta and Salawati, forest canopies were mostly green (although understoreys were very dry) and there 

were even brief periods of torrential rain during the visit to those islands. 

Among the habitats covered by the TNC-modified RePPProT forest classification, mangroves were 

apparently the only natural-growth community that could be accurately mapped using Landsat reflectance 

patterns (see Hardiono, 2002). Topographic and geological maps proved of greater value than any existing 

forest typing system. The lack of a GIS-based classification equivalent to the Papua New Guinea Resource 

Information System (PNGRIS) and its generically related Forest Inventory Mapping System (FIMS), is a 

serious obstacle to survey planning in western New Guinea (see Bellamy and McAlpine, 1995; 

Hammermaster and Saunders, 1995a,b). To facilitate comparisons with the FIMS classification, the 

following community descriptions are prefaced by the structural code (in parentheses) for the corresponding 

formations in East New Guinea. 

6.5 Principal Communities 

6.5.1 Mangroves (M) 

Of all the vegetation types encountered on the survey, the mangrove communities are probably the best 

studied (e.g. Backer and Steenis, 1951; Ding Hou, 1957, 1958, 1960; Percival and Womersley, 1975; Floyd, 

1977; Duke and Jackes, 1987; Erftemeijer et al., 1989; Duke, 1991; Mabberley et al., 1995). Unlike the 

situation in nearby Telek Bintuni (cf. Erftemeijer et al., 1989; Takeuchi et al., in press), Raja Ampat 

mangroves are insignificant and markedly impoverished, except in a few places where estuarine flats and 

tidal rivers have provided ample habitat for the Bruguiera-Rhizophora associations (Figure 7). Among 

investigated sites, the best examples of this community were seen on Pulau Misool, along the lower Gam and 

Kasim rivers. At the second locality, there is a well-developed upstream sequence (in order) of Rhizophora 

mucronata – Ceriops tagal, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Nypa fruticans, then a final freshwater assemblage 

consisting of Xylocarpus granatum, Dolichandrone spathacea, and Heritiera littoralis. However in most parts 

of the archipelago, mangroves are represented (if at all) only by isolated trees along a foreshore, with no 

horizontal development of the community. 

6.5.2 Swamp woodland (Wsw) 

Monodominant forests of Metroxylon sagu (sago) are scattered through the Raja Ampat district, wherever 

soil flooding is severe. The occurrences are insensitive to substrate. Sago swamps are found on limestone at 

Kofiau (01°09’25S, 129°51’38E), and on mineral clays at Kapatlap, Salawati. Although the floristic diversity 

is very low, sago communities are of considerable subsistence value as a source of dietary starch obtained 

from the Metroxylon trunks (cf. Powell, 1976; Johns and Hay, 1984). 

6.5.3 Littoral or beach forest (B) 

A distinctive community along many coastlines, beach forests are mostly composed of widely distributed, 

even pantropical taxa, but have been reduced over much of their former range because of anthropogenic 

pressures (Wikramanayake et al., 2001). The principal indicator species for this community are Calophyllum 

inophyllum, Hibiscus tiliaceus, Pandanus tectorius sens. lat., Terminalia catappa, and Thespesia populnea 

(Figure 8). In Raja Ampat, other associates often included Colubrina asiatica, Parsonsia alboflavescens, 

Derris indica (Pongamia pinnata), Tacca leontopetaloides, Ximenia americana var. americana, and Vigna 

marina. Beach forest generally occurs on sand or coralline rubble behind the strand zone. A particularly good 

example was seen at north Kofiau (01°09’24S, 129°50’47E). On uninhabited Sayang Island (0°16’24S, 

129°53’47E), a different type of beach association (BCe) was recorded on sandy flats, consisting of 

Casuarina equisetifolia, Scaevola sericea, Sophora tomentosa ssp. tomentosa, Spinifex littoreus, and 

Tournefortia argentea. 

99


6.5.4 Lowland forest on deep mineralized soil (Pl, Hm) 

The land team encountered this community type near Kapatlap on Salawati, and on the north and south 

shores of Batanta, where the vegetation is predominantly a tall stature rainforest similar to those from coastal 

lowlands of the Bomberai Peninsula (cf. Takeuchi et al., in press). Deep soil habitats (in the eastern Raja 

Ampat) were probably the most speciose of all the surveyed environments, but were also characterized by 

plants common in adjacent mainland areas and thus of comparatively low conservation interest (Figures 9, 

10). Intsia bijuga, Koordersiodendron pinnatum, Pometia pinnata, and Terminalia cf. copelandii were 

dominant trees in such situations, with Celtis, Ficus, Dysoxylum, Myristica, and Syzygium the best 

represented genera in the subcanopy. The regrowth phase included Alstonia scholaris, Gastonia serratifolia, 

Morinda citrifolia, and Trema cannabina as the most prominent species, at least within the logged-over tracts 

seen on Batanta and Misool. 

In western Raja Ampat, deep soil habitats are generally absent except in the flood plain of large rivers (e.g. 

Gam and Kasim rivers), or in the ravines on limestone karst (e.g. the numerous islets near Mesemta 

Bajampop of southeast Misool). Such areas have tall forests comparable to the Batanta/Salawati formations, 

but are species-poor and usually less than a hectare in size (Figures 11–13). Frequently, the stands are 

composed of Intsia bijuga, I. palembanica, Vatica rassak, or Pometia pinnata; with Jagera javanica ssp. 

javanica, Trophis philippinensis, Teijsmanniodendron bogoriense (uncommon), and Maniltoa spp. (M. 

plurijuga and M. schefferi) underneath. Flindersia amboinensis and F. laevigata var. heterophylla are 

conspicuous emergents in these tall-forest pockets on the smaller islands, particularly in the Misool group. 

Osmoxylon sessiliflorum was especially prominent in subcanopies near rivers in Misool. At Jef Pelee (south 

Misool) a Homalium foetidum monodominant forest was encountered on ridge slopes and crests (Figures 14, 

15; 02°01’09S, 130°01’28E). 

The forest understoreys in Raja Ampat are harder to characterize. Generally, when the canopy has at least 

25–50% closure, the groundlayer is already clear. Representative communities in the Misool group had 

either an open understorey, or a palm-dominant layer of Licuala and rosette-stage Calamus (Figures 16, 17). 

Ferns, herbs, and cryptogams were hardly ever seen, but it is not known to what extent their absence was due 

to the severe drought conditions then prevailing. Understoreys with diverse fern populations (Bolbitis, 

Davallia, Drynaria, Nephrolepis, Sphaerostephanos, Tectaria) were found only in riverine forest near 

Fanfanlap (west Misool) and at Kofiau (e.g. 01°10’01S, 129°50’30E). 

6.5.5 Secondary forests (W) 

A substantial but unknown percentage of the Raja Ampat lowlands has been logged by industrial operators 

and is presently in various stages of recovery. The secondary forests examined by this survey were 

previously cut at periods ranging from 15 to 30 years ago and are very distinct from more mature 

communities in the same habitat. 

At Kofiau (01°11’03S, 129°43’21E) a 15–year regrowth (Figures 18, 19) was depauperate woodland of Vitex 

cofassus, Morinda citrifolia, Conandrium polyanthum, and Ficus spp. (mainly F. microcarpa and F. 

prasinocarpa). Lunasia amara var. amara, Leea indica, and various Antidesma and Macaranga spp. formed 

a sparse underlayer. In contrast, an adjacent section of unlogged forest was a closed canopy Pometiadominant 

community with high frequencies of Diospyros, Horsfieldia, and Knema. 

On Sayang, a flat sandy island completely logged in 1984 (0°16’38N, 129°53’48E), the regrowth was of 

similarly depleted composition, consisting for the most part of a remnant Artocarpus-Intsia-Pometia canopy 

with a second storey of Calophyllum inophyllum and Aglaia argentea (the last species previously unrecorded 

for Raja Ampat, cf. Pannell, 1992). Conandrium polyanthum, Codiaeum variegatum var. moluccanum, and 

Polyscias cumingiana were undergrowth species. Dense seedling crops of Pometia pinnata often carpeted 

the ground in spite of drought conditions. 

100


On a number of small islands, repeated anthropogenic disturbances have erased the former forest and a 

grassy fire disclimax (G) is now all that exists. At Jef Pelee (coral platform: 02°07’03S, 130°19’00E), most 

of the land surface is covered by a seral community of Imperata conferta with Ischaemum muticum on the 

seaward fringe (Figure 20). 

At Mesemta Bajampop, a single example was seen of an early succession on karst, consisting of Dracaena 

angustifolia and Commersonia bartramia, with an extensive underlayer of Gahnia aspera (Figure 21). These 

sorts of communities are the result of localized disturbance and are too small to be mapped by forest 

classification systems. 

6.5.6 Savanna (SaMl) 

Grassy savannas were recorded only on western Misool, at the mouth of the Kasim River and further inland 

near the Waitama tributary (01°47’23S, 129°53’57E and 01°51’41S, 129°55’05E respectively). The Kasim 

communities were Melaleuca dominant, but also included smaller individuals of Pandanus tectorius and 

Timonius timon in a distinct second layer (Figures 22, 23). The dense 2m+ groundcover was composed of 

Ischaemum barbatum and Imperata conferta, together with scattered patches of taller Saccharum 

spontaneum (Figure 24). Indications of recent burn suggest that the Kasim savanna is probably periodically 

fired. 

The Waitama savannas are larger than the Kasim communities and include Eucalyptus cf. papuana in 

addition to the more common Melaleuca leucodendron sens. lat. (Figure 25). Shrubs were commonly 

represented by Baeckea frutescens, Decaspermum bracteatum, Melastoma malabathricum ssp. 

malabathricum, and a Polyscias sp. The groundlayer of Ischaemum barbatum and Rhynchospora rubra was 

habitat-partitioned, the latter species mainly occupying flat areas with the poorest drainage. 

In appearance and composition, the Waitama savannas are nearly identical to comparable formations on the 

Papuan mainland at Bomberai (cf. Takeuchi et al., press). The communities at both sites are apparently under 

substrate control, with characteristic occurrences on flat or gently undulating terrain underlain by hardpan 

and alumina deposits (pers. obs.). Although the savannas in the Raja Ampat are affected to some degree by 

fire, the substrate patterns suggest the communities are a long-term response to stable edaphic factors (cf. 

Paijmans, 1976). 

6.5.7 Lowland forest on limestone karst (Hs, HsCp) 

The limestone terrain is one of the most visually stunning and unspoiled environments in the Raja Ampat 

district. Much of this habitat is a deeply dissected karst, which is often extremely difficult and timeconsuming 

to traverse. A small hill can take an entire morning to ascend, so it is not hard to comprehend the 

relative lack of botanical collections from such areas. 

Excellent examples of karst vegetation are found in the Misool chain, particularly in the southwest complex 

of small islets and at the western end of the Misool mainland. Within the Waigeo group, extensive limestone 

habitats were explored near Aljoei (0°11’43S, 130°15’39E) and at Wayag (0°10’21N, 130°01’17E). 

Many of the smaller limestone islands are undercut at the highwater line into toadstool platforms, or are 

sculptured into steep conical stacks (Figure 26). Often the sides of the taller islands have dizzying vertical 

faces that plunge for hundreds of feet (Figures 27, 28). On Wagmab, the stepped ledges have a stunted 

woody vegetation, frequently wind-sheared, comprised of Stenocarpus moorei, Exocarpos latifolius, 

Polyscias sp. nov., Wikstroemia androsaemifolia, Calophyllum spp. (including the novoguineense complex; 

cf. Stevens, 1995), and many vines of Alyxia purpureoclada (Figure 29). The unusual Podocarpus 

polystachyus is a dwarfed krummholz on solid rock, sprawling across ledges and barely ascending to 1m 

height. At Wayag, however, crestline populations of the same species grow as erect trees to 7m height 

(Figure 30; 0°10’25N, 130°01’22E and 0°10’42N, 130°01’16E. 

101


On nearly all the limestone islands, Gulubia costata is a conspicuous emergent, often forming dense stands 

along the higher slopes and crestlines. Barringtonia, Dracaena, Ficus, Garcinia, Gynotroches, Myrsine 

(Rapanea), Pouteria (Planchonella), Schefflera, Serianthes, and Sterculia are also common subarborescent 

genera, but a disproportionate number of morphospecies were documented only by sterile or scrappy 

vouchers and cannot be identified with certainty. Of all the Raja Ampat habitats, the limestone vegetation 

was the most severely affected by the El Niño drought, and effective documentation of such communities 

was very difficult under the prevailing conditions. The canopies on most islands were brown and withered, 

though probably not dead. Limestone karst is undoubtedly a poor reservoir for soil moisture. Stands with 

green foliage were often restricted to the colluvial accumulations in valleys and small draws, especially on 

small islands (Figures 11, 12). 

Archidendron paluense, Lunasia amara var. amara, and the vinelike Bauhinia binata (Lysiphyllum binatum) 

were common taxa in karst understoreys of western Raja Ampat, especially on platforms and stacks around 

Misool proper. At Mesemta Bajampop (southeast Misool), substantial populations of Rauvolfia moluccana 

and Monophyllaea, were also noted. The Archidendron, Bauhinia, Monophyllaea, and Rauvolfia were newly 

recorded for the district (cf. Burtt, 1978; Verdcourt, 1979; Nielsen et al., 1984; Hendrian and Middleton, 

1999). New registers for such common or conspicuous plants are indications of the undercollected status of 

the limestone, and show how poorly documented this flora still remains even after more than a century of 

Papuan exploration. 

6.5.8 Lowland ultrabasic scrub and forest (W, HsCp) 

Renowned in scientific literature, the Raja Ampat serpentine flora is also one of the region’s most 

picturesque environments. At Kawe (Figures 31, 32) and Waigeo’s north shore (Figure 33), the ultrabasic 

scrub affords breathtaking panoramas of turquoise reefs and red laterite across extensive stretches of 

coastline. 

The TNC survey explored the ultrabasic zone in a series of ascents along steep-sided buttress ridges. Most of 

the vegetation consisted of xeromorphic scrub or woodland with similar characteristics to communities 

described in an earlier account of the eastern Waigeo peninsula (Royen, 1960). 

During the first landfalls on Kawe (ending at 0°03’07S, 130°08’05E), the forest team found distinctive 

woodland of Ploiarium sessile, Exocarpos latifolius, Gymnostoma rumphianum, Decaspermum bracteatum, 

Ixonanthes reticulata, and Myrsine rawacensis (Figure 34). The spreading sympodial crowns of Ploiarium 

sessile were a particularly striking characteristic of this community (Figure 35). In the wide spaces between 

the larger trees were many shrubs of Myrtella beccarii, Styphelia abnormis and (in lesser numbers) 

Dodonaea viscosa. Vines of Alyxia laurina were common climbers and scramblers. Patches of Dicranopteris 

linearis blanketed the ground nearly everywhere, with Dianella ensifolia, Nepenthes danseri, Palhinhaea 

cernua, Machaerina disticha, and M. glomerata scattered mainly over the bare spaces. Artocarpus, 

Livistona, and Vitex were common on lower slopes and valley floors (Figure 36; 0°03’05S, 130°08’24E). 

On the Go Isthmus of Waigeo (Fofak Bay at 0°02’22S, 130°43’43E), the ultrabasics were similar though 

somewhat richer, and also included Arytera littoralis, a small-leaved Gmelina, Melastoma malabathricum 

ssp. malabathricum, Psychotria tripedunculata (Figure 37), and Rhodamnia novoguineensis among the 

common woody plants. Parts of the scrubland above the bay had been burned, exposing large patches of the 

distinctive red laterite (Figure 38). Within such areas, the early fire succession consisted of a sparse 

association of Commersonia bartramia, Myrtella beccarii, Scaevola oppositifolia, and Styphelia abnormis. 

Although the ridgetop habitats are generally of open aspect, the vegetation in the draws is a closed 

codominant forest of Dillenia alata and Calophyllum spp. At scattered places in the ultrabasic zone (on both 

crestlines and depressional areas), the scrub is replaced by a taller Gymnostoma rumphianum-Sapindaceous 

canopy with a Myrtella beccarii understorey (e.g. at Kabare, 0°04’18S, 130°56’36E; Figures 39, 40). Unlike 

the open growth, this taller community (at Kabare) is densely stocked with 7–10m pole-trees including the 

102


serpentine indicator Ploiarium sessile. Gymnostoma rumphianum is an emergent to ca. 25m in height in such 

situations. The ultrabasic vegetation is thus represented by several communities, collectively forming an 

intergrading series of facies ranging from bare ‘blowouts’ (Figure 41) through woodland of varying 

densities, then finally to a closed multistoried forest. 


Raja Ampat plant communities are primarily lowland environments. There are no areas of significant size 

higher than the 900–1,000m level where montane conditions generally begin (cf. Paijmans, 1975, 1976; 

Johns, 1977; Grubb and Stevens, 1985; Hammermaster and Saunders, 1995a). Although Royen (1960) 

describes a mossy montane forest on Mt Buffelhoorn, such habitats could not be visited within the time 

allowed by the survey schedule. None of the daily excursions from the coast were able to penetrate beyond 

500m elevation. 

Within the limitations imposed by rapid assessment, it is apparent that the Raja Ampat flora is depauperate 

and disharmonic relative to adjacent mainland environments and that these distinctions become more 

pronounced in the outer island groups (e.g. Misool and Waigeo). Many of the most characteristic Papuasian 

families, including Annonaceae, Elaeocarpaceae, Gesneriaceae, Lauraceae, Melastomataceae, Meliaceae, 

Piperaceae, and Urticaceae, were poorly represented in the lowland habitats where they are ordinarily 

prominent. Epiphytes and climbers were also generally scarce, as were several herbaceous families usually 

found in New Guinea forest understoreys (e.g. Marantaceae, Orchidaceae, Zingiberaceae). 

This westward trend of diminishing diversity across the archipelago is correlated to a general reduction in 

rainfall and to the limiting nature of the western substrates. Rainfall is directly correlated with floristic 

diversity, more than with any other abiotic factor (Gentry, 1988). The perception of highest richness in the 

near-mainland environments of Salawati and Batanta, and the impression of lower species counts toward the 

outer groups, is consistent with annual rainfalls (cf. Mangen, 1993): Salawati and Batanta (3,000–3,500mm); 

Misool (2,500–3,000mm); Waigeo and adjacent islands (1,500–2,000mm). The floristic trends expected 

from moisture availability are enhanced by the substrate distinctions. Whereas most edaphic environments in 

the eastern islands are of mineralized soil, the outer islands are predominantly limestone or ultrabasics, 

infertile substrates that are known to be limiting for plant growth (Royen, 1963; Kruckeberg, 1985; Brooks, 

1987). The synergistic combination of factors results in diminished richness but increased endemism. 

In terms of exploration priorities, the highest potential for taxonomic discovery is probably with the Misool 

karst. Waigeo ultrabasics are comparatively easy to access and the communities are usually of low stature 

and density, characteristics that favor collection saturation. Most, if not all, of the ultrabasic endemics have 

probably been discovered. In contrast, the Misool limestone is wetter (notwithstanding conditions during the 

survey), very difficult to traverse, and suitable collections are much harder to find. A significant number of 

unknown taxa is likely to be present on the karst. The new distributional records from the survey are 

suggestive of future opportunities. 

6.6.1 Conservation Assets 

When judged on the basis of uniqueness, the ultrabasic and limestone vegetation are the highest-value 

communities in the Raja Ampat archipelago. As presently known, the ultrabasics have more species endemic 

to its habitats than any of the other communities. Plants restricted to Waigeo serpentine include Alstonia 

beatricis, Alyxia laurina, Archidendron royenii, Guioa waigeoensis, and Maesa rheophytica. Psychotria 

tripedunculata is also known primarily from the ultrabasics, with only one record originating elsewhere. 

Waigeo’s floristic patterns can be understood by comparison with similar areas from other districts in New 

Guinea. In the Bowutu Mountains of Morobe Province, an elevational sequence of ultrabasic landscapes 

forms one of the largest features of this type in Papuasia (i.e. the Papuan Ultrabasic Belt, cf. Thompson and 

103


Fisher, 1965; Bain, 1973; Löffler, 1977). The serpentine flora extends across a series of coastal communities 

beginning at sealevel, in a manner analogous to Waigeo, especially within the Kamiali Wildlife Management 

Area (KWMA). 

KWMA habitats are subject to frequent landslides because of a local combination of humid climate and steep 

coastal ridges. In the recovery following landslides, the community that develops is a scrub composed 

primarily of Myrtella beccarii, Dicranopteris linearis, Machaerina glomerata, and M. rubiginosa; with (at 

lesser frequencies) Stenocarpus moorei and Tristaniopsis macrosperma (Figure 42). In appearance and 

composition, the pioneer community is very similar to the Waigeo scrubland and also occurs alongside a 

series of taller forests including many of the same elements (Figure 43). The KWMA community variation 

clearly represents a successional sequence that can be tracked because of the known history of specific sites. 

Royen (1960: 41) described the Waigeo scrub as an edaphic climax, but its spatial proximity and structural 

resemblance to other communities suggest otherwise. By analogy to similar environments, most of the 

Waigeo ultrabasics are probably an early stage in a successional sequence caused by fire. The principal 

characteristics of the open scrub are hardly different from landslide seres of the KWMA, except that the 

Waigeo communities are much larger, extending continuously over hundreds of hectares. The distinction in 

spatial scale can be attributed to the presumed fire etiology, which would tend to act over much larger areas 

than landslides. The etiologies can themselves be explained by the climatic contrasts between the sites. Fires 

are a common ecological factor in dry environments like Waigeo, while humid localities (KWMA rainfalls 

are 4,000mm per annum) are naturally susceptible to landslides during periods of heavy rain. Royen’s own 

observations provide evidence of instability in the Raja Ampat ultrabasic vegetation (Royen, 1960). The 

ridge in the foreground of Figures 33 and 41 was a Gymnostoma (=Casuarina) forest in 1955 (ibid.: Figure 

5). As documented by the TNC survey, that forest now remains only as relictual trees surrounded by 

scrubland (Figure 44). These open areas are clearly a new development and not a permanent edaphicallyinduced 

feature. 

The frequent occurrence of fires is currently reflected in the patchy distributions of ultrabasic forest on 

Waigeo, an expected pattern if seral sequences are being continuously reset over large areas. Although the 

serpentine scrubland is one of Papuasia’s most impressive environments, the rare and endemic taxa are 

concentrated in the taller vegetation, and this latter habitat probably represents a more valuable conservation 

asset. In an environment with fire-induced succession, the closed forest (Figures 39, 40) should be the richest 

community, and thus the more promising target for future exploration. 

Apart from the biotic measures, aesthetic considerations are a legitimate part of any environmental 

evaluation. Waigeo and Misool landscapes are very photogenic, and can serve as focal assets for an 

ecotourism niche market in combination with the marine attractions, as already demonstrated by the Pindito. 

6.6.2 Ecosystem Threats 

During the last 50 years, the areas of post-fire succession in northern Waigeo have expanded substantially 

(compare Royen, 1960: Figures 3, 5). Several endemic plants are probably being threatened by the existence 

of this historical trend, particularly by the accompanying reductions of taller communities. Among ultrabasic 

species, Archidendron royenii, Alstonia beatricis, and Maesa rheophytica are still known only from their 

types, taken in primary forest or older-growth woodland (see Nielsen et al., 1984; Sleumer, 1987; Sidiyasa, 

1998). From the circumstances of their collection, these plants are probably associated with the advanced 

stages of the ultrabasic succession, and their apparent rarity is consistent with habitat reduction caused by 

increased fire frequency. In contrast, the ultrabasic endemics Guioa waigeoensis and Alyxia laurina are 

known by several collections from the open areas, and are probably seral taxa (cf. Welzen, 1989; Middleton, 

2000). 

104


Naturalized alien plants were not found on serpentine, or on most of the isolated karst islands at Aljoei and 

Mesempta Bajampop. Although limestone areas near human settlements often have a few adventives (viz. 

Bidens pilosa, Boerhavia erecta, Euphorbia heterophylla, E. hirta, Passiflora foetida, Stachytarpheta 

jamaicensis, Tridax procumbens etc.) truly invasive taxa were absent. The noxious Lantana camara and 

Piper aduncum were recorded only on Batanta and Salawati. The same factors that make the western 

environments limiting for plant growth apparently act to discourage the establishment of aliens. 

A planted patch of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis was seen at uninhabited Wagmab, and even if such occurrences 

are not threatening, deliberate introductions into otherwise weed-free habitats need to be discouraged by 

proactive conservation policy. Predictive guidelines for assessing possible invasive success of alien plants 

have been developed for other island environments (cf. Pheloung et al., 1999; Daehler and Denslow, 2002). 

Papuan managers administering conservation tracts should consider their application, as most communities 

in western Raja Ampat are of entirely indigenous or endemic composition. Nowadays, in a world where the 

spread of aggressive species contributes to homogenization of floras, areas such as the Misool karst are an 

increasingly rare ecological resource. 

Each of the principal islands (Batanta, Misool, Salawati, Waigeo) has sizable set-aside areas designated as 

nature reserves (Supriatna, 1999). However, existing logging threats are substantial, and commercial 

operations were filmed during the recent TNC assessment even within the so-called reserves. Although the 

archipelago is known to have significant plant and faunal assets, many of these are under threat and will 

require management action to ensure their continuity (ibid.). Unfortunately, in most Raja Ampat forests the 

emergent canopy is composed of major exportable timbers (Intsia bijuga, I. palembanica, Pometia pinnata, 

Flindersia amboinensis, Vatica rassak; see Louman and Nicholls, 1995). These trees occur at stocking 

densities favoring profitable extraction (Departemen Pertanian Direktorat, 1977). Although the current 

concessional areas are habitats with good site capacities for tree growth, the ultrabasics and limestone karst 

have stunted vegetation of little value as logging targets, and are thus at lesser economic risk. 

Despite indications that climatic warming will cause substantial reductions in Papuasia’s rainforest biome, 

there have been no attempts to define local planning and management responses to this threat. Baselines are 

much needed for determining the onset and direction of climate-induced change in a variety of communities. 

Many Raja Ampat environments would make appropriate stations for monitoring the floristic effects of El 

Niño oscillations because of their insular and pristine status. The western islands are part of a forest 

continuum spatially connected to perhumid mainland habitats, extending across a geographic sequence of 

sparsely inhabited landscape, tectonic, and biotic environments. The district is very suitable as a venue for 

ecological research. 

Nearly all conservation programs in New Guinea are committed exclusively to terrestrial or marine habitats, 

due to the disparate value of such environments when they occur together at most sites. However, at Misool 

and Waigeo, highly endemic forest communities lie alongside some of the most diverse reef ecosystems in 

the world (Figure 45). This unusual combination of world class assets will permit development of holistic 

strategies for managing the linked land-sea resources. The information needs for integrated planning will be 

complex, requiring data inputs on wildlife, floristic, recreational, cultural-political, landscape, and human 

subsistence values. But, owing to the unique nature of the environmental assets in this district, future 

initiatives have the opportunity of being cost-effective, innovative, and compelling. 

Acknowledgments 

I thank The Nature Conservancy of Indonesia, Herbarium Bogoriense, the Arnold Arboretum, and Harvard 

Herbaria, for their institutional support of the Raja Ampat survey. 

I also acknowledge Duncan Neville (TNC, land team coordinator), Johanis Mogea (Herbarium Bogoriense), 

Fery Liuw (Departemen Kehutanan Papua), Martin Hardiono (World Wildlife Fund Indonesia), and Victor 

Motombri (BP Indonesia) for their contributions to the floristic work. Rod Salm (TNC) was the overall 

105


expedition leader. Hitofumi Abe (Ecosystem Research Group, University of Western Australia) wrote the 

Japanese translation. Martin Hardiono provided the map template for Figure 2. 

The other expedition participants included Pawel Achtel (Jungle Run Productions, photographer), Gerald 

Allen (Western Australian Museum), Ryan Donnelly (independent tropical fisheries consultant), Freddy 

Frommenwiler (Pindito captain), Morgan Gabereau (Jungle Run Productions, producer and co-director), 

Creusa Tetha Hitipeuw (World Wildlife Fund Sahul), Djuna Ivereigh (Project Bird Watch), Agus Sumule 

(Universitas Negeri Papua), Yulianus Thebu (World Wildlife Fund Sahul), Emre Turak (Australian Institute 

for Marine Science), and Joe Yaggi (Jungle Run Productions, team leader). 


Backer, C.A. and van Steenis, C.G.G.J., 1951. Sonneratiaceae. Flora Malesiana Series I, 4(3): 280-289. 

Bain, J., 1973. A summary of the main structural elements of Papua New Guinea. In: P.J. Coleman (ed.) The 

Western Pacific: Island Arc, Marginal Seas, Geochemistry. pp147-161. 

Bellamy, J.A. and McAlpine, J.R., 1995. Papua New Guinea: inventory of natural resources, population 

distribution and land use handbook (2nd ed.) PNGRIS Publ. 6, AusAID, Canberra. 

Brooks, R.R., 1987. Serpentine and its vegetation: a multidisciplinary approach. Croom Helm, London and 

Sydney. 

Burtt, B.L., 1978. Studies in the Gesneriaceae of the Old World XLV: a preliminary revision of 

Monophyllaea. Notes Royal Bot. Gard. Edinb. 37(1): 1-59. 

Daehler, C. and J. Denslow, 2002. Testing an objective method for identifying invasive plants. URL: 

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/daehler/wra/. 

Departemen Pertanian Direktorat Jenderal Kehutanan Direktorat Bina Program. 1977. Survey kelompok 

hutan P. Kofiau - P. Salawati - S. Klasugun hulu propinsi dati I Irian Jaya. 

Ding Hou, 1957. A conspectus of the genus Bruguiera (Rhizophoraceae). Nova Guinea New Series 8(1): 

163-171. 

Ding Hou, 1958. Rhizophoraceae. Flora Malesiana Series I, 5(4): 429-493. 

Ding Hou, 1960. A review of the genus Rhizophora with special reference to the Pacific species. Blumea 

10(2): 625-634. 

Duke, N.C., 1991. A systematic revision of the mangrove genus Avicennia (Avicenniaceae) in Australasia. 

Australian Systematic Botany 4: 299-324. 

Duke, N.C. and Jackes, B.R., 1987. A systematic revision of the mangrove genus Sonneratia 

(Sonneratiaceae) in Australasia. Blumea 32(2): 277-302. 

Erftemeijer, P.L., Allen, G.R. and Zuwendra, 1989. Preliminary resource inventory of Bintuni Bay and 

recommendations for conservation and management. Prepared for Asian Wetlands Bureau and 

Indonesia Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation. AWB-PHPA Report 

No. 8. Bogor. 

Floyd, A.G., 1977. Ecology of the tidal forests in the Kikori-Romilly Sound area, Gulf of Papua. Office of 

Forests, Division of Botany, Ecology Report No. 4: 1-59. 

Frodin, D.G. and Gressitt, J.L., 1982. Biological exploration in New Guinea. In: J.L. Gressitt (ed.) 

Biogeography and Ecology of New Guinea. Junk Monogr. Biol. 42, The Hague. pp 87-130. 

Gentry, A., 1988. Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and 

geographical gradients. Ann. Miss. Bot. Gard. 75: 1-34. 

106


Grubb, P.J. and Stevens, P.F., 1985. The forests of the Fatima Basin and Mt. Kerigomna, Papua New 

Guinea: with a review of montane and subalpine rainforests in Papuasia. Australian Nat. 

Univ./Anutech, Dept. Biogeogr. and Geomorph., Research School of Pacific Studies, Publ. BG/5, 

Canberra. 

Hall, R., 1998. The plate tectonics of Cenozoic SE Asia and the distribution of land and sea. In: R. Hall and 

J.D. Holloway (eds.) Biogeography and Geological Evolution of SE Asia. Backhuys Publishers, 

Leiden. pp99-124. 

Hammermaster, E.T. and Saunders, J.C., 1995a. Forest resources and vegetation mapping of Papua New 

Guinea. PNGRIS Publ. No. 4, CSIRO and AIDAB, Canberra. 

Hammermaster, E.T. and Saunders, J.C., 1995b. Forest resources and vegetation mapping of Papua New 

Guinea. 1:250,000 vegetation map overlays separately issued as working copies to PNGRIS Publ. 

No. 4, CSIRO and AIDAB, Canberra. 

Hardiono, M., 2002 (unpublished). Raja Ampat Islands. FWI, CI, MoF: Papua forest cover 2000, Landsat 

images for coral and mangrove delineation. The Nature Conservancy. 

Hendrian and Middleton, D.J., 1999. Revision of Rauvolfia (Apocynaceae) in Malesia. Blumea 44(2): 449- 

470. 

Johns, R.J., 1977. The vegetation of Papua New Guinea. Part 1: An introduction to the vegetation. PNG 

Office of Forests (reprinted 1984). 

Johns, R.J. and. Hay, A.J., (eds.) 1984. A guide to the monocotyledons of Papua New Guinea. Part 3. PNG 

Univ. of Technology. 

Kruckeberg, A., 1985. California serpentines: flora, vegetation, geology, soils, and management problems. 

Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 

Löffler, E., 1977. Geomorphology of Papua New Guinea. CSIRO and Australian National University Press, 

Canberra. 

Louman, B. and Nicholls, S., 1995. Forestry in Papua New Guinea. In: N. Sekhran and S. Miller (eds.) 

Papua New Guinea Country Study on Biological Diversity. Colorcraft Ltd, Hong Kong. pp155-167. 

Mabberley, D.J., Pannell, C.M. and Sing, A.M., 1995. Meliaceae. Flora Malesiana Series I, 12(1): 1-407. 

Mangen, J.M., 1993. Ecology and vegetation of Mt Trikora New Guinea (Irian Jaya/Indonesia). Travaux 

Scientifiques du Musee National D’Histoire Naturelle de Luxembourg. 

Middleton, D.J., 2000. Revision of Alyxia (Apocynaceae). Part 1: Asia and Malesia. Blumea 45: 1-146. 

Nielsen, I.C., Baretta-Kuipers, T. and Guinet, P., 1984. The genus Archidendron (Leguminosae- 

Mimosoideae). Opera Botanica 76: 5-120. 

Paijmans, K., 1975. Explanatory notes to the vegetation map of Papua New Guinea. Land Research Series 

35, CSIRO, Melbourne. 

Paijmans, K., (ed.) 1976. New Guinea vegetation. CSIRO and Australian National University Press, 

Canberra. 

Pannell, C.M., 1992. A taxonomic monograph of the genus Aglaia Lour. (Meliaceae). Kew Bull. Addit. Ser. 

16: 1-379. 

Percival, M. and Womersley, J.S., 1975. Floristics and ecology of the mangrove vegetation of Papua New 

Guinea. Botany Bulletin 8. Department of Forests, Division of Botany. 

Pheloung, P.C., Williams, P.A. and Halloy, S.R., 1999. A weed risk assessment model for use as a 

biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Management 57: 239-251. 

Pigram, C.J. and Davies, H.L., 1987. Terranes and the accretion history of the New Guinea orogen. Bureau 

of Mineral Resources, J. Austr. Geol. Geoph. 10: 193-211. 

107


Pigram, C.J. and Panggabean, H., 1984. Rifting of the northern margin of the Australian continent and the 

origin of some microcontinents in eastern Indonesia. Tectonophysics 107: 331-353. 

Powell, J.M., 1976. Ethnobotany. In: K. Paijmans (ed.) Papua New Guinea Vegetation. CSIRO and 

Australian National University Press, Canberra. pp 106-183. 

REEFBASE. 2002. Raja Ampat Expedition. URL: http://www.reefbase.org/RajaAmpat/. 

RePPProT (Regional Physical Planning Programme For Transmigration), 1990. The Land Resources of 

Indonesia: A National Overview. Final Report. Land Resource Department of the Overseas 

Development Administration, London (Government of UK), and Ministry of Transmigration 

(Government of Indonesia), Jakarta, Indonesia. 

Royen, P. van, 1960. Sertulum Papuanum 3. The vegetation of some parts of Waigeo Island. Nova Guinea, 

New Series, Bot. 10(5): 25-62. 

Royen, P. van, 1963. The vegetation of the island of New Guinea. Dept. of Forests, Division of Botany, Lae. 

Sidiyasa, K., 1998. Taxonomy, phylogeny, and wood anatomy of Alstonia (Apocynaceae). Blumea Supp. 11: 

1-230. 

Sleumer, H., 1987. A revision of the genus Maesa Forsk. (Myrsinaceae) in New Guinea, the Moluccas, and 

the Solomon Islands. Blumea 32(1): 39-65. 

Stevens, P.F., 1995. Guttiferae Subfam. Calophylloideae. In: B.J. Conn (ed.) Handbooks of the Flora of 

Papua New Guinea, vol. 3. Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria. pp61-126. 

Supriatna, J., (ed.) 1999. The Irian Jaya Biodiversity Conservation Priority-Setting Workshop. Final Report. 


Takeuchi, W., Sambas, E. and Maturbongs, R., (in press). Botanical results from a rapid assessment survey 

of the Tangguh project area in Indonesian Papua, New Guinea. Indo-Pacific Conservation Alliance 

and Hatfindo Prima. 

Thompson, J.E. and Fisher, N.H., 1965. Mineral deposits of New Guinea and Papua and their tectonic 

setting. Proc. 8th Commonw. Min. Metall. Congr. 6: 115-148. 

Verdcourt, B., 1979. A manual of New Guinea legumes. Papua New Guinea Office of Forests, Division of 

Botany, Bulletin 11. 

Welzen, P.C. van, 1989. Guioa Cav. (Sapindaceae): taxonomy, phylogeny, and historical biogeography. 

Leiden Botanical Series 12: 1-315. 

Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C.J., et al. 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: A 

Conservation Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

108


Figure 1. Southeast Asia with location of the Raja Ampat archipelago. 

109


Figure 2. Raja Ampat archipelago. Nautical chart 512 of Dinas Hidro-Oseanografi, Jakarta, Indonesia. 

110


Figure 3. Land team members (Duncan Neville and Fery Liuw) boarding a zodiac 

after surveying an island in the Jef Pelee group. The 75–ft Pindito lies anchored 

offshore. Zodiac and speedboat tenders provided daily transport for the landsea 

survey. Photo November 9, 2002. 

Figure 4. For travel over longer distances, the team used a speedboat (‘longboat') of 

a versatile design widely employed in the Papuan coastal and riverine traffic. 

Despite their unwieldy appearance the shallow-draft longboats are capable of 

entering the headwaters of even small streams. A survey longboat is shown here at 

Wagmab Island. Photo November 4,2002. 

111


Figure 5. Wagmab Island, SE Misool. Forester Fery Liuw searches for botanical 

specimens in the dry scrub on limestone talus. In spite of exemplary support 

logistics, collections were few and difficult to obtain because of the unfavorable 

conditions. Photo November 4, 2002. 

Figure 6. Kawe. Drought-stricken serpentine woodland on steep slopes. Photo 

November 18, 2002. 

112


Figure 7. Wayag Island. Interior view of a mangrove forest on limestone karst. Trees 

are represented mostly by Bruguiera gymnorrhiza and Rhizophora mucronata. Photo 


113


Figure 8. Open beach forest on Wagmab. In the western 

Raja Ampat, mangroves and beach forest are generally 

scarce. The limestone and serpentine vegetation often 

extend to the highwater line, displacing the beachfront 

communities more characteristic of other coastal areas. 

Photo November 4, 2002. 

114


Figure 9. Forest understory on south Batanta, generally species-rich in comparison to the 

outer Raja Ampat. Photo November 3, 2002. 

Figure 10. Batanta. Lowland coastal forest on deep soils, in the process of conversion 

to subsistence gardens. Tall canopies(>30 m height) are common on islands close to the 

New Guinea mainland (i.e. Batanta and Salawati) but are essentiallyabsent on the outer 

islands. Photo November 3, 2002. 

115


Figure 11. Wagmab. Forest in broad ravine. Communities are denser, taller, and richer 

than the surrounding vegetation on higher slopes. Photo November 4, 2002. 

Figure 12. Interior view of the forest shown in Figure 11. Photo November 4, 2002. 

116


Figure 13. Alluvial forest along the Kasim River of western Misool. Photo November 

10, 2002. 

Figure 14. Misool. Interior perspective of a Homalium foetidum-dominant forest on 

ridgecrests. Photo November 9, 2002. 

117


Figure 15. As for preceding figure. Showing the canopy closure 

and crown density. Photo November 9, 2002. 

118


Figure 16. Misool. Understory of a limestone forest. The near-ground interval is 

generally clear or with scattered palms. Photo November 4, 2002. 

119


Figure 17. Kawe. Characteristic appearance of an understory 

from serpentine stands in ravines and valleys. Stems are 

generally of small diameter and herbaceous growth is sparse. 

The ground layer often has seedling crops of the canopy 

taxa.Ferns and gingers are conspicuously absent. Photo 


120


Figure 18. Kofiau. Regrowth community from a former forest 

clearfelled 15 years ago. Photo November 12, 2002. 

121


Figure 19. See Figure 18. 

122


Figure 20. Anthropogenic sedge-grassland (Imperata-Ischaemum-Scleria) on limestone 

islands near the Misool mainland. Other seral taxa included Desmodium umbellatum, 

Premna serratifolia, Morinda citrifolia, and Pandanus tectorius. Photo November 8, 2002. 

123


Figure 21. Mesemta Bajampop. A seral community on karst, consisting exclusively of 

Commersonia bartramia, Dracaena angustifolia, and Gahnia aspera. Photo November 

5, 2002. 

124


Figure 22. Misool. Melaleuca leucadendron s.l., the dominant 

stand-forming species in the Raja Ampat savannas. The 

whitish-papery outer bark and drooping leaves are 

characteristic. Photo November 10, 2002. 

125


Figure 23. Misool. Kasim river savanna. Timonius timon forms a second, darker-leaved 

layer beneath taller Melaleuca. Photo November 10, 2002. 

Figure 24. As for Figure 23. The grassy groundcover of Ischaemum barbatum and 

Imperata conferta is typical. Photo November 10, 2002. 

126


Figure 25. Misool. The large savanna complex at Waitama. Photo November 11, 2002. 

Figure 26. Aljoei. Steep sided stacks and platforms, a typical geomorphic feature of the 

limestone terrain at Misool and Waigeo. Photo November 14, 2002. 

127


Figure 27. Aljoei. Limestone cliffs. Labyrinthine submarine caves 

are present along many of the underwater walls. Photo November 

14, 2002. 

128


Figure 28. Limestone precipices on Wagmab. Photo 


129


Figure 29. Wagmab. Vegetation on limestone ledges. Photo November 4, 2002. 

130


Figure 30. Wayag. Podocarpus polystachyus (5–7 m tall), a 

common limestone species. Photo November 16, 2002. 

131


Figure 31. East-central coastline of Kawe island, an ultrabasic outcrop 15 km west of Waigeo. In contrast to the 

uneven and deeply dissected limestone, ultrabasics are charac teristically composed of massive ridges with 

uniform slopes (Löffler 1977). Photo November 18, 2002. 

132


Figure 32. Kawe. Three-shot montage (moving N to ESE: top frame to bottom 

frame) of ultrabasic woodland near the summit. The equator passes slightly to 

the right of the small island in the near background (center photo). Western 

Waigeo is on the horizon of the last frame (to ESE). Photo November 17, 2002. 

133


Figure 33. Waigeo ultrabasic scrub at the entrance of Fofak Bay. Center of view to the southeast, showing the 

irregular outline of limestone karst against the skyline (compare Fig. 31 Kawe island). Foreground: the sympodial 

architecture of Ploiarium sessile is the most distinctive feature of the open community. Dicranopteris linearis forms 

the groundlayer. Photo November 19,2002. 

134


Figure 34. Myrsine rawacensis on Kawe ultrabasics. Photo 


135


Figure 35. Ploiarium sessile, the dominant woody plant in the ultrabasic scrub. Obtuse 

leaves and sessile flowers immediately distinguish this species from congeners (Kobuski 

1950). Originally recorded from Halmahera (ibid.), P. sessile is still known from only a 

few collections. Photo November 17, 2002. 

136


Figure 36. Serpentine bedrock in a large V-valley of south-central Kawe. In spite of the drought, a spring-fed creek 

flowed for several hundred meters over water falls in the middle valley, before disappearing into crevices along the 

streambed. A locally-luxuriant vegetation flourished along the banks, with dry woodland (Fig. 6) covering the 

higher slopes. No aquatic life was present other than small shrimp. Photo November 18, 2002. 

137


Figure 37. The aptly-named Psychotria tripedunculata, one of the most common shrubs 

on the ultrabasics. Photo November 19, 2002. 

Figure 38. Waigeo fire successional community. Burning removes the normal groundlayer 

of Dicranopteris linearis and Machaerina glomerata, leaving mainly scattered shrubs of 

Commersonia bartramia. Photo November 19, 2002. 

138


Figure 39. A closed stand of pole-stemmed trees near the fire succession shown in Fig. 

38. The ultrabasic forest facies is connected to the open vegetation by a continuum of 

transitional communities. Photo November 19, 2002. 

139


Figure 40. Ultrabasic forest at Kabare. Showing the closed 

structure of the presumably older growth, often Gymnostoma- 

Myrtella codominant. Photo November 20, 2002. 

140


Figure 41. Waigeo blowout. Large patches of sheet-eroded earth are scattered through 

the scrubland, exposing the distinctive orange-red laterite of the ultrabasic zone. These 

erosional features are probably a recent result of forest removal. Although the open 

communities convey an impression of stability and continuity, the development of such 

areas is actually part of a historical pattern of ecological degradation. Photo November 

19, 2002. 

141


Figure 42. Kamiali, Papua New Guinea. Successional scrub 

community on a 15-year old landslide. Plants on the exposed 

ground include Myrtella beccarii, Stenocarpus moorei, 

Dicranopteris linearis, Machaerina glomerata, and M. 

rubiginosa. The dominance of Cyperaceae (particularly 

Machaerina) is a curious feature of the ground layer in 

situations where grasses would ordinarily dominate on 

conventional substrates. This same pattern occurs on Waigeo 

serpentine. Photo Feb. 5, 2003. 

142


Figure 43. Kamiali, Papua New Guinea. Serpentine woodland dominated by 

Gymnostoma papuana, Weinmannia fraxinea, and Tristaniopsis macrosperma in the 

canopy, and by Dicranopteris linearis and Myrtella beccarii in the understory. Kamiali 

has about twice the rainfall of Waigeo, resulting in a denser and more diverse vegetation. 

Many species are common to both districts. Photo October 6, 2002. 

143


Figure 44. Peninsula at mouth of Fofak Bay, Waigeo. Inland view to the north 

(opposite the perspective in Fig. 33). Mapped as a Gymnostoma (Casuarina) forest in 

1955, this area is now an eroded and depauperate scrubland. A few relictual emergents 

of Gymnostoma rumphiana are visible in the far distance, apparently all which remains 

of the former forest. Photo November 19, 2002. 

144


Figure 45. Mesemta Bajampop. Scenic limestone forests adjoining a sheltered reef teeming with marine life. Some 

of the highest coral counts during the survey were recorded from this reef, e.g. from the blue hole in the right frame 

( Turak, pers. comm.). Photo November 5, 2002. 

145


146

Chapter 7 

Extension Workshop on the Raja Ampat Rapid Ecological Assessment 

Saonek, 20-21 August 2003 

AGUS SUMULE, PAULUS BOLI and RONNY BAWOLE 

7.1 Summary 

• A workshop was organized by The Nature Conservancy in collaboration with the University of 

Papua and BKSDA Sorong to disseminate results from the Raja Ampat Rapid Ecological 

Assessment. 

• The workshop was held in Saonek, capital of the South Waigeo District, on August 20-21 2003 

• In total, 59 participants were registered (mostly government officials) 

• The main finding from the Rapid Ecological Assessment was that the Raja Ampat area harbours 

the world’s most diverse coral reefs 

• Participants rated destructive fishing practices, over-exploitation and illegal logging among the 

most serious threats to the natural resources of Raja Ampat 

• Participants underlined the need for a strategic approach to sustainable development of the new 

Kabupaten 

147

Chapter 7 – Extension Workshop on the Rapid Ecological Assessment 


From 31 October to 22 November 2002, The Nature Conservancy conducted a Rapid Ecological Assessment 

in Raja Ampat area, Papua. Participants of the expedition included experts on: coral reef, reef fish, terrestrial 

vegetation, sea turtles, and socio-economics. When pre-expedition discussions were held in Sorong on the 

third week of October 2002, The Conservancy promised to community leaders and government officials that 

as soon as the report draft was completed, a workshop would be conducted in Raja Ampat to report back 

results of the research to the people and government of Raja Ampat. 

On 12 November 2002, the National Parliament of Indonesia passed a bill on the establishment of 14 new 

regencies in Papua Province. One of these new regencies was Raja Ampat. On December 24 2002, this bill 

was enacted by President Megawati as the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 26 of the year 2002 on the 

subject of the establishment of 14 new kabupatens (regencies). In April 2003, the acting Bupati (Regent) of 

Raja Ampat Regency was appointed and inaugurated by the Minister of the Interior Affairs in Jayapura, 

witnessed by the Governor of Papua. Since that time, the government of Raja Ampat has been operational. 

It was due to this development that the workshop to present the results of the expedition was not conducted 

in Sorong, the capital city of Kabupaten Sorong, but in Saonek, one of the main villages of the new 

Kabupaten Raja Ampat in Waigeo Selatan (South Waigeo) District. 

The objectives of the workshop were as follows: 

• dissemination of results of the Rapid Ecological Assessment; 

• solicit inputs on current threats to coastal and marine biodiversity; 

• initiate partnership-building; 

• prepare for a more comprehensive workshop that aims to develop a vision and a strategy for marine 

and coastal conservation and sustainable resource use in the Bird’s Head functional seascape. 

To ensure that the objectives could be met, The Conservancy involved the State University of Papua (Unipa) 

who tasked three staff to facilitate the workshop. Responsibilities of the facilitators were as follows: 

• work together with The Conservancy, BKSDA and other local government partners on a workshop 

agenda; 

• co-facilitate the workshop (including translations Bahasa Indonesia – English where required) and 

• prepare a draft workshop report that should include (a) a list of perceived threats that were put 

forward by workshop participants, (b) a list of recommendations put forward by workshop 

participants, (c) minutes of the workshop and (d) a list of participants. 

Facilitators and organizers of the workshop are listed in Table 1. 

7.3 Opening Speeches 

The workshop was officially opened by the Secretary of the Kabupaten Raja Ampat on behalf of the Bupati. 

The main issues raised by the Bupati were as follows: 

• Conservation of the natural resources was the interest of the international agencies because the care 

of humans for the environment has diminished. 

• The presence of the international conservation organizations in Raja Ampat has a positive effect on 

the development efforts initiated and undertaken by the government. 

148


• Various scientific surveys have been conducted in Raja Ampat, and most of them concluded that the 

biodiversity of Raja Ampat is among the richest in the world. 

• Therefore, this workshop was considered very important to obtain more information from respected 

international organizations to be used as references by the government in improving the development 

in fishery and marine sectors, as well as tourism. 

Table 1. Workshop facilitators and organizers 

Name Institution Role 

Agus Sumule UNIPA Facilitator 

Paulus Boli UNIPA Facilitator 

Roni Bawole UNIPA Facilitator 

Constant Sorondanya BKSDA Organizer 

Peter Mous TNC SEACMPA Organizer 

Johannes Subijanto TNC SEACMPA Organizer 

Andreas Muljadi TNC SEACMPA Organizer 

Richardo Tapilatu TNC SEACMPA Organizer 

Abdul Halim TNC SEACMPA Organizer 

Titayanto Pieter TNC CTRC Bogor Organizer 

Waladi Isnan PHKA, Directorate of Conservation Areas Representative 

Tetha Hitipeuw WWF Representative, 

guest speaker 

Yulianus Thebu WWF Representative 

Muhammad Farid CI Representative, 

guest speaker 

Yaya Mulyana 

Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, 

Directorate of marine Conservation and Marine 

National Parks 

Representative, 

guest speaker 

The Head of the BKSDA II of Papua Province (Mr. Constant Sorondanya) and the Director of the 

Directorate for Marine Conservation and National Parks (Bpk. Yaya Mulyana) both welcomed this 

workshop, and both expected that the workshop would contribute to a better understanding on the necessity 

to undertake conservation programs and that this workshop would contribute to the sustainable use of Raja 

Ampat’s resources. 

7.4 Presentations 

The following presentations were made during the workshop: 

• An overall context and plan of the workshop, by Agus Sumule. 

• Kawasan Perlindungan Laut: Model Pengelolaan untuk Memperbaiki Perikanan Tangkap di 

Indonesia (Marine Protected Area: A Model to Enhance the Fishery in Indonesia), by Abdul Halim. 

• Introducing The Conservancy, by Yohanes Subiyanto; and Introducing Conservatuion International 

with remarks on the works of CI in Raja Ampat area, by Muhammad Farid. 

• Results of The Conservancy’s REA in Raja Ampat: 

• Documentary film on The Conservancy’s REA in Raja Ampat, Producer: Joe Yaggi 

• Presentation of the ecoregion concept, by Peter Mous and Teta Hitipeuw 

149


7.4.1 Introducton to the Workshop, by Agus Sumule 

Before the opening speeches, Sumule provided the overall context and plan of the workshop to the 

participants. He explained the objectives of the workshop, and invited the participants to fully partake in the 

discussions and to provide inputs for the improvement of the quality of the report. He also explained that the 

workshop participants should always bear in mind two crucial and related issues: 

• what conservation strategies should be developed to ensure the Raja Ampat marine and forest 

resources can be utilized sustainably; and 

• what development strategies should be developed to ensure that the utilization of the Raja Ampat 

resources will increase the well-being of the local communities. 

7.4.2 Presentation on the concept of Marine Protected Areas, by Abdul Halim 

Halim introduced the concept of Marine Protected Area (MPA), and how these can help to ensure sustainable 

use of the fishery resources in Indonesia. One of the key words he introduced, and attracted considerable 

response from the certain participants, was “daerah larangan tangkap” (no-take zone) in the MPA concept. 

A participant (Abdurrahman Wairoy, the Head of Agriculture Dept.) proposed “waktu larangan tangkap” 

(no-take period) as an alternative to the no-take zone concept. The no-take period was considered suitable to 

the local/indigenous conservation concept called sasi. Informal discussions with the participants during the 

breaks also revealed that the no-take period concept was deemed more suitable to the customary ownership 

(pemilikan adat/ulayat) concept, as all customary communities (masyarakat adat) would bear the same 

responsibility to protect the marine resources. 

Other questions raised on no-take zones were: 

• How can Marine Protection Area and no-take zones benefit fish populations that migrate large 

distances? How can no-take zones be applied to the cases where migrating fish cross the government 

administration area, for instance from Raja Ampat to Fakfak regency? 

• How could you convince the community about the advantages of no-take zones? 

• can no-take zones create an economic opportunity by enhancing tourism in Raja Ampat? 

7.4.3 Introductions to The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International, by Yohanes Subiyanto and 

Muhammad Farid 

Yohanes Subiyanto introduced briefly the activities of The Conservancy in Indonesia and Muhammad Farid 

introduced the research activities of Conservation International in Raja Ampat. Both presentations were 

received well by the workshop participants. After the presentations, Peter Mous presented the REA report to 

the Bupati, while Muhammad Farid presented the report of CI’s Rapid Survey in Raja Ampat. 

7.4.4 Presentations on the Raja Ampat REA, by Peter Mous, Ferry Liuw, Agus Sumule, and Teta Hitipeuw 

The REA results were presented as five modules that comprised: 

• Brief introduction on the researchers and methodology of REA, by Peter Mous; 

• Results of fish and corral studies, by Peter Mous; 

• Results of the forestry study, by Ferry Liuw; 

• Results of the socioeconomic study by Agus Sumule; 

• Results of the sea turtle study, by Teta Hitipeuw. 

A couple of times the participants applauded Peter’s presentation when he mentioned the richness of Raja 

Ampat biodiversity, especially coral and fish. Ferry, Agus and Teta’s presentation were also well received. 

150


Comments were given mostly to the socio-economic aspects of the research findings (mostly to the material 

presented by Agus Sumule). Issues raised by the participants were related to the socio-economic benefits to 

be gained by the local communities from the sustainable utilization of the marine resources of Raja Ampat, 

especially from the marine tourism industry. 

7.4.5 Video Documentary on the Raja Ampat REA, by Joe Yaggi 

The film, which documented the activities of the REA showed the richness of the Raja Ampat resources as 

well as the human’s utilization of those resources (including the destructive ones – illegal logging, blast 

fishing, etc.). The film presentation was very successful – it was appreciated not only by the workshop 

participants but also by the community of Saonek. 

7.4.6 Presentations on Ecoregional Planning, by Peter Mous and Teta Hitipeuw 

Peter Mous and Teta Hitipeuw (WWF) presented the concept of ecoregional planning to the participants. 

Even though these concepts were significant from the conservation strategy point of view, they did not 

attract much interest from the participants. The main reason could be that the concepts were too theoretical 

and did not address the immediate needs of the people. 

7.5 Closing Speeches 

The acting Bupati of Raja Ampat closed the workshop. Before giving his speech, he was shown the video 

documentary. He highly appreciated the efforts of The Conservancy, and urged the workshop participants as 

well as the community at large in Saonek to protect and conserve the Raja Ampat Resources. He also urged 

The Conservancy and other international conservation organizations to continue the conservation works in 

Raja Ampat, and he promised the full cooperation of his administration. 

Before the speech of the Bupati, the First Assistant to the Kabupaten’s Secretary (Asisten I Sekda), on behalf 

of the organizer, reported what has been achieved from the workshop. His main points were: 

• It became more obvious that the richness of the marine and terrestrial resources in Raja Ampat was 

extraordinary. He stated that it is the responsibility of all participants to extend this knowledge to all 

people of Raja Ampat. 

• He stated that Raja Ampat’s natural resources are facing serious threats: blast fishing, the use of 

potassium cyanide, over-exploitation of marine resources, as well as illegal logging. Efforts to abate 

these threats can no longer be postponed. 

• It became clearer during the workshop, that cooperation with all parties committed to conserve Raja 

Ampat natural resources, as well as to improve the living condition of the local people, was crucial. 

As a new Kabupaten, Raja Ampat’s government welcomes the interest of others to help. 

• Lastly, the Fist Assistant stated that this workshop is only a beginning. More issues need to be 

discussed, as they were indeed complex. Therefore, the plan of The Nature Conservancy and 

Conservation International to organize another seminar where conservation issues can be discussed 

and planned in a more detail was most welcome. 

7.6 Group Discussions 

Recommendation from the workshop were obtained by asking the participants to form groups and to discuss 

certain questions. There were 59 people participated in the discussions, divided into eight groups (see 

Appendix 8). 

Questions to stimulate discussions were presented by Agus Sumule to all participants before they were 

divided into groups. These questions pertained to the most important threats to biodiversity and sustainable 

use of natural resources, and to enhancement of the welfare of local people. The questions were: 

151


• In your opinion, what are the most serious threats to the sustainability of Raja Ampat resources 

(marine and terrestrial)? Please name 5 (five) threats and rank them according to the order of 

importance. 

• Who should organize the activities to manage those threats? Please be as specific as possible. 

• What types of socio-economic activities which need to be undertaken to improve the welfare of the 

people? Please name five activities and rank them according to the order of priorities. 

• What conditions should be fulfilled so that those activities can be undertaken? 

Translated transcripts of the answers provided by each group to the questions above are presented in 

Appendix 9. The main themes were basically as follows: 

• The main threats for the sustainability of the Raja Ampat marine resources were the use of blast 

fishing, potassium cyanide, trawls, and sea turtles catching. 

• The main threat for the sustainability of for the forest/terrestrial resource was illegal logging. 

• To solve the above problems several actions must be taken immediately: strict upholding of the law 

in its broadest meanings – including in terms of a significant presence of well equipped law 

enforcement officers, the reduction of napoleon/kerapu trading, stop the illegal logging, significantly 

improve the awareness of the community on the danger of blast fishing. 

• The improvement of the socio-economic welfare of the local people can be achieved by the creation 

of more jobs through the cooperation between the government and the private sectors, including but 

not limited to programs such as the community based marine tourism industry, sustainable 

commercial utilization of forest resources, and better practice of fishing and other types of traditional 

economic utilization of marine resources. 

• Relevant government institutions and officials should take a leading role in achieving better 

management of natural resources and improving the welfare of the people.. 

7.7 Evaluation and suggestions for future workshops 

The workshop of 20-21 August 2003 in Saonek was a success. The results of the REA project were 

disseminated effectively to the workshop participants. More awareness about the uniqueness and richness of 

Raja Ampat natural resources (marine and terrestrial) was achieved, as well as about the urgent need to 

conserve the resources. The Bupati of the newly established Kabupaten Raja Ampat, with his staff, showed 

strong commitment and determination for the realization of sustainable use of Raja Ampat marine and 

terrestrial resources. 

The main problem of this workshop was that the non-government participants were very much limited to the 

local people of the Saonek area and its neighboring villages. People from other main islands such as Batanta, 

Misool and Salawati were poorly represented. It is therefore important for The Nature Conservancy to assign 

its Raja Ampat staff to run a similar type of workshop in Batanta, Misool and Salawati, at least at the district 

(kecamatan/distrik) capitals. 

The issue of proper representation of local communities, NGOs (including religious organizations) and 

government officials (including teachers) should be seriously taken into account for the undertaking of future 

workshops. Only by having a good community representation, the results of any workshop in Raja Ampat 

can be disseminated effectively to the community in large. 

Future workshops should follow up issues which have been discussed and agreed upon in Saonek (20-21 

August). The so-called “follow-up” (tindak lanjut), should be aimed to develop a clear and specific action 

152


plan for government, non-government institutions (including The Conservancy), and the local communities 

to achieve a sustainable use of Raja Ampat’s natural resources. It is therefore suggested that the future 

workshop should allow the local people to learn from a series of presentations on what development options 

are available for them to obtain sustainable economic benefits. The Conservancy and the government 

(Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fishery, Ministry of Forestry of the central government, as well as the 

Kabupaten Raja Ampat and the Papua Province government) need to consider inviting relevant institutions 

and individuals who have been successful in developing community based marine tourism industry, 

sustainable commercial utilization of forest resources, better practice of fishing and other types of traditional 

economic utilization of marine resources, etc. 

Future workshop should also include presentations from The Conservancy and other interested conservation 

organizations, government of Raja Ampat, and relevant institutions of the central and provincial government 

on what programs can be implemented in the Raja Ampat area. This will allow the local communities to 

influence processes and to better anticipate changes which might occur in their areas. It will also allow 

organizations and agencies to coordinate their activities. 

153


154

Appendices 

155

Appendices 

Appendix 1. List of the Reef Fishes of the Raja Ampat Islands. 

This list includes all species of shallow (to 50m depth) coral reef fishes known from the Raja Ampat Islands 

at 1 December 2002. The list is based on the following sources: 

1) Results of the TNC REA survey of 2002; 

2) Results of the 2001 CI Marine RAP; 

3) 26 hours of scuba-diving observations by G. Allen in 1998 and 1999. 

The numbers under the site records column and remarks in the abundance column pertain to the REA survey. 

“Previously recorded” refers to species not seen during the present survey, but were observed or collected by 

G. Allen on previous trips. 

The phylogenetic sequence of the families appearing in this list follows Eschmeyer (Catalog of Fishes, 

California Academy of Sciences, 1998) with slight modification (eg. placement of Cirrhitidae). Genera and 

species are arranged alphabetically within each family. 

Terms relating to relative abundance are as follows: 

Abundant - Common at most sites in a variety of habitats with up to several hundred individuals being 

routinely observed on each dive. 

Common - seen at the majority of sites in numbers that are relatively high in relation to other members of a 

particular family, especially if a large family is involved. 

Moderately common - not necessarily seen on most dives, but may be relatively common when the correct 

habitat conditions are encountered. 

Occasional - infrequently sighted and usually in small numbers, but may be relatively common in a very 

limited habitat. 

Rare - less than 10, often only one or two individuals seen on all dives. 

156

SPECIES SITE RECORDS ABUNDANCE 

ORECTOLOBIDAE 

Eucrossorhinus dasypogon (Bleeker, 1867) 22 Rare, only one seen.. 

HEMISCYLLIIDAE 

Hemiscyllium freycineti (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) Previously recorded. Rarely seen, but nocturnal. Waigeo is type locality. 

GINGLYMOSTOMATIDAE 

Nebrius ferrugineus (Lesson, 1830) Previously recorded. 

CARCHARHINIDAE 

Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos (Bleeker, 1856) Previously recorded. 

C. melanopterus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) Previously recorded. 

Triaenodon obesus (Rüppell, 1835) Previously recorded. 

SPHYRNIDAE 

Sphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834) Previously recorded. Rare, only one seen. A New record for RA. 

DASYATIDIDAE 

Dasyatis kuhlii (Müller and Henle, 1841) 11, 21-23, 25-27, 30, 34, 39, 54 Occasionally seen in sandy areas. 

Pastinachus sephen (Forsskål, 1775) 28, 40 Rare, only two seen. New record for RA. 

Taeniura lymma (Forsskål, 1775) 9, 12, 18a, 35, 36, 42, 54, 56, 58 Occasionally seen in sandy areas. 

Urogymnus asperrimus (Bloch & Schnieder, 1801) 33 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

MYLIOBATIDAE 

Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790) 24, 34, 43 Rare, only three seen. 

MOBULIDAE 

Manta birostris (Walbaum, 1792) 21, 44, 54 Rare, only three seen. 

Mobula tarapacana (Philippi, 1892) Previously recorded. 

MORINGUIDAE 

Moringua ferruginea (Bliss, 1883) Previously recorded. 

M. microchir Bleeker, 1853 Previously recorded. 

MURAENIDAE 

Echidna nebulosa (Thünberg, 1789) Previously recorded. 

Gymnothorax enigmaticus McCosker and Randall, 1982 

G. fimbriatus (Bennett, 1831) Previously recorded. 

G. flavimarginatus (Rüppell, 1828) Previously recorded. 

G. fuscomaculatus (Schultz, 1953) 48 One specimen collected with rotenone. 

G. javanicus (Bleeker, 1865) 26, 28, 41, 43, 44, 54 Rare, less than 10 seen. 

G. melatremus Schultz, 1953 Previously recorded. 

G. pictus (Ahl, 1789) Previously recorded. 

G. polyuranodon (Bleeker, 1853) Previously recorded. 

G. zonipectus Seale, 1906 Previously recorded. 

Rhinomuraena quaesita Garman, 1888 25 Rare, only two seen. 

Uropterygius micropterus (Bleeker, 1852) Previously recorded 

OPHICHTHIDAE 

Leiuranus semicinctus (Lay and Bennett, 1839) 18b Common at one site. 

Muraenicthys macropterus Bleeker, 1857 18b Collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

Myrichthys colubrinus (Boddaert,1781) 18b Collected with rotenone. 

M. maculosus (Cuvier, 1817) Previously recorded. 

Appendices 

157

Appendices 


CONGRIDAE 

Gorgasia maculata Klausewitz & Eibesfeldt, 1959 22, 29, 30, 48 Occasional, but locally common. Hundreds seen at site 29. 

Heteroconger haasi (Klausewitz and Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1959) 9, 16, 27, 30, 39 Occasional, but locally common. Hundreds seen at site 30. 

CLUPEIDAE 

Herklotsichthys quadrimaculatus (Rüppell, 1837) Previously recorded. 

Spratelloides delicatulus (Bennett, 1832) 16, 21, 28, 31, 34, 35, 52, 53, 55 Occasional, hundreds seen schooling near surface at several sites. 

S. lewisi Wongratana, 1983 8, 10-15 Occasional, but locally abundant. 

PLOTOSIDAE 

Plotosus lineatus (Thünberg, 1787) 29, 33, 43, 53 Occasional. 

SYNODONTIDAE 

Saurida gracilis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) 12, 23 Rare. 

S. nebulosa Valenciennes, 1849 21, 39, 44, 50, 58 Occasional. 

Synodus dermatogenys Fowler, 1912 10, 11, 15-18a, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30-34, 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 

50, 52, 58 

Moderately common, solitary individuals usually seen resting on 

dead coral or rubble. 

S. jaculum Russell and Cressy, 1979 16, 22, 23, 30, 31, 35, 43, 44, 54 Occasional on rubble bottoms.. 

S. rubromarmoratus Russell and Cressy, 1979 16, 33, 35, 52 Rare, on sand or rubble bottoms. 

S. variegatus (Lacepède, 1803) 11, 15-18a, 20, 21, 26, 28, 30, 31, 36, 39, 42, 43, 50, 52, 55, 56, 

58 

Moderately common, solitary individuals or pairs usually seen 

resting on live coral.. 

CARAPIDAE 

Onuxodon margaritiferae (Rendahl, 1921) Previously recorded. 

BYTHITIDAE 

Brosmophyciops pautzkei Schultz, 1960 34 Two specimen collected with rotenone. 

Ogilbia sp. 1 48, 58 Collected with rotenone. 

Ogilbia sp. 2 Previously recorded. 

ANTENNARIIDAE 

Antennarius coccineus (Lesson, 1829) Previously recorded. 

A. dorhensis Bleeker, 1859 

A. pictus (Shaw & Nodder, 1794) 23, 56 Photographed by expedition members. New record for RA. 

Histiophryne cryptacanthus (Weber, 1913) Previously recorded. 

Histrio histrio (Linnaeus, 1758) 38 One specimen captured in floating Sargassum, but released. 

GOBIESOCIDAE 

Diademichthys lineatus (Sauvage, 1883) 15, 17, 22, 24, 27-31, 34, 35, 52, 53 Occasional among sea urchins or branching coral. 

Discotrema crinophila Briggs, 1976 Previously recorded. 

D. lineata (Briggs, 1966) 34 Rare, photographed by expedition members. New record for RA. 

ATHERINIDAE 

Atherinomorus lacunosus (Forster, 1801) 8, 12-14 Occasional large shoals seen. 

Hypoatherina temminckii (Bleeker, 1853) Previously recorded. 

TELMATHERINIDAE 

Kalyptatherina helodes (Ivantsoff & Allen, 1984) 12 Locally common at edge of mangroves at one site. 

BELONIDAE 

Platybelone platyura (Bennett, 1832) 17 Rare, less than 10 seen at one site. 

Tylosurus crocodilus (Peron & Lesueur, 1821) 9, 17, 20, 25, 33, 34, 44, 54 Occasional, on surfaces at several sites. 

HEMIRAMPHIDAE 

Hemirhamphus far (Forsskål, 1775) 30, 56 Rare, only two seen. 

158

Appendices 


Hyporhamphus dussumieri (Valenciennes, 1846) Previously recorded. 

Zenarchopterus buffonis (Valenciennes, 1847) Previously recorded. 

Z. dunckeri Mohr, 1926 12, 13, 27, 56 Occasional, but locally common near mangroves at four sites. 

HOLOCENTRIDAE 

Myripristis adusta Bleeker, 1853 20, 26, 31, 39, 45, 46, 50, 51, 54, 58 Occasional, sheltering in caves and under ledges. Common at site 

54. 

M. berndti Jordan and Evermann, 1902 10, 16, 21-23, 25-29, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 41, 44, 49-51, 54 Common, sheltering in caves and under ledges. 

M. botche Cuvier, 1829 57 Rare.. 

M. hexagona (Lacepède, 1802) 7-12, 17, 18a, 21, 38, 42, 48, 56 Common, usually in silty bays. 

M. kuntee Valenciennes, 1831 26, 27, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42-45, 49, 51-54, 58 Moderately common, sheltering in caves and under ledges, but 

frequently exposes itself for brief periods. 

M. murdjan (Forsskål, 1775) 30, 37, 41 Rare. 

M. pralinia Cuvier, 1829 Previously recorded. 

M. violacea Bleeker, 1851 7, 11, 16, 18a, 20, 21, 29, 30, 34-36, 43, 44, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56-58 Moderately common. 

M. vittata Valenciennes, 1831 41, 45, 46, 51, 57 Occasional, except abundant at site 57.. 

Neoniphon argenteus (Valenciennes, 1831) 50, 58 Rare, less than 10 seen. New record for RA. 

N. opercularis (Valenciennes, 1831) 21, 31, 37 Rare, only three seen. 

N. sammara (Forsskål, 1775) 24, 27, 38, 30, 43, 44, 54-58 Occasional, usually among branches of staghorn Acropora coral. 

Sargocentron caudimaculatum (Rüppell, 1835) 9, 16, 17, 20-23, 25-32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43-46, 48, 49, 51, 54, Common. 

57, 58 

S. cornutum (Bleeker, 1853) 8, 55 Rare, only about eight seen. 

S. diadema (Lacepède, 1802) 35, 40, 43, 44, 56 Rare, less than 10 seen. 

S. melanospilos (Bleeker, 1858) 8, 30, 34, 55 Rare, only a few seen at four sites. 

S. rubrum (Forsskål, 1775) 11, 14, 21, 24 Occasional, but locally common in silty bays. 

S. spiniferum (Forsskål, 1775) 27, 31, 32, 34-37, 42-45, 50, 51, 55, 57 Moderately common, in caves and under ledges. 

S. tiere (Cuvier, 1829) 39 Rare, but nocturnal. 

S. tiereoides (Bleeker, 1853) 48, 58 Rare, but nocturnal. New record for RA. 

S. violaceum (Bleeker, 1853) 43, 48, 53 Rare, only three seen. 

PEGASIDAE 

Eurypegasus draconis (Linnaeus, 1766) Previously recorded. 

AULOSTOMIDAE 

Aulostomus chinensis (Linnaeus, 1766) 9, 21, 27, 29, 31, 35, 37, 39, 44, 45, 48, 50-52, 54, 56-58 Moderately common. 

FISTULARIIDAE 

Fistularia commersoni Rüppell, 1835 7, 29, 31, 35, 39, 48-51, 56, 57 Occasional. 

CENTRISCIDAE 

Aeoliscus strigatus (Günther, 1860) 7, 33 Rare, only two small aggregations seen. 

Centriscus scutatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 15 Rare, only one aggregation seen. 

SOLENOSTOMIDAE 

Solenostomus halimeda Orr, Fritzsche & Randall, 2002 34 Rare, one collected. New record for RA. 

S. paradoxus (Pallas, 1770) 30, 31, 33 Rare, only three seen. New record for RA. 

SYNGNATHIDAE 

Choeroichthys brachysoma Bleeker, 1855 Collected with rotenone. 

Corythoichthys amplexus Dawson & Randall, 1975 22 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA 

159

Appendices 


C. flavofasciatus (Rüppell, 1838) 53 Rare, only one seen. 

C. haematopterus (Bleeker, 1851) Previously recorded. 

C. intestinalis (Ramsay, 1881) Previously recorded. 

C. ocellatus Herald, 1953 Previously recorded. 

C. schultzi Herald, 1953 23 Rare. 

C. sp. 1 (RHK sp. 2) 22 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

C. sp. 2 (RHK sp. 3) 22 Rare. 

Doryrhamphus dactyliophorus (Bleeker, 1853) 31, 34, 49 Only three seen, but a secretive cave and ledge dweller. 

D. janssi (Herald & Randall, 1972) Previously recorded. 

D. pessuliferus (Fowler, 1938) 43 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

Halicampus dunckeri (Kaup, 1856) Previously recorded. 

Halicampus mataafae (Jordan & Seale, 1906) Previously recorded. 

Hippocampus bargibanti Whitley, 1970 34 Rare, one photographed by expedition member. 

H. kuda Bleeker, 1852 Previously recorded. 

Phoxocampus belcheri (Kaup, 1856) Previously recorded. 

P. tetrophthalmus (Bleeker, 1858) Previously recorded. 

Siokunichthys nigrolineatus Dawson, 1983 33 Rare, two seen among tentacles of mushroom coral. 

Syngnathoides biaculeatus (Bloch, 1785) Previously recorded. 

Trachyrhamphus bicoarctatus (Bleeker, 1857) 23 Rare, one collected. 

SCORPAENIDE 

Dendrochirus zebra (Cuvier, 1829) 22, 27 Rare, only two seen. 

Pterois antennata (Bloch, 1787) 48, 50 Rare, but mainly nocturnal. 

P. volitans (Linnaeus, 1758) 16, 20, 25, 27, 30, 43, 53, 55, 56 Occasional.. 

Scorpaenodes guamensis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) 18b One collected with rotenone. 

S. hirsutus (Smith, 1957) Previously recorded. 

S. minor (Smith, 1958) 58 One collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

S. parvipinnis (Garrett, 1863) Previously recorded. 

Scorpaenopsis macrochir Ogilby, 1910 34 Rare, only one seen. 

S. papuensis (Cuvier, 1829) 8, 35, 44 Rare, but difficult to observe due to cryptic colors. 

Sebastapistes cyanostigma (Bleeker, 1856) 44, 54 Probably not uncommon, but only two seen among coral 

branches. 

S. strongia (Cuvier, 1829) Previously recorded. 

Taenianotus triacanthus Lacepède, 1802 Previously recorded. 

TETRAROGIDAE 

Ablabys macracanthus (Bleeker, 1852) Previously recorded. 

SYNANCEIIDAE 

Inimicus didactylus (Pallas, 1769) Previously recorded. Rare, only one seen. 

Minous trachycephalus (Bleeker, 1854) 33 Rare, but mainly nocturnal. Photographed by expedition 

member. New record for RA. 

Synanceja horrida (Linnaeus, 1766) 33 Rare, photographed by expedition member. 

Synanceja verrucosa (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) Previously recorded. 

CARACANTHIDAE 

Caracanthus maculatus (Gray, 1831) 54 Probably not uncommon, but only one seen among coral 

branches. 

160

Appendices 


DACTYLOPTERIDAE 

Dactyloptena orientalis (Cuvier, 1829) 30 Rare. One photographed by expedition member. 

PLATYCEPHALIDAE 

Cociella punctata (Cuvier, 1829) Previously recorded. 

Cymbacephalus beauforti Knapp, 1973 28, 32, 42 Only three seen, but difficult to detect. 

Platycephalus sp. Previously recorded. 

Thysanophrys chiltoni Schultz, 1966 Previously recorded. 

CENTROPOMIDAE 

Psammoperca waigiensis (Cuvier, 1828) 18, 56, 57 Rare, but several seen at each of three sites.. Waigeo is type 

locality. 

SERRANIDAE 

Aethaloperca rogaa (Forsskål, 1775) 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27, 28, 31, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44-46, 51, 53- Moderately common.. 

57 

Anyperodon leucogrammicus (Valenciennes, 1828) 18a, 20, 21, 30-32, 34, 35, 43, 45, 53, 54, 57, 58 Occasional 

Belonoperca chabanaudi Fowler & Bean, 1930 56 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

Cephalopholis argus Bloch and Schneider, 1801 20, 23, 26, 28, 30-32, 37, 39, 40, 43, 45, 49, 51, 54, 57 Occasional. 

C. boenack (Bloch, 1790) 7-12, 15, 17, 18a, 20, 21, 24, 52, 53, 55 Moderately common. 

C. cyanostigma (Kuhl and Van Hasselt, 1828) 7-12, 16-18a, 20, 21, 28-32, 34-36, 42, 43, 48-50, 52, 53, 55-57 Moderately common on sheltered reefs. 

C. leopardus (Lacepède, 1802) 16, 20, 32, 43 Occasional. 

C. microprion (Bleeker, 1852) 8-10, 12, 15, 16, 18a, 33, 35, 36, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56 Occasional on relatively silty reefs. 

C. miniata (Forsskål, 1775) 8, 9, 16, 17, 20-23, 25-28, 30-32, 35, 37, 39, 41, 44-46, 51, 54, Moderately common, usually in areas of clear water. 

55, 57 

C. polleni (Bleeker, 1868) 57 Rare, only one seen on steep drop-off. New record for RA. 

C. sexmaculata Rüppell, 1828 7, 8, 28, 32, 54, 55 Occasional, on ceilings of caves on steep drop-offs. 

C. sonnerati (Valenciennes, 1828) 26, 56 Rare, only two seen. 

C. spiloparaea (Valenciennes, 1828) 16, 20, 28, 31, 32, 37, 54-57 Moderately common in deep water (below 20 m) of outer slopes. 

C. urodeta (Schneider, 1801) 16, 20, 22, 23, 25-28, 30-32, 37, 39, 41, 43-46, 49, 51, 54 Moderately common in variety of habitats. 

Cromileptes altivelis (Valenciennes, 1828) 9, 13, 15, 31, 36 Rare, only five seen. 

Diploprion bifasciatum Cuvier, 1828 7-12, 15, 17, 18a, 23, 28, 30, 34, 36, 48-52 Moderately common in sheltered inshore areas. 

Epinephelus areolatus (Forsskål, 1775) 24 Rare. Only one seen. 

E. bilobatus Randall & Allen, 1987 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17 Occasional in silt-affected areas. 

E. caruleopunctatus (Bloch, 1790) 27 Rare, only one adult seen. 

E. coioides (Hamilton, 1822) 13, 24, 27 Rare. 

E. corallicola (Kuhl and Van Hasselt, 1828) 52 Rare, only one seen. 

E. fasciatus (Forsskål, 1775) 8-11, 16, 17, 20, 32, 45, 51 Moderately common. 

E. fuscoguttatus (Forsskål, 1775) 21, 25, 26, 29, 31, 54 Rare, only five seen. 

E. lanceolatus (Bloch, 1790) 23, 50 Rare, only two seen. 

E. macrospilos (Bleeker) 20, 35, 54 Rare, only three seen. 

E. maculatus (Bloch, 1790) 23, 27, 29, 31, 40, 56 Occasional. 

E. merra Bloch, 1793 15, 18b, 20, 25, 28, 29, 31, 33-35, 38, 39, 42-44, 56, 58 Moderately common. 

E. ongus (Bloch, 1790) 11, 13, 56 Rare, only three seen. 

E. polyphekadion (Bleeker, 1849) 31, 54 Rare, only two seen. 

E. quoyanus (Valenciennes, 1830) 10 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

E. spilotoceps Schultz, 1953 Previously recorded. 

161

Appendices 


E. tukula Morgans, 1959 Previously recorded. 

Gracila albimarginata (Fowler and Bean, 1930) 20, 25, 31, 39, 56, 57 Occasional, on steep outer reef drop-offs. 

Grammistes sexlineatus (Thünberg, 1792) 51 Rare, only one seen. 

Grammistops ocellatus Schultz, 1953 Previously recorded. 

Liopropoma susumi (Jordan & Seale, 1906) Previously recorded. 

Luzonichthys waitei (Fowler, 1931) 29, 31, 32 Three large aggregations seen. 

Plectropomus areolatus (Rüppell, 1830) 36, 54, 58 Rare, only three seen. 

P. laevis (Lacepède, 1802) 55 Rare, only one seen. 

P. leopardus (Lacepède, 1802) 15-17, 43 Rare, about six seen. 

P. maculatus (Bloch, 1790) 7, 10-14, 24, 34, 36, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55 Occasional in silty areas. 

P. oligocanthus (Bleeker, 1854) 9, 15-18a, 20, 21, 28, 35, 42, 51, 53-55, 57 Occasional. 

Pogonoperca punctata (Valenciennes, 1830) Previously recorded. 

Pseudanthias bicolor Randall, 1979 16 Rare, but several seen at one site. New record for RA. 

P. dispar (Herre, 1955) 20, 25, 29, 31, 41, 57 Moderately common and locally abundant, but seen at few sites. 

P. fasciatus (Kamohara, 1954) Previously recorded. 

P. huchtii (Bleeker, 1857) 8, 9, 16-18a, 20-23, 25-35, 39, 43-45, 51, 57, 58 Abundant, one of most common reef fishes at Raja Ampats. 

P. hypselosoma Bleeker, 1878 9, 16, 22, 26, 31, 49 Occasional below 20 m on outer reef slopes. 

P. luzonensis (Katayama and Masuda, 1983) Previously recorded. 

P. pleurotaenia (Bleeker, 1857) 16, 20, 31, 56, 57 Occasional below 20 m on outer reef slopes. 

P. randalli (Lubbock & Allen, 1978) 31, 57 Rare, but usually seen in deep water. 

P. smithvanizi (Randall & Lubbock, 1981) 57 Rare, but locally common at one site. New record for RA. 

P. squamipinnis (Peters, 1855) 16, 22, 23, 25-30, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51, 57 Common, especially plentiful at sites 41 and 46. 

P. tuka (Herre and Montalban, 1927) 9, 20, 26, 28-32, 39, 43, 48, 54, 56-58 Moderately common. 

Pseudogramma polyacanthum (Bleeker, 1856) Previously recorded. 

Rabaulichthys altipinnis Allen, 1984 25 Rare, but several seen at one site (collected). New record for 


Variola albimarginata Baissac, 1953 17, 21, 23, 25-27, 31, 43-45, 51, 54, 58 Occasional and always in low numbers. 

V. louti (Forsskål, 1775) 16, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 31, 37, 39, 43-45, 51 Occasional and always in low numbers. 

PSEUDOCHROMIDAE 

Amsichthys knighti (Allen, 1987) 41, 58 Several collected with rotenone. 

Cypho purpurescens (De Vis, 1884) Previously recorded. 

Labracinus cyclophthalmus (Müller & Troschel, 1849) 27, 32, 36, 38, 42-44, 50 Occasional. 

Lubbockichthys multisquamatus (Allen, 1987) 51 Rare, but cryptic dweller of caves and ledges. 

P. bitaeniatus (Fowler, 1931) 7-10, 15, 17, 20, 22, 25-31, 34, 48, 51, 52 Occasional. 

P. cyanotaenia Bleeker, 1857 Previously recorded. 

P. elongatus Lubbock, 1980 Previously recorded. 

P. fuscus (Müller and Troschel, 1849) 12-15, 18a & b, 20, 21, 27, 33-35, 38, 40, 42, 43, 50, 52, 53, 55, Occasional, around small coral and rock outcrops. 

56 

P. marshallensis (Schultz, 1953) Previously recorded. 

P. perspicillatus Günther, 1862 12, 22, 27, 29, 30, 34, 36, 40, 43, 54 Occasional around rock outcrops in sand-rubble areas. 

P. porphyreus Lubbock & Goldmann, 1974 7-11, 15-18a, 20-26, 28-32, 34, 35, 39, 44, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56-58 Common at base of slopes. 

P. sp. 8-12, 22-24, 34, 35, 49 Moderately common on rubble slopes. An undescribed species 

known only from RA. 

P. splendens (Fowler, 1931) 7, 8, 15, 16, 20, 22, 25-32, 43 Moderately common around coral formations. 

162

Appendices 


P. tapienosoma Bleeker, 1853 Previously recorded. 

Pseudoplesiops annae (Weber, 1913) Previously recorded. 

P. knighti Allen, 1987 48 Collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

P. typus Bleeker, 1858 Previously recorded. 

PLESIOPIDAE 

Calloplesiops altivelis (Steindachner, 1903) 10, 34 Rare, only two seen. New record for RA. 

Plesiops coeruleolineatus Rüppell, 1835 Previously recorded. 

Plesiops corallicola Bleeker, 1853 Previously recorded. 

ACANTHOCLINIDAE 

Belonepterygium fasciolatum (Ogilby, 1889) Previously recorded. 

CIRRHITIDAE 

Cirrhitichthys aprinus (Cuvier, 1829) 16, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29-31, 35, 36, 39-41, 51 Moderately common, usually on sponges. 

C. falco Randall, 1963 49 Rare. 

C. oxycephalus (Bleeker, 1855) 8, 16, 22, 26, 27, 31, 41, 45, 46, 49, 51, 54 Moderately common. 

Cirrhitus pinnulatus (Schneider, 1801) Previously recorded. 

Cyprinocirrhites polyactis (Bleeker, 1875) 25, 35 Rare, only two seen. 

Oxycirrhitus typus Bleeker, 1857 Previously recorded. 

Paracirrhites arcatus (Cuvier, 1829) 37, 45, 47, 51, 58 Occasional. 

P. forsteri (Schneider, 1801) 16, 17, 20-, 21, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39-41, 43-46, 49, 51, 

54, 56-58 

Moderately common, the most abundant hawkfish, but always 

seen in low numbers. 

OPISTOGNATHIDAE 

Opistognathus sp. 1 (“variabilis”) 29 Rare, one collected. 

O. sp. 2 (“randalli”) 34 Two specimens collected with rotenone. 

O. sp. 3 Previously recorded. 

O. sp. 4 Previously recorded. 

TERAPONTIDAE 

Terapon jarbua (Forsskål, 1775) Previously recorded. 

Terapon theraps Cuvier, 1829 Previously recorded. 

PRIACANTHIDAE 

Priacanthus hamrur (Forsskål, 1775) 26, 37, 44, 58 Rare, less than 10 seen. 

APOGONIDAE 

Apogon angustatus (Smith and Radcliffe, 1911) 41, 51 Rare. 

A. aureus (Lacepède, 1802) 10, 15, 16, 22, 27, 29-31, 44 Moderately common. 

A. bandanensis Bleeker, 1854 15, 53, 55, 56 Only a few seen, but nocturnal. 

A. cavitiensis (Jordan & Seale, 1907) 14, 24 Rare, two seen in silty conditions. 

A. ceramensis Bleeker, 1852 12, 50 Only two schools seen, but shelters among mangrove roots. 

A. chrysopomus Bleeker, 1854 24 Rare. 

A. chrysotaenia Bleeker, 1851 17, 22, 27, 40, 43, 44, 49 Occasional. 

A. cladophilus Allen & Randall, 2002 10 Rare, one aggregation of six seen. New record for RA. 

A. compressus (Smith and Radcliffe, 1911) 7-9, 12, 21, 35, 36, 42, 52, 53, 56 Moderately common. 

A. crassiceps Garman, 1903 34, 58 Collected with rotenone. 

A. cyanosoma Bleeker, 1853 8, 9, 16, 18b, 23, 25-31, 35, 36, 43, 44, 54, 58 Moderately common. 

A. dispar Fraser and Randall, 1976 16, 46, 53 Three aggregations seen in 20-40 m. 

A. doryssa Jordan & Seale, 1906 Previously recorded. 

163

Appendices 


A. evermanni Jordan & Snyder, 1904: 46 Several seen in large cave. New record for RA. 

A. exostigma Jordan and Starks, 1906 16, 28, 41 Rare, only three seen. 

A. fleurieu (Lacepède, 1802) 16 Rare, only one aggregations seen. 

A. fraenatus Valenciennes, 1832 7, 9, 15-17, 23, 26, 29-32, 44, 49, 51, 54, 55 Moderately common under ledges and in coral crevices. 

A. fragilis Smith, 1961 23, 24, 52, 53 Rarely seen, but locally abundant. . 

A. fuscus Quoy and Gaimard, 1824 Previously recorded. 

A. gilberti (Jordan & Seale, 1905): 24 Rare, only one aggregtion seen. New record for RA. 

A. hartzfeldi Bleeker, 1852 55 Rare, only a few seen. 

A. holotaenia (Regan, 1905): 25 Rare only three seen. New record for RA (collected). 

A. hoeveni Bleeker, 1854 13 Rare. 

A. kallopterus Bleeker, 1856 18b, 23, 30, 31, 35, 41, 44, 51, 56 Occasional, but nocturnal. 

A. leptacanthus Bleeker, 1856 52 Rarely encountered, but locally common among branching corals 

at one site. 

A. melanoproctus Fraser and Randall, 1976 Previously recorded. 

A. sp. (“monospilus”) 22, 23, 27, 29, 33, 36, 40, 44 Occasional. 

A. multilineatus Bleeker, 1865 31, 34, 35 Rare, but nocturnal habits. 

A. nanus Allen, Kuiter, and Randall, 1994 9, 10, 23 Rarely encountered, but three aggregations seen. 

A. neotes Allen, Kuiter, and Randall, 1994 7-12, 17, 53 Occasional aggregations. 

A. nigrofasciatus Schultz, 1953 8, 16, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 48, 49, 56-58 Moderately common, one of most abundant cardinalfishes, but 

always in small numbers under ledges and among crevices. 

A. notatus (Houttuyn, 1782) 27, 29, 30 Generally rare, but locally common. 

A. novemfasciatus Cuvier, 1828 

A. ocellicaudus Allen, Kuiter, and Randall, 1994 10, 15-17, 22, 23, 31, 49, 54 Occasional, but locally common. 

A. parvulus (Smith & Radcliffe, 1912) 7, 11, 12, 17, 18a, 20-24, 28, 29, 31-34, 36, 42, 50, 52, 53 Common. 

A. perlitus Fraser & Lachner, 1985 Previously recorded. 

A. quadrifasciatus Cuvier, 1828 24, 52, 55 Several seen on open sand bottoms. New record for RA. 

A. rhodopterus Bleeker, 1852 Previously recorded. 

A. sealei Fowler, 1918 12, 30, 36, 38, 42, 48 Occasional. 

A. selas Randall and Hayashi, 1990 Previously recorded. 

A. leptofasciatus Allen, 2001 Previously recorded. 

A. taeniophorus Regan, 1908 Previously recorded. 

A. talboti Smith, 1961 48 One collected with rotenone. 

A. thermalis Cuvier, 1829 13, 14 Rare. 

A. timorensis Bleeker, 1854 Previously recorded. 

A. trimaculatus Cuvier, 1828 9, 15, 50, 53, 55 Rare, but difficult to survey due to nocturnal habits. 

A. wassinki Bleeker, 1860 22, 33, 42 Few sightings, but locally common on silty reefs. 

Apogonichthys ocellatus (Weber, 1913) Previously recorded. 

Archamia biguttata Lachner, 1951 Previously recorded. 

A. fucata (Cantor, 1850) 7, 10, 15-18a, 22, 23, 27, 30-32, 34, 36, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56 Moderately common. 

A. macropterus (Cuvier,1828) 23, 24, 48 Rarely seen, but locally common. 

A. zosterophora (Bleeker, 1858) 18a, 24, 48, 52 Rarely seen, but locally common. 

Cercamia eremia (Allen, 1987) Previously recorded. 

Cheilodipterus alleni Gon, 1993 8, 15, 36, 56 Rare. 

164

Appendices 


C. artus Smith, 1961 7, 9, 15, 17, 22, 24, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58 Moderately common, often among branching corals. 

C. intermedius Gon, 1993 51 Rare, a group of six seen.. New record for Indonesia. 

C. macrodon Lacepède, 1801 8-11, 15-17, 20, 28, 30, 45, 48 Moderately common, but always in low numbers (except 

juveniles). 

C. nigrotaeniatus Smith & Radcliffe, 1912 18a, 24, 42, 50, 52, 53, 56 Occasional on sheltered inshore reefs. 

C. quinquelineatus Cuvier, 1828 10-12, 15, 18a, 21, 23, 24, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, 48, 50, 52- Common, most abundant member of genus. 

56, 58 

C. singapurensis Bleeker, 1859 Previously recorded. 

Fowleria aurita (Valenciennes, 1831) 18b Collected with rotenone. 

F. punctulata (Rüppell, 1832) Previously recorded. 

F. vaiulae (Jordan & Seale, 1906) 18b, 33, 58 Rare. Photographed by expedition member. New record for RA. 

Gymnapogon sp. Previously recorded. 

G. urospilotus Lachner, 1953 Previously recorded. 

Pseudamia gelatinosa Smith, 1955 Previously recorded. 

P. hayashi Randall, Lachner and Fraser, 1985 34 Four collected with rotenone. 

Pseudamia zonata Randall, Lachner and Fraser, 1985 46 About 15 seen at end of 100 m long cave in 18 m depth. New 

record for RA. 

Rhabdamia cypselurus Weber, 1909 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 30, 51 Occasionally observed, but sometimes in large numbers 

swarming around coral bommies. 

Siphamia versicolor Smith & Radcliffe, 1911 34 Rare. Photographed by P. Achtel. 

R. gracilis (Bleeker, 1856) 7, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29-33, 44, 51, 53, 58 Moderately common, forming large aggregations around coral 

heads. Photographed. 

Sphaeramia nematoptera (Bleeker, 1856) 12, 14, 15, 24, 33, 50, 53 Occasional, but locally common among sheltered corals. 

S. orbicularis (Cuvier, 1828) 12-14 Common along sheltered shores of rocky islets and in 

mangroves. 

SILLAGINIDAE 

Sillago sihama (Forsskål, 1775) Previously recorded. 

MALACANTHIDAE 

Hoplolatilus cuniculus Randall & Dooley, 1974 20 Rare, several seen below 40 m. New record for RA. 

H. fronticinctus (Günther, 1887) 31 Rare, several adults with large rubble mounds seen below 40 m. 

New record for RA. 

H. purpureus Burgess, 1978 31, 32, 43 Rare, several pairs seen below 30 m. 

H. starcki Randall and Dooley, 1974 20, 31 Rare on steep outer slopes. 

Malacanthus brevirostris Guichenot, 1848 22, 29-31, 39, 40, 51, 54, 58 Occasional. 

M. latovittatus (Lacepède, 1798) 16, 22, 27, 31, 39, 45, 54 Occasional. 

ECHENEIDAE 

Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 1758 22, 23, 30, 34, 53, 55 Occasional. 

CARANGIDAE 

Alectis ciliaris (Bloch, 1788) 31 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

Atule mate (Cuvier, 1833) 23, 24, 33 Rare, but three schools seen. New record for RA. 

Carangoides bajad (Forsskål, 1775) 8, 10, 15-18a, 20-23, 25, 29, 32, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43, 44, 48, 51-58 Moderately common, but usually in low numbers. 

C. ferdau (Forsskål, 1775) 29, 30, 36, 44 Rare, less than 10seen. 

C. fulvoguttatus (Forsskål, 1775) Previously recorded. 

C. plagiotaenia Bleeker, 1857 8, 9, 16-18a, 20, 22 Occasional. 

165

Appendices 


Caranx ignobilis (Forsskål, 1775) 31, 41, 54, 57 Rare, four large adults seen. 

C. melampygus Cuvier, 1833 16, 25, 26, 28, 31, 37, 39-41, 44-46, 52-58 Moderately common, usually seen solitary or in small schools. 

Waigeo is type locality. 

C. papuensis Alleyne & Macleay, 1877 50 Rare. 

C. sexfasciatus Quoy and Gaimard, 1825 7, 27, 41, 52 Rare. Waigeo is type locality. 

Elegatis bipinnulatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825) 15, 20, 29, 41 Rare, but forms local aggregations. 

Gnathanodon speciosus (Forsskål, 1775) 23, 30, 50, 54 Rare, mainly juveniles seen. 

Scomberoides lysan (Forsskål, 1775) 8, 28, 39, 53 Rare, but may form local aggregations. 

Selar boops (Cuvier, 1833) 

S. crumenophthalmus (Bloch, 1793) Previously recorded. 

Selaroides leptolepis (Kuhl and van Hasselt, 1833) 15 One school seen. 

Trachinotus baillonii Lacepède, 1801) 28, 44 Rare, but may form local aggregations. New record for RA. 

T. blochii (Lacepède, 1801) Previously recorded. 

LUTJANIDAE 

Aphareus furca (Lacepède, 1802): 37, 39, 56, 57 Rare, only four seen. New record for RA. 

Aprion virescens Valenciennes, 1830 16, 26, 28-31, 40, 44 Occasional. 

Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskål, 1775) 13, 27, 28,50, 56 Occasional, but common at sites 27 and 28. 

L. bengalensis (Bloch, 1790) 22 Rare, only a few seen. New record for RA. 

L. biguttatus (Valenciennes, 1830) 7-9, 15, 18a, 21, 24, 29, 32, 34, 36, 42, 50, 53, 55-58 Moderately common, mainly on sheltered reefs with rich corals. 

Especially abundant at site 43. 

L.bohar (Forsskål, 1775) 7-10, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-35, 37, 39-46, 48-58 Common. 

L. boutton (Lacepède, 1802) 54-56 Generally rare, but locally common on some reefs. 

L. carponotatus (Richardson, 1842) 7-18a, 21-24, 34-36, 52, 53, 55 Moderately common, usually on sheltered coastal reefs. 

L. decussatus (Cuvier, 1828) 7-12, 15-18a, 20-22, 24-33, 35, 36, 44, 49-52, 54-58 Common, but usually seen in small numbers. 

L. ehrenburgi (Peters, 1869) 12-14, 16, 25, 27, 29, 49, 54, 56 Occasional, but locally common at a few sites. 

L. fulviflamma (Forsskål, 1775) 7, 9-12, 21, 34, 35, 54, 57 Occasional, but locally common at a few sites. 

L. fulvus (Schneider, 1801) 7, 8, 10, 12, 20, 21, 27, 29-32, 37, 38, 48, 49, 54-58 Moderately commom, but usually in small numbers. 

L. gibbus (Forsskål, 1775) 7, 8, 12, 16-18a, 20-32, 37-41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 51-58 Moderately common. 

L. johnii (Bloch, 1792) Previously recorded. 

L. kasmira (Forsskål, 1775) 16, 22, 25, 26, 30, 37, 54, 57, 58 Occasional, ususally in low numbers. 

L. lemniscatus (Valenciennes, 1828) 23 Rare, only one seen. 

L. lutjanus Bloch, 1790 7 Rare, only one seen. 

L. monostigma (Cuvier, 1828) 16, 20-32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 45, 49-51, 53, 54, 56-58 Moderately common. 

L. quinquelineatus (Bloch, 1790) 10, 16, 17, 22, 27, 29 Occasional. 

L. rivulatus (Cuvier, 1828) 24, 27, 28, 35, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55 Occasional large adults seen. 

L. rufolineatus (Valenciennes, 1828) 22 Rare, except one aggregation seen. New record for RA. 

L. russelli (Bleeker, 1849) 16, 17, 23, 27, 34, 49, 55 Rare, a few solitary fish seen. 

L. sebae (Cuvier, 1828) 10 Rare, only one seen. 

L. semicinctus Quoy and Gaimard, 1824 7, 8, 11, 15, 18a, 20-22, 24, 26-28, 31-33, 35, 37-39, 4245, 48- Common. Waigeo is type locality. 

51, 53-58 

L. vitta (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) 22, 23, 36, 55, 56 Rare, only five seen. 

Macolor macularis Fowler, 1931 8, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 25-29, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39-41, 43-45, 49, 51, Common. 

52, 54-58 

M. niger (Forsskål, 1775) 16, 25, 27, 37, 39, 42, 43, 45, 49, 54 Occasional, but locally common. 

166

Appendices 


Paracaesio sordidus Abe & Shinohara, 1962 28, 57 Two aggregations seen below 40 m on steep drop-offs. 

P. xanthurus (Bleeker, 1854): 35 Rare, about six seen in 40 m. New record for RA. 

Pinjalo lewisi Randall, Allen, & Anderson, 1987 Previously recorded. 

Symphorichthys spilurus (Günther, 1874) 12, 50 Rare, only two seen. 

Symphorus nematophorus (Bleeker, 1860) 11, 17, 22, 23, 30, 40, 44, 49 Occasional in sandy areas. 

CAESIONIDAE 

Caesio caerulaurea Lacepède, 1802 8-10, 17, 18a, 23, 29, 31, 34, 36, 41-45, 48-50, 56 Abundant in variety of habitats. 

C. cuning (Bloch, 1791) 7-18a, 20, 21, 23-37, 39, 41-45, 48-58 Abundant in variety of habitats, particularly coastal reefs. 

C. lunaris Cuvier, 1830 8, 9, 17, 18a, 21, 23, 25-27, 29, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44-45, 48, 49, 56- Common. 

58 

C. teres Seale, 1906 8, 9, 16, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 39, 40, 43-45, 51 Common. 

Dipterygonatus balteatus (Valenciennes, 1830) 32 One aggregation seen. 

Gymnocaesio gymnoptera (Bleeker, 1856) 29, 31, 32, 43 Occasionally seen with mixed school of fusiliers, mainly 

Pterocaesio pisang. 

Pterocaesio digramma (Bleeker, 1865) 15, 21, 43, 49, 50 Occasional. 

P. marri Schultz, 1953 8, 9, 12, 17, 27-29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 43-45, 51, 54, 57 Common. 

P. pisang (Bleeker, 1853) 7-9, 15-17, 20-36, 42-44, 48-50, 56-58 Common in variety of habitats. 

P. randalli Carpenter, 1987 57 Rare, one aggregation seen below 40 m. New record for RA. 

P. tessellata Carpenter, 1987 34, 36, 43, 45, 48, 50, 54, 58 Occasional, but locally abundant. 

P. tile (Cuvier, 1830) 27, 29, 34-37, 39-41, 44-46, 51, 54, 56-58 Common. 

GERREIDAE 

Gerres argyreus (Forster, 1801) 30 Rare, but mainly found on sand. New record for RA. 

G. filamentosus Cuvier, 1829 Previously recorded. 

G. oyena (Forsskål, 1775) 34 Rare, but mainly found on sand. 

HAEMULIDAE 

Diagramma pictum (Thünberg, 1792) 7, 9, 10, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 39 Moderately common, in silty areas. 

Plectorhinchus chaetodontoides (Lacepède, 1800) 7-9, 15-17, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, 39, 40, 48, 50, 52, 53 Moderately common. 

P. chrysotaenia (Bleeker, 1855) 7-11, 15, 18a, 22, 23, 29-31, 57 Occasional. 

P. gibbosus (Lacepède, 1802) 8 Rare, only one seen. 

P. lessoni (Cuvier, 1830) 8-10, 16-18a, 26, 37, 30, 40, 45, 49, 51-53 Occasional. Waigeo is type locality. 

P. lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 18a, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 35, 39-41, 43, 45, 46, 50, 51, 55-58 Moderately common. 

P. obscurus (Günther, 1871) 17, 22, 24, 26-28, 30, 31 Occasional. 

P. picus (Cuvier, 1830) 28, 37 Rare, two seen. New record for RA. 

P. polytaenia (Bleeker, 1852) 8, 10, 16, 26, 27, 29-31, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41-45, 58 Moderately common. 

P. unicolor (Macleay, 1883) Previously recorded. 

P. vittatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 16, 37, 39, 41, 43-45, 58 Occasional. 

LETHRINIDAE 

Gnathodentex aurolineatus Lacepède, 1802 23, 26, 27, 39, 43, 44 Occasional. 

Gymnocranius grandoculus (Valenciennes, 1830) 27, 30, 54, 56, 58 Rare, less than 10 seen on open sand bottoms. 

G. sp. 33, 37, 39, 43 Rare, on open sand. 

Lethrinus atkinsoni Seale, 1909 37, 43, 44, 54 Rare, about six seen. 

L. erythracanthus Valenciennes, 1830 15, 16, 20, 30, 31, 39, 49, 52, 54-56 Occasional. 

L. erythropterus Valenciennes, 1830 8, 9, 15, 18a, 21, 24-26, 28-31, 33-35, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55-57 Moderately common. 

L. harak (Forsskål, 1775) 12, 15, 26, 27, 29, 33-35, 38, 44 Moderately common on sheltered reefs near shore. 

167

Appendices 


L. laticaudis Alleyne & Macleay, 1777 Previously recorded. 

L. lentjan (Lacepède, 1802) 58 Rare, one aggregation seen. 

L. nebulosus (Forsskål, 1775) 22 Rare, a few seen on open sand bottom. New record for RA. 

L. obsoletus (Forsskål, 1775) 15, 16, 22, 23, 25-31, 33, 37-39, 44, 51, 56, 58 Occasional, and always in low numbers. 

L. olivaceous Valenciennes, 1830 16, 23, 26, 28, 29, 40, 41, 45 Occasional. 

L. ornatus Valenciennes, 1830 24 Rare, only one seen. 

L. semicinctus Valenciennes, 1830 Previously recorded. 

L. variegatus Valenciennes, 1830 Previously recorded. 

L. sp. 2 (Carpenter & Allen, 1989) Previously recorded. 

L. xanthocheilus Klunzinger, 1870 20, 22, 28, 44, 57 Rare, less than 10 fish seen. 

Monotaxis grandoculis (Forsskål, 1775) 7-9, 12, 15-18a, 20-29, 31-37, 39-45, 48-52, 54-58 Common. The most abundant lethrinid at the Raja Ampats. 

NEMIPTERIDAE 

Pentapodus emeryii (Richardson, 1843) 7, 8, 17, 22, 27, 28, 30, 33, 35, 40, 43, 44, 48, 49, 56 Occasional. 

P. sp. (Russell, 1990) 8, 11, 16, 20, 23, 25, 26, 30, 36, 42-45, 49, 51, 54, 56 Moderately common at base of slopes over sand-rubble bottoms. 

P. trivittatus (Bloch, 1791) 7, 9-15, 17, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33-36, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56 Moderately common, usually on sheltered coastal reefs. 

Scolopsis affinis Peters, 1876 16, 22, 23, 25-27, 29-34, 36, 40, 52, 56 Occasional, but locally common in sandy areas. 

S. bilineatus (Bloch, 1793) 8-11, 16, 17, 20-23, 25-40, 42-45, 48-54, 56-58 Common. 

S. ciliatus (Lacepède, 1802) 7, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 36, 42, 48, 52-54, 56, 58 Moderately common at sites subjected to silting. 

S. lineatus Quoy and Gaimard, 1824 9, 20, 25, 29, 30, 34, 35, 38, 44, 48, 56 Moderately common on shallow reefs. 

S. margaritifer (Cuvier, 1830) 7-16- 18a, 20-26, 28-31, 33-36, 39, 42-44, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, Common, especially on sheltered coastal reefs 

58 

S. monogramma (Kuhl and Van Hasselt, 1830) Previously recorded. 

S. temporalis (Cuvier, 1830) 10, 13, 14, 18a, 23, 24, 30, 34, 54, 55, 58 Occasional, over sand bottoms. Waigeo is type locality. 

S. trilineatus Kner, 1868 38, 48 Rare. 

S. vosmeri (Bloch, 1792) Previously recorded. 

S. xenochrous (Günther, 1872) 25-27, 37, 39, 43, 44, 54 Occasional, usually below 20 m. 

MULLIDAE 

Mulloidichthys flavolineatus (Lacepède, 1802) 7, 9, 12, 15, 18a, 20, 23, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 48, Occasional, usually seen in small groups. 

50 

M. vanicolensis (Valenciennes, 1831) 31, 37, 39 Rare, only a few seen. New record for RA. 

Parupeneus barberinoides (Lacepède, 1801) Previously recorded. 

P. barberinus (Lacepède, 1801) 7, 8, 10-18a, 20-40, 42-45, 49, 51-58 Common. 

P. bifasciatus (Lacepède, 1801) 7-11, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-46, 49, 50, 52, 54, 56-58 Common. 

P. cyclostomus (Lacepède, 1802) 8, 16-18a, 20-28, 30-32, 34, 35, 37-45, 48, 49, 54, 55, 58 Moderately common, but in lower numbers than previous two 

species. 

P. heptacanthus (Lacepède, 1801) 23, 30, 33, 34, 48 Rare, less than 10 seen. 

P. indicus (Shaw, 1903) 23, 33 Rare, only two seen in silty areas. 

P. multifasciatus Bleeker, 1873 7-12, 15-17, 20, 22, 23, 26-37, 39-46, 48-58 Common. 

P. pleurostigma (Bennett, 1830) 27, 39, 40, 44 Rare, only four seen. 

Upeneus sundaicus (Bleeker, 1855) 40 Rare, several seen at one site. Collected. New record for RA. 

U. tragula Richardson, 1846 9, 11-14, 23, 24, 48, 50, 52, 58 Occasional, but mainly found on sand bottoms away from reefs. 

PEMPHERIDAE 

Parapriacanthus ransonneti Steindachner, 1870 16, 27, 32, 43, 44, 51 Moderately common, forming large aggreations in caves and 

crevices. 

168

Appendices 


Pempheris mangula Cuvier, 1829 17, 18a, 37, 46 Occasional, but forming large aggreations in caves and crevices. 

P. vanicolensis Cuvier, 1831 7-10, 21, 27-29, 34, 35, 45, 53, 54, 56, 57 Moderately common, forming large aggreations in caves and 

crevices. 

TOXOTIDAE 

Toxotes jaculatrix (Pallas, 1767) 12, 27, 50, 56 Occasional where reef and mangroves in close proximity. 

KYPHOSIDAE 

Kyphosus bigibbus Lacepède, 1801 

K. cinerascens (Forsskål, 1775) 16, 17, 28, 32, 39, 43-45, 48, 49, 51-54, 56, 58 Moderately common. 

K. vaigiensis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825) 9, 16-18a, 22, 27, 37, 53 Moderately common. 

MONODACTYLIDAE 

Monodactylus argenteus (Linnaeus, 1758) 50 Rare, one aggregation seen. 

CHAETODONTIDAE 

Chaetodon adiergastos Seale, 1910 7-11, 13-18a, 20-23, 35-33, 35, 36, 56, 58 Moderately common. 

C. auriga Forsskål, 1775 8, 15, 16, 18a, 20-22, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 38, 41, 43-46, 49, Moderately common. 

54, 58 

C. baronessa Cuvier, 1831 7-11, 15-18a, 20, 21, 24-37, 39, 40, 42-44, 48, 52-58 Common, seen on most dives. 

C. bennetti Cuvier, 1831 8-10, 20-22, 31, 32, 56-58 Occasional. 

C. burgessi Allen & Starck, 1973 57 Rare, about four seen on steep drop-off in 40-52 m. New record 

for RA. 

C. citrinellus Cuvier, 1831 20, 29, 38, 39, 41, 44-46, 51, 54 Occasional on shallow reefs affected by surge. 

C. ephippium Cuvier, 1831 12, 20-22, 25-32, 37-39, 4245, 51, 54-58 Moderately common, but never more than 2-3 pairs seen at a 

single site. 

C. kleinii Bloch, 1790 8-11, 16-18a, 20-23, 25-46, 48-58 Commonly seen at most sites. 

C. lineolatus Cuvier, 1831 7-9, 27, 35, 37 Occasional, less common than the very similar C. oxycephalus. 

C. lunula Lacepède, 1803 7, 17, 18a, 20, 21, 24-26, 30, 31, 48, 55, 56 Moderately common, but always in low numbers at each site. 

C. lunulatus Quoy and Gaimard, 1824 7-12, 15-18a, 20-40, 42-45, 48-58 Common, one of the most abundant butterflyfishes at the Raja 

Ampats. 

C. melannotus Schneider, 1801 9-11, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 42-45, 49, 57, 58 Moderately common. 

C. meyeri Schneider, 1801 16, 20, 21, 26-28, 31, 37, 44, 48, 49, 54 Occasional. 

C. ocellicaudus Cuvier, 1831 7-10, 12, 15-18a, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31-33, 35, 36, 38, 42-44, Moderately common. 

48, 50-52, 55-58 

C. octofasciatus Bloch, 1787 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18a, 21, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55 Moderately common at sheltered sites where reef influenced by 

silt. 

C. ornatissimus Cuvier, 1831 16, 20-23, 25-28, 30-32, 37, 39, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58 Moderaely common in rich coral areas. 

C. oxycephalus Bleeker, 1853 18a, 21, 23, 35, 36, 50, 52, 54-57 Moderately common, but always in low numbers. 

C. punctatofasciatus Cuvier, 1831 20, 21, 28, 30-32, 57, 58 Occasional, usually in pairs. 

C. rafflesi Bennett, 1830 7-11, 16, 189a, 20-22, 25-39, 42-45, 52-54, 56-58 Common, one of the most abundant butterflyfishes at the Raja 

Ampats. 

C. selene Bleeker, 1853 8-10, 17, 26, 27, 29, 34, 35 Occasional, usually below 20 m. 

C. semeion Bleeker, 1855 18a, 20, 21, 28, 31, 37, 39, 45, 49-51, 54, 56-58 Occasional. 

C. speculum Cuvier, 1831 7, 8, 10, 12, 18a, 20-23, 26-32, 35, 37, 43, 45, 57 Moderately common. 

C. trifascialis Quoy and Gaimard, 1824 7-10, 12, 1518a, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34-40, 42-45, 48, 54 Moderately common in areas of tabular Acropora. 

C. ulietensis Cuvier, 1831 12, 15, 16, 20, 27-31, 35, 37, 39, 43, 50, 52, 54-58 Moderately common. 

C. unimaculatus Bloch, 1787 21, 26, 26, 28, 29, 31, 43-45, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58 Occasional. 

169

Appendices 


C. vagabundus Linnaeus, 1758 7-11, 15-18a, 20-22, 24-45, 48-58 Common, one of most abundant butterflyfishes at the Raja 

Ampats. 

C. xanthurus Bleeker, 1857 34 Rare, only one seen in 25 m. 

Chelmon rostratus (Linnaeus, 1758) 7, 9-15, 17, 18a, 20 Occasional. 

Coradion altivelis McCulloch, 1916 9, 10, 45 

C. chrysozonus Cuvier, 1831 8-12, 15-18a, 23, 27-30, 34-36, 41, 42, 44, 45, 49, 51 Moderately common on sheltered reefs. 

Forcipiger flavissimus Jordan and McGregor, 1898 20, 21, 31, 35, 37, 39, 43-45, 48, 49, 52-54, 56-58 Moderately common. 

F. longirostris (Broussonet, 1782) 28, 31, 42, 48, 51, 56 Occasional. 

Hemitaurichthys polylepis (Bleeker, 1857) 20, 28, 32, 39, 44, 45, 57 Occasional aggregations on outer slopes. 

Heniochus acuminatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 28, 30, 39, 45, 46, 48, 53, 55 Occasional. 

H. chrysostomus Cuvier, 1831 15, 18a, 20, 21, 26-29, 31-33, 35, 37, 39, 41-43, 45, 48-58 Moderately common. 

H. diphreutes Jordan, 1903 25, 29, 32, 41, 44 Occasional, usually in aggregatons. 

H. monoceros Cuvier, 1831 Previously recorded. 

H. singularius Smith and Radcliffe, 1911 7-9, 15, 17, 20, 31, 32, 45, 51, 57 Occasional. 

H. varius (Cuvier, 1829) 7-10, 15-18a, 20-22, 25-37, 39, 40, 42-45, 48-58 Common. 

Parachaetodon ocellatus (Cuvier, 1831) 9, 10, 23, 29 Rare, only four seen. 

POMACANTHIDAE 

Apolemichthys trimaculatus (Lacepède, 1831) 16, 20, 22, 25-28, 31, 37, 39, 41, 44-46, 49, 51, 57 Moderately common. 

Centropyge bicolor (Bloch, 1798) 9, 10, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25-29, 31-35, 37, 39, 40, 42-46, 49, 51, Common. 

54, 55, 57, 58 

C. bispinosus (Günther, 1860) 16, 20, 25, 31, 35, 37, 43, 51, 56, 58 Moderately common. 

C. flavicauda Fraser-Brunner, 1933 20, 25, 27, 37, 43, 44, 49 Moderately common on rubble bottoms. 

C. nox (Bleeker, 1853) 7, 8, 15-18a, 20, 21, 26, 28, 31, 32, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55-57 Moderately common. 

C. tibicen (Cuvier, 1831) 8-10, 16-18a, 20-23, 25-28, 30-37, 39, 42-45, 49, 51, 58 Moderately common. 

C. vroliki (Bleeker, 1853) 8-10, 16-18a, 20-35, 37-46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54-58 Common. 

Chaetodontoplus dimidatus (Bleeker, 1860) 28, 34, 35, 37, 39 Occasional, usually below 25 m, but relatively common at site 

35. 

C. mesoleucus (Bloch, 1787) 7-15, 17, 18a, 21, 23, 24, 27-36, 42, 43, 56 Moderately common. 

C. sp. (possibly just white-tailed variey of C. mesoleucus) 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 50, 53, 55 Occasional, usually on very sheltered bays with relatively heavy 

siltation. 

Genicanthus lamarck Lacepède, 1798 8, 16, 17, 20, 25-28, 30-32, 35, 43, 44, 49 Moderately common on outer slopes. 

G. melanospilos (Bleeker, 1857) 57 Rare, about 10 seen at one site. 

Paracentropyge multifasciatus (Smith and Radcliffe, 1911) 16, 20, 32, 43, 49, 55, 57 Occasional, but seldom noticed due to cave-dwelling habits. 

Pomacanthus annularis (Bloch, 1787) Previously recorded. 

Pomacanthus imperator (Bloch, 1787) 9, 16-18a, 20-23, 25-33, 36, 39, 41-45, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56, 58 Moderately common, but always in low numbers. 

P. navarchus Cuvier, 1831 8, 9, 15-18a, 20, 21, 23-33, 35, 36, 39, 42-44, 48, 54, 56, 57 Moderately common. 

P. semicirculatus Cuvier, 1831 31, 35, 36, 45, 51 Rare, only about eight seen. Waigeo is type locality. 

P. sexstriatus Cuvier, 1831 7-9, 11, 12, 16, 18a, 20-23, 28-36, 39, 41-43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, Moderately common. 

55, 56 

P. xanthometopon (Bleeker, 1853) 8, 9, 18a, 20, 21, 27, 30, 39, 45, 57, 58 Occasional. 

Pygoplites diacanthus (Boddaert, 1772) 7-10, 15-18a, 20, 21, 23-32, 36, 39, 40, 42-45, 48-50, 52-58 Common, one of the most abundant angelfishes in the Raja 

Ampats. 

MUGILIDAE 

170

Appendices 


Crenimugil crenilabis (Forsskål, 1775) Previously recorded. 

Liza vaigiensis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825) 15 One school of about 20 fish seen. Waigeo is type locality. 

Valamugil seheli (Forsskål, 1775) 22, 25, 34 Three schools seen with about 20-40 fish in each. 

POMACENTRIDAE 

Abudefduf bengalensis (Bloch, 1787) 9-12, 17, 22-24, 56 Occasional. 

A. lorenzi Hensley and Allen, 1977 9, 10, 34, 35, 56 Occasional, but locally common in shallow water next to shore. 

A. notatus (Day, 1869) 9, 10, 37, 49 Occasional aggregations in rocky surge zone. 

A. septemfasciatus (Cuvier, 1830) 16, 34, 56 Rare, but surge zone environment not regularly surveyed. 

A. sexfasciatus Lacepède, 1802 7, 9, 15, 18a, 20, 25, 26, 33-36, 48, 56, 57 Moderately common. 

A. sordidus (Forsskäl, 1775) 16, 34 Rare, but surge zone environment not regularly surveyed. 

A. vaigiensis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825) 7-11, 16, 17, 21, 25, 27-37, 39, 41, 42, 44-46, 48, 49, 51, 54-58 Common. Waigeo is the type locality. 

Acanthochromis polyacantha (Bleeker, 1855) 28-33, 36, 48, 50 Moderately common. 

Amblyglyphidodon aureus (Cuvier, 1830) 7-11, 15-18a, 20, 21, 23, 25-32, 35, 39, 44, 48, 49, 51-54, 56-58 Common on steep slopes, but always in low numbers. 

A. batunai Allen, 1995 11, 15, 29, 42 Rare. 

A. curacao (Bloch, 1787) 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 18a, 20, 21, 24, 48-31, 33-36, 39, 42-44, 48, 50, Common. 

52, 53, 44-48 

A. leucogaster (Bleeker, 1847) 7-12, 15, 16, 18a, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-37, 39, 40, 42-45, 48-50, 52- Common. 

54, 56-58 

A. ternatensis (Bleeker, 1853) 12-14, 24, 42, 50 Moderately common on silty inshore reefs. 

Amblypomacentrus breviceps (Schlegel and Müller, 1839-44) 13, 14, 22, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 52, 55 Occasional, around debris and small coral outcrops situated on 

sloping silt bottoms. 

A. clarus Allen & Adrim, 2000 32 Rare, about five seen. New record for RA (two collected). 

Amphiprion chrysopterus Cuvier, 1830 37 Rare, only one pair seen. 

A. clarkii (Bennett, 1830) 7-10, 15-18a, 20-22, 25-30, 32-35, 37, 39, 40, 42-44, 46, 49, 51, One of the two most common anemonefishes at the Raja Ampats. 

56-58 

A. melanopus Bleeker, 1852 9, 10, 22, 37, 44, 48, 56, 57 Occasional. 

A. ocellaris (Cuvier, 1830) 8-10, 15, 16, 18a, 20-23, 25-27, 29, 31, 33-36, 39, 41-44, 49, 51, One of the two most common anemonefishes at the Raja Ampats. 

53, 55, 58 

A. perideraion Bleeker, 1855 15, 20, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 39, 41, 44, 51, 57 Occasional. 

A. polymnus (Linnaeus, 1758) 22, 23, 33, 40 Rare, but restricted to featureless silt or sand bottoms away from 

reefs. 

A. sandaracinos Allen, 1972 10, 11, 15, 27, 35, 42, 51 Occasional. 

Cheiloprion labiatus (Day, 1877) 11, 15, 29, 38 Rare, about 10 seen. 

Chromis alpha Randall, 1988 16, 20, 28, 31, 32, 44, 49, 54, 56, 57 Occasional on steep slopes. Photographed 

C. amboinensis (Bleeker, 1873) 7, 8, 15-18a, 20, 21, 23-28, 30-33, 36, 42-44, 48-50, 52, 53, 55- Common. 

58 

C. analis (Cuvier, 1830) 9, 16, 20, 28, 31, 32, 35, 46, 49, 54, 57 Moderately common on steep slopes. 

C. atripectoralis Welander and Schultz, 1951 7-11, 15, 29, 34, 39, 42-44, 58 Common. . 

C. atripes Fowler and Bean, 1928 16, 20, 21, 25-28, 30-33, 37, 39-41, 43, 44, 49, 54, 57, 58 Moderately common on steep slopes. 

C. caudalis Randall, 1988 15, 16, 20, 25-29, 31, 32, 37, 39, 41, 44, 54, 56-58 Moderately common on steep slopes. 

C. cinerascens (Cuvier, 1830) 8, 9, 11, 17 Rare. 

C. delta Randall, 1988 16, 20, 28-31, 37, 39, 41, 45, 54, 56, 57 Moderately common, especially on steep slopes below about 15 

m depth. 

C. elerae Fowler and Bean, 1928 7, 16, 17, 20, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 45, 56, 57 Moderately common, always in caves and crevices on steep slopes. 

171

Appendices 


C. lepidolepis Bleeker, 1877 8, 9, 16, 17, 20-23, 25-27, 29-33, 37, 39, 40, 43-45, 48, 51, 56-58 Common. 

C. lineata Fowler and Bean, 1928 39, 57 Rare, but easily overlooked. 

C. margaritifer Fowler, 1946 9, 16, 20-23, 25-29, 32-35, 37-39, 43-46, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56-58 Common in clear water areas. 

C. retrofasciata Weber, 1913 7-9, 1518a, 10-23, 25-37, 39, 42-44, 49,50, 52-56, 58 Common at most sites. 

C. scotochiloptera Fowler, 1918 8-11, 16, 17, 22, 25-27, 29, 34, 35, 44 Moderately common. 

C. ternatensis (Bleeker, 1856) 7-11, 15-18a, 20, 21, 23-37, 39, 40, 42-44, 48-50, 52-58 Abundant, often forming dense shoals on upper edge of steep 

slopes. 

C. viridis (Cuvier, 1830) 7-12, 15, 18a, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28-31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 48, 

53, 56 

Abundant in sheltered areas of rich coral, generally in clear 

water. 

C. weberi Fowler and Bean, 1928 8-12, 15-18a, 20, 22, 23, 25-35, 37, 39-46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56- Common. 

58 

C. xanthochira (Bleeker, 1851) 16, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 39, 44, 45, 49, 57, 58 Moderately common on outer slopes. 

C. xanthura (Bleeker, 1854) 8-11, 16-18a, 20-23, 25-32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43-45, 48, 49, 51, 54, Common, especially on steep slopes. 

56-58 

Chrysiptera biocellata (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) 38 Rare, except locally common at one site. 

C. bleekeri (Fowler and Bean, 1928) 17, 20, 23, 25-27, 29, 30, 33-35, 44, 49, 51 Moderately common on rubble bottoms below 15 m. 

C. brownriggii (Bennett, 1828) 9-11, 16, 20, 25, 26, 34, 35, 37, 39, 45 Moderately common, usually in shallow beach rock areas 

affected by surge. 

C. caeruleolineata (Allen, 1973) 20 Rare, about 10 seen at one site. New record for RA. 

C. cyanea (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) 7, 9, 29, 31, 35, 38, 48, 56 Occasional, usually in shallow well-sheltered areas with clear 

water. 

C. hemicyanea (Weber, 1913) 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18a, 21, 24, 29, 36, 42, 48, 50, 56 Moderately common in sheltered bays and lagoons. 

Photographed. 

C. oxycephala (Bleeker, 1877) 12-14, 18a, 24, 42, 50, 52, 53, 55 Occasional in sheltered bays and lagoons. 

C. parasema (Fowler, 1918) 52, 53, 55 Rare, except moderately common on north coast of Waigeo. 

C. rex (Snyder, 1909) 16, 20, 21, 37, 49 Occasional, in surge areas off NW Waigeo. 

C. rollandi (Whitley, 1961) 7-12, 15-18a, 20-37, 39, 42-45, 48, 50-58 Common, particularly on reef slopes affected by silt. 

C. springeri Allen & Lubbock, 1976 7, 15, 18a, 21, 24, 29-31, 33, 36, 42, 50, 52, 56 Moderately common in sheltered bays and lagoons. 

C. talboti (Allen, 1975) 7-10, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-35, 37, 39-45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56-58 Common, except in silty areas. 

C. unimaculata (Cuvier, 1830) 11, 34, 35, 38, 39 Occasional, but locally common on shallow reef flats. 

Dascyllus aruanus (Linnaeus, 1758) 9, 11, 12, 15, 18b, 23, 24, 27-31, 33-36, 38-40, 42, 43, 50, 53, 56 Common in sheltered waters, forming aggregations around small 

coral heads. 

D. melanurus Bleeker, 1854 11, 12, 24, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 42, 48, 50, 53, 56 Moderately common on sheltered reefs. 

D. reticulatus (Richardson, 1846) 7-11, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-32, 34-37, 39, 40, 43-45, 48, 49, 51, 53, Common. 

54, 56-58 

D. trimaculatus (Rüppell, 1928) 8-12, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-37, 39-46, 48-53, 56-58 Common. 

Dischistodus chrysopoecilus (Schlegel and Müller, 1839) 33, 38, 48, 53, 56 Occasional in sand-rubble areas near shallow seagrass beds. 

D. fasciatus (Cuvier, 1830) 12 Rare. 

D. melanotus (Bleeker, 1858) 11, 15, 18a, 24, 31, 33, 36, 42, 48, 50, 56 Occasional. 

D. perspicillatus (Cuvier, 1830) 11-14, 18b, 23, 24, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38, 42, 48, 50, 53, 56 Moderately common in mixed coral-sand habitat near shore. 

D. prosopotaenia (Bleeker, 1852) 12-14, 34, 36, 42, 50 Occasional. 

D. pseudochrysopoecilus (Allen & Robertson, 1974) 34, 42 Rare, only a few seen. New record for RA. 

Hemiglyphidodon plagiometopon (Bleeker, 1852) 7, 8, 11-15, 18a, 24, 29, 33, 36, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55 Moderately common, generally on sheltered reefs affected by 

silt. 

172

Appendices 


Lepidozygus tapeinosoma (Bleeker, 1856) 20, 26, 29, 35, 39, 40, 43, 44, 55 Moderately common, but locally abundant. 

Neoglyphidodon crossi Allen, 1991 18a, 25, 26, 28, 32, 35, 39, 43, 44, 48-50, 54, 57, 58 Occasional, but locally common.. 

N. melas (Cuvier, 1830) 7-11, 15-18a, 20-22, 24, 26, 28-37, 39, 40, 42-45, 48-50, 53, 54, Moderately common, but in low numbers at each site. 

56-58 

N. nigroris (Cuvier, 1830) 7-12, 15, 16, 18a, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28-37, 39, 42-44, 48, 49, 52-57 Common. 

N. oxyodon (Bleeker, 1857) 35 Rare, except common at one site. 

N. thoracotaeniatus (Fowler and Bean, 1928) 7, 21, 29, 31, 42, 50, 57 Occasional. 

Neopomacentrus azysron (Bleeker, 1877) 7, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 28, 35, 36, 43, 48, 49, 52, 54 Moderately common, but locally abundant at some sites. 

N. bankieri (Richardson, 1846) 8, 10, 11 Occasional, but locally common at some sites. 

N. cyanomos (Bleeker, 1856) 7-11, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25-27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 44, 49, 51 Moderately common. 

N. filamentosus (Macleay, 1833) 7, 11, 24 Occasional, but locally common on sheltered reefs. 

N. nemurus (Bleeker, 1857) 7-12, 15, 18a, 23, 24, 34, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55 Occasional, but locally common on sheltered inshore reefs. 

N. taeniurus (Bleeker, 1856) Previously recorded. 

N. violascens (Bleeker, 1848) 52, 53, 55 Occasional on soft bottoms in silty bays. New record for RA. 

Plectroglyphidodon dickii (Liénard, 1839) 9, 10, 16, 20, 26, 28, 32,37-39, 43-45, 51, 54, 57, 58 Moderately common in rich coral areas. 

P. lacrymatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) 7-11, 15, 20, 21, 24-35, 37-40, 42-45, 48, 49, 52, 55-58 Common. 

P. leucozonus (Bleeker, 1859) 9, 16, 20, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 51, 54 Moderately common in surge areas. 

Pomacentrus adelus Allen, 1991 7-12, 15-18a, 20, 21, 28-26, 42, 44, 48, 52, 55, 56 Common. 

P. amboinensis Bleeker, 1868 7-12, 15-18a, 20-37, 39, 41, 42-45, 48-52, 54, 56-58 Abundant on sand-rubble bottoms. 

P. auriventris Allen, 1991 7, 8, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25-35, 37, 39-41, 43-46, 49, 51, 54, 57, Common. 

58 

P. bankanensis Bleeker, 1853 7-11, 15-18a, 20-22, 25, 26, 28-40, 42-46, 48, 49, 51, 54, 57, 58 Common. 

P. brachialis Cuvier, 1830 8-11, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-37, 39, 40, 42-45, 48, 49, 54, 56-58 Abundant, especially in areas exposed to curents. 

P. burroughi Fowler, 1918 11-14, 24, 36, 42, 50, 53, 55, 56 Moderately common, usually on silty inshore reefs. 

P. chrysurus Cuvier, 1830 11, 28, 34, 35, 38, 48 Occasional, around small coral or rock formations surrounded by 

sand. 

P. coelestis Jordan and Starks, 1901 7-11, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-35, 37, 39-41, 43-46, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56- Common. 

58 

P. cuneatus Allen, 1991 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 24, 52, 53, 55 Occasional on silty reefs. 

P. grammorhynchus Fowler, 1918 33 Rare, only one group seen. 

P. lepidogenys Fowler and Bean, 1928 7-11, 15, 16, 18a, 20-22, 25-29, 31-37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 48, 49, 52, Common. 

54, 57, 58 

P. littoralis Cuvier, 1830 11, 12, 15, 18a, 21, 24, 33, 35, 36, 42, 50, 55 Moderately common on silty, well sheltered reefs. 

P. moluccensis Bleeker, 1853 7-12, 15-18a, 20-40, 42-45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55-58 Abundant. 

P. nagasakiensis Tanaka, 1917 7-11, 20, 22-24, 26-32, 35-36, 43, 44, 48, 49, 51, 56 Moderately common, around isolated rocky outcrops surrounded 

by sand. 

P. nigromanus Weber, 1913 7-12, 14-18a, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30-36, 42-44, 48, 50, 52-56 Common, usually on slopes in a variety of habitats. 

P. nigromarginatus Allen, 1973 9, 16, 20, 26, 28, 49, 56, 57 Occasional on steep slopes. 

P. opisthostigma Fowler, 1918 7, 8, 13-15, 21, 35, 55 Occasional, but locally common in sheltered, silty habitats. 

P. pavo (Bloch, 1878) 24, 39, 40, 50, 55 Occasional, usually around coral patches in sandy lagoons. 

P. philippinus Evermann and Seale, 1907 7-11, 15, 18a, 20, 21, 58 Occasional. 

P. reidi Fowler and Bean, 1928 7-10, 15-18a, 20-22, 26-33, 37, 39, 43-45, 49, 51, 54, 56-58 Moderately common, usually on seaward slopes. 

P. simsiang Bleeker, 1856 9, 12, 14, 24, 31, 33, 42, 50, 53, 56 Moderately common, usually in sheltered, silty bays. 

P. smithi Fowler and Bean, 1928 7-10, 12, 15, 18a, 24, 34-36, 50, 53 Moderately common on sheltered reefs. 

173

Appendices 


P. taeniometopon Bleeker, 1852 12, 27, 50 Rare, only three seen, but frequents mangroves. 

P. tripunctatus Cuvier, 1830 13, 14, 27, 35, 56 Occasional in very shallow water next to shore. 

P. vaiuli Jordan and Seale, 1906 20, 26, 32, 39, 43, 44, 51, 54, 57 Moderately common, usually on steep outer slopes. 

Premnas biaculeatus (Bloch, 1790) 7, 8, 11, 15, 18b, 22-24, 26, 28-33, 48-50, 53, 56 Moderately common. 

Pristotis obtusirostris (Günther, 1862) 36 Rare, only one seen (collected). New record for RA. 

Stegastes albifasciatus (Schlegel and Müller, 1839) 16, 38 Rare, only a few seen at two sites. 

S. fasciolatus (Ogilby, 1889) 16, 20, 25, 26, 34, 37, 39, 44, 45, 49, 54, 57 Occasional in surge areas. 

S. lividus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 38, 53 Rare. 

S. nigricans (Lacepède, 1802) 24, 33, 33-35, 38 Occasional, but locally common. 

S. obreptus (Whitley, 1948) 10, 11 Rare. 

LABRIDAE 

Anampses caeruleopunctatus Rüppell, 1828 16, 22, 25, 40, 44, 45, 49 Occasional, usually females sighted. 

A. geographicus Valenciennes, 1840 Previously recorded. 

A. melanurus Bleeker, 1857 20, 25, 28, 31, 49, 57 Rare, less than 10 seen. 

A. meleagrides Valenciennes, 1840 16, 20, 28, 29, 32, 37, 44, 45, 57 Occasional, always in small numbers. 

A. neoguinaicus Bleeker, 1878 44, 58 Rare, only five seen. 

A. twistii Bleeker, 1856 32 Rare, only one seen. 

Bodianus anthioides (Bennett, 1831) Previously recorded. 

B. axillaris (Bennett, 1831) Previously recorded. 

B. bilunulatus Lacepède, 1801) 26, 29, 39, 44, 45, 54 Rare, less than 10 seen. 

B. bimaculatus Allen, 1973 16, 31, 45 Rare, a few seen on steep outer slopes. 

B. diana (Lacepède, 1802) 7-10, 15-18a, 20, 22, 23, 25-32, 34, 35, 37, 39-46, 48, 49, 51, 52, Common. 

54, 56-58 

B. mesothorax (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 7-11, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-29, 31, 32, 34-37, 39, 40, 42-45, 48, 49, Common. 

52, 54-58 

Cheilinus chlorurus (Bloch, 1791) 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 35 Occasional. 

C. fasciatus (Bloch, 1791) 7-11, 14-18a, 20-22, 25-37, 42-45, 48, 50, 52-58 Common, several adults seen on most dives. 

C. oxycephalus (Bleeker, 1853) 11, 21, 30, 31, 33, 35-37, 39, 42-44, 49, 52, 54, 56, 58 Moderately common. 

C. trilobatus Lacepède, 1801 9, 16, 18a, 20-23, 25-32, 34, 35, 37-39, 44, 45, 59, 50, 54, 55, Common, several adults seen on most dives. 

56-58 

C. undulatus Rüppell, 1835 7, 15, 18a, 20, 25, 41, 48, 51, 56 Occasional, only 14 seen. 

Cheilio inermis (Forsskål, 1775) 10, 11, 21, 22, 25, 35, 40 Occasional, but mostly in weed habitats. 

Choerodon anchorago (Bloch, 1791) 7, 10-15, 18a, 23, 24, 28-36, 38, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56 Moderately common, usually in slity areas. 

C. schoenleinii (Valenciennes, 1839) 8-10, 17 Occasional. 

C. zosterophorus (Bleeker, 1868) 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, 51 Occasional in small groups over sand bottoms. 

Cirrhilabrus condei Allen and Randall, 1996 8 Rare, only one seen. 

C. cyanopleura (Bleeker, 1851) 8-10, 12, 15-18a, 20-37, 39, 40, 42-46, 48-58 Abundant in variety of habitats, but usually areas exposed to 

current. 

C. exquisitus Smith, 1957 Previously recorded. 

C. flavidorsalis Randall & Carpenter, 1980 25, 30 Rare, only two seen. 

C. lubbocki Randall & Carpenter 30 Rare, only two seen. New record for RA. 

C. tonozukai Allen & Kuiter, 1999 25, 27, 32, 35, 37, 39, 44, 45, 49 Occasional. 

Coris batuensis (Bleeker, 1862) 7, 10, 11, 16, 20, 22, 23, 26-31, 33-37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 48, 58 Moderately common. 

C. dorsomacula Fowler, 1908 26, 37, 45 Rare, only three seen. New record for RA 

174

Appendices 


C. gaimardi (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 43- Moderately common. 

45, 49, 51, 54, 58 

C. pictoides Randall & Kuiter, 1982 8, 10, 11, 22-25, 27, 34, 36, 40, 43, 49 Occasional. 

Cymolutes torquatus Valenciennes, 1840 33, 40 Rare, only two seen. 

Diproctacanthus xanthurus (Bleeker, 1856) 7-12, 15-18a, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-36, 40, 42-44, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, Common, but most abundant on protected inshore reefs. 

56, 58 

Epibulus insidiator (Pallas, 1770) 7-12, 15-18a, 20-22, 28-32, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48-50, 52- Common. 

56, 58 

Gomphosus varius Lacepède, 1801 7, 9-11, 15-18a, 20, 25-30, 32, 34, 37-40, 43-45, 49, 54, 57, 58 Common. 

Halichoeres argus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 7, 11, 12, 20, 35, 38, 48, 56 Occasional, usually in silty, protected areas with weeds. 

H. bicolor (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 13 Rare, about 10 seen at one site. New record for RA (one 

collected). 

H. biocellatus Schultz, 1960 Previously recorded. 

H. chloropterus (Bloch, 1791) 7, 10-15, 24, 30, 31, 33-36, 38, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56 Common, usually on sheltered inshore reefs with sand and 

weeds. 

H. chrysus Randall, 1980 9, 10, 15-17, 20, 22, 23, 25-32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43-45, 48, Common on clean sand bottoms. 

49, 51, 52, 54, 56-58 

H. hartzfeldi Bleeker, 1852 11, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 32, 39, 40, 54 Occasional on sand-rubble bottoms. 

H. hortulanus (Lacepède, 1802) 7-11, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-32, 34, 35, 37-40, 42-46, 48, 49, 51, 52, Common. 

54, 55, 57, 58 

H. leucurus (Walbaum, 1792) 7, 11-15, 17, 18a, 21, 24, 31, 33, 36, 42, 44, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, Moderately common, usually in silty bays. 

56 

H. margaritaceus (Valenciennes, 1839) 7-11, 15, 16, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28-30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43-46, Common, usually in shallow water next to shore. 

51, 54 

H. marginatus (Rüppell, 1835) 9, 10, 15, 16, 20, 25, 26, 28, 31-33, 35, 38, 39, 44, 48, 54, 57 Moderately common. 

H. melanochir Fowler & Bean, 1928 49, 54 Rare, only two seen. 

H. melanurus (Bleeker, 1851) 8-10, 15-18a, 20-35, 38, 39, 42-45, 48, 52-58 Common. 

H. melasmopomus Randall, 1980 20, 31 Rare, only two seen. 

H. miniatus (Valenciennes, 1839) 56 Rare. 

H. nebulosus Valenciennes, 1839 49 Rare. 

H. nigrescens Bleeker, 1862 Previously recorded. 

H. pallidus Kuiter & Randall, 1994 Previously recorded. 

H. papilionaceus (Valenciennes, 1839) 53, 56 Rare, but mainly in shallow seagrass beds. 

H. podostigma (Bleeker, 1854) 11, 30, 31, 35, 38 Rare, less than 10 seen. 

H. prosopeion (Bleeker, 1853) 8, 9, 11, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-32, 34, 35, 39, 43-45, 49, 51, 54, 56- Common. 

58 

H. richmondi Fowler & Bean, 1928 8, 21, 39, 31 Rare, only four seen. 

H. rubricephalus Kuiter & Randall, 1994 7 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

H. scapularis (Bennett, 1832) 9, 11, 12, 15, 20-23, 25, 27-35, 39, 40, 44, 48, 54, 56 Moderately common, always in sandy areas. 

H. solorensis (Bleeker, 1853) 8, 10, 16, 20, 23, 25-35, 39, 40, 43, 44, 49, 57 Moderately common, except in silty bays. 

H. trimaculatus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834) 15, 28, 39, 44 Occasional on sand bottoms. New record for RA 

Hemigymnus fasciatus (Bloch, 1792) 18a, 20, 26, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42-46, 51, 52, 54, 57 Occasional. 

H. melapterus (Bloch, 1791) 7-11, 15, 18a, 20, 21, 23-40, 42-45, 48-50, 53, 55, 56, 58 Common, but in low numbers at each site. 

Hologymnosus annulatus (Lacepède, 1801) 28 Rare. New record for RA 

H. doliatus (Lacepède, 1801) 10, 16, 20, 25-27, 29-31, 37, 44, 49 Moderately common. 

175

Appendices 


H. rhodonotus Randall & Yamakawa, 1988 25 Rare, several seen at one site. New record for Indonesia. 

Labrichthys unilineatus (Guichenot, 1847) 7-11, 15-17, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29-40, 42-44, 48, 50, 52, 55, 56 Common, especially in rich coral areas. 

Labroides bicolor Fowler and Bean, 1928 8, 15, 20, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37-40, 42, 43, 52, 56, 58 Occasional, generally in smaller numbers than other Labroides 

species. 

L. dimidiatus (Valenciennes, 1839) 7-12, 15-18a, 20-46, 48-58 Moderately common. 

L. pectoralis Randall and Springer, 1975 20, 26, 29, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 43-45, 55, 57, 58 Occasional. 

Labropsis alleni Randall, 1981 7, 20, 21, 31, 32, 42, 50 Occasional. 

L. manabei Schmidt, 1930 32, 43 Rare, two adult males seen. New record for RA 

Leptojulis cyanopleura (Bleeker, 1853) 8, 10, 11, 22-24, 27, 29, 31, 34, 36, 49, 52 Occasional, but easliy overlooked due to sandy habitat. 

Macropharyngodon meleagris (Valenciennes, 1839) 7, 8, 10, 16, 20-22, 25-27, 31, 34, 37, 39, 40, 44, 45, 49, 51, 54, Moderately common, but always in small numbers at each site. 

58 

M. negrosensis Herre, 1932 22, 23, 25, 27-31, 39, 43-45, 49, 51, 58 Moderately common, but always in small numbers at each site. 

Novaculichthys macrolepidotus (Bloch, 1791) Previously recorded. 

N. taeniourus (Lacepède, 1802) 16, 21, 25, 30, 31, 39, 44 Occasional. 

Oxycheilinus bimaculatus (Valenciennes, 1840) 7, 10, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29-31, 33-35, 39, 40, 44, 49, 51-53, 56 Occasional, around rock and coral outcrops on sandy or rubble 

bottoms. 

O. celebicus (Bleeker, 1853) 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18a, 21, 24, 29-32, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56 Moderately common on sheltered inshore reefs. 

O. diagrammus (Lacepède, 1802) 8-10, 16, 18a, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 30, 33-35, 37, 39, 42-45, 55-58 Moderately common, mainly on outer slopes. 

O. orientalis (Günther, 1862) 8, 10, 16, 20, 22, 24, 31, 43, 52, 53 Occasional. 

O. sp. Previously recorded. 

O. unifasciatus (Streets, 1877) 25 Rare, only one seen. 

Parachelinus cyaneus Kuiter & Allen, 1999 16, 25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 44 Occasional (one collected). 

P. filamentosus Allen, 1974 7, 11, 16, 17, 22-25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 39, 43, 44, 49-51 Moderately common, usually in rubble areas. 

Pseudocheilinops ataenia Schultz, 1960 53 Rare, only one seen. 

Pseudocheilinus evanidus Jordan and Evermann, 1902 10, 20, 30, 37, 39, 40, 44, 51, 56, 58 Occasional. 

P. hexataenia (Bleeker, 1857) 9, 10, 15, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28-32, 35, 37, 40, 43-45, 49, 51, 55, 56, 

58 

Moderately common, only a few seen on each dive, but has 

cryptic habits. 

P. octotaenia Jenkins, 1901 30, 45 Rare, only a few seen. New record for RA 

Pseudocoris heteroptera (Bleeker, 1857) 26 Rare, only one adult male seen. 

P. philippina Fowler & Bean, 1928 28-31, 58 Occasional. 

P. yamashiroi (Schmidt, 1930) 16, 20, 22, 25-27, 31 Occasional, but locally common. 

Pseudodax moluccanus (Valenciennes, 1840) 8, 16, 17, 20-22, 25-27, 29-32, 37, 39, 44, 45, 49, 58 Occasional, always in low numbers. 

Pseudojuloides kaleidos Randall & Kuiter, 1994 25, 37, 39 Rare, only three seen (one collected). 

Pteragogus cryptus Randall, 1981 35, 36 Rarely seen, but cryptic. 

P. enneacanthus (Bleeker, 1856) 33, 37 Rarely seen, but cryptic. 

Stethojulis bandanensis (Bleeker, 1851) 7, 9, 20, 25, 26, 28-30, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 57, 58 Moderately common. 

S. interrupta (Bleeker, 1851) Previously recorded. 

S. strigiventer (Bennett, 1832) 8-11, 15, 18a, 20, 22, 23-27, 30, 31, 33, 38, 40, 51, 54 Moderately common. 

S. trilineata (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 7, 10, 15, 16, 20, 25, 26, 29, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49, Moderately common. 

54, 56-58 

Thalassoma amblycephalum (Bleeker, 1856) 8, 9, 16, 17, 20-22, 25-29, 31-33, 35, 37, 39-41, 43-46, 49, 51, Common. 

54, 57, 58 

T. hardwicke (Bennett, 1828) 7-11, 15-18a, 20-35, 37-39, 41-45, 48, 49, 54, 56-58 Common. 

176

Appendices 


T. jansenii (Bleeker, 1856) 9-11, 16, 20-22, 25, 26, 28, 30-32, 35, 37, 39-41, 44-46, 49, 51, Common, usually in very shallow water exposed to surge. 

54, 57 

T. lunare (Linnaeus, 1758) 7-12, 16-18a, 20-37, 39-45, 48, 50-58 Common. 

T. purpureum (Forsskål, 1775) 16, 41, 46 Occasional in surge areas. 

T. quinquevittatum (Lay and Bennett, 1839) 39, 54 Rare, except locally common at 2 sites exposed to surge. 

Wetmorella albofasciata Schultz & Marshall, 1954 Previously recorded. 

Xyrichtys pavo Valenciennes, 1839 20, 33 Rare, only two seen. 

X. twistii (Bleeker, 1856) 40 Rare, except about 20 seen on open sand at one site. New record 

for RA. 

X. spilonotus (Bleeker, 1857) 33, 40, 58 Rare, about 10 seen at three sites. New record for RA 

SCARIDAE 

Bolbometopon muricatum (Valenciennes, 1840) 9, 11-14, 17, 18a, 20-22, 26, 28, 34, 41, 45, 49, 50, 55, 58 Occasional, either lone fish or in groups of up to about 5-15 large 

adults. 

Calotomus carolinus (Valenciennes, 1839) 49 Rare, only one seen. . 

Cetoscarus bicolor (Rüppell, 1828) 7-11, 15, 18a, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34-37, 42-45, 48, 50, Moderately common, but usually in small numbers. 

53-56, 58 

Chlorurus bleekeri (de Beaufort, 1940) 7-12, 15, 17, 18a, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-37, 39, 40, 42-45, 48-50, 52, Common. 

53, 55-58 

C. bowersi (Snyder, 1909) 11, 15, 18a, 22, 31, 48, 52 Occasional. 

C. japanensis (Bloch, 1789) 9-11, 16, 28, 32, 37, 39, 44, 45, 48, 54, 57, 58 Occasional. 

C. microrhinos (Bleeker, 1854) 8, 9, 15, 21, 25, 34, 37, 39, 41-45, 48, 50, 52, 55, 56 Moderately common. 

C. sordidus (Forsskål, 1775) 7, 9, 11, 12, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-32, 34, 35, 37-40, 43-45, 48, 54, Common. 

56-58 

Hipposcarus longiceps (Bleeker, 1862) 15, 18a, 20-22, 28, 29, 31, 37, 41-44, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 58 Moderately common at sites adjacent to sandy bottoms. Waigeo 

is type locality. 

Leptoscarus vaigiensis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) 18b, 53, 56 Rare, but found in seagrass or weedy areas. Waigeo is type 

locality. 

Scarus chameleon Choat and Randall, 1986) 8, 15, 31, 37, 43, 44, 54, 57 Occasional. 

S. dimidiatus Bleeker, 1859 7-12, 15, 18a, 20-23, 25-29, 31-33, 37, 38, 42, 48, 50, 52-58 Common. 

S. flavipectoralis Schultz, 1958 7-12, 15, 17, 18a, 20-36, 41-45, 48-50, 52-58 Common, one of most abundant parrotfishes at the Raja Ampats. 

S. forsteni (Bleeker, 1861) 7-9, 15, 17, 18a, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 35, 39, 41, 45, 49, 51, 57 Moderately common. 

S. frenatus Lacepède, 1802 8, 25, 32, 43, 48, 57 Occasional. 

S. ghobban Forsskål, 1775 7-12, 14, 16, 18a, 20-23, 25-27, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40-42, 45, 51, 53- Common. 

55, 58 

S. globiceps Valenciennes, 1840 Previously recorded. 

S. hypselopterus Bleeker, 1853 48, 53, 54 Rare. 

S. niger Forsskål, 1775 9-12, 15, 20, 21, 24, 28-35, 37, 39, 40, 42-45, 49-55, 57, 58 Common. 

S. oviceps Valenciennes, 1839 9, 15, 34, 35, 37 Occasional. 

S. prasiognathos Valenciennes, 1839 7, 9-11, 15, 18a, 20, 25, 31, 37, 43, 50, 52, 57 Moderately common. 

S. psittacus Forsskål, 1775 18a, 22, 27, 28, 34, 37, 43, 44 Occasional. 

S. quoyi Valenciennes, 1840 7-12, 15, 18a, 20, 22, 26, 31, 34, 42, 43, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56 Moderately common, usually on protected inshore reefs with 

increased turbidity. 

S. rivulatus Valenciennes, 1840 9, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 34, 35, 39, 40 Occasional.. 

S. rubroviolaceus Bleeker, 1849 10, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25-28, 32, 37, 39, 41, 43-45, 49, 51, 54, 57 Moderately common. 

S. schlegeli (Bleeker, 1861) 7, 9, 18a, 20, 28, 43, 44, 54, 57 Occasional. 

177

Appendices 


S. spinus (Kner, 1868) 7-11, 15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 35, 43, 44, 54, 57 Occasional. 

S. tricolor Bleeker, 1849 16, 17, 20-23, 26-28, 31, 35, 41 Occasional 

TRICHONOTIDAE 

Trichonotus elegans Shimada & Yoshino, 1984 Previously recorded. 

Trichonotus setiger (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 23, 30 Rare, a few seen at two sites, but easily overlooked. 

PINGUIPEDIDAE 

Parapercis clathrata Ogilby, 1911 25, 26, 28, 39, 40, 45, 49, 54, 58 Occasional. 

P. cylindrica (Bloch, 1792) 10 Rare, only one seen. 

P. hexophthalma (Cuvier, 1829) 23, 28, 30, 31, 39, 48 Occasional. 

P. millepunctata (Günther, 1860) 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 37, 42-44, 50, 54 Occasional. 

P. schauinslandi (Steindachner, 1900) 16, 20, 22, 25, 27, 29, 43 Occasional. 

P. sp. 1 (Kuiter & Tonozuka, 2001) 30, 36 Rare. One collected. 

P. sp. 1 (Kuiter & Tonozuka, 2001) 27, 29, 30 Occasional. 

P. sp. 2 (Kuiter & Tonozuka, 2001) 10-15, 22-24, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 43, 49, 52-55, 58 Occasional. 

P. tetracantha (Lacepède, 1800) 8, 16, 22, 25-31, 44, 49 Occasional. 

P. xanthozona (Bleeker, 1849) 14, 18a, 22-24 Occasional on sheltered reefs. 

PHOLIDICHTHYIDAE 

Pholidichthys leucotaenia Bleeker, 1856 8, 23, 29, 35, 37, 45, 53, 57, 58 Moderately common, but usually only juveniles seen. 

TRIPTERYGIIDAE 

Enneapterygius philippinus (Peters, 1869) Previously recorded. 

E. rubricauda Shen & Wu, 1994 Previously recorded. 

E. tutuilae Jordan & Seale, 1906 33 One collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

E. ziegleri Fricke, 1994 Previously recorded. 

Helcogramma striata Hansen, 1986 16, 26, 28, 41, 45, 51 Occasional, but inconspicuous. 

H. sp 31 One collected with rotenone. 

Ucla xenogrammus Holleman, 1993 48, 50 Rare, only two seen. 

BLENNIIDAE 

Aspidontus taeniatus Quoy & Gaimard, 1834 8, 16 Rare, only two seen. 

Atrosalarias fuscus (Rüppell, 1835) 11, 33-35 Occasional in rich coral areas. 

Blenniella chrysospilos (Bleeker, 1857) 20 Rare, but not readily observed due to shallow wave-swept 

habitat. 

B. periophthalmus (Valenciennes, 1836) 18b One collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

Cirripectes auritus Carlson, 1981 45 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

C. castaneus Valenciennes, 1836 39 Rare, but easily overlooked. 

C. filamentosus (Alleyne & Macleay, 1877) 20, 35 Rare, but easily overlooked. 

C. polyzona (Bleeker, 1868) Previously recorded. 

C. quagga (Fowler & Ball, 1924) Previously recorded. 

C. stigmaticus Strasburg and Schultz, 1953 Previously recorded. 

Crossosalarias macrospilus Smith-Vaniz and Springer, 1971 Previously recorded. 

Ecsenius bandanus Springer, 1971 9-11, 15-18a, 24, 52, 53, 55 Occasional. 

E. bathi Springer, 1988 28, 29 Rare, only a few seen. 

E. bicolor (Day, 1888) 8, 11, 16, 20, 22, 30, 41, 45, 51 Occasional. 

E. lividinalis Chapman and Schultz, 1952 35, 36 Rare, only a few seen. 

E. midas Starck, 1969 22, 25 Rare. New record for RA. 

178

Appendices 


E. namiyei (Jordan and Evermann, 1903) 8, 16, 22, 23, 29-31, 34, 35, 45 Occasional. 

E. stigmatura Fowler, 1952 7, 9-11, 15-18a, 23, 24, 34-36, 42, 48, 52, 53 Moderately common. 

E. trilineatus Springer, 1972 21, 26, 28, 30, 35 Occasional. 

E. yaeyamensis (Aoyagi, 1954) 34 Rare, only one seen. 

Entomacrodus striatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1836) Previously recorded. 

Istiblennius edentulus Bloch and Schneider, 1801 Previously recorded. 

I. lineatus (Valenciennes, 1836) Previously recorded. 

Laiphognathus multimaculatus Smith, 1955 34 Rare, one specimen collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

Meiacanthus atrodorsalis (Günther, 1877) 16, 17, 34, 39, 50-58 Occasional. 

M. crinitus Smith-Vaniz, 1987 12-14, 36, 42, 50, 53, 55 Occasional. 

M. ditrema Smith-Vaniz, 1976 Previously recorded. 

M. grammistes (Valenciennes, 1836) 7, 10, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25-36, 42, 48-53, 56, 58 Moderately common. 

Petroscirtes breviceps (Valenciennes, 1836) Previously recorded. 

P. mitratus Rüppell, 1830 18b One collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

Plagiotremus rhinorhynchus (Bleeker, 1852) 7-11, 15, 20, 22-33, 35, 36, 39-45, 49-58 Common, but alway in low numbers. 

P. tapeinosoma (Bleeker, 1857) 20, 22, 26, 40, 44 Rare, only five seen. 

Salarias alboguttatus Kner, 1867 18b One collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

S. fasciatus (Bloch, 1786) Previously recorded. 

S. patzneri Bath, 1992 12, 14, Rare, only three seen. 

S. ramosus Bath, 1992 40 Rare, only one seen. 

S. segmentatus Bath & Randall, 1991 42, 52, 53, 55 Occasional. 

S. sibogae Bath, 1992 Previously recorded. 

CALLIONYMIDAE 

Anaora tentaculata Gray, 1835 14, 18b Rare, but easily overlooked (collected). 

Callionymus ennactis Bleeker, 1879 18b, 44 

C. delicatulus Smith, 1963 18b Rare, except locally common at site 18b (collected). New record 

for RA. 

C. pleurostictus Fricke, 1992 18b, 30 Rare. 

Synchiropus morrisoni Schultz, 1960 34 One collected with rotenone. 

S. moyeri Zaiser & Fricke, 1985 17, 31 Rare. 

S. ocellatus (Pallas, 1770) Previously recorded. 

S. splendidus (Herre, 1927) Previously recorded. 

ELEOTRIDAE 

Calumia profunda (Larson & Hoese, 1980) 58 Collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

GOBIIDAE 

Acentrogobius janthinopterus (Bleeker, 1852) Previously recorded. 

A. nebulosus (Forsskål, 1775) 55 Rare, one seen on open sand bottom. New record for RA. 

Amblyeleotris arcupinna Mohlmann & Munday, 1999 29, 40, 52 Rare, only three seen. 

A. diagonalis Polunin & Lubbock, 1979 23 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

A. fasciata (Herre, 1953) Previously recorded. 

A. fontanesii (Bleeker, 1852) 24, 55 Generally rare, except common at site 24. 

A. guttata (Fowler, 1938) 18a, 20, 28-31, 48, 52, 56, 57 Occasional. 

A. gymnocephala (Bleeker, 1853) 11, 22, 23, 29 Occasional. 

A. latifasciata Polunin & Lubbock, 1979 22, 23, 29, 49, 54 Occasional. 

179

Appendices 


A. periophthalma (Bleeker, 1853) 10-12, 22, 23, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 39, 54 Occasional, locally common in some sandy areas. 

A. randalli Hoese & Steene, 1978: 56 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

A. steinitzi (Klausewitz, 1974) 10, 11, 16, 22, 27, 30, 33, 34, 36, 39, 42, 54 Occasional, locally common in some sandy areas. 

A. wheeleri (Polunin and Lubbock, 1977) 10, 22, 28 Rare, only three seen. 

A. yanoi Aonuma and Yoshino, 1996 29 Rare, only one pair seen. 

Amblygobius buanensis (Herre, 1927) 13, 14, 50 Rare, less than 10 seen. . 

A. bynoensis (Richardson, 1844) 12, 14 Rare. 

A. decussatus (Bleeker, 1855) 11-14, 24, 31, 33, 34, 50, 52, 53, 55 Moderately common in sheltered silty areas. 

A. esakiae Herre, 1939 50 Rare, except several seen at one site. 

A. nocturnus (Herre, 1945) 18b, 24, 42, 55 Occasional in strongly silted areas. Photographed. 

A. phalaena (Valenciennes, 1837) 11, 12, 23, 27, 33, 38 Occasional. 

A. rainfordi (Whitley, 1940) 7, 11, 15, 16, 18a, 20, 21, 24, 31, 34, 48, 52, 53 Occasional, always in low numbers. 

Asterropteryx bipunctatus Allen and Munday, 1996 Previously recorded. 

A. semipunctatus Rüppell, 1830 Previously recorded. 

A. striatus Allen and Munday, 1996 18a, 21-24, 28-30, 32, 33, 44, 53, 55 Occasional, but locally abundant. 

Bathygobius cocosensis (Bleeker, 1854) Previously recorded. 

B. cyclopterus (Valenciennes, 1837) 18b One collected with rotenone. 

Bryaninops amplus Larson, 1985 8, 23, 51 Rare, only three seen, but difficult to detect. No doubt common 

wherever seawhips are abundant. 

B. loki Larson, 1985 Previously recorded. 

B. natans Larson, 1986 15, 18a, 20, 21, 56 Occasional. 

B. tigris Larson, 1985 Previously recorded. 

B. yongei (Davis & Cohen, 1968) 15 Rare, several seen, but difficult to detect. No doubt common 

wherever seawhips are abundant. 

Cabillus tongarevae (Fowler, 1927) 34 One collected with retonone. 

Callogobius maculipinnis (Fowler, 1918) Previously recorded. 

Coryphopterus duospilus Hoese and Reader, 1985 34 One collected with rotenone. 

C. inframaculatus Randall, 1994 9, 31, 41 Occasional on sand under ledges. 

C. maximus Randall, 2001 Previously recorded. 

C. melacron Randall, 2001 16, 17, 23 Occasional. 

C. neophytus (Günther, 1877) 12, 18b, 41, 48 Occasional. 

C. signipinnis Hoese and Obika, 1988 7, 17, 18a, 20-22, 24-29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 41, 42, 48, 50, 52 Moderately common. 

Cryptocentroides insignis Seale, 1910 Previously recorded. 

Cryptocentrus cinctus (Herre, 1936) 13, 14, 33, 42 Occasional, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. 

C. cyanotaenia (Bleeker, 1853 13 Rare, one collected with spear. New record for RA. 

C. fasciatus (Playfair & Günther, 1867) 12, 22, 23, 29, 30, 33, 36, 40, 58 Occasional, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. 

C. inexplicatus (Herre, 1931) 13, 14 Rare, only two seen. New record for RA. 

C. leptocephalus Bleeker, 1876 12, 14 Rare, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. 

C. leucostictus (Günther, 1871) 56 Rare, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. 

C. octofasciatus Regan, 1908 Previously recorded. 

C. sp. 1 (spots on opercle) Previously recorded. 

C. sp. 2 (blue spots) 13, 14, 50, 52 Rare, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. 

C. sp. 3 (yellowish) Previously recorded. 

180

Appendices 


C. sp. 4 (“bright eyes”) Previously recorded. 

C. strigilliceps (Jordan and Seale, 1906) 7, 24, 32, 50, 52, 55 Occasional, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. 

Ctenogobiops aurocingulus (Herre, 1935) 55 

C. crocineus Smith, 1959 18a Rare. New record for RA. 

C. feroculus Lubbock and Polunin, 1977 11, 24, 39, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 56 Occasional. 

C. pomastictus Lubbock and Polunin, 1977 Previously recorded. 

C. tangaroai Lubbock & Polunin, 1977 43 Rare. Photographed by expedition member. New record for RA. 

Echinogobius hayashii Iwata, Hosoya, & Niimura, 1998 40 Several seen at one site on open sand bottom. New record for 


Eviota albolineata Jewett and Lachner, 1983 10, 11, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-31, 33, 35 Moderately common, but easily missed due to small size. 

E. bifasciata Lachner and Karnella, 1980 7, 50, 52, 53 Occasional in rich coral areas. 

E. guttata Lachner and Karanella, 1978 7, 15, 23, 26, 28, 29, 34, 36, 41, 42 Occasional, but easily missed due to small size. 

E. herrei Jordan & Seale, 1906 34 Three collected with retonone. 

E. lachdeberei Giltay, 1933 13, 14 

E. melasma Lachner & Karanella. 1980 34 One collected with retonone. 

E. nigriventris Giltay, 1933 21, 36, 42, 50, 52 Occasional in rich coral areas. 

E. pellucida Larson, 1976 7-9, 15, 18a, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 31, 34, 35, 41, 42,48, 50, 52, 53, Occasional. 

56-58 

E. prasina (Kluzinger, 1871) 18b Noticed once, but easily missed due to small size. 

E. prasites Jordan and Seale, 1906 13-16, 52, 53 Noticed on several occasions, but easily missed due to small size. 

E. punctulata Jewett & Lachner, 1983 18b Two collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

E. queenslandica Whitley, 1932 13, 18b Rare, but easily missed due to small size (collected). 

E. raja Allen, 2001 7, 13-15, 18a, 24, 42, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56 Common in sheltered bays and lagoons. 

E. sebreei Jordan and Seale, 1906 10, 11, 16, 20, 25, 28-31, 35, 39, 41, 42 Moderately common, but easily missed due to small size. 

E. sp. 1 (sp. 3 of Kuiter and Tonozuka, 2001) 13, 14, 50, 55 Occasional, but easily missed due to small size. New record for 

RA. 

E. sp. 2 Previously recorded. 

E. sp. 3 Previously recorded. 

E. sparsa Jewett and Lachner, 1983 34, 48 Two collected with rotenone. 

E. zebrina Lachner & Karanella, 1978 34 Collected with rotenone. New record for RA. 

Exyrias bellisimus (Smith, 1959) 13, 14, 52 Rare, a few seen on silty reefs. 

E. ferrarisi Murdy, 1985 12 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

Exyrias puntang (Bleeker, 1851) 50 Rare, only one seen. 

E. sp. 7, 11, 48 Rare, only three seen. 

Favonigobius reichei (Bleeker, 1853) 13, 14 Rare, but easily overlooked. New record for RA. 

Gladigobius ensifer Herre, 1933 14 Rare, but several seen at one site. 

Gnatholepis anjerensis Bleeker, 1851 12, 18b Rarely seen, but locally common. 

G. cauerensis Bleeker, 1853 11, 16, 21-23, 25-29, 31, 44 Rarely seen, but locally common. 

Gobiodon citrinus (Rüppell, 1838) 22, 49 Rare, but easily overlooked. New record for RA. 

G. okinawae Sawada, Arai and Abe, 1973 15, 50 Rare, but a secretive species that is easily overlooked. 

G. spilophthalmus Fowler, 1944 21, 48 Rare, but easily overlooked. New record for RA. 

G. unicolor (Castelnau, 1873) Previously recorded. 

Istigobius decoratus (Herre, 1927) 50 Rarely noticed, but probably more common. 

181

Appendices 


I. ornatus (Rüppell, 1830) 12-14, 56 Rarely noticed, but probably more common. 

I. rigilius (Herre, 1953) 9, 15, 17, 23, 28, 30, 31, 34, 39-41, 48 Occasional. 

Luposicya lupus Smith, 1959 Previously recorded. 

Macrodontogobius wilburi Herre, 1936 12-14, 18b, 24, 33, 50, 52, 53, 55 Occasional in slilty areas. 

Mahidolia mystacina (Valenciennes, 1837) 24, 50, 55 Rare, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. 

Myersina nigrivirgata Akihito & Meguro, 1983 55 Rare, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. New record for 

RA. 

Oplopomops diacanthus (Schultz, 1943) 33, 36 Rare, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. Two collected. 


Oplopomus oplopomus (Valenciennes, 1837) 12 Rare, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. 

Oxurichthys papuensis (Valenciennes, 1837) 55 Rare, but sand habitat not adequately surveyed. New record for 

RA. 

Periophthalmus argentilineatus (Valenciennes, 1837) 13, 18b Recorded only twice, but mainly resident of mangroves. 

P. kalolo Lesson, 1830 Previously recorded. 

Phyllogobius platycephalops (Smith, 1964) 12, 15, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35 Occasional, but easily overlooked due to small size. Commensal 

with sponges (Phyllospongia). 

Pleurosicya labiata (Weber, 1913) 23 Only a few seen, but easily escapes notice due to small size. 

Commensal with sponges (Ianthella). 

P. elongata Larson, 1990 42, 50, 52, 53, 55 Only a few seen, but easily escapes notice due to small size. 

Commensal with sponges (Xestosponga). 

P. micheli Fourmanoir, 1971 17, 25, 34 Occasional, but easily overlooked. Commensal with hard corals. 


P. mossambica Smith, 1959 10, 34 Only a few seen (collected), but easily escapes notice due to 

small size. 

Priolepis fallacincta Winterbottom & Burridge, 1992 34 One collected with rotenone. 

Sueviota atrinasa Winterbottom & Hoese, 1988 34 One collected with rotenone. 

Signigobius biocellatus Hoese and Allen, 1977 7, 18a, 21, 30, 33, 50, 52, 55 Occasional on silty bottoms. 

Stonogobiops xanthorhinica Hoese and Randall,1982 22, 29 Rare, only two pairs seen. 

Tomiyamichthys oni (Tomiyama, 1936) Previously recorded. 

Trimma anaima Winterbottom, 2000 Previously recorded. 

T. benjamini Winterbottom, 1996 9, 15, 16, 31, 53 Occasional, but easily overlooked. 

T. emeryi Winterbottom, 1984 Previously recorded. 

T. griffthsi Winterbottom, 1984 7, 11, 12, 15-18a, 20, 21, 26, 48, 50, 52, 53 Occasional, but easily overlooked due to small size and secretive 

habits. 

T. halonevum Winterbottom, 2000 Previously recorded. 

T. macrophthalma (Tomiyama, 1936) 58 Collected with rotenone. 

T. naudei Smith, 1957 21, 48, 56 Occasional, but easily overlooked due to small size and secretive 

habits. 

T. okinawae (Aoyagi, 1949) 7 Rare, but easily overlooked due to small size and secretive 

habits. 

T. rubromaculata Allen and Munday, 1995 16, 17, 20 Generally rare, but locally common at three sites. 

T. sp. 1 (dusky reddish with small black “ear” spot) 34 Collected with rotenone. 

T. sp. 2 (yellow to reddish with black peduncle and white tail) 7 Collected with rotenone. 

T. sp. 3 (pinkish, Gobiodon-like shape) 22, 34, 48 Collected with rotenone. 

T. sp. 4 (spots on opercle edge and pectoral spot) Previously recorded. 

182

Appendices 


T. striata (Herre, 1945) 11, 18b, 21 Rare, but easily overlooked due to small size and secretive 

habits. 

T. taylori Lobel, 1979 16 Rare, but easily overlooked due to small size and secretive 

habits. 

T. tevegae Cohen and Davis, 1969 7, 9, 10, 15-18a, 20, 21, 28, 31, 32, 48, 52, 53, 56, 57 Moderately common, but easily overlooked due to small size and 

secretive habits. 

Valenciennea bella Hoese & Larson, 1994 Previously recorded. 

V. helsdingenii (Bleeker, 1858) 30 Rare, only one pair seen. 

V. muralis (Valenciennes, 1837) 18b, 23 Rare, only two pairs seen. 

V. parva Hoese & Larson, 1994 22, 29, 30, 33, 36, 54 Occasional. New record for RA. 

V. puellaris (Tomiyama, 1936) 10, 11, 22, 23, 29-31, 33-36, 39, 40, 49, 54, 58 Occasional. 

V. randalli Hoese and Larson, 1994 24 Rare, only one seen. 

V. sexguttata (Valenciennes, 1837) 42 Rare, a few seen at one site. 

V. strigata (Broussonet, 1782) 9-11, 16, 20, 21, 30, 31, 34, 39, 49, 54 Occasional, in relatively low numbers at each site. 

Vanderhorstia ambonoro (Fourmanoir, 1957) 24 Rare, only one seen. 

V. lanceolata Yanagisawa, 1978 Previously recorded. 

MICRODESMIDAE 

Aioliops megastigma Rennis and Hoese, 1987 12, 14, 18a, 21, 24, 48, 50, 52, 53 Occasional. 

Gunnelichthtys curiosus Dawson, 1968 27, 49 Rare, but easily overlooked. New record for RA. 

G. monostigma Smith, 1958 29, 30 Rare, but easily overlooked. New record for RA. 

G. pleurotaenia Bleeker, 1858 23, 30 Rare, but easily overlooked. 

PTERELEOTRIDAE 

Nemateleotris decora Randall & Allen, 1973 20, 37 Rare, only two seen. New record for RA. 

N. magnifica Fowler, 1938 16, 32, 37, 49, 58 Rare, less than 10 seen. 

Oxymetopon compressus Chan, 1966 24 Rare, only four seen. New record for RA. 

Parioglossus formosus (Smith, 1931) 12, 35, 36 Occasional, but easily overlooked. 

P. philippinus (Herre, 1940) 8, 12, 23, 53 Occasional. 

Ptereleotris evides (Jordan and Hubbs, 1925) 16, 20, 22, 25, 27, 32, 37, 39, 42, 44, 49, 51, 52, 54, 58 Moderately common. 

P. hanae (Jordan & Snyder, 1901) 22, 29 Rare, only two seen. 

P. heteroptera (Bleeker, 1855) 19, 20, 22, 25, 31, 32, 39, 40, 49, 51, 54 Occasional, usually below 20 m depth. 

P. microlepis Bleeker, 1856 23, 41 Rare. 

P. sp. 1 (Kuiter & Tonozuka, 2001) 24, 55, 56 Rare, silty inshore reefs. New record for RA. 

P. zebra (Fowler, 1938) 20, 45, 46, 51 Occasional, but locally common. 

XENISTHMIDAE 

Xenisthmus polyzonatus (Klunzinger, 1871) 34 Collected with rotenone. 

EPHIPPIDAE 

Platax batavianus (Cuvier, 1831) 9, 22 Rare, two large adults seen. 

P. boersi Bleeker, 1852 18a, 22, 33, 51, 54, 58 Occasional. 

P. orbicularis (Forsskål, 1775) 16, 17, 29, 45, 55 Occasional. 

P. pinnatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 11, 15, 22, 27, 33, 35, 37, 39-41, 48, 50, 52, 53 The most common batfish encountered, but only occasional 

sightings. 

P. teira (Forsskål, 1775) 16, 43, 55 Occasional. 

SCATOPHAGIDAE 

Scatophagus argus (Bloch, 1788) Previously recorded. 

183

Appendices 


SIGANIDAE 

Siganus argenteus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) 8, 9, 16, 17, 20-23, 27, 28, 31-33, 36, 44, 54, 56-58 Moderately common. 

S. canaliculatus (Park, 1797) 33 Rare, only one seen. 

S. corallinus (Valenciennes, 1835) 7-9, 16, 21, 22, 25, 31, 32, 34-38, 42, 56-58 Moderately common. 

S. guttatus (Bloch, 1787) 15, 21 Rare, only two seen. 

S. javus (Linnaeus, 1766) 8, 9, 48, 51, 58 Occasional. 

S. lineatus (Linnaeus, 1835) 7-9, 13, 15, 17, 18a, 21, 23, 32, 35, 48, 50-52, 55-58 Moderately common. 

S. puellus (Schlegel, 1852) 7-11, 15, 17, 18a, 20-23, 25-28, 31, 32, 34-40, 42-44, 48, 50, 54, Common. 

56-58 

S. punctatissimus Fowler and Bean, 1929 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31, 36, 42-44, 50, 54, 56 Moderately common. 

S. punctatus (Forster, 1801) Previously recorded. 

S. spinus (Linnaeus, 1758) 29, 38, 43 Rare. 

S. vermiculatus (Valenciennes, 1835) 13, 50 Rare. New record for RA. 

S. virgatus (Valenciennes, 1835) 7-11, 14-16, 20-24, 26-28, 30-36, 42, 50-58 Moderately common. 

S. vulpinus (Schlegel and Müller, 1844) 7-18a, 20, 21, 24, 26-36, 42-45, 48, 50, 52-58 Moderately common. 

ZANCLIDAE 

Zanclus cornutus Linnaeus, 1758 7-12, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-46, 48-58 Common. 

ACANTHURIDAE 

Acanthurus bariene Lesson, 1830 9, 10, 16, 17, 27, 28, 44, 48, 49, 51, 54 Occasional. Waigeo is type locality. 

A. blochi Valenciennes, 1835 7-11, 16, 18a, 20, 28, 31, 37, 38, 43, 44, 48, 56, 57 Moderately common. . 

A. fowleri de Beaufort, 1951 7, 21, 50, 52 Occasional. 

A. leucocheilus Herre, 1927 22, 25-29, 31, 32, 34, 37, 42-46, 48, 49, 54, 57 Moderately common. 

A. lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 7-11, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25-28, 30-32, 34, 35, 37-39, 42-45, 48, 49, Moderately common, usually in shallow surge-affected areas. 

51, 52, 54, 57, 58 

A. maculiceps (Ahl, 1923) 20, 37, 39, 44, 45, 54 Occasional. 

A. mata (Cuvier, 1829) 8-11, 15-17, 20, 22, 24-27, 29-33, 35-37, 39-42, 44-46, 48, 49, Moderately common, usually on dropoffs in turbid water. 

51, 52 

A. nigricans (Linnaeus, 1758) 20, 28, 37, 43-45, 49 Occasional. 

A. nigricaudus Duncker and Mohr, 1929 8, 10, 16-18a, 20, 21, 26, 28, 39, 40, 42, 45, 54, 58 Moderately common. 

A. nigrofuscus (Forsskål, 1775) 16, 20, 25, 32, 37, 49, 51, 54 Occasional, but easily overlooked. 

A. nubilus (Fowler & Bean, 1929) 20, 57 Rare, only two seen on outer drop-offs. New record for RA. 

A. olivaceus Bloch and Schneider, 1801 9, 16, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39-41, 44-46, 51, 54, 58 Moderately common on mixed sand-reef. 

A. pyroferus Kittlitz, 1834 9, 15-18a, 20-23, 25-32, 34, 35, 37, 39-45, 48, 49, 51-58 Common. 

A. thompsoni (Fowler, 1923) 20, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 39, 44, 45, 54, 56-58 Moderately common, usually on steep dropoffs. 

A. triostegus (Linnaeus, 1758) 7, 9, 34, 35, 38, 44, 56 Occasional, usually in shallow wave-affected areas. 

A. xanthopterus Valenciennes, 1835 7, 10, 12-14, 23, 24, 27, 30, 41, 45, 46, 48, 50, 55, 56 Moderately common, usually on sandy slopes adjacent to reefs. 

Ctenochaetus binotatus Randall, 1955 8, 10, 11, 15-18a, 20-22, 24-28, 30-37, 39, 40, 42-45, 48-58 Common. 

C. striatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) 7-12, 15-18a, 20-22, 24-26, 28-38, 41, 43-45, 48-58 Common, usually in depths less than 10 m. 

C. strigosus (Bennett, 1828) 20, 29, 56, 57 Only a few noticed, but hard to differentiate from C. striatus at a 

distance. 

C. tominiensis Randall, 1955 15, 31, 42, 48, 50, 53, 55, 57 Occasional. 

Naso annulatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825) Previously recorded. 

N. brachycentron (Valenciennes, 1835) 16, 21, 35, 36, 39, 41, 43, 46, 51, 55, 57, 58 Occasional. 

184

Appendices 


N. brevirostris (Valenciennes, 1835) 16, 20, 36, 39, 43, 54 Occasional. 

N. caeruleacauda Randall, 1994 16, 31, 32, 35, 37, 41, 43, 44, 48, 49 Occasional. 

N. hexacanthus (Bleeker, 1855) 16, 32, 36, 39, 41, 43-46, 48, 49, 51 Moderately common. 

N. lituratus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 7-9, 15, 17, 18a, 20-23, 25-38, 39-46, 48-58 Common. 

N. lopezi Herre, 1927 16, 25, 26, 39, 41, 44, 49 Occasional. 

N. minor (Smith, 1966) 31, 32, 43, 44 Occasional schools. 

N. thynnoides (Valenciennes, 1835) 25, 27, 35, 37, 45, 49 Occasional large schools seen. 

N. unicornis (Forsskål, 1775) 15, 17, 18a, 20, 22, 23, 26, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 45, 48, 50-53, 55 Moderately common. 

N. vlamingii Valenciennes, 1835 20, 32, 35-37, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 51, 54, 56-58 Moderately common, adjacent to steeper outer slopes. 

Paracanthurus hepatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 16, 22, 25, 26, 40, 41, 45, 48 Occasional. 

Zebrasoma scopas (Cuvier, 1829) 7, 9, 10, 15-18a, 20-45, 48-58 Common. 

Z. veliferum (Bloch, 1797) 7, 12, 15-18a, 20-22, 26-33, 35-37, 39, 41-45, 48-58 Common. 

SPHYRAENIDAE 

Sphyraena barracuda (Walbaum, 1792) 12, 13, 25, 28, 45 Occasional. 

S. flavicauda Rüppell, 1838 10, 33, 42 Rare, three schools of about 10-30 fish seen. 

S. jello Cuvier, 1829 41, 45 Rare, only small schools seen. 

S. qenie Klunzinger, 1870 41, 45 Rare, two schools seen. 

SCOMBRIDAE 

Euthynnus affinis (Cantor, 1849) 15, 20, 57 Rare, but three large schools seen. 

Grammatorcynus bilineatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) 21, 25, 32, 35, 37, 39, 45 Occasional. 

Gymnosarda unicolor (Rüppell, 1836) 25, 39, 41 Rare, only three seen. 

Rastrelliger kanagurta (Cuvier, 1816) 16, 17, 20, 34, 36, 44 Occasional large schools seen. 

Scomberomorus commerson (Lacepède, 1800) 15, 23, 27, 53 Rare, four large adults seen. 

BOTHIDAE 

Bothus mancus (Broussonet, 1782) 46 Rare, but easily overlooked. 

B. pantherinus (Rüppell, 1830) Previously recorded. 

SOLEIDAE 

Soleichthys heterorhinos (Bleeker, 1856) Previously recorded. 

BALISTIDAE 

Abalistes stellatus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 30 Rare, only one seen. New record for RA. 

Balistapus undulatus (Park, 1797) 7-12, 1518a, 20-37, 39-46, 48-58 Common. 

Balistoides conspicillum (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 8, 16, 20, 22, 25-32, 37, 41, 44, 45, 49, 51, 57, 58 Moderately common. 

B. viridescens (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 8-10, 13, 21-28, 31, 32, 34-37, 39, 44, 45, 51, 54, 58 Moderately common. 

Canthidermis maculatus (Bloch, 1786) Previously recorded. 

Melichthys vidua (Solander, 1844) 16, 20-22, 25-28, 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 43-45, 49, 51, 54, 57 Moderately common. 

Odonus niger (Rüppell, 1836) 8-10, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25-32, 35, 37, 39-41, 44-46, 49, 51, 54, Common. 

56 

Pseudobalistes flavimarginatus (Rüppell, 1828) 22, 25, 29, 30, 33-35, 40, 42, 48-50, 52, 55, 56, 58 Moderately common, in sheltered sand or rubble areas. 

P. fuscus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 36 Rare, only one seen. 

Rhinecanthus aculeatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 34, 38, 39 Rare, only three seen. 

R. rectangulus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 37, 41 Rare, less than 10 seen. 

R. verrucosus (Linnaeus, 1758) 9, 15, 34, 35, 38, 56 Occasional, but locally common on shallow flats near shore. 

Sufflamen bursa (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 8, 9, 15-17, 20-23, 25-37, 39-46, 48-52, 54, 56-58 Common. 

185

Appendices 


S. chrysoptera (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 8-12, 15-17, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34-37, 39-45, 48, 49, 51, Common. 

54, 56 

S. fraenatus (Latreille, 1804) 22, 27, 28, 40, 41 Occasional. 

Xanthichthys auromarginatus (Bennett, 1831) 31 Rare, several seen on steep outer slope. 

MONACANTHIDAE 

Acreichthys tomentosus (Linnaeus, 1758) 18b Rare, only one seen. 

Aluterus scriptus (Osbeck, 1765) 22, 33 Rare, only two observed. 

Amanses scopas (Cuvier, 1829) 8, 11, 15, 20, 29, 32, 34, 37, 40, 44 Occasional. 

Cantherines dumerilii (Hollard, 1854) 16, 45, 58 Rare, only three seen. 

C. fronticinctus (Günther, 1866) 9-11, 16, 18a, 20-22, 25, 28, 34, 39-41, 44-46, 49, 54 Occasional. 

C. pardalis (Rüppell, 1866) Previously recorded. 

Oxymonacanthus longirostris (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 39 Rare, a single pair seen. 

Paraluteres prionurus (Bleeker, 1851) 10, 23, 29 Rare, only three seen. 

Paramonacanthus japonicus (Tilesius, 1801) 35 Rare, only one seen. 

Pervagor janthinosoma (Bleeker, 1854) Previously recorded. 

P. melanocephalus (Bleeker, 1853) Previously recorded. 

P. nigrolineatus (Herre, 1927) Previously recorded. 

Pseudomonacanthus macrurus (Bleeker, 1856) Previously recorded. 

Rudarius minutus Tyler, 1970 21, 23 Rare, but easily overlooked. New record for RA. 

OSTRACIIDAE 

Ostracion cubicus Linnaeus, 1758 15, 22, 23, 26-28, 34, 35, 40, 41, 58 Occasional. 

O. meleagris Shaw, 1796 8, 16, 20, 25, 26, 35, 49, 54, 57 Occasional. 

O. solorensis Bleeker, 1853 17, 21, 25, 28, 57 Rare, only six seen. 

TETRAODONTIDAE 

Arothron caeruleopunctatus Matsuura, 1994 31, 46, 58 Rare, only three seen. 

A. hispidus (Linnaeus, 1758) 27, 33, 35 Rare, only three seen. 

A. manilensis (Marion de Procé, 1822) Previously recorded. 

A. mappa (Lesson, 1830) 35, 36, 41, 42, 49 Rare, only five seen. 

A. nigropunctatus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 9, 10, 16, 18a, 20-22, 25-27, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 43, 45, 48, Moderately common, but always in low numbers. 

51-53, 56-58 

A. stellatus (Schneider, 1801) 22 Rare, only one seen. 

Canthigaster amboinensis (Bleeker, 1865) Previously recorded. 

Canthigaster bennetti (Bleeker, 1854) 40 Rare, only one pair seen. 

C. compressa (Procé, 1822) Previously recorded. 

C. janthinoptera (Bleeker, 1855) 51 Rare, only one seen. 

C. papua Bleeker, 1848 7, 11, 15, 18a, 20, 28, 36, 40, 42, 53 Occasional. 

C. valentini (Bleeker, 1853) 10, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29-32, 34, 35, 43-45, 49, 51 Moderately common. 

DIODONTIDAE 

Diodon hystrix Linnaeus, 1758 Previously recorded. 

D. liturosus Shaw, 1804 16, 49, 53 Rare, only three seen. 

186

Appendices 

Appendix 2. Full list of zooxanthellate scleractinian corals found at 51 sites at the Raja Ampat Islands. 

A total species count for each site is given at the bottom of last page. In all, 482 species are listed in this table. 

Zooxanthellate Scleractinia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Astrocoeniidae 

Stylocoeniella armata * * * * * 

Stylocoeniella cocosensis * 

Stylocoeniella guentheri * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Palauastrea ramosa * * * * * * 

Madracis kirbyi * 

Pocilloporidae 

Pocillopora ankeli * * * * * * 

Pocillopora damicornis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pocillopora danae * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pocillopora elegans * * * 

Pocillopora eydouxi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pocillopora kelleheri * * 

Pocillopora meandrina * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pocillopora verrucosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pocillopora woodjonesi * * 

Seriatopora aculeata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Seriatopora caliendrum * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Seriatopora dedritica * * * * * 

Seriatopora guttatus * * * * * * * * * * * 

Seriatopora hystrix * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Seriatopora stellata * 

Stylophora pistillata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Stylophora subseriata * 

. 

Acroporidae 

Montipora aequituberculata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora altasepta * * 

Montipora angulata * 

Montipora cactus * * * * * 

Montipora calcarea * * * * * * * * 

Montipora caliculata * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora capitata * * * * * * * 

187

Appendices 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Montipora confusa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora corbetensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora crassituberculata * * 

Montipora danae * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora deliculata * * * * * * 

Montipora digitata * * 

Montipora efflorescens * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora florida * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora floweri * * 

Montipora foliosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora foveolata * * * * * * * 

Montipora grisea * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora hispida * * * * * 

Montipora hodgsoni * * 

Montipora hoffmeisteri * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora incrassata * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora informis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora mactanensis * * * * * * * * 

Montipora malampaya * * 

Montipora meandrina * * 

Montipora millepora * 

Montipora mollis * * * 

Montipora monasteriata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora nodosa * * * 

Montipora plawanensis * 

Montipora peltiformis * * 

Montipora porites * * * * * 

Montipora samarensis * * 

Montipora spongodes * * * * * * 

Montipora spumosa * * * * * * 

Montipora stellata * * * 

Montipora taiwanensis * 

Montipora tuberculosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora turgescens * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora turtlensis * * * 

Montipora undata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montipora venosa * * 

Montipora verriculosa * * * * * * * 

188

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Montipora verrucosa * * * 

Montipora vietnamensis * * * 

Anacropora forbesi * * * * 

Anacropora matthai * 

Anacropora puertogalerae * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Anacropora reticulata * * * * * * * 

Anacropora spinosa * * * * 

Acropora abrolhosensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora abrotanoides * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora aculeus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora acuminata * * * * 

Acropora anthocercis * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora aspera * * * * * * * * 

Acropora austera * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora awi * * * * * * * * 

Acropora batunai * 

Acropora bifurcata * * * * * * * 

Acropora brueggemanni * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora carduus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora caroliniana * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora cerealis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora chesterfieldensis * * 

Acropora clathrata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora cophodactyla * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora copiosa * * * * 

Acropora crateriformis * 

Acropora cuneata * * * * * * * * 

Acropora cylindrica * 

Acropora cytherea * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora dendrum * * * * 

Acropora derewanensis * * * * * 

Acropora desalwii * * * 

Acropora digitifera * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora divaricata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora donei * * * * * * * * 

Acropora echinata * * * * * * * * 

Acropora elegans * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora elseyi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Appendices 

189

Appendices 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Acropora exquisita * 

Acropora florida * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora formosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora gemmifera * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora glauca * * * * 

Acropora globiceps * 

Acropora grandis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora granulosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora hoeksemai * * * * * * 

Acropora horrida * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora humilis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora hyacinthus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora indonesia * * * * * * * * 

Acropora inermis * 

Acropora insignis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora irregularis * 

Acropora kimbeensis * * * 

Acropora kirstyae * * * * * * 

Acropora latistella * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora listeri * * * * 

Acropora loisetteae * * * * 

Acropora lokani * * * * * * * * 

Acropora longicyathus * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora loripes * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora lutkeni * * * * * * * * 

Acropora macrostoma * * * * * 

Acropora microclados * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora microphthalma * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora millepora * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora mirabilis * 

Acropora monticulosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora nana * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora nasuta * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora nobilis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora ocellata * 

Acropora orbicularis * 

Acropora palifera * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora palmerae * 

190

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Acropora paniculata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora papillarae * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora pinguis * 

Acropora pichoni * * * * * 

Acropora plana * * * 

Acropora plumosa * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora polystoma * * * 

Acropora prostrata * * 

Acropora pulchra * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora robusta * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora rosaria * 

Acropora samoensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora sarmentosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora secale * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora selago * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora seriata * 

Acropora simplex * 

Acropora solitaryensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora speciosa * * 

Acropora spicifera * * 

Acropora striata * * 

Acropora subglabra * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora subulata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora tenella * 

Acropora tenuis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora tortuosa * * * * * * * * 

Acropora turaki * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora valenciennesi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora valida * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acropora vaughani * * * * * * 

Acropora verweyi * * * * * 

Acropora walindii * * * * * 

Acropora willisae * * 

Acropora yongei * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Astreopora cuculata * * * * * * * * * * 

Astreopora expansa * 

Astreopora gracilis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Astreopora incrustans * 

Appendices 

191

Appendices 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Astreopora listeri * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Astreopora myriophthalma * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Astreopora ocellata * * * * * * * * * 

Astreopora randalli * * * 

Astreopora suggesta * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Euphyllidae 

Euphyllia ancora * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Euphyllia cristata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Euphyllia divisa * * * * * * * * * * * 

Euphyllia glabrescens * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Euphyllia paraancora * 

Euphyllia yaeyamensis * 

Catalaphyllia jardinei * * 

Nemenzophyllia turbida * * 

Plerogyra simplex * * * * 

Plerogyra sinuosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Physogyra lichtensteini * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Oculinidae 

Galaxea acrhelia * * * * * * * * * * 

Galaxea astreata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Galaxea fascicularis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Galaxea horrescens * * * * * * * * * * * 

Galaxea longisepta * * * 

Galaxea paucisepta * * * * * * 

Siderasteridae 

Pseudosiderastrea tayami * 

Psammocora contigua * * * * * * 

Psammocora digitata * * * * * * * * 

Psammocora explanulata * * * * * * * 

Psammocora haimeana * * * * * 

Psammocora nierstraszi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Psammocora obtusangula * * 

Psammocora profundacella * * * * * * * * * * 

Psammocora superficialis * * * * * * * 

Coscinaraea columna * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

192

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Coscinaraea crassa * 

Coscinaraea exesa * * 

Coscinaraea monile * * * 

Coscinaraea wellsi * * 

Agariciidae 

Pavona bipartita * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pavona cactus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pavona clavus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pavona decussata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pavona duerdeni * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pavona explanulata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pavona frondifera * * * * * 

Pavona maldivensis * 

Pavona minuta * * * * 

Pavona varians * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pavona venosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Leptoseris amitoriensis * * * 

Leptoseris explanata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Leptoseris foliosa * * * * * 

Leptoseris gardineri * * * * * * 

Leptoseris hawaiiensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Leptoseris incrustans * * 

Leptoseris mycetoseroides * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Leptoseris papyracea * * * 

Leptoseris scabra * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Leptoseris solida * * * * * * * * * * 

Leptoseris striata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Leptoseris yabei * * * 

Gardineroseris planulata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Coeloseris mayeri * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pachyseris foliosa * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pachyseris gemmae * * * 

Pachyseris involuta * * 

Pachyseris rugosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pachyseris speciosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Appendices 

193

Appendices 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Fungiidae 

Cycloseris colini * * * 

Cycloseris costulata * * 

Cycloseris cyclolites * 

Cycloseris erosa * 

Cycloseris patelliformis * 

Cycloseris sinensis * * * 

Cycloseris somervillei * * * * * * * 

Cycloseris vaughani * * * 

Cantharellus jebbi * * * 

Cantharellus nuomeae * 

Heliofungia actiniformis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia concinna * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia corona * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia danai * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia fralinae * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia fungites * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia granulosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia horrida * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia klunzingeri * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia moluccensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia paumotensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia repanda * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia scabra * * * * 

Fungia scruposa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia scutaria * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Fungia spinifer * * 

Ctenactis albitentaculata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Ctenactis crassa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Ctenactis echinata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Herpolitha limax * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Herpolitha weberi * * * * * * * 

Polyphyllia novaehiberniae * * * 

Polyphyllia talpina * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Sandalolitha dentata * * 

Sandalolitha robusta * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Halomitra clavator * * * * * * 

Halomitra meierar * * 

194

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Halomitra pileus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Zoopilus echinatus * * * * * * * * 

Lithophyllon mokai * * * * * * * * * 

Podabacia crustacea * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Podabacia motuporensis * * * * * * * * * * 

Pectinidae 

Echinophyllia aspera * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Echinophyllia costata * * * * * 

Echinophyllia echinata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Echinophyllia echinoporoides * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Echinophyllia orpheensis * * * * 

Echinophyllia patula * * * 

Echinomorpha nishihirea * 

Oxypora crassispinosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Oxypora glabra * * * * * * * * * * 

Oxypora lacera * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Mycedium elephatotus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Mycedium robokaki * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Mycedium mancaoi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pectinia alcicornis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pectinia ayleni * * * * * 

Pectinia elongata * * * 

Pectinia lactuca * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pectinia paeonia * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pectinia pygmaeus * 

Pectinia teres * * * * * * 

Pectinia maxima * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Merulinidae 

Hydnophora exesa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Hydnophora grandis * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Hydnophora microconos * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Hydnophora pilosa * * * * * * * * * * 

Hydnophora rigida * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Merulina ampliata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Merulina scabricula * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Scapophyllia cylindrica * * * * 

Appendices 

195

Appendices 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Dendrophylliidae 

Turbinaria frondens * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Turbinaria irregularis, * * * * * * * 

Turbinaria mesenterina * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Turbinaria patula * 

Turbinaria peltata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Turbinaria reniformis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Turbinaria stellulata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Mussidae 

Micromussa amakusensis * * * * * * * * 

Micromussa minuta * * * * * * * * * 

Acanthastrea brevis * 

Acanthastrea echinata * * * * * 

Acanthastrea hemprichii * * * * * 

Acanthastrea hillae * 

Acanthastrea ishigakiensis * 

Acanthastrea subechinata * * * * 

Acanthastrea regularis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acanthastrea sp. 1 * * * * * * * * * * * 

Acanthastrea sp. 2 * 

Lobophyllia corymbosa * * * * * * * 

Lobophyllia dentatus * * * 

Lobophyllia diminuta * * 

Lobophyllia flabelliformis * * * * * * 

Lobophyllia hataii * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Lobophyllia hemprichii * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Lobophyllia pachysepta * 

Lobophyllia robusta * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Symphyllia agaricia * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Symphyllia hassi * * * * 

Symphyllia radians * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Symphyllia recta * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Symphyllia valenciennesii * * * * * * * * * * * 

Scolymia australis * * * * * 

Scolymia vitiensis * * * 

Australomussa rowleyensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Cynarina lacrymalis * * * * * * * * 

196

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Appendices 

Faviidae 

Caulastrea furcata * * * 

Caulastrea tumida * 

Favia danae * * * * * * 

Favia favus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favia helianthoides * * 

Favia laxa * * * * * * * 

Favia lizardensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favia maritima * * * * * * * * * * 

Favia marshae * * 

Favia matthai * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favia maxima * * * * 

Favia pallida * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favia rosaria * * * 

Favia rotumana * * * * * * * 

Favia rotundata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favia speciosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favia stelligera * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favia truncatus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favia veroni * * * * * * * 

Barabattoia amicorum * * * * * * * 

Barabattoia laddi * * * * * * * 

Favites acuticulis * * * 

Favites abdita * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favites chinensis * * * 

Favites complanata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favites flexuosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favites halicora * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favites micropentagona * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favites paraflexuosa * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favites pentagona * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favites russelli * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Favites spinosa * * 

Favites stylifera * * * * * * * * * 

Favites vasta * * * * * 

Goniastrea aspera * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Goniastrea australensis * * * * * * * 

Goniastrea edwardsi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

197

Appendices 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Goniastrea favulus * 

Goniastrea minuta * * * 

Goniastrea pectinata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Goniastrea retiformis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Platygyra acuta * * * * * * * 

Platygyra contorta * * 

Platygyra daedalea * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Platygyra lamellina * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Platygyra pini * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Platygyra ryukyuensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Platygyra sinensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Platygyra verweyi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Platygyra yaeyemaensis * * * * * * * * * * 

Oulophyllia bennettae * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Oulophyllia crispa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Oulophyllia levis * * * * * * * * 

Leptoria irregularis * * * 

Leptoria phrygia * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montastrea annuligera * * * * * * * * * 

Montastrea colemani * * * * * * * 

Montastrea curta * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montastrea magnistellata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Montastrea salebrosa * * * * * * * 

Montastrea valenciennesi * * 

Plesiastrea versipora * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Oulastrea crispata * * * 

Diploastrea heliopora * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Leptastrea aequalis * * 

Leptastrea bottae * 

Leptastrea pruinosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Leptastrea purpurea * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Leptastrea transversa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Cyphastrea chalcidium * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Cyphastrea decadia * * 

Cyphastrea japonica * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Cyphastrea microphthalma * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Cyphastrea ocellina * 

Cyphastrea serailia * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

198

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Echinopora gemmacea * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Echinopora hirsutissima * 

Echinopora horrida * * * * * * * * * * 

Echinopora lamellosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Echinopora mammiformis * * * * * * * * * * 

Echinopora pacificus * * * * * * 

Echinopora taylorae * * * * * 

Trachyphyllidae 

Trachyphyllia geoffroyi * 

Poritidae 

Porites aranetai * * 

Porites annae * * * * * 

Porites attenuata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Porites cumulatus * * * * * * * * * 

Porites cylindrica * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Porites deformis * 

Porites densa * 

Porites evermanni * * * * 

Porites flavus * * * * 

Porites heronensis * 

Porites horizontalata * * * * * * 

Porites latistellata * * * * * * * * * * 

Porites lichen * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Porites monticulosa * * * * * * * * * * 

Porites negrosensis * * * * * * 

Porites nigrescens * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Porites profundus * * * 

Porites rugosa * * * * 

Porites rus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Porites stephensoni * 

Porites tuberculosa * * * * * * * * * * 

Porites vaughani * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Porites massive * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Goniopora albiconus * * * * * * * * * * * 

Goniopora burgosi * * 

Goniopora columna * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Appendices 

199

Appendices 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 58 

Goniopora djiboutiensis * * * * * * * * * * 

Goniopora eclipsensis * * * * * 

Goniopora fruticosa * * * 

Goniopora lobata * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Goniopora minor * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Goniopora palmensis * 

Goniopora pandoraensis * * * * * 

Goniopora pendulus * * * 

Goniopora somaliensis * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Goniopora stokesi * * * * * * * * * 

Goniopora stutchburyi * * * * * * * * * * * 

Goniopora tenuidens * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Alveopora catalai * * * 

Alveopora daedalea * 

Alveopora excelsa * * 

Alveopora fenestrata * 

Alveopora gigas * * * 

Alveopora minuta * * 

Alveopora spongiosa * * * * * * * * * * * 

Alveopora tizardi * * * * * * * 

144 

154 

141 

92 

163 

156 

125 

129 

160 

116 

103 

163 

161 

134 

103 

85 

135 

125 

153 

112 

118 

173 

174 

159 

143 

169 

81 

126 

120 

169 

161 

86 

147 

168 

110 

132 

182 

121 

76 

121 

164 

155 

140 

122 

139 

77 

76 

110 

123 

90 

93 

200

Appendices 

Appendix 3A. Biological and physical characteristics of survey sites. 

Key: Decimal site numbers refer to deep (.1) and shallow (.2) depths; Max and Min are depth values; and Slp 

is the slope. Biotic categories HS, HC, SC, MA, TA, CA and DC are visual estimates of percent cover. 

Location Station name Site Max Min Slp HS HC SC MA TA CA DC 

Salawati Pulau Senapan/Jef Doif, NW 1.1 41 10 50 90 5 10 20 10 5 1 


Salawati Pulau Senapan/Jef Doif, SE 2.1 15 8 2 30 30 20 2 10 2 2 

Batanta NE: long inlet 3.1 33 8 20 30 5 0 20 10 0 2 


Batanta N-Center: Divided bay E of Warai Bay 4.1 35 10 30 20 30 2 10 10 2 2 

Batanta N-Center: Divided bay E of Warai Bay 4.2 8 1 40 70 60 1 20 10 0 5 

Batanta Tanjung Mabo 5.1 35 10 30 60 10 10 5 10 5 2 


Batanta Rocks off headland E of Tg Mabo 6.1 40 10 30 50 10 10 10 10 5 0 


Misool N Wagmab (E-center island chain) 7.1 28 10 50 70 5 5 1 20 10 0 

Misool N Wagmab (E-center island chain) 7.2 8 0.5 80 100 20 40 2 10 10 10 

Misool N Farondi (E-center island chain) 8.1 35 10 40 90 10 20 0 10 0 0 

Misool N Farondi (E-center island chain) 8.2 8 1 5 100 20 70 0 10 5 0 

Misool S Wagmab (E-center island chain) 9.1 35 10 30 70 15 20 0 10 0 0 

Misool S Wagmab (E-center island chain) 9.2 8 1 40 95 60 20 0 10 10 2 

Misool E Bajampop (W-center island chain) 10.1 25 10 20 80 10 10 10 10 5 0 

Misool E Bajampop (W-center island chain) 10.2 8 1 5 95 40 20 2 10 2 1 

Misool Mesemta (W-center island chain) 11.1 28 10 20 70 20 20 0 10 0 0 

Misool Mesemta (W-center island chain) 11.2 8 1 5 95 80 10 0 5 0 5 

Misool Bajampop (W-center island chain) 12.1 20 10 30 70 30 5 5 10 0 2 

Misool Bajampop (W-center island chain) 12.2 8 1 10 80 30 5 2 20 0 5 

Misool Papas Tip Pale (W island chain) near cave 13.2 10 1 30 60 30 0 10 10 10 0 

Misool Papas Tip Pale (W island chain) 14.2 16 1 50 80 40 0 2 10 5 2 

Misool N Djam (southern islands) 15.1 36 10 40 70 40 5 5 10 10 0 

Misool N Djam (southern islands) 15.2 8 0 40 95 90 5 2 5 5 5 

Misool SW Kalig (southern islands) 16.1 36 10 70 90 5 5 0 10 10 0 

Misool SW Kalig (southern islands) 16.2 8 1.5 5 100 30 5 1 10 10 2 

Misool SW Mate (southern islands) 17.1 40 10 40 90 10 2 0 10 2 0 

Misool SW Mate (southern islands) 17.2 8 2 40 100 10 30 0 10 5 0 

Misool Los (southern islands) 18.1 33 10 10 90 15 2 2 10 5 0 

Misool Los (southern islands) 18.2 8 0 30 95 80 5 5 5 5 2 

Misool Jef Pelee (inner W bay) 19.1 35 10 30 50 20 2 0 10 0 2 


Misool Pulau Tiga (SW side middle island) 22.1 22 10 30 80 2 20 0 40 5 0 

Misool Pulau Tiga (SW side middle island) 22.2 8 1 10 90 5 40 0 30 0 0 

Misool S shore opposite middle P. Tiga island 23.2 15 1 50 60 50 20 0 10 0 0 

Misool Jef Bi 24.1 22 10 40 60 20 5 0 10 0 0 

Misool Jef Bi 24.2 8 1 20 90 40 10 2 10 0 10 

Misool Cot Malankari 25.1 18 10 10 70 5 1 1 10 10 0 


Misool Nampale NW 26.1 22 10 10 80 10 2 0 10 5 0 


Misool Channel between Kanari & Kamet 27.1 22 10 30 60 20 20 5 10 10 0 

201

Appendices 

Appendix 3A. (continued) 

Location Station name Site Max Min Slp HS HC SC MA TA CA DC 


Kofiau S Walo 28.1 47 10 50 85 10 3 0 10 10 0 

Kofiau S Walo 28.2 8 1 10 95 30 5 0 10 10 3 

Kofiau Anjoean 29.1 16 8 20 70 30 3 1 10 0 0 


Kofiau S Miatkari Island 30.1 16 8 20 60 30 10 2 10 0 0 


Kofiau Wambong Bay 31.1 47 10 40 60 10 2 3 10 5 0 


Kofiau Tg Sool 32.1 43 10 50 90 10 2 2 20 10 0 

Kofiau Tg Sool 32.2 8 1 20 90 40 10 3 10 10 3 

Kofiau Deer island 33.2 16 0.5 20 60 20 40 20 5 0 5 

Waigaio Selpele 34.1 30 10 20 50 10 20 3 10 0 0 

Waigaio Selpele 34.2 8 0.5 5 90 15 70 5 10 0 2 

Waigaio N of pearl farm 35.1 40 10 70 90 10 10 2 70 0 0 

Waigaio N of pearl farm 35.2 8 0.5 5 95 40 30 0 10 0 0 

Waigaio E of pearl farm 36.1 25 10 10 20 30 20 10 10 0 0 

Waigaio E of pearl farm 36.2 8 0.5 20 80 60 10 10 10 0 5 

Sayang N-center 37.1 36 10 30 60 10 5 1 10 10 0 


Sayang Ai Island S 39.1 36 10 20 40 30 5 5 10 10 0 


Sayang bommies W 40.2 9 5 0 70 60 10 5 10 10 1 

Wayag large bay W 42.1 32 10 20 40 30 10 2 10 0 2 


Wayag center-east 43.1 40 10 30 60 50 30 2 10 20 5 

Wayag center-east 43.2 8 0.5 10 85 60 30 2 10 20 5 

Quoy islets to south 44.1 34 10 30 50 20 5 1 10 10 2 


Bag southeast 45.1 35 6 10 95 20 3 0 10 10 0 

Uranie west bay 47.1 23 10 10 70 40 5 1 2 3 0 

Uranie west bay 47.2 8 0.5 10 85 70 20 1 5 2 2 

Kawe middle E bay, S side 48.1 37 10 30 80 20 0 0 10 10 0 


Kawe southern peninsula E bay 49.1 32 10 10 80 5 1 0 20 5 0 


Kawe inner E bay, S side 50.1 33 10 20 95 70 5 2 10 10 2 


Waigeo island S Tl Fofak opposite mouth 52.1 28 10 40 80 30 5 3 10 0 2 

Waigeo island S Tl Fofak opposite mouth 52.2 8 0.5 10 95 50 10 0 10 0 0 

Waigeo reef W of Delphine Is, E Fofak Bay 53.1 30 10 40 80 50 5 10 10 0 2 

Waigeo reef W of Delphine Is, E Fofak Bay 53.2 8 1.5 5 100 70 2 1 10 0 3 

Waigeo Boni island, N reef 54.1 25 10 30 80 20 3 10 10 10 0 


Waigeo bay W of Boni Island 55.1 22 10 30 85 50 10 10 10 0 5 


Waigeo Boni island, S reef 56.1 37 10 40 70 40 20 3 10 0 2 


Waigeo Wayam island N side 58.2 17 1 30 70 40 20 0 10 5 2 

202

Appendices 

Appendix 3B. Reef characteristics. 

Physical categories CP, LB, SB, RBL and SN are visual estimates (%) of structural cover; RD and EXP are 

ratings of reef development and exposure. VIS is underwater visibility (m); WT is seawater temperature; Sp 

is the number of species recorded for the site; and Tot is the total number of species. 

Location Station name Site CP LB SB RBL SN RD EXP VIS WT Sp Tot 


Salawati Pulau Senapan/Jef Doif, NW 1.2 70 10 10 10 0 2 3 20 29 59 93 

Salawati Pulau Senapan/Jef Doif, SE 2.1 0 20 10 10 60 2 2 20 29 90 90 


Batanta NE: long inlet 3.2 40 20 20 20 0 3 1 4 29 94 124 

Batanta N-Center: Div. bay E of Warai Bay 4.1 0 10 10 30 50 2 1 10 29 71 

Batanta N-Center: Div. bay E of Warai Bay 4.2 40 10 20 20 10 2 1 8 29 73 110 


Batanta Tanjung Mabo 5.2 30 50 10 5 5 3 3 20 28 37 76 


Batanta Rocks off headland E of Tg Mabo 6.2 40 30 15 5 0 2 3 15 27 47 77 

Misool N Wagmab (E-center is. chain) 7.1 50 10 10 5 25 3 1 10 27 31 

Misool N Wagmab (E-center is. chain) 7.2 100 0 0 0 0 3 1 10 27 118 139 

Misool N Farondi (E-center is. chain) 8.1 80 0 10 5 5 1 2 15 28 66 

Misool N Farondi (E-center is. chain) 8.2 100 0 0 0 0 1 3 20 28 83 122 

Misool S Wagmab (E-center is. chain) 9.1 40 20 10 20 10 4 2 20 28 77 

Misool S Wagmab (E-center is. chain) 9.2 80 15 0 5 0 4 3 20 28 88 140 

Misool E Bajampop (W-center is. chain) 10.1 50 20 10 10 10 3 2 12 28 64 

Misool E Bajampop (W-center is. chain) 10.2 60 20 15 5 0 3 3 12 28 128 155 

Misool Mesemta (W-center is. chain) 11.1 40 10 20 0 30 4 2 8 28 93 

Misool Mesemta (W-center is. chain) 11.2 95 0 0 5 0 4 3 8 28 121 164 

Misool Bajampop (W-center is. chain) 12.1 30 20 20 10 20 3 1 6 28 83 

Misool Bajampop (W-center is. chain) 12.2 70 0 10 10 10 3 1 6 28 63 121 

Misool Papas Tip Pale (W is. chain) nr cave 13.2 30 10 20 10 30 1 1 4 28 76 76 

Misool Papas Tip Pale (W is. chain) 14.2 60 0 20 5 15 2 1 3 29 121 121 

Misool N Djam (southern is.s) 15.1 40 20 10 10 20 4 2 25 28 115 

Misool N Djam (southern is.s) 15.2 95 0 0 5 0 4 3 25 28 120 182 

Misool SW Kalig (southern is.s) 16.1 80 0 10 0 10 3 2 30 29 75 

Misool SW Kalig (southern is.s) 16.2 100 0 0 0 0 3 3 30 29 74 132 

Misool SW Mate (southern is.s) 17.1 70 10 10 5 5 3 2 15 28 69 

Misool SW Mate (southern is.s) 17.2 80 10 10 0 0 3 3 15 28 60 110 

Misool Los (southern is.s) 18.1 60 20 10 0 10 4 2 12 28 105 

Misool Los (southern is.s) 18.2 95 0 0 5 0 4 2 15 28 111 168 


Misool Jef Pelee (inner W bay) 19.2 60 10 10 15 5 4 1 15 27 99 147 

Misool Pulau Tiga (SW side middle is.) 22.1 20 40 20 5 15 1 2 25 28 37 

Misool Pulau Tiga (SW side middle is.) 22.2 40 40 10 0 10 1 3 20 28 64 86 

Misool S shore opp. middle P. Tiga is. 23.2 30 20 10 10 30 2 2 10 28 161 161 

Misool Jef Bi 24.1 40 10 10 5 35 4 1 6 28 85 

Misool Jef Bi 24.2 80 0 10 0 10 4 1 6 28 119 169 


Misool Cot Malankari 25.2 40 10 30 10 10 3 3 30 27 70 120 


Misool Nampale NW 26.2 70 10 10 15 5 3 3 30 27 69 126 


Misool Channel between Kanari & Kamet 27.2 40 20 20 5 15 2 1 20 27 55 81 

Kofiau S Walo 28.1 75 0 10 5 10 4 2 30 27 121 

203

Appendices 

Appendix 3B. (Continued) 

Location Station name Site CP LB SB RBL SN RD EXP VIS WT Sp Tot 

Kofiau S Walo 28.2 80 0 15 0 5 4 3 30 27 106 169 


Kofiau Anjoean 29.2 70 10 10 5 5 3 2 25 27 89 143 


Kofiau S Miatkari Island 30.2 40 10 20 5 25 4 2 12 28 105 159 


Kofiau Wambong Bay 31.2 80 0 5 0 15 3 2 25 28 132 174 

Kofiau Tg Sool 32.1 80 0 10 0 10 3 2 30 26 110 

Kofiau Tg Sool 32.2 70 10 10 0 10 3 3 30 26 97 173 

Kofiau Deer island 33.2 30 10 20 20 20 2 1 10 27 118 118 

Waigaio Selpele 34.1 30 0 20 20 30 2 1 7 27 64 

Waigaio Selpele 34.2 70 10 10 0 10 2 2 7 27 64 112 

Waigaio N of pearl farm 35.1 70 15 5 5 5 2 1 15 27 97 

Waigaio N of pearl farm 35.2 80 0 15 0 5 2 2 15 27 100 153 

Waigaio E of pearl farm 36.1 0 10 10 10 70 2 1 6 27 58 

Waigaio E of pearl farm 36.2 70 0 10 5 15 2 1 8 27 84 125 


Sayang N-center 37.2 90 0 0 5 5 2 4 35 28 91 135 


Sayang Ai Island S 39.2 50 10 10 0 30 2 2 30 29 48 85 

Sayang bommies W 40.2 30 30 10 0 30 2 2 30 29 103 103 


Wayag large bay W 42.2 60 10 10 15 5 4 1 6 28 68 134 

Wayag center-east 43.1 30 20 10 30 10 3 2 25 29 112 

Wayag center-east 43.2 80 0 5 10 5 3 3 25 29 81 161 


Quoy islets to south 44.2 70 0 15 10 5 3 3 20 29 70 163 

Bag southeast 45.1 90 0 5 5 0 2 2 15 29 103 103 

Uranie west bay 47.1 40 20 10 10 20 3 1 12 29 64 

Uranie west bay 47.2 60 20 5 10 5 3 2 12 29 66 116 


Kawe middle E bay, S side 48.2 60 10 10 0 20 3 1 10 29 107 160 


Kawe southern peninsula E bay 49.2 80 10 10 0 0 2 3 10 29 81 129 


Kawe inner E bay, S side 50.2 95 0 0 0 5 4 1 10 29 77 125 

Waigeo island S Tl Fofak opposite mouth 52.1 70 2 10 5 15 4 1 6 29 88 

Waigeo island S Tl Fofak opposite mouth 52.2 90 0 5 0 5 4 2 6 29 117 156 

Waigeo reef W of Delphine Is, E Fofak Bay 53.1 60 10 10 10 10 3 1 6 29 100 

Waigeo reef W of Delphine Is, E Fofak Bay 53.2 100 0 0 0 0 3 1 6 30 97 163 


Waigeo Boni island, N reef 54.2 70 15 5 0 10 4 4 20 29 42 92 


Waigeo bay W of Boni Island 55.2 95 0 0 5 0 3 2 6 29 94 141 


Waigeo Boni island, S reef 56.2 90 0 0 5 5 3 2 12 29 88 154 

Waigeo Wayam island N side 58.2 50 10 10 5 25 3 2 20 29 144 144 

204

Appendices 

Appendix 4. Full list of zooxanthellate scleractinia family, genera and species for Raja Ampat and East 


^ = Veron, J.E.N., 2000. Corals of the World. 3 Volumes. M. Stafford-Smith (Ed.). Australian Institute of 

Marine Science, Townsville. 

R = New records for Raja Ampat 

E = New records for East Indonesia 

• 20 new records for east Indonesia 

• 82 new records for Raja Ampat 

• 15 families 

• 78 genera 

Zooxanthellate Scleractinia 

This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Family: Astrocoeniidae Koby, 1890 

Genus: Stylocoeniella Yabe and Sugiyama, 1935 

Stylocoeniella armata (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

Stylocoeniella cocosensis Veron, 1990 * R E 

Stylocoeniella guentheri Bassett-Smith, 1890 * * * * * 

Genus: Palauastrea Yabe and Sugiyama, 1941 

Palauastrea ramosa Yabe and Sugiyama, 1941 * * * * * 

Genus: Madracis Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849 

Madracis kirbyi Veron and Pichon, 1976 * R * * 

Family: Pocilloporidae Gray, 1842 

Genus: Pocillopora Lamarck, 1816 

Pocillopora ankeli Scheer and Pillai, 1974 * R * 

Pocillopora damicornis (Linnaeus, 1758) * * * * * 

Pocillopora danae Verrill, 1864 * * * * * 

Pocillopora elegans Dana, 1846 * R E 

Pocillopora eydouxi Milne Edwards and Haime, 1860 * * * * * 

Pocillopora kelleheri Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Pocillopora meandrina Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Pocillopora verrucosa (Ellis and Solander, 1786) * * * * * 

Pocillopora woodjonesi Vaughan, 1918 * * * * * 

Genus: Seriatopora Lamarck, 1816 

Seriatopora aculeata Quelch, 1886 * * * * * 

Seriatopora caliendrum Ehrenberg, 1834 * * * * * 

Seriatopora dendritica Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Seriatopora guttatus Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Seriatopora hystrix Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Seriatopora stellata Quelch, 1886 * * * * 

Genus: Stylophora Schweigger, 1819 

Stylophora pistillata Esper, 1797 * * * * * 

Stylophora subseriata (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

205

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Family: Acroporidae Verrill, 1902 

Genus: Montipora Blainville, 1830 

Montipora aequituberculata Bernard, 1897 * * * * * 

Montipora altasepta Nemenzo, 1967 * * * * * 

Montipora angulata (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * 

Montipora australiensis Bernard, 1897 * * * * 

Montipora cactus Bernard, 1897 * * * * 

Montipora calcarea Bernard, 1897 * R * * 

Montipora caliculata (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Montipora capitata Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Montipora capricornis Veron, 1985 * * * * 

Montipora cebuensis Nemenzo, 1976 * * * * 

Montipora cocosensis Vaughan, 1918 * * * 

Montipora confusa Nemenzo, 1967 * * * * 

Montipora corbetensis Veron and Wallace, 1984 * R * * 

Montipora crassituberculata Bernard, 1897 * R * * 

Montipora danae (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851) * * * * * 

Montipora deliculata Veron, 2000 * * * * 

Montipora digitata (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Montipora efflorescens Bernard, 1897 * * * * * 

Montipora effusa Dana, 1846 * * 

Montipora florida Nemenzo, 1967 * * * * 

Montipora floweri Wells, 1954 * * * * * 

Montipora foliosa (Pallas, 1766) * * * * * 

Montipora foveolata (Dana, 1846) * R * * 

Montipora friabilis Bernard, 1897 * * * * 

Montipora gaimardi Bernard 1897 * * * * 

Montipora grisea Bernard, 1897 * * * * * 

Montipora hirsuta Nemenzo, 1967 * R * 

Montipora hispida (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Montipora hodgsoni Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Montipora hoffmeisteri Wells, 1954 * * * * * 

Montipora incrassata (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Montipora informis Bernard, 1897 * * * * * 

Montipora mactanensis Nemenzo, 1979 * * * * * 

Montipora malampaya Nemenzo, 1967 * R * * 

Montipora meandrina (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

Montipora millepora Crossland, 1952 * * * * * 

Montipora mollis Bernard, 1897 * * * * * 

Montipora monasteriata (Forskäl, 1775) * * * * * 

Montipora niugini Veron, 2000 * * 

Montipora nodosa (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Montipora orientalis Nemenzo, 1967 * * * * 

Montipora plawanensis Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Montipora peltiformis Bernard, 1897 * * * * * 

Montipora porites Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Montipora samarensis Nemenzo, 1967 * * * * * 

Montipora setosa Nemenzo, 1976 * * 

206

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Montipora spongodes Bernard, 1897 * R * * 

Montipora spumosa (Lamarck, 1816) * R * * 

Montipora stellata Bernard, 1897 * * * * * 

Montipora taiwanensis Veron, 2000 * * E 

Montipora tuberculosa (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Montipora turgescens Bernard, 1897 * * * * * 

Montipora turtlensis Veron and Wallace, 1984 * R * * 

Montipora undata Bernard, 1897 * * * * 

Montipora venosa (Ehrenberg, 1834) * R * * 

Montipora verrucosa (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Montipora verruculosa Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Montipora vietnamensis Veron, 2000 * * * * 

Genus: Anacropora Ridley, 1884 

Anacropora forbesi Ridley, 1884 * * * * * 

Anacropora matthai Pillai, 1973 * * * * * 

Anacropora pillai Veron, 2000 * * 

Anacropora puertogalerae Nemenzo, 1964 * * * * * 

Anacropora reticulata Veron and Wallace, 1984 * * * * * 

Anacropora spinosa Rehberg, 1892 * R * * 

Genus: Acropora Oken, 1815 

Acropora abrolhosensisVeron, 1985 * * * * * 

Acropora abrotanoides (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Acropora aculeus (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora acuminata (Verrill, 1864) * * * * * 

Acropora akajimensis Veron, 1990 * * * 

Acropora anthocercis (Brook, 1893) * * * * * 

Acropora aspera (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora austera (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora awi Wallace and Wolstenholme, 1998 * * * * * 

Acropora batunai Wallace, 1997 * * * * * 

Acropora bifurcata Nemenzo, 1971 * * * * 

Acropora brueggemanni (Brook, 1893) * * * * * 

Acropora carduus (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora caroliniana Nemenzo, 1976 * * * * * 

Acropora cerealis (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora chesterfieldensis Veron and Wallace, 1984 * R * * 

Acropora clathrata (Brook, 1891) * * * * * 

Acropora convexa (Dana, 1846) * * * * 

Acropora cophodactyla (Brook, 1892) * R * * 

Acropora copiosa Nemenzo, 1967 * * * * * 

Acropora crateriformis (Gardiner, 1898) * R * * 

Acropora cuneata (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora cylindrica Veron and Fenner, 2000 * R * * 

Acropora cytherea (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora dendrum (Bassett-Smith, 1890) * * * * * 

Acropora derewanensis Wallace (1997) * * * * * 

Acropora desalwii Wallace, 1994 * * * * * 

207

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Acropora digitifera (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora divaricata (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora donei Veron and Wallace, 1984 * * * * * 

Acropora echinata (Dana, 1846) * * * * 

Acropora efflorexcens (Dana, 1846) * * 

Acropora elegans Milne Edwards and Haime, 1860 * * * * 

Acropora elseyi (Brook, 1892) * * * * * 

Acropora exquisita Nemenzo, 1971 * * * * * 

Acropora fastigata Nemenzo, 1967 * * 

Acropora fenneri Veron, 2000 * * 

Acropora florida (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora formosa (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora glauca (Brook, 1893) * R E 

Acropora gemmifera (Brook, 1892) * * * * * 

Acropora globiceps (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora gomezi Veron, 2000 * * 

Acropora grandis (Brook, 1892) * * * * * 

Acropora granulosa (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1860) * * * * * 

Acropora hoeksemai Wallace, 1997 * * * * * 

Acropora horrida (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora humilis (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora hyacinthus (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora indonesia Wallace, 1997 * * * * * 

Acropora inermis (Brook, 1891) * * * * * 

Acropora insignis Nemenzo, 1967 * * * * * 

Acropora irregularis (Brook, 1892) * * * * 

Acropora jacquelineae Wallace, 1994 * * * * 

Acropora kimbeensis Wallace, 1999 * * * * * 

Acropora kirstyae Veron and Wallace, 1984 * R * * 

Acropora latistella (Brook, 1891) * * * * * 

Acropora lianae Nemenzo, 1967 * * 

Acropora listeri (Brook, 1893) * R * * 

Acropora loisetteae Wallace, 1994 * * * * 

Acropora lokani Wallace, 1994 * * * * * 

Acropora longicyathus (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1860) * * * * * 

Acropora loripes (Brook, 1892) * * * * * 

Acropora lovelli Veron and Wallace, 1984 * * 

Acropora lutkeni Crossland, 1952 * R * * 

Acropora macrostoma (Brook, 1891) * * * * 

Acropora meridiana Nemenzo, 1971 * * * * 

Acropora microclados (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

Acropora microphthalma (Verrill, 1859) * * * * * 

Acropora millepora (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

Acropora mirabilis (Quelch, 1886) * * * * * 

Acropora monticulosa (Brüggemann, 1879) * * * * * 

Acropora multiacuta Nemenzo, 1967 * * 

Acropora nana (Studer, 1878) * * * * * 

Acropora nasuta (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora navini Veron, 2000 * * 

208

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Acropora nobilis (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora cf. ocellata (Klunzinger, 1879) * R * 

Acropora orbicularis Brook, 1892 * R * * 

Acropora palifera (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Acropora palmerae Wells, 1954 * R * * 

Acropora paniculata Verrill, 1902 * * * * * 

Acropora papillarae Latypov, 1992 * * * * 

Acropora parahemprichii Veron, 2000 * * * 

Acropora parilis (Quelch, 1886) * * * * 

Acropora pectinatus Veron, 2000 * * * 

Acropora pichoni Wallace, 1999 * R * * 

Acropora pinguis Wells, 1950 * * * * 

Acropora plana Nemenzo, 1967 * * * * 

Acropora plumosa Wallace and Wolstenholme, 1998 * * * * * 

Acropora polystoma (Brook, 1891) * * * * * 

Acropora prostrata (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora proximalis Veron, 2000 * * * 

Acropora pulchra (Brook, 1891) * * * * * 

Acropora rambleri (Bassett-Smith, 1890) * * * * 

Acropora retusa (Dana, 1846) * * 

Acropora robusta (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora rosaria (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora russelli Wallace, 1994 * * * 

Acropora samoensis (Brook, 1891) * * * * * 

Acropora sarmentosa (Brook, 1892) * * * * * 

Acropora scherzeriana (Brüggemann, 1877) * * * 

Acropora secale (Studer, 1878) * * * * * 

Acropora sekiseinsis Veron, 1990 * * 

Acropora selago (Studer, 1878) * * * * * 

Acropora seriata Ehrenberg, 1834 * R * * 

Acropora simplex Wallace and Wolstenholme, 1998 * R E 

Acropora solitaryensis Veron and Wallace, 1984 * * * * * 

Acropora speciosa (Quelch, 1886) * * * * * 

Acropora spicifera (Dana, 1846) * R * * 

Acropora stoddarti Pillai and Scheer, 1976 * * 

Acropora striata (Verrill, 1866) * * * * 

Acropora subglabra (Brook, 1891) * * * * * 

Acropora subulata (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora tenella (Brook, 1892) * R * * 

Acropora tenuis (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acropora teres (Verrilll, 1866) * * 

Acropora tizardi (Brook, 1892) * * 

Acropora torihalimeda Wallace, 1994 * * 

Acropora tortuosa (Dana, 1846) * R * * 

Acropora tumida (Verrill, 1866) * * 

Acropora turaki Wallace, 1994 * R * * 

Acropora tutuilensis Hoffmeister, 1925 * * 

Acropora valenciennesi (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1860) * * * * * 

Acropora valida (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

209

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Acropora variabilis (Klunzinger, 1879) * * * 

Acropora vaughani Wells, 1954 * * * * * 

Acropora vermiculata Nemenzo, 1967 * * * * 

Acropora verweyi Veron and Wallace, 1984 * * * * * 

Acropora walindii Wallace, 1999 * * * * * 

Acropora wallaceae Veron, 1990 * * 

Acropora willisae Veron and Wallace, 1984 * * * * * 

Acropora yongei Veron and Wallace, 1984 * * * * * 

Genus: Astreopora Blainville, 1830 

Astreopora cuculata Lamberts, 1980 * R * * 

Astreopora expansa Brüggemann, 1877 * * * * * 

Astreopora gracilis Bernard, 1896 * * * * * 

Astreopora incrustans Bernard, 1896 * R * * 

Astreopora listeri Bernard, 1896 * * * * * 

Astreopora macrostoma Veron and Wallace, 1984 * * 

Astreopora myriophthalma (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Astreopora ocellata Bernard, 1896 * * * * * 

Astreopora randalli Lamberts, 1980 * * * * * 

Astreopora scabra Lamberts, 1982 * R E 

Astreopora suggesta Wells, 1954 * * * * * 

Family: Euphilliidae Veron, 2000 

Genus: Euphyllia 

Euphyllia ancora Veron and Pichon, 1979 * * * * * 

Euphyllia cristata Chevalier, 1971 * * * * * 

Euphyllia divisa Veron and Pichon, 1980 * * * * * 

Euphyllia glabrescens (Chamisso and Eysenhardt, 1821) * * * * * 

Euphyllia paraancora Veron, 1990 * R * * 

Euphyllia paradivisa Veron, 1990 * * * 

Euphyllia yaeyamensis (Shirai, 1980) * * * * * 

Genus: Catalaphyllia Wells, 1971 

Catalaphyllia jardinei (Saville-Kent, 1893) * R * * 

Genus: Nemenzophyllia Hodgson and Ross, 1981 

Nemenzophyllia turbida Hodgson and Ross, 1981 * R * * 

Genus: Plerogyra Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Plerogyra discus Veron and Fenner, 2000 * R * * 

Plerogyra simplex Rehberg, 1892 * R * * 

Plerogyra sinuosa (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Genus: Physogyra Quelch, 1884 

Physogyra lichtensteini (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851) * * * * * 

210

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Family: Oculinidae Gray, 1847 

Genus: Galaxea Oken, 1815 

Galaxea acrhelia Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Galaxea astreata (Lamarck, 1816) * R * * 

Galaxea cryptoramosa Fenner and Veron, 2000 * * * 

Galaxea fascicularis (Linnaeus, 1767) * * * * * 

Galaxea horrescens (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Galaxea longisepta Fenner & Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Galaxea paucisepta Claereboudt, 1990 * * * * * 

Family: Siderasteridae Vaughan and Wells, 1943 

Genus: Pseudosiderastrea Yabe and Sugiyama, 1935 

Pseudosiderastrea tayami Yabe and Sugiyama, 1935 * R * * 

Genus: Siderastrea Blainville, 1830 

Siderastrea savignyana Milne Edwards and Haime, 1850 * * 

Genus: Psammocora Dana, 1846 

Psammocora contigua (Esper, 1797) * * * * * 

Psammocora digitata Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851 * * * * * 

Psammocora explanulata Horst, 1922 * * * * * 

Psammocora haimeana Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851 * * * * * 

Psammocora nierstraszi Horst, 1921 * * * * * 

Psammocora obtusangula (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Psammocora profundacella Gardiner, 1898 * * * * * 

Psammocora stellata Verrill, 1864 * * * 

Psammocora superficialis Gardiner, 1898 * * * * * 

Genus: Coscinaraea Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Coscinaraea columna (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Coscinaraea crassa Veron and Pichon, 1980 * R * * 

Coscinaraea exesa (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Coscinaraea monile (Foskål, 1775) * R * 

Coscinaraea wellsi Veron and Pichon, 1980 * R * * 

Family: Agariciidae Gray, 1847 

Genus: Pavona Lamarck, 1801 

Pavona bipartita Nemenzo, 1980 * * * * * 

Pavona cactus (Forskål, 1775) * * * * * 

Pavona clavus (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Pavona danae Milne Edwards and Haime, 1860 * * * 

Pavona decussata (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Pavona duerdeni Vaughan, 1907 * * * * * 

Pavona explanulata (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Pavona frondifera (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * 

Pavona maldivensis (Gardiner, 1905) * * * * * 

Pavona minuta Wells, 1954 * * * * * 

211

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Pavona varians Verrill, 1864 * * * * * 

Pavona venosa (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

Genus: Leptoseris Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849 

Leptoseris amitoriensis Veron, 1990 * R E 

Leptoseris explanata Yabe and Sugiyama, 1941 * * * * * 

Leptoseris foliosa Dineson, 1980 * * * * * 

Leptoseris gardineri Horst, 1921 * * * * * 

Leptoseris hawaiiensis Vaughan, 1907 * * * * * 

Leptoseris incrustans (Quelch, 1886) * R * * 

Leptoseris mycetoseroides Wells, 1954 * * * * * 

Leptoseris papyracea (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Leptoseris scabra Vaughan, 1907 * * * * * 

Leptoseris solida (Quelch, 1886) * R * * 

Leptoseris striata (Fenner & Veron 2000) * * * * * 

Leptoseris tubulifera Vaughan, 1907 * * * * 

Leptoseris yabei (Pillai and Scheer, 1976) * * * * * 

Genus: Gardineroseris Scheer and Pillai, 1974 

Gardineroseris planulata Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Genus: Coeloseris Vaughan, 1918 * * 

Coeloseris mayeri Vaughan, 1918 * * * * 

Genus: Pachyseris Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849 

Pachyseris foliosa Veron, 1990 * * * * * 

Pachyseris gemmae Nemenzo, 1955 * * * * * 

Pachyseris involuta (Studer, 1877) * R * * 

Pachyseris rugosa (Lamarck, 1801) * * * * * 

Pachyseris speciosa (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Family: Fungiidae Dana, 1846 

Genus: Cycloseris Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849 

Cycloseris colini Veron, 2000 * * * * 

Cycloseris costulata (Ortmann, 1889) * * * * * 

Cycloseris curvata (Hoeksema, 1989) * * * * 

Cycloseris cyclolites Lamarck, 1801 * * * * * 

Cycloseris erosa (Döderlein, 1901) * * * * 

Cycloseris hexagonalis (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848) * * * * 

Cycloseris patelliformis (Boschma, 1923) * * * * * 

Cycloseris sinensis (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851) * * * * * 

Cycloseris somervillei (Gardiner, 1909) * * * * * 

Cycloseris tenuis (Dana, 1846) * * * * 

Cycloseris vaughani (Boschma, 1923) * * * * * 

Genus: Diaseris 

Diaseris distota (Michelin, 1843) * * 

Diaseris fragilis Alcock, 1893 * * * 

212

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Genus: Cantharellus Hoeksema and Best, 1984 

Cantharellus jebbi Hoeksema, 1993 * R * * 

Cantharellus nuomeae Hoeksema & Best, 1984 * R E 

Genus: Helliofungia Wells, 1966 

Heliofungia actiniformis Quoy and Gaimard, 1833 * * * * * 

Genus: Fungia Lamarck, 1801 

Fungia concinna Verrill, 1864 * * * * * 

Fungia corona Döderlein, 1901 * R * * 

Fungia danai Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851 * * * * * 

Fungia fralinae Nemenzo, 1955 * * * * * 

Fungia fungites (Linneaus, 1758) * * * * * 

Fungia granulosa Klunzinger, 1879 * * * * * 

Fungia horrida Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Fungia klunzingeri Döderlein, 1901 * * * * * 

Fungia moluccensis Horst, 1919 * * * * * 

Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 * * * * * 

Fungia repanda Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Fungia scabra Döderlein, 1901 * * * * * 

Fungia scruposa Klunzinger, 1879 * * * * * 

Fungia scutaria Lamarck, 1801 * * * * * 

Fungia spinifer Claereboudt and Hoeksema, 1987 * * * * * 

Genus: Ctenactis Verrill, 1864 

Ctenactis albitentaculata Hoeksema, 1989 * * * * * 

Ctenactis crassa (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Ctenactis echinata (Pallas, 1766) * * * * * 

Genus: Herpolitha Eschscholtz, 1825 

Herpolitha limax (Houttuyn, 1772) * * * * * 

Herpolitha weberi Horst, 1921 * * * * * 

Genus: Polyphyllia Quoy and Gaimard, 1833 

Polyphyllia novaehiberniae (Lesson, 1831) * R * * 

Polyphyllia talpina (Lamarck, 1801) * * * * * 

Genus: Sandalolitha Quelch, 1884 

Sandalolitha dentata (Quelch, 1886) * * * * * 

Sandalolitha robusta Quelch, 1886 * * * * * 

Genus: Halomitra Dana, 1846 

Halomitra clavator Hoeksema, 1989 * * * * 

Halomitra meierar Veron and Maragos, 2000 * * * * 

Halomitra pileus (Linnaeus, 1758) * * * * * 

Genus: Zoopilus Dana, 1864 

Zoopilus echinatus Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

213

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Genus: Lithophyllum Rehberg, 1892 

Lithophyllon mokai Hoeksema, 1989 * * * * * 

Lithophyllon undulatum Rehberg, 1892 * * * * 

Genus: Podabacia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849 

Podabacia crustacea (Pallas, 1766) * * * * * 

Podabacia motuporensis Veron, 1990 * * * * * 

Family: Pectinidae Vaughan and Wells, 1943 

Genus: Echinophyllia Klunzinger, 1879 

Echinophyllia aspera (Ellis and Solander, 1788) * * * * * 

Echinophyllia costata Fenner and Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Echinophyllia echinata (Saville-Kent, 1871) * * * * * 

Echinophyllia echinoporoides Veron and Pichon, 1979 * * * * * 

Echinophyllia orpheensis Veron and Pichon, 1980 * * * * * 

Echinophyllia patula (Hodgson and Ross, 1982) * * * * * 

Echinophyllia pectinata Veron 2000 * * * 

Genus: Echinomorpha Veron, 2000 

Echinomorpha nishihirea (Veron, 1990) * * * * 

Genus: Oxypora Saville-Kent, 1871 

Oxypora crassispinosa Nemenzo, 1979 * * * * * 

Oxypora glabra Nemenzo, 1959 * * * * * 

Oxypora lacera Verrill, 1864 * * * * * 

Genus: Mycedium Oken, 1815 

Mycedium elephatotus (Pallas, 1766) * * * * * 

Mycedium mancaoi Nemenzo, 1979 * * * * * 

Mycedium robokaki Moll and Best, 1984 * * * * * 

Genus: Pectinia Oken, 1815 

Pectinia alcicornis (Saville-Kent, 1871) * * * * * 

Pectinia ayleni (Wells, 1935) * * * * 

Pectinia elongata Rehberg, 1892 * * * * * 

Pectinia lactuca (Pallas, 1766) * * * * * 

Pectinia maxima (Moll and Borel Best, 1984) * * * * * 

Pectinia paeonia (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Pectinia pygmaeus Veron, 2000 * R * * 

Pectinia teres Nemenzo and montecillo, 1981 * * * * * 

Family: Merulinidae Verrill, 1866 

Genus: Hydnophora Fischer de Waldheim, 1807 

Hydnophora bonsai Veron, 1990 * * * 

Hydnophora exesa (Pallas, 1766) * * * * * 

Hydnophora grandis Gardiner, 1904 * * * * * 

Hydnophora microconos (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

214

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Hydnophora pilosa Veron, 1985 * * * * * 

Hydnophora rigida (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Genus: Paraclavarina Veron, 1985 

Paraclavarina triangularis (Veron and Pichon, 1980) * * 

Genus: Merulina Ehrenberg, 1834 

Merulina ampliata (Ellis and Solander, 1786) * * * * * 

Merulina scabricula Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Genus: Scapophyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Scapophyllia cylindrica Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 * * * * * 

Family: Dendrophylliidae Gray, 1847 

Genus: Turbinaria Oken, 1815 

Turbinaria frondens (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Turbinaria irregularis, Bernard, 1896 * * * * * 

Turbinaria mesenterina (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Turbinaria patula (Dana, 1846) * R * * 

Turbinaria peltata (Esper, 1794) * * * * * 

Turbinaria reniformis Bernard, 1896 * * * * * 

Turbinaria stellulata (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Genus: Heteropsammia Milne Edwards & Haime, 

1848 

Heteropsammia cochlea (Spengler, 1781) * * 

Family: Caryophylliidae Gray, 1847 

Genus: Heterocyathus Milne Edwards and Haime, 

1848 

Heterocyathus aequicostatus Milne Edwards and Haime, 

1848 

* * 

Family: Mussidae Ortmann, 1890 

Genus: Blastomussa Well, 1961 

Blastomussa merleti, Wells, 1961 * * 

Blastomussa wellsi Wijsman-Best, 1973 * * * * 

Genus: Micromussa Veron, 2000 

Micromussa amakusensis (Veron, 1990) * * * * * 

Micromussa minuta (Moll and Borel-Best, 1984) * * * * * 

Genus: Acanthastrea Milne Edwards and Haime, 

1848 

Acanthastrea bowerbanki Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851 * * * * 

Acanthastrea brevis Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849 * R * * 

Acanthastrea echinata (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Acanthastrea faviaformis Veron, 2000 * * * 

Acanthastrea hemprichii (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * 

215

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Acanthastrea hillae Wells, 1955 * R * * 

Acanthastrea ishigakiensis Veron, 1990 * * * * * 

Acanthastrea lordhowensis Veron and Pichon, 1982 * * * 

Acanthastrea regularis Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Acanthastrea rotundoflora Chevalier, 1975 * * * * 

Acanthastrea subechinata Veron, 2000 * * * * 

Acanthastrea sp. 1 * R * 

Acanthastrea sp. 2 * R * 

Genus: Lobophyllia Blainville, 1830 

Lobophyllia corymbosa (Forskål, 1775) * * * * * 

Lobophyllia dentatus Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Lobophyllia diminuta Veron, 1985 * * * * * 

Lobophyllia flabelliformis Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Lobophyllia hataii Yabe and Sugiyama, 1936 * * * * * 

Lobophyllia hemprichii (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

Lobophyllia pachysepta Chevalier, 1975 * R * * 

Lobophyllia robusta Yabe and Sugiyama, 1936 * * * * * 

Lobophyllia serratus Veron, 2000 * * * 

Genus: Symphyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Symphyllia agaricia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849 * * * * * 

Symphyllia hassi Pillai and Scheer, 1976 * * * * * 

Symphyllia radians Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849 * * * * * 

Symphyllia recta (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Symphyllia valenciennesii Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849 * * * * * 

Genus: Scolymia Haime, 1852 

Scolymia australis (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849) * R * * 

Scolymia vitiensis Brüggemann, 1878 * R * * 

Genus: Australomussa Veron, 1985 

Australomussa rowleyensis Veron, 1985 * * * * * 

Genus: Cynarina Brüggemann, 1877 

Cynarina lacrymalis (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848) * * * * * 

Family: Faviidae Gregory, 1900 

Genus: Caulastrea Dana, 1846 

Caulastrea curvata Wijsman-Best, 1972 * * 

Caulastrea echinulata (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849) * * 

Caulastrea furcata Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Caulastrea tumida Matthai, 1928 * R * * 

Genus: Favia Oken, 1815 

Favia danae Verrill, 1872 * * * * * 

Favia favus (Forskål, 1775) * * * * * 

Favia helianthoides Wells, 1954 * * * * * 

216

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Favia laxa (Klunzinger, 1879) * * * * * 

Favia lizardensis Veron and Pichon, 1977 * * * * * 

Favia maritima (Nemenzo, 1971) * * * * * 

Favia marshae Veron, 2000 * R E 

Favia matthai Vaughan, 1918 * * * * * 

Favia maxima Veron, Pichon & Wijsman-Best, 1972 * * * * * 

Favia pallida (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Favia rosaria Veron, 2000 * R * 

Favia rotumana (Gardiner, 1899) * * * * * 

Favia rotundata Veron, Pichon & Wijsman-Best, 1972 * * * * * 

Favia speciosa Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Favia stelligera (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Favia truncatus Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Favia veroni Moll and Borel-Best, 1984 * * * * * 

Favia vietnamensis Veron, 2000 * * 

Genus: Barabattoia Yabe and Sugiyama, 1941 

Barabattoia amicorum (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1850) * R E 

Barabattoia laddi (Wells, 1954) * * * * * 

Genus: Favites Link, 1807 

Favites abdita (Ellis and Solander, 1786) * * * * * 

Favites acuticulis (Ortmann, 1889) * R E 

Favites bestae Veron, 2000 * * * * 

Favites chinensis (Verrill, 1866) * * * * * 

Favites complanata (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

Favites flexuosa (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Favites halicora (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

Favites micropentagona Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Favites paraflexuosa Veron, 2000 * * * * 

Favites pentagona (Esper, 1794) * * * * * 

Favites russelli (Wells, 1954) * * * * * 

Favites cf. spinosa (Klunzinger, 1879) * R E 

Favites stylifera (Yabe and Sugiyama, 1937) * * * * * 

Favites vasta (Klunzinger, 1879) * * * * * 

Genus: Goniastrea Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Goniastrea aspera Verrill, 1905 * * * * * 

Goniastrea australensis (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1857) * * * * * 

Goniastrea edwardsi Chevalier, 1971 * * * * * 

Goniastrea favulus (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Goniastrea minuta Veron, 2000 * R * * 

Goniastrea palauensis (Yabe and Sugiyama, 1936) * * 

Goniastrea pectinata (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

Goniastrea ramosa Veron, 2000 * * * * 

Goniastrea retiformis (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Genus: Platygyra Ehrenberg, 1834 

Platygyra acuta Veron, 2000 * * * * 

217

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Platygyra contorta Veron, 1990 * R * * 

Platygyra daedalea (Ellis and Solander, 1786) * * * * * 

Platygyra lamellina (Ehrenberg, 1834) * * * * * 

Platygyra pini Chevalier, 1975 * * * * * 

Platygyra ryukyuensis Yabe and Sugiyama, 1936 * * * * * 

Platygyra sinensis (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849) * * * * * 

Platygyra verweyi Wijsman-Best, 1976 * * * * * 

Platygyra yaeyemaensis Eguchi and Shirai, 1977 * R E 

Genus: Oulophyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Oulophyllia bennettae (Veron, Pichon, 1977) * * * * * 

Oulophyllia crispa (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Oulophyllia levis Nemenzo, 1959 * * * * 

Genus: Leptoria Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Leptoria irregularis Veron, 1990 * R * * 

Leptoria phrygia (Ellis and Solander, 1786) * * * * * 

Genus: Montastrea Blainville, 1830 

Montastrea annuligera (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849) * * * * * 

Montastrea colemani Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Montastrea curta (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Montastrea magnistellata Chevalier, 1971 * * * * * 

Montastrea multipunctata Hodgson, 1985 * * 

Montastrea salebrosa (Nemenzo, 1959) * * * * * 

Montastrea valenciennesi (Milne Edwards and Haime, 

1848) 

* * * * * 

Genus: Plesiastrea Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Plesiastrea versipora (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Genus: Oulastrea Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Oulastrea crispata (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Genus: Diploastrea Matthai, 1914 

Diploastrea heliopora (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Genus: Leptastrea Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Leptastrea aequalis Veron, 2000 * R E 

Leptastrea bewickensis Veron and Pichon, 1977 * * 

Leptastrea bottae (Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849) * * * * 

Leptastrea inaequalis Klunzinger, 1879 * * 

Leptastrea pruinosa Crossland, 1952 * * * * * 

Leptastrea purpurea (Dana, 1846) * * * * * 

Leptastrea transversa Klunzinger, 1879 * * * * * 

Genus: Cyphastrea Milne Edwards and Haime, 1848 

Cyphastrea agassizi (Vaughan, 1907) * * * * 

Cyphastrea chalcidium (Forskål, 1775) * * * * * 

Cyphastrea decadia Moll and Best, 1984 * * * * * 

218

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Cyphastrea japonica Yabe and Sugiyama, 1932 * * * * * 

Cyphastrea microphthalma (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * * 

Cyphastrea ocellina (Dana, 1864) * * * * * 

Cyphastrea serailia (Forskål, 1775) * * * * * 

Genus: Echinopora Lamarck, 1816 

Echinopora ashmorensis Veron, 1990 * * 

Echinopora gemmacea Lamarck, 1816 * * * * * 

Echinopora hirsutissima Milne Edwards and Haime, 1849 * * * * * 

Echinopora horrida Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Echinopora lamellosa (Esper, 1795) * * * * * 

Echinopora mammiformis (Nemenzo, 1959) * * * * * 

Echinopora pacificus Veron, 1990 * * * * * 

Echinopora taylorae (Veron, 2000) * R E 

Genus: Moseleya Quelch, 1884 

Moseleya latistellata Quelch, 1884 * * 

Family: Trachyphyllidae Verrill, 1901 

Genus: Trachyphyllia Milne Edwards and Haime, 

1848 

Trachyphyllia geoffroyi (Audouin, 1826) * * * * * 

Family: Poritidae Gray, 1842 

Genus: Porites Link, 1807 

Porites aranetai Nemenzo, 1955 * R E 

Porites annae Crossland, 1952 * * * * * 

Porites attenuata Nemenzo 1955 * * * * * 

Porites australiensis Vaughan, 1918 * * * * * 

Porites cumulatus Nemenzo, 1955 * R * * 

Porites cylindrica Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Porites deformis Nemenzo, 1955 * * * * * 

Porites densa Vaughan, 1918 * * * * 

Porites eridani Umbgrove, 1940 * * 

Porites evermanni Vaughan, 1907 * * * * * 

Porites flavus Veron, 2000 * * * * 

Porites cf. heronensis Veron, 1985 * R E 

Porites horizontalata Hoffmeister, 1925 * * * * * 

Porites latistellata Quelch, 1886 * * * * * 

Porites lichen Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Porites lobata Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Porites lutea Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851 * * * * * 

Porites mayeri Vaughan, 1918 * * * * 

Porites monticulosa Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Porites murrayensis Vaughan, 1918 * * * * 

Porites napopora Veron, 2000 * * * 

Porites negrosensis Veron, 1990 * * * * 

Porites nigrescens Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

219

Appendices 


This study 

Raja Ampat 

Veron, 2002 

New Total 

for Raja 

Ampat 

East 


Veron, 

2000^ 

New Total 

for East 


Porites ornata Nemenzo, 1971 * * 

Porites profundus Rehberg, 1892 * * * * 

Porites rugosa Fenner & Veron, 2000 * * * * 

Porites rus (Forskål, 1775) * * * * * 

Porites sillimaniana Nemenzo, 1976 * * * * 

Porites solida (Forskål, 1775) * * * * * 

Porites stephensoni Crossland, 1952 * * * * * 

Porites tuberculosa Veron, 2000 * * * * * 

Porites vaughani Crossland, 1952 * * * * * 

Genus: Goniopora Blainville, 1830 

Goniopora albiconus Veron, 2000 * * * * 

Goniopora burgosi Nemenzo, 1955 * * * * 

Goniopora columna Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Goniopora djiboutiensis Vaughan, 1907 * * * * * 

Goniopora eclipsensis Veron and Pichon, 1982 * * * * 

Goniopora fruticosa Saville-Kent, 1893 * * * * * 

Goniopora lobata Milne Edwards and Haime, 1860 * * * * * 

Goniopora minor Crossland, 1952 * * * * * 

Goniopora palmensis Veron and Pichon, 1982 * * * * * 

Goniopora pandoraensis Veron and Pichon, 1982 * * * * * 

Goniopora pendulus Veron, 1985 * * * * 

Goniopora polyformis Zou, 1980 * * * 

Goniopora somaliensis Vaughan, 1907 * * * * * 

Goniopora stokesi Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851 * * * * * 

Goniopora stutchburyi Wells, 1955 * * * * * 

Goniopora tenella (Quelch, 1886) * * * * 

Goniopora tenuidens (Quelch, 1886) * * * * * 

Genus: Alveopora Blainville, 1830 

Alveopora allingi Hoffmeister, 1925 * * 

Alveopora catalai Wells, 1968 * * * * * 

Alveopora daedalea (Forskål, 1775) * R * * 

Alveopora excelsa Verrill, 1863 * R E 

Alveopora fenestrata (Lamarck, 1816) * * * * 

Alveopora gigas Veron, 1985 * * * * * 

Alveopora marionensis Veron and Pichon, 1982 * * * * 

Alveopora minuta Veron, 2000 * R E 

Alveopora spongiosa Dana, 1846 * * * * * 

Alveopora tizardi Bassett-Smith, 1890 * R * * 

Alveopora verrilliana Dana, 1872 * * 

TOTAL 488 452 537 491 579 

220

Appendices 

Appendix 5. Other non-zooxanthellate and non-scleratinian hard corals, and soft corals recored at the 

Raja Ampat Islands. 

Number of sites at which each taxon was recorded is indicated. 

Hard coral Taxa 

Soft coral Taxa 

Sites Sites Sites 

Scleractinia Alcyonacea Briareidae 

Briareum 38 

Dendrophylliidae 

Clavulariidae 

Tubastrea micrantha 18 Clavularia 25 Anthothelidae 

Tubastrea coccinae 9 Iciligorgia P 

Tubastrea folkneri 5 Alcyoniidae Solenocaulon P 

Cladiella 11 

Milleporina Dampia 11 Supergorgiidae 

Klyxum 13 Annella P 

Milleporidae Lobophytum 40 

Millepora dichotoma 9 Rhytisma Melithaeidae 

Millepora exesa 25 Sarcophyton 74 Acabaria P 

Millepora intricata 22 Sinularia spp. 69 Melithaea P 

Millepora platyphylla 14 Sinularia brascica 23 

Millepora tenella 32 Sinularia lamellata Plexauridae 

Sinularia tree 5 Echinogorgia P 

Hydroida Paraplexaura P 

Nephtheidae 

Stylastridae Capnella 20 Gorgoniidae 

Distichopora 5 Dendronephthya 39 Pinnigorgia 12 

Stylaster 7 Lemnalia 24 Rumphella 31 

Litophyton 2 

Helioporacea Nephthea 65 Ellisellidae 

Paralemnalia 41 Elisella 19 

Helioporidae Scleronephthya 7 Junceella 15 

Heliopora coerolea 21 Stereonepthya 16 

Heliopora sp. 1 1 Umbellulifera Isididae 

Isis 22 

Alcyonacea 

Nidaliidae 

Chironephthya 1 Pennatulacea 

Tubiporidae Nephthyigorgia P 

Tubipora musica 47 Siphonogorgia 9 Virgulariidae 

Virgularia 2 

Paralcyoniidae 

Studeriotes 2 Pteroeididae 

Pteroeides 4 

Xeniidae 

Anthelia 8 Antipatharia 

Cespitularia 2 

Efflatounaria P Antipathidae 

Heteroxenia 5 Antipathes 6 

Sympodium P Cirrhipathes 12 

Xenia 36 

221

% 

% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%%%% 

% % 

% % 

%% 

% 

%% 

% % 

% % 

%% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% %% %% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%% % 

% % % 

% % 

% 

%%% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% %% 

%% % % % 

%% 

% 

%% % 

% %%% %% %% 

% % % 

%%% 

% % 

%% %% 

% % 

% 

% % % % % 

%%%%%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%%% %% %%% % 

%% % %% %% 

%%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% %% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

% %% 

% %% % 

% % % 

% % 

% 

% 


Appendices 

Appendix 6. Reefs at Risk Maps 

129°30' E 130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

REEF POINTS 

BY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT THREAT 

2°00' S 1°30' S 1°00' S 0°30' S 0°00' 0°30' S 

LEGEND 

Threat 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Very Low 

Sofa C. 

HALMAHERA SEA 

Ubulie C. 

Boo I 

% % 

Ju 

Fau I. 

Gebe Island 

%% 

% %%%% 

%%% % % 

% % 

%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% % 

Ilingelyo C. 

Ngetagelyo C. 

Ai I. 

% 

% 

Sayang 

%% 

% 

%% %% 

%%%% %% 

%% %% % 

Gag I. 

%% % % 

%% % 

%% %% 

%% 

%% 

Wayag I. 

% %% 

% % 

%%%%%% 

% %%% %% 

%%%% % 

%%%%%%%%%%% 

% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% 

% 

Penemu I. % 

%% 

% 

% % 

%% %% 

%% % % % 

%% % %% 

% %%% 

%% % %% 

% % %%% %% 

%% % Inus I. 

WRuwarez I. 

%% %% % 

% %% %%%% % %% % %% 

% % %%% %%%% 

% %% %% %%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

Mios I. 

%%% %% % %%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%%% %%%% %% 

%%% Dayang I. 

%% 

%%%%% 

%% 

% 

Biri e I. 

Mios Ging 

Mios Ga 

Warwarai Bay 

% %% % 

%% % % 

%% %% % 

%% %% 

%%% 

% %% %%%%%% %% 

%% %%%% %% Jailolo I. %%% 

%% % %% 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Metkamap I. 

%%% % % 

%% %% 

Coastline 

Depth < 200 m 

Depth > 200 m 

Coral Reef 

Land 


Taudore I. 

%%%% % 

%% %%% % 

%% % 

Mangimangi %%% %% 

% %% % % 

%%%% % % % % % 

Nampale I. 

% 

% 

Uta I. 

% 

%%%%% 

Kanari I. 

Eftorobi 

% % 

%%%% 

Nanisa I. 

KOFIAU 

Wambong Bay 

Senyu I. 

Kananowat I. 

Gam I. 

Balbalak I. 

%% 

% 

BATANME 

%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%% % % 

% %%% % % 

In I. 

Kawe 

Ju I. 

Yar I. 

Quoy I. 

Kodor I. 

%%% %%% 

% %%% %% 

% %% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Bag I. 

Bougenvi le Strait 

Minyaifun I. 


PAPUA 


Me I. 

Uranie I. 

Batangpele I. 

Babi I. 

Tamagui I. 

W 

Wunoh I. 

Alyui Bay 

Scale 1:500.000 

Yeben I. 

Fam I. 

Yamtu C. 

Lilinta Bay 

N 

S 

Mabo C. 

E 

Tamulol Bay 

Katimkerio I. 

Sehun I. 

WAIGEO 

Warparim Bay 

Kabui Strait 

GAM 

Myanel I. 

Kabui Bay 

Mansuar I. 

Dampir Strait 

Waray Bay 

BATANTA 

Sagewin I. 


Lenkafal I. 

Wagmab I. 

Puan 


Tapokreng 


Kapalbogin C. 

Denie I. 

Salebioket C. 

Manuran I. 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%% % %% 

% % 

% % % 

% %% 

%% %% 

%% % 

% % 

% 

% 

%% %%%% 

% %%%%%% %% 

Lawak I. %%%% %% 

%% %% 

Pitsyor 

SALAWATI 

%% 

% 

%% 

% %% Manonket C. 

%% 

%% 

Kamyolo C. 

%% %%% 

%%% % % % % % % 

%%%%% %% 

Evanas C. 

Ayemi I. 

Kandorwa C. 

WAIGEO 

Mayasalava C. 

Sele C. 

Boni I. 

%% %% % % 

% % % % 

%%% 

%% % 

Warir I. 

% 

%% 

% %%% 

%%%%% 

Yefyus I. 

Sorong C. 

%% % 

% % % 

Sele Strait 

% % 

Sorong 

Warai C. 

Imbikwan C. 

Momfafa C. 

PAPUA 

0°30' S 

0°00' 

0°30' S 

1°00' S 

1°30' S 

2°00' S 

Efmo I. 

SERAM 

PAPUA 

PAPUA 

SERAM SEA 

Yetpelle I. 

Wayilbatan I. 

Kal ig I. 

Daram I. 


ARAFURU SEA 

Sources : 




Drawn by Muhammad Barmawi 

129°30' E 

130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

222

% 

% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% %% %% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%% % 

%% % 

%% 

% 

%%% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% %% 

%% % % % 

%% 

% 

%% % 

% %%% %% %% 

% % % 

%%% 

% % 

%% %% 

%% 

% 

% % % % % 

%%%%%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%%% %% %%% % 

%% % %% %% 

%%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% %% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

% % % 

%%%% 

%%% 

% % 

% 

% 


Appendices 

129°30' E 130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

REEF POINTS 

BY DESTRUCTIVE FISHING THREAT 

2°00' S 1°30' S 1°00' S 0°30' S 0°00' 0°30' S 

LEGEND 

Threat 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Very Low 

Sofa C. 

HALMAHERA SEA 

Ubulie C. 

Boo I 

% % 

Ju 

Fau I. 

Gebe Island 

%% 

% %%%% 

%%% % % 

% % 

%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% % 

Ilingelyo C. 

Ngetagelyo C. 

Ai I. 

% 

% 

Sayang 

%% 

% 

%% %% 

%%%% %% 

%% %% % 

Gag I. 

%% % % 

%% % 

%% %% 

%% 

%% 

Wayag I. 

% % % 

% % 

%%%%%% 

% %%% %% 

%%%% % 

%%%%%%%%%%% 

% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% 

% 

Penemu I. % 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% %% 

%% %% % 

%% %%% 

% %%% 

%% % %% 

% % %%% %% 

%% % Inus I. 

WRuwarez I. 

%% %% % 

% %% %%%% % %% % %% 

% % %%% %%%% 

% %% %% %%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

Mios I. 

%%% %% % %%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%%% %%%% %% 

%%% Dayang I. 

%% 

%%%%% 

%% 

% 

Biri e I. 

Mios Ging 

Mios Ga 

Warwarai Bay 

% %% % 

%% % % 

%% %% % 

%% %% 

%%% 

% %% %%%%%%%% 

%% %%%% %% Jailolo I. %%% 

%% % %% 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Metkamap I. 

%%% % % 

%% %% 

Coastline 

Depth < 200 m 

Depth > 200 m 

Coral Reef 

Land 


Taudore I. 

%%% % % 

%% %%% % 

%% % 


%%%% % 

%%%% % %%% % 

Nampale I. 

% 

% 

Uta I. 

% 

%%%%% 

Kanari I. 

Eftorobi 

% % 

%%%% 

Nanisa I. 

KOFIAU 

Wambong Bay 

Senyu I. 

Kananowat I. 

Gam I. 

Balbalak I. 

%% 

% 

BATANME 

%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%% % % 

% %%% %% 

In I. 

Kawe 

Ju I. 

Yar I. 

Quoy I. 

Kodor I. 

%%% %%% 

%%%% %% 

% %% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Bag I. 


Minyaifun I. 


PAPUA 


Me I. 

Uranie I. 

Batangpele I. 

Babi I. 

Tamagui I. 

W 

Wunoh I. 

Alyui Bay 

Scale 1:500.000 

Yeben I. 

Fam I. 

Yamtu C. 

Lilinta Bay 

N 

S 

Mabo C. 

E 

Tamulol Bay 

Katimkerio I. 

Sehun I. 

WAIGEO 

Warparim Bay 

Kabui Strait 

GAM 

Myanel I. 

Kabui Bay 

Mansuar I. 

Dampir Strait 

Waray Bay 

BATANTA 

Sagewin I. 


Lenkafal I. 

Wagmab I. 

Puan 


Tapokreng 


Kapalbogin C. 

Denie I. 

Salebioket C. 

Manuran I. 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%% % %% 

% % 

% % % 

% %% 

%% %% 

%% % 

% % 

% 

% 

%% %%%% 

% %%%%%% %% 

Lawak I. %%%% %% 

%% %% 

Pitsyor 

SALAWATI 

%% 

% 

%% 


%% 

%% 

Kamyolo C. 

%% %%% 

%%% % % % % % % 

%%%%% %% 

Evanas C. 

Ayemi I. 

Kandorwa C. 

WAIGEO 

Mayasalava C. 

Sele C. 

Boni I. 

%% %% %% 

% % % % 

%%% 

%% % 

Warir I. 

% 

%% 

% % % % 

%%%%% 

Yefyus I. 

Sorong C. 

%% % 

% % % 

Sele Strait 

% % 

Sorong 

Warai C. 

Imbikwan C. 

Momfafa C. 

PAPUA 

0°30' S 

0°00' 

0°30' S 

1°00' S 

1°30' S 

2°00' S 

Efmo I. 

SERAM 

PAPUA 

PAPUA 

SERAM SEA 

Yetpelle I. 

Wayilbatan I. 

Kal ig I. 

Daram I. 


ARAFURU SEA 

Sources : 





129°30' E 

130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

223

% 

% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% %% %% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%% % 

%% % 

%% 

% 

%%% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% %% 

%% % % % 

%% 

% 

%% % 

% %%% %% %% 

% % % 

%%% 

% % 

%% %% 

%% 

% 

% % % % % 

%%%%%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%%% %% %%% % 

%% % %% %% 

%%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% %% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

% %% 

%%%% 

% %% 

% % 

% 

% 


Appendices 

129°30' E 130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

REEF POINTS 

BY MARINE POLLUTION THREAT 

2°00' S 1°30' S 1°00' S 0°30' S 0°00' 0°30' S 

LEGEND 

Threat 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Very Low 

Sofa C. 

HALMAHERA SEA 

Ubulie C. 

Boo I 

% % 

Ju 

Fau I. 

Gebe Island 

%% 

% %%%% 

%%% % % 

% % 

%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% % 

Ilingelyo C. 

Ngetagelyo C. 

Ai I. 

% 

% 

Sayang 

%% 

% 

%% %% 

%%%% %% 

%% %% % 

Gag I. 

%% % % 

%% % 

%% %% 

%% 

%% 

Wayag I. 

% % % 

% % 

%%%%%% 

% %%% %% 

%%%% % 

%%%%%%%%%%% 

% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% 

% 

Penemu I. % 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% %% 

%% %% % 

%% %%% 

% %%% 

%% % %% 

% % %%% %% 

%% % Inus I. 

WRuwarez I. 

%% % %% 

% %% %%%% % %% % %% 

% % %%% %%%% 

% %% %% %%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

Mios I. 

%%% %% % %%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%%% %%%%%% 

%%% Dayang I. 

%% 

% %%%% 

%% 

% 

Biri e I. 

Mios Ging 

Mios Ga 

Warwarai Bay 

% %% % 

%% % % 

%% %% % 

%% %% 

%%% 

% %% %%%%%%%% 

%% %%%% %% Jailolo I. %%% 

%% % %% 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Metkamap I. 

%%% % % 

% % %% 

Coastline 

Depth < 200 m 

Depth > 200 m 

Coral Reef 

Land 


Taudore I. 

%%% % % 

%% %%% % 

%% % 


%%%% % 

%%%% % %%% % 

Nampale I. 

% 

% 

Uta I. 

% 

% %%%% 

Kanari I. 

Eftorobi 

% % 

%%%% 

Nanisa I. 

KOFIAU 

Wambong Bay 

Senyu I. 

Kananowat I. 

Gam I. 

Balbalak I. 

%% 

% 

BATANME 

% % 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%% % % 

% %%% %% 

In I. 

Kawe 

Ju I. 

Yar I. 

Quoy I. 

Kodor I. 

%%% %%% 

%%%% %% 

% %% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Bag I. 


Minyaifun I. 


PAPUA 


Me I. 

Uranie I. 

Batangpele I. 

Babi I. 

Tamagui I. 

W 

Wunoh I. 

Alyui Bay 

Scale 1:500.000 

Yeben I. 

Fam I. 

Yamtu C. 

Lilinta Bay 

N 

S 

Mabo C. 

E 

Tamulol Bay 

Katimkerio I. 

Sehun I. 

WAIGEO 

Warparim Bay 

Kabui Strait 

GAM 

Myanel I. 

Kabui Bay 

Mansuar I. 

Dampir Strait 

Waray Bay 

BATANTA 

Sagewin I. 


Lenkafal I. 

Wagmab I. 

Puan 


Tapokreng 


Kapalbogin C. 

Denie I. 

Salebioket C. 

Manuran I. 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%% % %% 

% % 

% % % 

% %% 

%% %% 

%% % 

% % 

% 

% 

%% %%%% 

% %%%%%% %% 

Lawak I. %%%% %% 

%% %% 

Pitsyor 

SALAWATI 

%% 

% 

%% 


%% 

%% 

Kamyolo C. 

%% %%% 

%%% % % % % % % 

% %%%% % % 

Evanas C. 

Ayemi I. 

Kandorwa C. 

WAIGEO 

Mayasalava C. 

Sele C. 

Boni I. 

%% %% % % 

% % % % 

%%% 

%% % 

Warir I. 

% 

%% 

% % % % 

%%%%% 

Yefyus I. 

Sorong C. 

%% % 

% % % 

Sele Strait 

% % 

Sorong 

Warai C. 

Imbikwan C. 

Momfafa C. 

PAPUA 

0°30' S 

0°00' 

0°30' S 

1°00' S 

1°30' S 

2°00' S 

Efmo I. 

SERAM 

PAPUA 

PAPUA 

SERAM SEA 

Yetpelle I. 

Wayilbatan I. 

Kal ig I. 

Daram I. 


ARAFURU SEA 

Sources : 





129°30' E 

130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

224

% 

% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% %% %% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%% % 

%% % 

%% 

% 

%%% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% %% 

%% % % % 

%% 

% 

%% % 

% %%% %% %% 

% % % 

%%% 

% % 

%% %% 

%% 

% 

% % % % % 

%%%%%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%%% %% %%% % 

%% % %% %% 

%%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% %% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

% % % 

%%%% 

%%% 

% % 

% 

% 


Appendices 

129°30' E 130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

REEF POINTS 

BY OVERFISHING THREAT 

2°00' S 1°30' S 1°00' S 0°30' S 0°00' 0°30' S 

LEGEND 

Threat 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Very Low 

Sofa C. 

HALMAHERA SEA 

Ubulie C. 

Boo I 

% % 

Ju 

Fau I. 

Gebe Island 

%% 

% %%%% 

%%% % % 

% % 

%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% % 

Ilingelyo C. 

Ngetagelyo C. 

Ai I. 

% 

% 

Sayang 

%% 

% 

%% %% 

%%%% %% 

%% %% % 

Gag I. 

%% % % 

%% % 

%% %% 

%% 

%% 

Wayag I. 

% % % 

% % 

%%%%%% 

% %%% %% 

%%%% % 

%%%%%%%%%%% 

% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% 

% 

Penemu I. % 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% %% 

%% %% % 

%% %%% 

% %%% 

%% % %% 

% % %%% %% 

%% % Inus I. 

WRuwarez I. 

%% %% % 

% %% %%%% % %% % %% 

% % %%% %%%% 

% %% %% %%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

Mios I. 

%%% %% % %%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%%% %%%% %% 

%%% Dayang I. 

%% 

%%%%% 

%% 

% 

Biri e I. 

Mios Ging 

Mios Ga 

Warwarai Bay 

% %% % 

%% % % 

%% %% % 

%% %% 

%%% 

% %% %%%%%%%% 

%% %%%% %% Jailolo I. %%% 

%% % %% 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Metkamap I. 

%%% % % 

%% %% 

Coastline 

Depth < 200 m 

Depth > 200 m 

Coral Reef 

Land 


Taudore I. 

%%% % % 

%% %%% % 

%% % 


%%%% % 

%%%% % %%% % 

Nampale I. 

% 

% 

Uta I. 

% 

%%%%% 

Kanari I. 

Eftorobi 

% % 

%%%% 

Nanisa I. 

KOFIAU 

Wambong Bay 

Senyu I. 

Kananowat I. 

Gam I. 

Balbalak I. 

%% 

% 

BATANME 

%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%% % % 

% %%% %% 

In I. 

Kawe 

Ju I. 

Yar I. 

Quoy I. 

Kodor I. 

%%% %%% 

%%%% %% 

% %% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Bag I. 


Minyaifun I. 


PAPUA 


Me I. 

Uranie I. 

Batangpele I. 

Babi I. 

Tamagui I. 

W 

Wunoh I. 

Alyui Bay 

Scale 1:500.000 

Yeben I. 

Fam I. 

Yamtu C. 

Lilinta Bay 

N 

S 

Mabo C. 

E 

Tamulol Bay 

Katimkerio I. 

Sehun I. 

WAIGEO 

Warparim Bay 

Kabui Strait 

GAM 

Myanel I. 

Kabui Bay 

Mansuar I. 

Dampir Strait 

Waray Bay 

BATANTA 

Sagewin I. 


Lenkafal I. 

Wagmab I. 

Puan 


Tapokreng 


Kapalbogin C. 

Denie I. 

Salebioket C. 

Manuran I. 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%% % %% 

% % 

% % % 

% %% 

%% %% 

%% % 

% % 

% 

% 

%% %%%% 

% %%%%%% %% 

Lawak I. %%%% %% 

%% %% 

Pitsyor 

SALAWATI 

%% 

% 

%% 


%% 

%% 

Kamyolo C. 

%% %%% 

%%% % % % % % % 

%%%%% %% 

Evanas C. 

Ayemi I. 

Kandorwa C. 

WAIGEO 

Mayasalava C. 

Sele C. 

Boni I. 

%% %% %% 

% % % % 

%%% 

%% % 

Warir I. 

% 

%% 

% % % % 

%%%%% 

Yefyus I. 

Sorong C. 

%% % 

% % % 

Sele Strait 

% % 

Sorong 

Warai C. 

Imbikwan C. 

Momfafa C. 

PAPUA 

0°30' S 

0°00' 

0°30' S 

1°00' S 

1°30' S 

2°00' S 

Efmo I. 

SERAM 

PAPUA 

PAPUA 

SERAM SEA 

Yetpelle I. 

Wayilbatan I. 

Kal ig I. 

Daram I. 


ARAFURU SEA 

Sources : 





129°30' E 

130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

225

% 

% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% %% %% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%% % 

%% % 

%% 

% 

%%% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% %% 

%% % % % 

%% 

% 

%% % 

% %%% %% %% 

% % % 

%%% 

% % 

%% %% 

%% 

% 

% % % % % 

%%%%%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%%% %% %%% % 

%% % %% %% 

%%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% %% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

% % % 

%%%% 

%%% 

% % 

% 

% 


Appendices 

129°30' E 130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

REEF POINTS 

BY SEDIMENT THREAT 

2°00' S 1°30' S 1°00' S 0°30' S 0°00' 0°30' S 

LEGEND 

Threat 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Very Low 

Sofa C. 

HALMAHERA SEA 

Ubulie C. 

Boo I 

% % 

Ju 

Fau I. 

Gebe Island 

%% 

% %%%% 

%%% % % 

% % 

%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% % 

Ilingelyo C. 

Ngetagelyo C. 

Ai I. 

% 

% 

Sayang 

%% 

% 

%% %% 

%%%% %% 

%% %% % 

Gag I. 

%% % % 

%% % 

%% %% 

%% 

%% 

Wayag I. 

% % % 

% % 

%%%%%% 

% %%% %% 

%%%% % 

%%%%%%%%%%% 

% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% 

% 

Penemu I. % 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% %% 

%% %% % 

%% %%% 

% %%% 

%% % %% 

% % %%% %% 

%% % Inus I. 

WRuwarez I. 

%% %% % 

% %% %%%% % %% % %% 

% % %%% %%%% 

% %% %% %%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

Mios I. 

%%% %% % %%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%%% %%%% %% 

%%% Dayang I. 

%% 

%%%%% 

%% 

% 

Biri e I. 

Mios Ging 

Mios Ga 

Warwarai Bay 

% %% % 

%% % % 

%% %% % 

%% %% 

%%% 

% %% %%%%%%%% 

%% %%%% %% Jailolo I. %%% 

%% % %% 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Metkamap I. 

%%% % % 

%% %% 

Coastline 

Depth < 200 m 

Depth > 200 m 

Coral Reef 

Land 


Taudore I. 

%%% % % 

%% %%% % 

%% % 


%%%% % 

%%%% % %%% % 

Nampale I. 

% 

% 

Uta I. 

% 

%%%%% 

Kanari I. 

Eftorobi 

% % 

%%%% 

Nanisa I. 

KOFIAU 

Wambong Bay 

Senyu I. 

Kananowat I. 

Gam I. 

Balbalak I. 

%% 

% 

BATANME 

%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%% % % 

% %%% %% 

In I. 

Kawe 

Ju I. 

Yar I. 

Quoy I. 

Kodor I. 

%%% %%% 

%%%% %% 

% %% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Bag I. 


Minyaifun I. 


PAPUA 


Me I. 

Uranie I. 

Batangpele I. 

Babi I. 

Tamagui I. 

W 

Wunoh I. 

Alyui Bay 

Scale 1:500.000 

Yeben I. 

Fam I. 

Yamtu C. 

Lilinta Bay 

N 

S 

Mabo C. 

E 

Tamulol Bay 

Katimkerio I. 

Sehun I. 

WAIGEO 

Warparim Bay 

Kabui Strait 

GAM 

Myanel I. 

Kabui Bay 

Mansuar I. 

Dampir Strait 

Waray Bay 

BATANTA 

Sagewin I. 


Lenkafal I. 

Wagmab I. 

Puan 


Tapokreng 


Kapalbogin C. 

Denie I. 

Salebioket C. 

Manuran I. 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%% % %% 

% % 

% % % 

% %% 

%% %% 

%% % 

% % 

% 

% 

%% %%%% 

% %%%%%% %% 

Lawak I. %%%% %% 

%% %% 

Pitsyor 

SALAWATI 

%% 

% 

%% 


%% 

%% 

Kamyolo C. 

%% %%% 

%%% % % % % % % 

%%%%% %% 

Evanas C. 

Ayemi I. 

Kandorwa C. 

WAIGEO 

Mayasalava C. 

Sele C. 

Boni I. 

%% %% %% 

% % % % 

%%% 

%% % 

Warir I. 

% 

%% 

% % % % 

%%%%% 

Yefyus I. 

Sorong C. 

%% % 

% % % 

Sele Strait 

% % 

Sorong 

Warai C. 

Imbikwan C. 

Momfafa C. 

PAPUA 

0°30' S 

0°00' 

0°30' S 

1°00' S 

1°30' S 

2°00' S 

Efmo I. 

SERAM 

PAPUA 

PAPUA 

SERAM SEA 

Yetpelle I. 

Wayilbatan I. 

Kal ig I. 

Daram I. 


ARAFURU SEA 

Sources : 





129°30' E 

130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

226

% 

% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%%%% 

% % 

% % 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% 

% 

%% %% %% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%% % 

%% % 

%% 

% 

%%% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% %% 

%% % % % 

%% 

% 

%% % 

% %%% %% %% 

% % % 

%%% 

% % 

%% %% 

%% 

% 

% % % % % 

%%%%%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

% 

% 

%%% 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%%% %% %%% % 

%% % %% %% 

%%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% %% 

% 

%% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%%%% 

%%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

% % % 

%%%% 

%%% 

% % 

% 

% 


Appendices 

129°30' E 130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

REEF POINTS 

BY THREAT INDEX 

2°00' S 1°30' S 1°00' S 0°30' S 0°00' 0°30' S 

LEGEND 

Threat 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Very Low 

Sofa C. 

HALMAHERA SEA 

Ubulie C. 

Boo I 

% % 

Ju 

Fau I. 

Gebe Island 

%% 

% %%%% 

%%% % % 

% % 

%% % 

%% 

%% 

%% % 

Ilingelyo C. 

Ngetagelyo C. 

Ai I. 

% 

% 

Sayang 

%% 

% 

%% %% 

%%%% %% 

%% %% % 

Gag I. 

%% % % 

%% % 

%% %% 

%% 

%% 

Wayag I. 

% % % 

% % 

%%%%%% 

% %%% %% 

%%%% % 

%%%%%%%%%%% 

% 

%%%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% 

% 

Penemu I. % 

%% 

% 

%% 

%% %% 

%% %% % 

%% %%% 

% %%% 

%% % %% 

% % %%% %% 

%% % Inus I. 

WRuwarez I. 

%% %% % 

% %% %%%% % %% % %% 

% % %%% %%%% 

% %% %% %%% 

%% 

%% 

% %%% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

Mios I. 

%%% %% % %%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%%% %%%% %% 

%%% Dayang I. 

%% 

%%%%% 

%% 

% 

Biri e I. 

Mios Ging 

Mios Ga 

Warwarai Bay 

% %% % 

%% % % 

%% %% % 

%% %% 

%%% 

% %% %%%%%%%% 

%% %%%% %% Jailolo I. %%% 

%% % %% 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Metkamap I. 

%%% % % 

%% %% 

Coastline 

Depth < 200 m 

Depth > 200 m 

Coral Reef 

Land 


Taudore I. 

%%% % % 

%% %%% % 

%% % 


%%%% % 

%%%% % %%% % 

Nampale I. 

% 

% 

Uta I. 

% 

%%%%% 

Kanari I. 

Eftorobi 

% % 

%%%% 

Nanisa I. 

KOFIAU 

Wambong Bay 

Senyu I. 

Kananowat I. 

Gam I. 

Balbalak I. 

%% 

% 

BATANME 

%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%%% 

%% % % 

% %%% %% 

In I. 

Kawe 

Ju I. 

Yar I. 

Quoy I. 

Kodor I. 

%%% %%% 

%%%% %% 

% %% %%% 

%% %% 

%%% 

%%%% 

%% 

Bag I. 


Minyaifun I. 


PAPUA 


Me I. 

Uranie I. 

Batangpele I. 

Babi I. 

Tamagui I. 

W 

Wunoh I. 

Alyui Bay 

Scale 1:500.000 

Yeben I. 

Fam I. 

Yamtu C. 

Lilinta Bay 

N 

S 

Mabo C. 

E 

Tamulol Bay 

Katimkerio I. 

Sehun I. 

WAIGEO 

Warparim Bay 

Kabui Strait 

GAM 

Myanel I. 

Kabui Bay 

Mansuar I. 

Dampir Strait 

Waray Bay 

BATANTA 

Sagewin I. 


Lenkafal I. 

Wagmab I. 

Puan 


Tapokreng 


Kapalbogin C. 

Denie I. 

Salebioket C. 

Manuran I. 

%% %% 

%% %% 

%% % %% 

% % 

% % % 

% %% 

%% %% 

%% % 

% % 

% 

% 

%% %%%% 

% %%%%%% %% 

Lawak I. %%%% %% 

%% %% 

Pitsyor 

SALAWATI 

%% 

% 

%% 


%% 

%% 

Kamyolo C. 

%% %%% 

%%% % % % % % % 

%%%%% %% 

Evanas C. 

Ayemi I. 

Kandorwa C. 

WAIGEO 

Mayasalava C. 

Sele C. 

Boni I. 

%% %% %% 

% % % % 

%%% 

%% % 

Warir I. 

% 

%% 

% % % % 

%%%%% 

Yefyus I. 

Sorong C. 

%% % 

% % 

% % % 

Sorong 

Sele Strait 

Warai C. 

Imbikwan C. 

Momfafa C. 

PAPUA 

0°30' S 

0°00' 

0°30' S 

1°00' S 

1°30' S 

2°00' S 

Efmo I. 

SERAM 

PAPUA 

PAPUA 

SERAM SEA 

Yetpelle I. 

Wayilbatan I. 

Kal ig I. 

Daram I. 


ARAFURU SEA 

Sources : 





129°30' E 

130°00' E 130°30' E 131°00' E 

227

Appendices 

Appendix 7. Vegetation Maps 

228

Appendices 

229

Appendices 

230

Appendices 

231

Appendices 

Appendix 8. List of participants of the Raja Ampat workshop 

‘Group’ identifies the group in which participants were discussing the issues mentioned in Chapter 7. 

No Name Institution Group 

1 Fadhli Umalelen Pemda Kab. Raja Ampat I 

2 NF. Nambraku Dinas P dan P, Kab. Raja Ampat I 

3 Abdul R. Wairoy Dinas Pertanian I 

4 Nyoman Jaya Asisten II I 

5 Yantho A. Puskesmas I 

6 Yusdi L. DKP I 

7 Nixon Mentansan LPKM I 

8 Abubakar Saka Eco Papua II 

9 Yohanis Goram Gaman Konpers II 

10 K. Mambrasar Dinas P dan P II 

11 Alfaris Labacu Ka. Dis Wais II 

12 Daniel Goram Ka. Dis Teluk Mayalibit II 

13 L. Burdam Dis. Kep Ayau II 

14 M. Sulchan Dep. Agama II 

15 Mery seseray Tokoh perempuan III 

16 Ridwan watimena Tokoh Pemuda III 

17 Alwiyah Gusci Tokoh perempuan III 

18 Sefnat Dimara Asisten I PemKab III 

19 Deky Dimara Nelayan III 

20 Waladi Isnan PHKA III 

21 N. Yensenem PU III 

22 A. Ajalo Kadis Kofiau IV 

23 C. Riupassa LSM Wallacea IV 

24 Yules Anton Tokoh adat IV 

25 Alex Mambrasar FK Gemura IV 

26 St. Rumaseb Tokoh agama IV 

27 G. Mambraku Kepala kampong IV 

28 Yustina Kbarek Din. Pariwisata IV 

29 Y. Mambraku Bag. Hukum V 

30 Ones Makusi Masyarakat V 

31 A. Kaisiepo BP3D Raja Ampat V 

32 Th. Nanuru Ramil 03 V 

33 Sergius Kolomsusu ToMas V 

34 Aberth Makusi K. Kampung V 

35 A D B. Kasantaro BKSDA V 

36 Djafar Umar Sekdis VI 

37 Steven Numberi Kadis Waigeo Timur VI 

38 Wem R. Wanma BKSDA VI 

39 Hanok Naa BKSDA VI 

40 Fery AM Liuw BKSDA VI 

41 R. Mahulette Dishub VI 

42 Melky Makusi Sekdis Waigeo Tengah VI 

43 Adam Gaman Kep Kampung VII 

44 Rasyid Umkabu Tomas VII 

45 Karim Abdulrahman Pemuda VII 

46 Frando Breemer BKSDA VII 

47 A. Madjar Din Perikanan VII 

48 K. Heremba Dinas P dan P VII 

49 Noak Mayor Dinas Penerangan VII 

50 Z. Sapulete ToMas VII 

51 A. Mambraku Dinas P dan P VII 

52 P. Dimara VIII 

53 Bahar Onim ToMas VIII 

54 O. Mayor PemKab VIII 

55 Max Ammer IWS VIII 

56 A. Mambrisauw BP3D VIII 

57 Tetha Hitipeuw WWF Indonesia VIII 

58 Yulianus Thebu WWF VIII 

59 Inda Arfan SekDa Raja Ampat VIII 

232

Appendices 

Appendix 9. Transcripts of issues brought forward by workgroups during the Raja Ampat workshop 

Posters prepared by the participants were transcribed and translated as literally as possible 

Group1 

Threats: 

1. Potassium and poison 

2. Dynamite fishing 

3. Trawling 

4. Turtle poaching 

5. Illegal logging, taking of stones and sands 

6. Coral mining 

7. Opening new agricultural areas, and roads development 

Facilities that must be made available: 

1. Port 

2. Marine transportation: 

Patrol transportation 

Public transportation 

Tourism transportation 

2. Telecommunication facility 

3. Coconut and sago crushing machine? 

4. Bank 

Anticipation 

1. Enforcement team in every villages are fully 

equipped 

Organizer 

1. Police and Navy 

2. Fully equiped patrol boats 2. Government of Raja Ampat 

3. No license for commercial fishery 3. Government of Raja Ampat 

4. Not using heavy equipments 4. Forestry agency 

Improvement of community welfare 

Real actions: 

1. Sea cucumber, sea weed, and lobster culture 

2. Sago processing 

3. Home stay development 

4. Dried fish making 

5. Coconut oil making 

6. Cooperative / village depot 

233

Appendices 

Group 2 

Threats: 

1. The use of fishing gears that are not selective and environmentally benign 

2. Bomb, potassium, poison, compressor, trawl, bagan. 

3. Weak law implementation system. 

4. Licenses giving that are not selective 

5. Control systems that are weak 

6. Customary rights issues 

7. Construction of buildings and roads issues 

8. Wildlife poaching 

9. Illegal logging 

10. Opening of new agricultural areas that are not selective 

11. Inter-provincial community migration 

Actions: 

1. Improve the integrated control system 

2. Socialization to community 

3. Selective license giving 

4. Perform selective controls from all related institutions and community 

5. Awareness to community elements (customs, religious, communities, youths, and women) 

6. Formation of reconciliation forum for Raja Ampat people 

7. Environmentally sounds development 

8. Zonation system development 

9. Road development will not cut across the island but encircle the island. 

10. Improvement of integrated control 

11. Awareness to community 

12. Limiting the inter-provincial migration 

Responsible agencies: 

1. District government and related institutions 

2. District government, enforcement team, House of Representative, community 

3. Traditional institutions / NGO 

4. Government (BP3D)/ customary institutions 

5. Government / MA 

6. Government (Population agency and Transportation agency) 

Improvement of community welfare 

Real actions: 

1. Development of community-based economy; sea cucumber culture, grouper culture, lobster, sea 

weed, crabs, and shrimps 

2. Home industry (terasi, dried fish, hand made skills, diversify food from sago) 

3. Planting coconut, chocolate, coffee trees, etc. on critical land. 

4. Ecotourism development (homestay, traditional boat, art center, protected area) 

Supporting facility: 

1. Extension work (tutorial, training, comparative study) 

2. Bank service in Saonek (Waisai) 

3. Improvement/building new transportation vessels (speed boat, tourism boat,) 

4. Communication network 

5. Representative of NGOs in District of Raja Ampat (WWF, TNC, CI) 

234

Appendices 

Group 3 

Threats (land): 

1. Forest cutting/mining 

2. Infrastructure development 

3. Nomadic agricultural system 

4. Forest fire 


Threats (sea): 

1. Fish bomb 

2. Sand and coral mining, and taking of marine biota 

3. Fish poison 

4. Overfishing 

5. Mangrove cutting 

Actions (land): 

1. Forest cutting/mining 

a. Good licensing process is implemented 

b. Forest cutting activities follow the rules 

c. Surveillance and law enforcement 

2. Implementing environmental impact assessment 

3. Awareness on non-nomadic agricultural practice 

4. Fire from new opened agricultural land must be controlled 

5. Poaching 

a. Awareness to poacher and buyer 

b. Law enforcement (license, penalty and ruling) 

Actions (sea) 

1. Law enforcement (1-5) 

2. Awareness 

3. Regulation of the use of fishing gears 

4. Establishment and empowerment of KAMLA and KAMDA 

Responsible agencies: 

Land: 

1. Forestry agency supported by law enforcement agencies, NGO and media. 

2. Government of Raja Ampat district NGO, media, customary institutions (LMA) 

3. Agricultural agency, LMA, NGO 

4. BKSDA and Forestry agency, LMA, NGO 

5. BKSDA supported by law enforcement agencies, LMA, NGO 

Sea: 

1. (1-5) Fisheries and Marine Affairs agency, BKSDA, supported by law enforcement agency, LMA, 

NGO, media 

Community welfare 

Real actions: 

1. Community-based economy empowerment 

2. Improve health quality Strategic planning for Raja Ampat 

3. Improve education quality 

4. Partnership development 

235

Appendices 

Supporting facilities: 

1. Awareness and training 

a. Investment (partner) 

b. Marketing 

2. PUSTU, POLINDES are well functioning (medical drugs and staff available) 

3. Education 

a. Infrastructure for education 

b. Teacher quality 

c. Teacher welfare 

d. Education subsidy 

4. Data ad information on natural and human resources 

5. Science and technology and human resource 

6. Safety 

236

Appendices 

Group 4 

Threats Actions Who 

1. Bomb, cyanide, 

poison 

1. Strict law enforcement 

2. Reduce trade of grouper 

and napoleon wrasse 

3. Community awareness on 

the dangers of using bomb 

2. Beach erosion 1. Re-plantation/ 

rehabilitation of coral, 

mangrove and beach 

2. Prohibiting coral mining 

for construction 

1. Police, judge, related 

institutions 

2. Community, 

community leader, 

religious leader, 

women leader, youth 

leader 

3. NGO 

1. Fisheries, 

transportation, 

forestry 

2. NGO 

3. Community leaders 

3. Laws/regulations 

that are not fully 

understood 

1. Socialization of 

law/regulation including 

customary laws 

4. Illegal logging 1. Strict law enforcement 

2. Need inter agencies 

coordination 

3. Need clear delineation of 

customary ownership 

4. Strict control 

5. Forest cutting 1. Community awareness on 

non-nomadic agricultural 

practice 

1. Army 

2. Police 

3. Custom leaders 

4. Law/regulation 

section of District 

government 

5. Court 

1. Forestry agency 

2. Decision makers 

3. Law enforcement 

agencies 

4. Custom leaders 

5. NGO 

1. Agricultural agency 

237

Appendices 

Group 5 


1. Bombing, potassium, poisoning 

2. Outside fishermen who misused their fishing license 

3. Incidental needs that drive people 

4. Outside fishermen who fishing with potassium 

5. Other environmentally destructive utilization practices 


1. Forest cutting without re-plantation 

2. Overproduction on forest cutting 


Actions taken: 

1. Improve surveillance 

2. Implementing awareness program 

3. Providing communication facility 

4. Establishment of WASMAS 

Who should organize action: 

1. Relevant institutions 

2. Kampong government 

Social economic activities: 

1. Implementing awareness program for community in kampong 

2. Improving business capacity 

3. Local government programs on business/entrepreneur that directly affecting community. 

Facilities needed: 

1. Banking 

2. Infrastructure 

238

Appendices 

Group 6 


1. Illegal forest cutting 

2. Poaching 

3. Forest fire 

4. Cutting forest without re-plantation 


1. Bomb/potassium (cyanide)/ poison 

2. Fishing with trawl 

3. Coral mining for construction 

4. Over utilization of turtle meat especially during customary party and wedding 


1. Implement awareness program 

2. Law enforcement actions for perpetrators 

3. Inter-institutions coordination (District and its subordinate governments) 

4. Providing infrastructures 

Organizers: 

1. Local government 

2. Local governmental agencies 

a. Forestry 

b. Transportation 

c. Tourism 

Real Actions: 

1. Management of incomes that are not optimum 

2. Establishment of KOPERMAS 

3. The use of appropriate technologies 

Facilities needed: 

1. Human resources development 

2. Availability of transportation facility 

3. Provide opportunities for investor/tourist 

239

Appendices 

Group 7 

Threats: 

1. Bomb and potassium 

2. Coral mining 

3. Poison from tree’s root 

4. Illegal forest cut / forest fire 

5. Protected wildlife poaching 


1. Inter-agency coordination to prevent the law/rule breaking 

2. Law enforcement 

3. Joint surveillance team involving relevant institutions, business entrepreneur and community 

Organizer: 

1. Bupati in his/her capacity as the head of local government will organize relevant technical marine 

and terrestrial institutions that will also include community. 


Important issues: 

1. Community empowerment, community directly involve in marine resource management. 

2. Local government establishes banking system that will provide soft loan for fishermen to develop 

their small scale business. 

3. Government provides business loan to community in the form of nets, outboard engine / modern 

fishing gears. 

4. Establishment of small cooperative body in each kampong that could improve the local economy. 

5. Without license from government/involving local community, investors should not be permitted to 

conduct business in Raja Ampat. 

Supporting facility: 

1. Local customary body 

2. Involvement of religious leaders, community leaders, youth leaders, women leaders that will lead 

and organize the activity. 

Suggestions: 

1. Government facilitates relevant agencies with transportation vessel including its operational costs. 

2. Build guard stations in areas suspected for high illegal activities. 

3. Catching fish for export must follow the permitted sizes. 

4. Bomb and potassium fishermen are punished heavily. 

240

Appendices 

Group 8 

Threats 

1. Fish bombing conducted by local and outsider/Butung 

2. Potassium fishing conducted by local and outsider 

3. Coral mining for construction by local people 

4. Exploitation of green turtle in P. Sayang by local and outsider 

5. Boat anchor 

6. Overfishing 

7. Beach erosion due to sand mining and mangrove cutting 

8. Beach trees cutting 

9. Forest/tree cutting 

10. Use of heavy equipments to transport the timber from logging activity 

11. Forest fire / nomadic agricultural practice 

12. Catching and selling of protected animals 

13. Issuance of forest utilization license that is not considering the forest overall functions. 

Preventive actions: 

1. Improve surveillance system by involving relevant institutions and local community. 

2. Improve the surveillance facility. 

3. Socialization of laws on resource management to community. 

4. Dynamite fishermen from P. Buaya, should be sent back home in coordination with the Raja Ampat 

and City of Sorong governments. 

5. Local dynamite fishermen are sent to jail after being prosecuted. 

6. Improve education, economy and infrastructures. 

7. Improve awareness through religious, customs, and government activities. 

8. Improve awareness of government officers. 

9. Empower local/community institution 

10. Arise traditional wisdom 

11. Need to create law for Raja Ampat that can guarantee the investors business existence including their 

contribution to government and community. 

12. Stop logging and utilize forest in sustainable way. 

13. Reserve forest as global lungs 

Organizers: 

1. Raja Ampat government (technical agencies) 

2. Community, customary, religious institutions. 

3. Local, national and international NGOs. 


Actions: 

1. Government of Raja Ampat and relevant institutions provide jobs 

2. Provide supporting infrastructure (transportation, market) 

3. Various entrepreneur models 

4. Community-based ecotourism 

5. Sustainable forest utilization 

Steps: 

1. Improve community skills according to jobs requirement 

2. Provide business loan and investment models 

3. Empowerment 

4. Create regulations on contributions, responsibilities and rights of community, government, and 

private sectors. 

241

Appendices 

Appendix 10. Proposed conservation actions. 

Immediate Follow-Up Actions 

These activities are designed to prepare a solid foundation for conservation action in the Raja Ampat islands. 

They aim to develop understanding among all stakeholders concerning conservation issues and opportunities 

and to prepare the way for collaboration in meeting conservation objectives. 

1. Reporting Back 

• Two meetings will be held in 2003 to follow up on the November 2002 REA. The first will feed back 

the results of the survey to communities and local government. It will elicit responses from 

participants on their views concerning conservation opportunities and constraints. A report on the first 

of these dissemination and consultation meetings is included in this document (cf. Chapter 7) 

2. Socializing the Results 

• A second, larger meeting will be held after the report is published. Participants will include 

representatives of local communities; local, district, provincial, and national government agencies 

responsible for conservation, resource management, and enforcement; the private sector; international 

organizations committed to supporting conservation in the area (including CI and WWF); interested 

donors; and representatives of the Ministries of Forestry and of Marine Affairs. It will begin formal 

multi-stakeholder consultations and identify specific follow-up actions and responsibilities, including 

funding needs for inclusion in the national budgeting process. 

3. Building Partnerships 

• A coordinated conservation program in the Raja Ampat islands among TNC, CI, WWF, and other 

strategic partners will be developed. TNC, together with its partners, will initiate a dialogue with 

Indonesian conservation organizations and explore opportunities for partnerships in implementing 

conservation programs in the Raja Ampat islands. 

• TNC will make a high level visit to Sorong, Manokwari, and Jayapura to (a) meet government and 

university officials and confirm interest in pursuing conservation activities; (b) meet with WWF staff 

in Sorong to work out collaboration; and (c) identify partnership opportunities with Papua-based 

universities, NGOs, and other public and private organizations. 

4. Generate Policy Support 

• TNC will take first steps to generate policy support from agencies for enforcement (Navy, Army, and 

Police) and resource management and conservation (Forestry, Marine Affairs) for conservation 

initiatives implemented by local communities, government, or other partners in the Raja Ampat 

islands. 

• An initial business plan that identifies potential long term sources of funding for conservation in the 

area will be prepared by Community and Conservation Investment Forum (CCIF) for the World 

Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Southeast Asia Marine Working Group. 

• Ecoregional planning efforts in the Flores and Banda Seas will begin in 2003 and will include the 

marine area around the Raja Ampat islands. 

Recommendations for Initiating Conservation Action 

At the completion of these initial foundation-building initiatives, it is proposed that the following actions be 

undertaken. The recommended activities are designed to begin the identification of conservation strategies 

and the implementation of specific conservation activities in the Raja Ampat islands. These actions pertain 

242

Appendices 

specifically to TNC and partners. It is assumed that WWF and CI will implement similar processes in the 

areas where they commit to implement conservation programs. It is also assumed that TNC, WWF and CI 

will reach agreement on non-overlapping geographic focus areas for assistance with the development and 

implementation of conservation programs by partner organizations. 

1. Outreach, awareness, constituency building for effective conservation actions 

Building on the activities conducted this year, the Conservancy will work with government authorities, 

WWF, CI, local NGOs, and other partners to enhance awareness of the importance of conserving 

resources and assess community development needs and opportunities, including alternative livelihoods. 

Increased awareness and support for protected area concepts, rules, and borders among local communities 

is also needed. This will provide a solid foundation and needed local support for effective management, 

including enforcement actions against destructive fishing practices. 

During the November 2002 REA, community members were surprised and impressed by the biological 

importance of their islands. Results from REAs and other studies will be compiled into media (print, 

images) to stress the uniqueness of the islands. This will be reinforced by a traveling exhibition/workshop 

led by a local NGO, and by editing and production of a short video (footage already in hand). 

2. Developing conservation strategies 

TNC and its partners will carry out a conservation area planning process to establish the basis for a 

resilient, mutually replenishing network of protected areas. Communities (including traditional leadership 

and youth, church, and other groups), the private sector, national and local government will be fully 

engaged in this process. Conservation area planning will follow TNC’s approach of identifying 

conservation targets, the factors that threaten these targets, strategies to abate these threats and maintain 

biodiversity, and indicators with which to measure the success of these strategies. The legal status and 

boundaries of existing reserves will be clarified, and gaps identified. The identification of spawning 

aggregation sites and areas that are naturally resistant to coral bleaching will be built into this process, in 

order to include them in the MPA network. Further assessment of local land and marine tenure systems, 

as well as traditional systems of seasonal closures of marine resources, will also be conducted to enable 

this understanding to be fully reflected in planning and implementing conservation activities in the region. 

This planning process will be initiated in late 2003 and take approximately two years to complete. A 

limited amount of research to meet needs identified in the plan, e.g., on currents and larval dispersal to 

improve our understanding of connectivity between the Raja Ampat islands and other areas in the Coral 

Triangle, will be carried out. 

3. Establishing pilot conservation actions and expansion to scale 

Based on the conservation area plan and other available information on conservation opportunities, 

including socio-economic and political factors, and in coordination with CI, WWF, and other partner 

organizations, TNC will identify two sites at which to help effectively managed marine protected areas. 

These sites will be selected to conserve especially rich biodiversity and to perform critical functions 

within a future Raja Ampat MPA network. Leading candidates for these sites are Kofiau and the area 

around southeast Misool. Both are already proposed as protected areas and have the scale needed to 

maintain a regionally important larval source, and the former contains the highest fish and coral diversity 

encountered during the November 2002 REA. 

Beginning in 2004, TNC will engage gradually at these two sites, implementing the following types of 

activities to provide a solid foundation for conservation: 

243

Appendices 

• Studies of socio-economic conditions and cultural characteristics, identification of targets for 

community outreach and awareness activities, and design of a social monitoring program to record 

existing and changing community perceptions; 

• Assessment of current conservation status, and protected area management; 

• Stakeholder consultations and partner identification, aiming to maximize input on MPA objectives, 

conservation targets, and options for co-management structures; 

• Initial training courses for communities, stakeholders, and responsible government agencies in site 

conservation planning and MPA management; 

• Providing support for mapping and gazetting the reserve areas; 

• Developing and achieving stakeholder support for zoning and management plans and, possibly, 

conservation concessions; 

• Developing co-management strategies for multiple use zones with strong community participation, 

including approaches that build on and reinforce traditional tenure claims; 

• Developing a coalition of enforcement agencies (police, navy, local government, communities) to 

protect the sites; 

• Establishing long-term monitoring of biodiversity and threat indices; and 

• Providing essential equipment and supplies to support these activities. 

4. Management capacity building 

The Conservancy will initiate a comprehensive program to strengthen the skills and abilities of MPA comanagement 

partners involved in the two pilot sites. These efforts will be aimed at addressing the threats 

from destructive fishing, especially by outsiders. Capacity building activities will be integrated – and 

where possible combined – with similar efforts carried out by TNC’s Southeast Asian Center for Marine 

Protected Areas (SEACMPA) in Wakatobi, Komodo, and elsewhere. Visits by staff in these new reserves 

to other parks in Indonesia will be supported. 

A key method for building management capacity will be intensive on-site training programs for marine 

conservation practitioners and field staff. Training will be conducted in collaboration with partner NGOs 

and government agencies. Training activities and modules will be based on the existing capacity and 

materials available within SEACMPA, including guidelines for incorporating bleaching and spawning 

aggregations in MPA design and management developed through TNC’s global program and EAPEIfunded 

activities in the Pacific. Training will reflect the latest developments from the field and 

incorporate effective approaches to site conservation planning, adaptive management, surveillance, 

community development, co-management systems, and sustainable financing. On-site training will 

emphasize: 

• Community awareness and education, development and participation options; 

• Social skills involved with MPA management (negotiation, conflict resolution, community outreach, 

community participation in surveillance and compliance); 

• Monitoring skills for key species groups (e.g., corals) and issues (e.g., LRFT); 

• Conservation of endangered marine species with relative high abundance at target sites (e.g., sea 

turtles, cetaceans, mantas); 

244

Appendices 

• Relevant tropical marine conservation principles – for example, ecoregional planning, building 

resilience into MPAs and MPA networks; and 

• Best practices/codes of conduct/guidelines developed to promote the implementation and voluntary 

compliance, e.g., spawning aggregation protocols, LRFT industry standards, Marine Aquarium 

Council (MAC) certification requirements, responsible ecotourism guidelines, and other guidelines in 

support of sustainable community development. 

5. Monitoring 

As part of its support for the two pilot sites, TNC will initiate monitoring programs based on those 

developed and applied in Komodo, Wakatobi, and (as appropriate) Kimbe Bay. These will begin with 

monitoring for live coral cover and coral mortality, reef fish aggregation sites, turtles, fish targeted by the 

LRFT, lobsters, and green snail shells. As these programs are put in place, monitoring of seagrasses, 

mangroves, and other specific targets identified in the conservation area plan will also be initiated. In 

addition, regular monitoring of socio-economic issues and stakeholder attitudes will be conducted. 

Finally, the Conservancy will assist Universitas Negeri Papua, Manokwari, to develop a long-term 

biodiversity research program in Raja Ampat. 

6. Policy and legal support 

Long-term solutions to the issue of resource raiding by outsiders that do not recognize local traditional 

rights and practices must be developed before effective controls of destructive fishing practices can be 

implemented. This is an issue that needs to be addressed at multiple levels of government and the 

judiciary, including government officials and community leaders from neighbouring provinces where the 

illegal fishers originate. The Conservancy will implement, together with its partners, a focused program 

of policy and legal support for effective conservation and sustainable use of the resources of marine 

protected areas within the Raja Ampat islands. Activities will likely include: 

• Inclusion of representatives of various levels of government and communities from neighbouring 

provinces in stakeholder meetings; 

• Awareness raising and training of journalists; 

• More detailed assessments of specific policy and legal issues and constraints; 

• Assistance to government and communities in the development of appropriate policies at the national 

and district level for exclusive use rights for local communities in designated traditional use/multipleuse 

zones of reserves; 

• Promotion of park management plans, borders, and regulations, specifically in relation to resource use 

licensing through appropriate government agencies; and 

• Help to resolve overlapping authorities of different government agencies, providing a solid basis for 

enforcement actions, and to facilitate mechanisms for collaboration and communication. 

Longer Term Marine Conservation Goals (Five-Year Timeframe) 

The long-term results that are desired conservation outcomes are that by 2008: 

• The biological diversity of the Raja Ampat islands is maintained at least at 2003 levels; and 

• A resilient network of marine protected areas is created in the Raja Ampat islands and sustains functional 

linkages between this region and other coral reef areas in the Coral Triangle. 

The project will seek to accomplish the following objectives by 2008: 

245

Appendices 

• Marine protected areas at two key sites (probably southeast Misool and Kofiau) have full and legal 

designation; long-term management plans are drafted for these MPAs with full involvement of local 

stakeholders and national and local governments; destructive fishing within these two MPAs is 

eliminated. 

• Design of a network of priority conservation areas in the Raja Ampat islands is initiated in partnership 

with key stakeholders and constituencies, based on species and habitat representation, resilience and 

connectivity, socio-economic opportunities, threats, and development plans. 

• Policies that empower communities to enforce traditional tenure claims over marine resources in MPA 

multiple use zones are in effect. 

246

Rapid Ecological Assessment - Indo-Pacific Images

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?