2013 Fisheries & Marine Ecosystem Asessment

AN ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES
AND MARINE ECOSYSTEM IN

PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
WWF-MALAYSIA
JANUARY 2013
AN ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES AND MARINE
ECOSYSTEM IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
3
Table of Contents
Acronyms 5
1 Introduction 7
2 Ecological Risk Assessment 8
2.1 Overview 8
2.1.1 Status Of Fisheries 8
2.1.2 Productivity 10
2.1.3 Fisheries Resource Assessments 12
2.1.4 By-Catch Landings 14
2.1.5 Fish Price Trends 18
2.1.6 Status Of Marine Ecosystems 23
2.1.7 Mangroves 23
2.1.8 Mudflats 26
2.1.9 Coral Reefs 27
2.1.10 Seagrass 29
2.1.11 Ecological Risk Assessment 31
3 Valuation Of Fisheries And Marine Ecosystems 37
3.1 Fisheries Valuation 37
3.1.1 Mapping And Inventory Of Associated Industry 38
3.1.2 Summary Of I-O Tables 2000 Analysis 44
3.1.3 Fuel Subsidy 45
3.1.4 Catch Subsidy 46
3.1.5 Fishermen (Livelihood) Subsidy 47
3.1.8 Total Subsidies To The Fisheries Industry 47
3.1.7 Impact Of The Subsidy Programme On The Fisheries Industry 48
Fisheries Cost Benefit Analysis 53
4 Conclusion 55
4.1 Key Findings/ Observation 55
4.1.1 Ground-Level Views Of Subsidy 55
4.1.2 Highlights 56
4.1.3 Current Fisheries Resource Management 56
4.1.4 Recommendations 59
References 60
List of Tables
Table 1: Landings by Resource Categories in the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia from 2005 to 2009 9
Table 2: Landings by Resource Categories in the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia from 2005 to 2009 9
Table 3: Catch Rates of Demersal Fisheries in Coastal Waters 13
Table 4: Mean Catch Rates of Demersal Fish by Year and Region (tonnes) 14
Table 5: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Kerapu,1979 –2009 20
Table 6: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Kerisi,1979 –2009 20
Table 7: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Selayang 1979– 2009 21
Table 8: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Kembong over 1979– 2009 21
Table 9: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Tamban,1979 – 2009 21
Table 10: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Selar, 1979 – 2009 22
Table 11: Mangrove Areas (ha) in Peninsular Malaysia, 2005 23
Table 12: Total Mangrove Area (hectares) along the Coastal Areas of the Straits of Malacca, 1973 - 2005 25
Table 13: Threats to Mangrove Forests in Malaysia 26
Table 14: Threats to Coral Reefs of Malaysia 29
Table 15: Summary of Risk Scenarios for Fisheries in Malaysia till 2030 36
Table 16: Fish Landings and Value by Fisheries Sector, 2007 37
Table 17: Aquaculture Production and Value by Culture System, 2005 37
Table 18: Estimated Value of Ornamental Fish Production by Year, 2000-2007
Table 19: Estimated Landings of Freshwater Fish from Public Waterbodies, 2005 37
Table 20: Output and Value Added by Sub-Sector, 2005 38
Table 21: Summary of the fisheries sector production 38
Table 22: Intermediate input structure of the fishery industry 42
Table 23: Industries that sold their products to the fishery industry,
percent share of their respective total output value, 2000 43
Table 24: Estimated combined output value of the fishery industry and fishery-related
manufacturing industries, 2006 43
Table 25: The Malaysian Fishing Subsidy Programme 45
Table 26: Total and Average Monthly Usage of Subsidised Fuel, June 2008 to August 2011 46
Table 27: Total Fish Landings (kg) with Catch Subsidies, June 2008 and August 2011 46
Table 28: Total Number of Fishermen receiving Livelihood Subsidy, June 2008 to August 2011 47
Table 29: Total Amount of Subsidies, June 2008 to August 2011 (RM million) 48
Table 30: Percentage composition of each subsidy component, June 2008 to August 2011 48
Table 31: Impact of the Subsidy Programme 2008 and 2009 49
Table 32: Total Economic Value of Mangrove Ecosystems (83,259 ha) in the
West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia 52
Table 33: The Cost and Benefit of Fisheries and related industries and ecosystems 54
Table 34: Agencies dedicated to marine fisheries management and development 57
Table 35: Agencies not dedicated to fisheries conservation and management 58
List of Figures
Figure 1: CPUE Trends (25 – 39.9 GRT) for West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, 2000-2009 10
Figure 2: CPUE Trends (25 – 39.9 GRT) for East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, 2000-2009 11
Figure 3: Output per Fisherman (tonnes/fisherman) in Malaysia, 2000-2009 12
Figure 4: Total Mixed and Trash Fish Landings Trends for Peninsular Malaysia 15
Figure 5: Trash Fish Landings for West and East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, 1970-2009 16
Figure 6: Trash Fish Landings for West and East Coast by Gear Type, 1970 – 2009 16
Figure 7: Monthly Trends in Trash Fish Landings for Peninsular Malaysia 2005-2009 17
Figure 8: Mixed Fish Landings for West and East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, 1970 - 2009 18
Figure 9: Monthly Trends in Mixed Fish Landings for Peninsular Malaysia 2005-2009 18
Figure 10: Wholesale Price Trends for Selected Fish Species 1979 - 2009 19
Figure 11: Retail Price Trends for Selected Fish Species, 1979 - 2009 20
Figure 12: Wholesale Price Trends for Grade 1 Fish 1980 - 2009 22
Figure 13: Mangrove Areas in Peninsular Malaysia 24
Figure 14: Location of Major Coral Reef Aggregations in Peninsular Malaysia 28
Figure 15: Seagrass Areas in Peninsular Malaysia 30
Figure 16: Estimated Landings of Trash Fish/Mixed Fish Landings Up to 2030 34
Figure 17: Fisheries Balance Sheet (Production and Trade), 2005 (mt) 39
Figure 18 Fisheries Upstream and Downstream Industries 40
Figure 19 Aquaculture Upstream to Downstream Industries 41
Figure 20 Recreational Fisheries Upstream and Midstream Industries 41
Figure 21: Concept of Total Economic Value 50
Figure 22: Economic Valuation of Marine Ecosystem (Fisheries Based) 53
5
Acronyms
6
7
1 Introduction
Marine capture fisheries constitute an important sector in the Malaysian economy, not only as a major food
source but also as a source of employment and foreign exchange. Traditional fisheries management regimes
give little or no consideration to the management of the habitats that directly or indirectly support fish
population. The main focus of such regimes was on the population dynamics of specific species or fishing
grounds.
Despite efforts to control fishing effort using this traditional approach, research studies have shown
unabated decline in fisheries resources on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia since the 1970s. In
particular, demersal fisheries recorded declines in standing stock as high as 96percent in some areas.
Factors such as clearances of mangrove areas for other types of development, pollution of coastal waters,
overfishing and current management strategies for fisheries have added pressure to marine resources.
Issues of sustainable marine resources have therefore sparked discussion on a new direction for fisheries
management.
Unlike the traditional approach, the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) essentially
reverses the order of management priorities so that management starts with the ecosystem rather than
a target species. EAFM draws from the Ecosystem Approach that refers to a strategy for the integrated
management of land, water and living resources for conservation and sustainable use in an equitable
manner.
This report presents an analysis for an EAFM approach of the fisheries sector. First, it gives an overview of
the current trends of the Malaysian fisheries industry and status of fisheries ecosystems. This is followed
by fishery resource assessments that examine indicators of resource health such as trends in output per
fisherman and composition of landings in greater detail. Next, the subsidy programme is discussed and
how it affects or potentially affects the fishing industry. The analysis focuses on the current management
framework for marine and fisheries resources which are sector-focussed but is clearly inadequate to
deal with a complex ecological and socio-economic dimensioned problem. The key elements of an EAFM
approach for Malaysia are then presented and discussed.
1. Note: FAO (2005) Fishery and Aquaculture Profile … estimated fish consumption at 52kg/person/year.
No more new data or estimate has been found
8
2 ecological risk assessment
2.1 Overview
Fish is a staple protein in the local dietary intake and is a major feature of national cuisine. In addition,
increasing affluence accompanying economic growth has led to an escalation in fish consumption. Total
consumption of fish was estimated at 56 kg/capita in 20101 based on annual income growth rate of 1 percent
(MoA, 1999).
The health of the fisheries resources cannot be divorced from that of the overall marine environment
in which the activity is undertaken. For instance, current management regimes have tended to focus
on controlling fishing effort through licensing and access limitations to sustain present stock levels. The
complexity of the marine environment, however, precludes such a one-dimensional management approach.
In this respect, the present regimen is still strongly lacking in fundamentals. For instance, habitat
conservation has been limited to establishment of marine parks and protection of coral reefs. While the
parks have to a large extent managed to limit the kind of degradation seen elsewhere in the region (Orth,
2006; Yeo, 2004;), the dichotomy in jurisdiction between the federal government and the state governments
means that while the latter is in charge of the marine parks, land matters (and land based development
on the islands) largely remains under the jurisdiction of the state governments. The dangers of coral reef
ecosystem destruction posed by water quality degradation associated with unsustainable land development
on the island adjacent to the marine park are still very much a concern.
In addition, other habitats, notably mangroves and seagrasses, are constantly threatened by human
activities. In short, monetary worth of the resource being conserved has precedent over its biodiversity
values (Mohd. Ibrahim et al., 1997). As a consequence of these legal and administrative issues, there are no
mangroves or seagrass reserves that have been so declared exclusively for marine environmental or fisheries
purposes. The deterioration of marine water quality, from effluent of land-based industries and domestic
discharges, coastal land reclamation, illegal dumping of sludge from vessels and accidental oil spills has
polluted and degraded the water quality of the coastal aquatic environment (Mohd. Ismail, 1983).
Fisheries resource management cannot be seen in isolation of issues such as habitat degradation and
pollution. At some point, stock degradation and overfishing would be inevitable. Thus changes in the
availability of fish supplies can have far reaching effects. In this regard, it is significant to note that retail fish
prices have risen precipitously over the last 30 years. Beyond doubt, high prices also constitute a driving
force for increasing catch. The purely economic imperative could be balanced by the pressure to ensure
security of supply for increased demand, stemming from population increases and increasing affluence; and
the need for conservation of natural biodiversity. This chapter will cover risk assessment of the fisheries
resource as well as the habitats that support it.
2.1.1 Status of Fisheries

From all perspectives, the sustainability of the Malaysian fisheries faces serious decline. Almost all major
indictors lead to the conclusion that fisheries stocks in Peninsular Malaysia are seriously overfished and need
immediate remedial action. A review of various indicators is provided here.
According to Abdul Satar and Hiroyuki (2000), over half of Malaysia’s total marine fish production until
1990 came from the Malaysian side of the Straits of Malacca (52.3percent – 61.4percent) despite being
the smallest fishing ground in the country. Though this contribution decreased slightly after 1990, its
contribution is still substantial (42.6percent – 47.7percent). Most fishing effort is concentrated in the
northern states of Kedah, P. Pinang, Perak and northern Selangor, where the Straits are sufficiently wide
to support significant levels of fishing boat traffic. The narrowing of the Straits further south, coupled with
greater coastal development, irregular bottom morphologies and intensified shipping traffic, have restricted
fishing effort in these areas.
9
Overall landings on the west coast have increased since year 2000. For example, total landings in 2009
in the Straits amounted to 729,558 tonnes, valued at RM3,393.15 million. Catch has generally increased
(38.7percent) from 525,906 tonnes in 2005 to 729,558 tonnes in 2009 (Table 1) with coastal demersal finfish
and pelagic fishes being of major commercial significance.
Also, tuna landings in the west coast fluctuated from 2005 to 2009 but still showed an impressive increase of
41percent from 2005 (15,100 tonnes) to 2009 (21,289 tonnes). This was mainly due to seasonal migration of
neritic tunas which was closer to Malaysia waters and also the location of the fishing grounds near Malaysian
waters. The data also includes landings at the Malaysian International Tuna Port (MITP) in P. Pinang. The tuna
landed here came from the Indian Ocean.
Table 1: Landings by Resource Categories in the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia from 2005 to 2009
* Include sergestid shrimps, Jellyfish and Shellfish

Source: Department of Fisheries, 2007 – 2011
Landings from the east coast fishery in 2009 amounted to 336,507 tonnes, valued at RM1.61 billion. Catch
figures fluctuated throughout the years, i.e. from 318,642 tonnes in 2005 to 386,087 tonnes in 2006, then
decreased back in 2007 (336,098 tonnes). The year 2008 again recorded a gradual increase in the catch
(361,578 tonnes), although the catch decreased to 336,507 tonnes in 2009 (Table 2).
Table 2: Landings by Resource Categories in the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia from 2005 to 2009
* Include sergestid shrimps, Jellyfish and Shellfish

Coastal pelagic resources are exploited by both traditional and commercial gear. The most important
traditional gear is the drift nets. In the past, the most important commercial pelagic fishing gear was the
purse seine, but it has largely been replaced by the high-opening trawl, which was introduced in 1970s. In
recent years, pelagic fish have been increasingly landed by trawlers, rather than purse seines (Chee, 2000).
10
2.1.2 Productivity
Catch per unit effort
Catch per unit effort (CPUE) was computed based on data on the number of hauls for purse seines and trawls
provided in the Annual Fisheries Statistics. However, analysis of the data suggested that much of it was of
poor quality. For instance, analysis of trawl catch for the 0 to 9.9 tonne category yielded CPUE rates of zero
table fish for some years. This is clearly untenable, since these boats could not have survived without any
table fish landings. Thus, the reported data is clearly flawed.
CPUE (catch/haul) was computed and plotted only for trawls within the 25-40 GRT range. The trends showed
a CPUE of less than 200kg/haul from 2000 -2008, followed by a sharp rise to 1,100kg/haul in 2009 in the
west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Similar trends were also observed in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia,
where CPUE was low from 2000 – 2008 (less than 300kg/haul), then rose to 600kg/haul in 2009. Much of
the 2009 increase came from Trash Fish and Shrimp in west coast, and cephalopods or jellyfish in east coast
(Figures 1 and 2).
The increase in CPUE on the West Coast in 2009 was almost 10 times that of the previous year, an outcome
that belies the observation by fishermen that CPUE rates had gone down. As the data did not appear to
provide a clear picture of the status of the resource, further CPUE analysis was not pursued.
Figure 1: CPUE Trends (25 – 39.9 GRT) for West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, 2000-2009
Source: Department of Fisheries, 2002 - 2011

11
Figure 2: CPUE Trends (25 – 39.9 GRT) for East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, 2000-2009
Output per fisherman

Output per fisherman refers to the total quantity of fish landed by all fishermen. While total landings have
been increasing, Figure 3 shows that the output per fisherman (tonnes/fisherman) has been declining for all
regions in Malaysia from year 2000 to 2009, at an average rate of 3.8percent per annum.
Productivity has declined the most on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia from 17.3 tonnes per fisherman
in year 2000 to 14.4 tonnes per fisherman in year 2009. The east coast had experienced a similar decline
in productivity with 19.6 tonnes of output per fisherman recorded in year 2000, falling to 13.0 tonnes per
fisherman in 2009. As for the Sabah-Sarawak region, productivity also declined with efficiency of 11.5 tonnes
per fisherman in year 2000, to 6.8 tonnes in 2009.
These trends suggest that the level of fisheries output has been maintained at previous output levels or
increased as a result of increasing fishermen numbers but the productivity of each fisherman has been
decreasing over the decade.
12
Figure 3: Output per Fisherman (tonnes/fisherman) in Malaysia, 2000-2009
2.1.3 Fisheries Resource Assessments

Resource studies undertaken by the Department of Fisheries (Talib, 2002;Talib et al., 2000; Chee, 2000;Talib
et al., 1995; Chee, 1991) indicates that, for the most part, resources are heavily stressed and currently being
exploited beyond their Maximum Sustainable Yield. Biomass estimates are down to 6percent of virgin stock.
Analysis of standardized fishing effort and yield indicates that 1996 effort is 135-200percent of the level
needed to harvest MSY (Abu Talib et al. 2003a).
West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia

Even as total landings increase (as shown in Table 8 pg 3), there are problems with the resource. Resource
surveys indicate that coastal demersal semi-pelagic fish and shrimp are at or beyond their maximum levels of
exploitation. For instance, Chee (1991) reported a decline of catch rates using standard trawl net from 130.5
kg/hr in 1970 to 36.7kg/hr in 1991. Subsequent work (Talib et al., 2000) also indicates a heavily overfished
condition. Such studies show a trend of declining productivity, i.e. that more effort is required to catch a unit
of fish. Hence, landings data alone is a totally inadequate indicator of the resource health of fisheries.
Surveys conducted in 1988 (southern part of the West Coast) and 1990 (northern part of the West Coast)
also indicated that the overall average catch rate to be 1.76kg/hr in 1988 and 0.91 kg/hr in 1990 (Talib et
al., 1995). Talib (2002) also reported significant shifts in the species profile of the catch off the northern part
of the Straits, indicating overfishing to the point where species balance in the fishing population has been
affected (Table 3).
13
Table 3: Catch Rates of Demersal Fisheries in Coastal Waters
Source: Abu Talib et al. 2003b
Offshore/ deep-sea demersal fishery resources also indicate declining stock pattern. The potential yield of
demersal fish from Malacca straits offshore waters has been estimated at around 11,300 tonnes (Anon.,
1987). Nonetheless, with the development of the offshore fishery from 1987 till the present, the offshore
demersal resources could well be fully exploited. This appears to be underscored by data from Chee (2000)
where catch rates have been reported to have declined from 118.7 kg/hr in 1987 to around 49.1 kg/hr in
1997.
Pelagic fish landings increased from 179,976 tonnes in 2005 to 259,563 tonnes in 2009. The potential yield of
coastal and offshore pelagic resources has been estimated at 100,000 tonnes and 16,950 tonnes respectively
(Anon., 1987). The current level of catch and the cyclical abundance characteristics of pelagic fish resources
strongly suggest that coastal and offshore pelagic resources are currently being exploited beyond their
maximum level. The declining health of the fishery is also underscored by declines in catch per unit effort,
increases in the numbers of licensed gears and the increase in by-catch landings (Chee, 2000).
East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia

Although the waters off the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia cover a much larger area, catch per unit area is
lower than the West Coast. Nevertheless, fishing remains the mainstay of a significant rural economy and of
critical importance in many communities.
With respect to the coastal demersal fishery, for instance, Mohd Taupek and Ibrahim (1996) reported that
resources appear to have been exploited at their maximum yield levels since 1994. Trawl surveys conducted
between 1988 and 1992 also indicated declines in the average catch rates as well as changes in the species
composition with squids, lizardfish and priacanthids becoming dominant (Ahmad Adnan, 1996). The increase
in the dominance of squids has been attributed to the reduction in their predator populations (Ahmad
Adnan, 1996). Given the vintage of these figures, the current situation could be far worse.
Available data also indicate that shrimp resources have already been exploited at their maximum level. The
landings of shrimp on the east coast have always been seasonal, usually becoming available during the
northeast monsoon months from November to March. The potential yield has been estimated at around
6,000 tonnes (Pathansali, 1976) as compared with a catch of between 3,926 – 5,615 tonnes over 2005 -
2009.
14
The situation appears equally grave where coastal pelagic fishery is concerned. The landings of the small
pelagics had been fluctuating. In 2005, 107,980 tonnes were landed, and that increased in 2006 (138,520
tonnes), then decreased in 2007 (110,012 tonnes), and up again in 2008 (139,578 tonnes) and fell back to
122,828 tonnes in 2009 (Table 2, pg 4). Analysis of the commercial landings suggest that coastal pelagic
resources are probably exploited at their maximum level or approaching their maximum level with the
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) around 140,000 tonnes (Mansor et al., 1996).
The offshore pelagic fishery, however, appears to be facing less serious fishing pressure. The deep sea
pelagic fisheries catch was recorded at 53,148 tonnes in 2000 compared to an estimated potential yield of
54,000 tonnes made in 1987 (Anon., 1987). The survey conducted between September 1995 and May 1996
indicated that density of the pelagic fish resources in the offshore/deep sea waters is still comparable with
survey carried out in 1987 with an estimated output of 1.97 tonnes/km2 (Rosidi et al.,1997).
The sustainability of the east coast offshore demersal fishery is also seriously suspect. The potential yield
of the fishery was originally estimated at 82,200 tonnes (Anon., 1987). The resource surveys conducted
between March – June 1998 indicated that the catch rates had declined from 197.5 kg/hr in 1987 to 28.02
kg/hr in 1998 (Anon., 1998). Although the sampling trawl net studies in 1987 and 1998 were different,
the difference is still significant. One reason for the decline is likely due to poaching by foreign vessels in
Malaysian waters.
Table 4: Mean Catch Rates of Demersal Fish by Year and Region (tonnes)
Source: Stobutzki et al., 2006
2.1.4 By-catch Landings

Overall, fishery landings have been steadily increasing since the 1970s. Comparing landings from 1970 to that
of 2009, the West Coast landings increased 216percent, while the East Coast surged 427percent. However,
these gross figures mask other trends that point to a declining stock health. Particularly important are trends
in the landings of trash fish (ikan baja) and mixed fish (ikan campur) (Figure 4).
Trash fish or ikan baja refer to trawler by-catch that basically consists of undersized, inedible fish of low
market value and consumer preference. These fishes are caught consequentially to commercial fish and
usually discarded unless it is of better quality and is used as fish meal in marine aquaculture farms.
Another powerful indicator of stock health comes from a grouping of fish called “mixed fish” or ikan
campur in the Annual Fisheries Statistics. Mixed fish is not species specific and refer to commercial fish
species that are undersized (juveniles) and thus do not enter the retail market. Occasionally, adults of non-
categorised fish are caught in small volumes which are easily consumed by the fishermen themselves or sold
to plantation communities. Discussions with Department of Fisheries field staff and direct observations of
mixed fish landings in Kuala Perlis and Kuala Sanglang also point to the fact that the overwhelming majority
are juveniles. The assumption that Mixed Fish is simply “small fish” is inaccurate. Smaller fish such as
anchovies (ikan bilis) have a ready market in their own right.
15
In the East Coast, Mixed Fish finds a ready market among producers of traditional fish products such as
keropok and lekor. However, in other areas, it is also consigned to aquaculture farms as feed. Being of better
quality, Mixed Fish (RM1-3/kg) commands a better price than Trash Fish (RM0.20 – 0.60/kg).
The distinction between trash fish and Mixed Fish is vague. Mixed Fish is thought to consist fish that are
generally in better condition than trash fish. Nevertheless, if the Mixed Fish is not saleable, it is regarded
and disposed-off as trash fish. But it has been argued that Mixed Fish should not be included with Trash Fish
because the former is fit for human consumption, while the latter is not.
It is clear that Mixed Fish landings are a good indicator of stock health. Mixed fish also represents a major
harvest of the recruitment of the standing stock from an ecological standpoint. Hence, increases in both
trash fish and mixed fish numbers within total catch causes a loss of large volume of biomass, leading to the
decline of commercial fish of marketable size and hence a possible decline in fisheries stock.
Figure 4: Total Mixed and Trash Fish Landings Trends for Peninsular Malaysia
Trash fish trends

Despite recognition of increasing share of trash fish in overall landings being a deleterious impact to
the marine food web, landings have increased over the last 40 years (Figures 5 and 6). There are two
considerations where this increase is concerned:
• The increase in trash fish has far outstripped overall catch landings. Trash fish landings in the West Coast
increased 325percent over 1970 to 2009 as compared to total landings increase of 216percent. The
increase in trash fishing landings in the East Coast fishery has been even more dramatic at 394percent
but still less than half of the West Coast total.
• More importantly, the proportion of trash fish as compared to overall catches has increased. In 1970,
trash fish accounted for 19percent of total catch in the West Coast, and 20percent in the East Coast
fishery. In 2009, the corresponding figures were 26percent and 18percent respectively.
It is clear that increases in Trash Fish landings are not simply a consequence of increased fishing effort.
The data strongly suggests that there is a serious diminution of larger individuals and market-sized fish,
leaving behind smaller juveniles in the standing stock.
16
Figure 5: Trash Fish Landings for West and East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, 1970-2009
Figure 6 showed that landings of Trash Fish in Peninsular Malaysia come mainly from trawl: 90percent in
both the west and east coast region for over 40 years. Landings of trash fish by purse seines are consistent
over the period in the east coast while, for the west coast area, the annual purse seine landings has been
slowly rising and increased to 30,000 tonnes in the recent years.
Figure 6: Trash Fish Landings for West and East Coast by Gear Type, 1970 – 2009
The monthly Trash Fish landings (Figure 7) in Peninsular Malaysia has interesting pattern starting from
February to August, which is consistent with the breeding period for most of marine species in local waters.
The fish breed around November to February, then grow out in the following year. The peak catch thus
occurs in July and August when the fish is in juvenile or advanced juvenile stage of development.
17
Figure 7: Monthly Trends in Trash Fish Landings for Peninsular Malaysia 2005-2009
Mixed fish trends

The available data (Figure 8) indicates that Mixed Fish landings have been increasing over the last 40
years, with particularly sharp increases since 2006. As with the Trash Fish, catch trends of Mixed Fish have
outstripped total landing figures. Mixed fish landings increased 140percent in the West Coast and, more
ominously, 960percent in the East Coast.
In 1970, Mixed Fish accounted for 3percent of West Coast catch, a proportion that did not change come
2009. However, the situation is different in the East Coast. In 1970, Mixed Fish accounted for only 4percent
of the East Coast fishery, while by 2009, the figure increased to 10percent.
The increase in Mixed Fish has been particularly significant in the East Coast because, while cheaper discards
from trawls that dominate the West Coast fishery are largely classified as Trash Fish, poorly marketable catch
from the purse seiners, that are more dominant in the East Coast fishery, are classified as Mixed Fish.
The capture of Mixed Fish by trawls has always fluctuated but show an overall increase over the last 40 years
(Figure 8). Increases in catch have been particularly pronounced in the East Coast fishery. However, as a
proportion of total catch, the Mixed Fish share has declined: 7percent of West Coast and 11percent of East
Coast trawl catch in 1970 while in 2009, the corresponding figures were 3percent and 8percent respectively.
Where the purse seine fisheries were concerned, the pattern was very different (Figure 8). Mixed Fish
was always at relatively low levels. However, since the early part of the decade, Mixed Fish landings have
increased sharply, especially in the East Coast fishery. Mixed Fish only constituted 2percent of West Coast
and 0.6percent of East Coast purse seine catch in 1970. In 2009, the corresponding figures were 2percent
and 13percent respectively.
18
Figure 8: Mixed Fish Landings for West and East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, 1970 - 2009
A further indicator of the juvenile stage of Mixed Fish catch becomes clear when monthly catch patterns are
analysed. Assessment of monthly Mixed Fish landings is shown in Figure 9, and the pattern seems similar to
that of the Trash Fish (see Figure 7).
Figure 9: Monthly Trends in Mixed Fish Landings for Peninsular Malaysia 2005-2009
2.1.5 Fish Price Trends

Price trends for specific fish can also provide some indication of the current standing stock to meet demand.
However, prices are a function of both supply and demand and it is difficult, without adequate data, to
determine which of these constitute the primary driver of price movements.
19
Where supply is concerned, there are two major factors in the equation that must be considered:
• Malaysia has an open economy, and fish can, and is liberally, imported from neighbouring countries,
mostly Thailand and Indonesia;
• Since 2000, freshwater fish, most notably Tilapia, has come to acquire a strong retail profile. There is
no data on the consumption rates for the fish; however, it is prevalent in most supermarkets and wet
markets
Demand, in turn, is driven by consumption rates, population growth as well as changes in income over the
period 1970 to the current. Some of the key changes are:
• The population of Malaysia increased from 10.8 million in 1970 to 28.3 million in 2009 or 2.6 times.
• The per capita income (in PPP terms) increased from $5,890 in 1981 to $13,550 in 2009 or 2.3 times.
• Fish as a proportion of total food bill went up from 19percent in 1993/94 to 22percent in 2007/2008.
• Against this backdrop, trend analysis for fish species was monitored over 40 years from 1970 to 2009.
The objective was to assess if current resources were able to sustain demand, a situation that would have
seen their price increase consistent with cost-of-living indices. The following species were monitored
for which data was available. The data is based on year-to-year prices and have not been corrected for
inflation.
• Kerapu (Grouper; Ephinephelus sp./Plectropomus sp./Chephalopholis sp.)
• Kerisi (Threadfin bream; Nemipterus spp./Pentapodus spp.)
• Selayang (Round scad; Decapterus spp.)
• Kembong (Indian mackerel; Rastrelliger spp.)
• Tamban (Sardine; Sardinellaspp./Dussumieris spp.)
• Selar (Yellowtail scad; Alepes spp./ Atule sp.)
• Kerapu is a high value, demersal species while Kerisi is a staple demersal species. On the other hand,
Selayang, Kembong, Tamban and Selar are pelagics that are essentially staple table commodities.
• A review of wholesale and retail prices for the 1979 to 2009 period are provided in Figures 10 to 11, while
the corresponding supporting data appears in the Appendix. As can be generally expected, fish prices
have increased substantially over the period. Details of individual fish prices are provided below.
Figure 10: Wholesale Price Trends for Selected Fish Species 1979 - 2009

20
Figure 11: Retail Price Trends for Selected Fish Species, 1979 - 2009
Kerapu
Wholesale kerapu prices increased from RM2.73 per kg to RM21.31 per kg between 1979 and 2009 (Table
5). Retail prices for kerapu rose from RM3.14 per kg to RM21.37 per kg. Overall price increase of kerapu from
1979 – 2009 was 680percent.
Table 5: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Kerapu,1979 –2009
Kerisi
Wholesale and retail price changes for kerisi are shown in Table 6. The wholesale and retail price increases
over the 30 years amounted to 867percent and 816percent respectively.
Table 6: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Kerisi,1979 –2009

21
Selayang
Wholesale and retail selayang prices changes over 1979 – 2009 is shown in Table 7. Overall wholesale and
retail price increases over the 30 years amounted to 1300percent and 1,140percent respectively.
Table 7: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Selayang 1979– 2009
Kembong
Wholesale kembong prices increased by 283percent over 1979 – 1991 (Table 8), but only about 41percent
during the 2003 – 2009. Retail prices also mirrored this trend. Overall wholesale and retail price increases
over the 30 years amounted to 763percent and 720percent respectively
Table 8: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Kembong over 1979– 2009
Tamban
Wholesale and retail tamban prices between 1979 and 2009 are shown in Table 9. Overall wholesale and
retail price increases over the 30 years amounted to 935percent and 870percent respectively.
Table 9: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Tamban,1979 – 2009
Selar
The wholesale and retail selar prices over 1979 – 2009 are shown in Table 10. Overall wholesale and retail
price increases over the 30 years amounted to 726percent and 696percent respectively.
22
Table 10: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Selar, 1979 – 2009
The price analyses suggest the following:

• Price increases for the fish species that were examined expanded from 680percent to 1,300percent from
1979 till 2009.
• Increases have not been as great for high value fish as for staple pelagic fish such as kembong and kerisi,
indicating the supply of these species cannot keep up with demand.
• There is a pronounced shift towards what were once considered as low value fish in the early 1990s. Both
selar and tamban commanded very low prices at the beginning of the 30-year period but experience the
greatest increase in prices.
• The shift towards lower priced fish is underscored by the rapidly escalating prices for higher valued
(Grade 1) fish. The average wholesale price for Grade 1 fish (per kilo) increased by almost 240percent
from RM5.49/kg to RM18.42/kg over 1980 – 2009 period (Figure 12).
• It is clear that price increases were both demand as well as supply driven. The data does not enable
determination of the primary driver. However, the shift to lower value fish suggests that supply is the
main issue, particularly of staple table pelagics.
Figure 12: Wholesale Price Trends for Grade 1 Fish 1980 - 2009

23
2.1.6 Status of Marine Ecosystems

The precipitous situation of the fisheries stocks both on the West and East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia are
concurrent with conditions of the ecosystems that support their recruitment and forage grounds. A fuller
assessment is provided below.
2.1.7 Mangroves
The mangroves of Peninsular Malaysia are found mainly on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia (Table 11
and Figure 13). Mangroves are crucial mediators in sustaining the health of the marine environment as a
whole. The impacts arising from the loss of mangroves, therefore, resonate throughout the marine food web
and the life forms it supports.
Table 11: Mangrove Areas (ha) in Peninsular Malaysia, 2005
Source: Tan, 2007

24
Figure 13: Mangrove Areas in Peninsular Malaysia
Source: Razani and Abd. Rahman, 2010
The presence of mangroves is potentially vital to sustenance of the near shore fisheries of the region. A
study of mangrove-adjacent fishing ground in East Johor reported landings of 17 species of shrimps within 3
to 5 km from the shores (Mohd. Zaki,1991). Eight (8) common genera comprised of Penaeus, Metapenaeus,
Parapenaeopsis, Metaparapenaeopsis, Trachypenaeus, Solanocera, Plesionika and Heterocarpus. The four
(4) genera were dominant in the catch and were considered important commercial species. Mangroves
play an important role in the ecology of marine ecosystems. The root systems of mangrove trees keep the
substrate firm, hence, contributing to a lasting stability of the coast.
25
The mangroves play a vital role in:

• sequestering nutrients and pollutants in the marine environment
• protecting the coast from sea level rise, wave action and coastal erosion (Mazda et al., 1997)
• trapping sediments and sink nutrients (Furukawa et al., 1997; Wolanski, 1995; Wolanski et al., 1992;
Woodroffe, 1992)
• nursery and feeding grounds for fishes, crustaceans and molluscs (Xiaojun, 2009; Kjerfve and Macintosh,
1997; Chong, 1980; MacNae, 1974; Odum and Heald, 1972) nursery, feeding, breeding areas for almost
50percent of the commercially exploited fish and 90percent of commercially exploited prawn species
on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia (Sasekumar et al., 1994; Chong et al., 1994;Chong et al., 1990;
Jothy, 1984); commercially exploited fisheries utilise mangroves or the mudflats during some stage of
their life cycle (Singh et al., 1994)
• ecotourism (nature photography, bird watching, wildlife observation, nature education, recreational
fishing, boating and aesthetics) as shown by the number of visitors (40,000 in 1996) to Kuala Selangor
Nature Park (Leong, 1999); ecotourism in Setiu wetlands in Terengganu
• supporting a high diversity of benthic invertebrates which are important in the coastal food chain
Generally, mangrove areas had been reported in decline for both mangroves outside forest reserves as
well as within gazetted reserves. From 1973 to 2005, the total mangrove areas in Peninsular Malaysia
declined by 35.5percent. Between 1980 and 2005, a decline of 22.6percent was reported in reserved
mangrove forest (Tan, 2008). The loss of Malaysia’s mangrove forest (Table 12) seriously undermines the
sustainability of demersal and pelagic fish stocks.
From 1975 to 1999, almost 62percent of Permanent Mangrove Forest Reserves in Selangor, gazetted under
the National Forestry Act 1984 have been degazetted. The remaining unprotected forests are logged
indiscriminately. Sasekumar (2005) states that the value of fisheries resources and products from
remaining mangroves and mudflats amounts to RM 1.55 billion per year (USD 407 million). The loss of
mangroves and mudflats will have a negative impact on the production of shellfish, squids, prawns, crabs
and fingerlings (Devi et al. 2008).
Table 12: Total Mangrove Area (hectares) along the Coastal Areas of the Straits of Malacca, 1973 - 2005
*Area includes for East Coast of Johor

Source: Tan, 2005
26
Table 13: Threats to Mangrove Forests in Malaysia
2.1.8 Mudflats
Mudflats are the dominant features of the coastline on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and
Sarawak. They are usually associated with mangrove forests, especially if the mangrove areas are in the
phase of active accretion. While mudflats inevitably front mangroves and are enriched by their detrital
flows, they represent distinct ecosystems with physical biological characteristics unique to themselves.
Broom (1982) estimated that there were over 36,430 ha of mudflats in the country but no updated data is
available to know the current extent of mudflats.
Mudflat productivity is reflected by the density of sediment communities. Sediment communities play a
critical role in the food chain for both marine organisms as well as shorebird populations (Chong et al., 1990).
Sediment communities are diverse and highly productivity. They are also a crucially important food source
for marine fish and shorebirds (Erftemeyer et al., 1989; Sasekumar, 1984; Sasekumar et al., 1984). Mudflats
generally support the highest levels of sediment community populations. A review by Gopinath et al. (2001)
indicated the highest macrobenthic fauna populations to be in mudflat areas.
27
In addition to their role in the maintenance of nearshore and marine coastal productivity, mudflats also
support cockle (Anadara granosa) farming. Malaysia is one of the world’s largest producers of farmed
cockles. A study by Lim and Chuah (2003) indicated that up to 8,330 ha are suitable for cockle farming,
however at present, only about 4,500ha of mudflats are utilised for this purpose. The mudflats of the west
coast of Peninsular Malaysia are very productive, producing 72,000 tonnes of marketable cockles and 11,000
tonnes of cockle seeds (Mohd. Mazlan, 2000). Most of these resources are located in Kedah (off Langkawi), P.
Pinang and Selangor.
Mudflats face similar pressures to mangroves. There has been no comprehensive survey of mudflats in
Malaysia, due to the fact that mudflats have always been treated as adjuncts to mangroves and never
properly studied in their own right. Mudflats are often the first targets of coastal development, especially
reclamation. This approach has been largely supported by the traditional belief among planners that
mudflats have zero value and are wastelands. Though the potential returns from aquaculture development
can be calculated easily enough, quantifying the benefits of mudflats is difficult, such as decline in nearshore
fisheries production. If indeed they were, it is probable that much of the development in mudflats that had
been considered feasible would turn out to be economically unsound.
Mudflats have yet to be specifically protected under any legislation. Only mudflats within marine parks or
forest reserves are protected. Mudflats outside of protection are under the State Directorates of Lands and
Mines but they have neither the mandate nor capacity to manage mudflats and, as a result, this important
ecosystem type is open for exploitation and destruction.
2.1.9 Coral Reefs

Coral reefs have a major biodiversity value and support a wide variety of marine life. They do this directly by
providing direct habitat resources to reef dwelling fish and invertebrates for spawning, nursery and growth
or indirectly by serving as aggregating device for oceanic fish species. In this respect, coral reefs play a
critical role is the marine food web and a major mediator of icthyproductivity.
Their role is particularly critical in open marine waters, which do not share substantially in coastal nutrient
regimes and thus are highly reliant on coral reefs to sustain fish stocks and populations (Mcmanus, 1988).
The major reefs in Malaysia are shown in Figure 14.
Coral reefs are fast disappearing and being degraded at an alarming rate. They are vulnerable to damage
because they grow slowly, are easily disrupted, and thrive in clear, warm and fairly shallow waters of
constant high salinity (Barnes, 1987). The biggest threats to many of the world’s coral reefs come from
human activities, especially sedimentations (Masalu, 2000; Miller, 1999). Sedimentation blocks sunlight,
killing the zooxanthellae that are so important for coral survival, causing coral bleaching (Kushairi, 1998;
Miller, 1999).
28
Figure 14: Location of Major Coral Reef Aggregations in Peninsular Malaysia
As with mudflats, coral reefs ecosystems face intractable problems relating to their conservation and
management. There has been no comprehensive survey of coral reef resources, both soft and hard,
throughout the country. The present marine park coverage is limited to specific areas and many coral reef
areas have yet to be protected in Peninsular Malaysia.
Only reefs within marine protected areas are protected. Reefs outside the marine protected areas come
under the State Directorate of Lands and Mines (if within State waters) or the Federal Directorate of Lands
and Mines (if outside State waters and within territorial sea). The Directorates have neither the mandate
nor the capacity to manage and protect the coral reefs and, as a result, they are open to exploitation and
destruction.
29
All land based activities on islands and land fall under the jurisdiction of the state government whereas
marine parks come under a federal jurisdiction. Herein lays the potential conflict between land development
activities and marine areas, resulting in negative impacts.
The major threats to the corals of the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia includes land based activity that
causes sedimentation and turbidity, pollution (land-marine based), eutrophication (sewage and industrial),
overfishing (trawling) and coral damage (recreational activities) (Phang, 1995; Phang, 1988). The coral reef
and the reef fishes in Tanjung Tuan, P. Bidan and Langkawi have been exploited for commercial gains for the
aquarium trade (Yan, 2008). There has been significant loss in live hard coral cover in P. Payar between 1998
(Lim, 1998) and 2004 (Comley et al., 2005). The threats to the coral reefs of Malaysia are listed and scaled in
Table 14.
Table 14: Threats to Coral Reefs of Malaysia
Note: Scale Values: 1 = None to Rare, 2 = Very Low Concentration, 3 = Some Damage, Some Stress, 4 =
Medium to High Damage and 5 = Very High Stress, Very Damaging
Source: MIMA, 2006
The coral reefs in the Malacca Straits have been assessed to have an economic value of US$563 million for
tourism, shoreline protection, fisheries, and research potential, whereas the sustainable value of Southeast
Asia’s coral reef fisheries on the whole is estimated at US$2.4 billion per year.
2.1.10 Seagrass
Generally the seagrasses of Malaysia are found in association with shallow inter-tidal pools, semi-enclosed
lagoons, coral reef flats and subtidal zones (Japar Sidik et al., 2001; Muta Harah et al., 2000; Japar Sidik et
al., 1999; Muta Harah et al., 1999; Japar Sidik et al., 1996). The seagrass beds are widely distributed on both
coasts (Figure 15).
30
The ecological and economic function of seagrass meadows have long been recognized, such as stabilizing
sediments, as substratum for many epiphytes, as feeding and nursery grounds for many fishes and
crustaceans (Bell et al., 2001; Bell and Pollard, 1989; Larkum et al., 1989; Poineer et al., 1987). Approximately
100 fish species and 20 prawn species are known from seagrass beds on the west coast of the Peninsular
(Tan, 2008). Study undertaken in Tanjung Adang seagrass areas indicated that approximately 76 species
of fish from 41 families were recorded (Sasekumar et al., 1989), of which 35 species have commercial
importance (Arshad et al., 2001).
Figure 15: Seagrass Areas in Peninsular Malaysia
Source: Tan and Nizam, 2004

31
Lean et al. (1990) reported fish abundance in seagrass beds to be five times that of muddy and sandy
habitats. Fish in seagrass areas can be classified as residents, transients or occasional visitors as well as
diurnal and nocturnal feeders (Sudara et al., 1992; Bell and Harmelin-Vivien, 1983). According to Robert et al.
(1993), generally, fish fauna on the seagrass meadows appeared to be dominated by small fish and juveniles.
In addition, the seagrass leaves provide surface for epibiotic organisms to attach to, therefore, increasing
both primary and secondary productivity as well as providing rich food sources for fish and invertebrates
(Phillips and Milchakova, 2003).
The seagrass beds face many and repeated threats:

• Sea level rise and rise in sea temperature will alter the growth rates and the physiology of the seagrasses
affecting their primary productivity and reproduction (Short and Neckles, 1999)
• Ecotourism activities like boating (oil and grease), boat anchors and stepping on the seagrasses are
detrimental activities
• Land based activities and other infrastructure development that does not control sediment/ wastewater
discharge or run offs would potentially impact the seagrass meadows
• Uncontrolled fishing activities such as trawling in sensitive habitat also give an adverse impact. Many of
the seagrass beds have been destroyed by trawling activities (Mohd Mazlan, 2000), total removal or by
sediment resuspension (Japar Sidik and Muta Harah, 2003; Japar Sidik, 1994)
• Digging activity for polychaetes and bivalves (Hiatula solida, Meretrix meretrix) and other harvesting of
fisheries resources
• Shipping activity in port areas (Tg. Adang and Merambong) generates strong waves that can impact on
the seagrasses
• Sand mining and dredging for shoreline stabilization and flood control
• Reclamation projects that involve seagrass areas or adjacent to seagrass areas
Overall, there has been no comprehensive survey of seagrass meadows resources throughout the country.
Further, seagrass meadows have yet to be specifically protected. Only seagrass meadows within the marine
protected areas are protected. The issue of seagrass meadows outside the marine protected areas is similar
to coral reefs.
The present legislation governing seagrass meadows is disjointed and fragmented. There is often a conflict
between the land management strategies pursued by the Lands and Mines Directorate and the marine
protected area management authorities. The protection of larger tracts of seagrass beds means that these
areas would be off-limits to traditional, commercial and recreational fishermen who operate in and around
them.
2.1.11 Ecological Risk Assessment

Risk assessment is the determination of quantitative or qualitative value of risk related to a concrete
situation and a recognized threat. Ecological risk assessment is a process that evaluates the likelihood that
adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors (U.S.
EPA, 1998; NOAA, 2005). The process is used to systematically evaluate and organize data, information,
assumptions, and uncertainties in order to help understand and predict the relationships between stressors
and ecological effects in a way that is useful for environmental decision making. An assessment may involve
chemical, physical, or biological stressors, and one stressor or many stressors may be considered.
Quantitative risk assessment requires calculations of two components of risk (R), the magnitude of the
potential loss (L), and the probability (P) of that loss occurring. In industrial processes, risk assessment is
quantifiable because the inter-linkages between these components are well known and the probability of
their occurrence has been well established. However, in natural systems, more so aquatic systems, trophic
32
linkages are immensely complex, multi-dimensional and often ill understood. Thus, the application of
mathematical models to such a situation is, for most part, difficult and the outcomes, unreliable.
Ecological risk assessment relies more on qualitative assessments of risk. Ecological Risk Assessments are
developed within a risk management context to evaluate human-induced changes that are considered
undesirable. As a result, they focus on stressors and adverse effects generated or influenced by
anthropogenic activity. Defining adversity is important because a stressor may cause adverse effects on one
ecosystem component but be neutral or even beneficial to other components. Changes often considered
undesirable are those that alter important structural or functional characteristics or components of
ecosystems.
In the estimation of risks, three basic steps are involved.

Stressor Identification; involves the determination of the stressor as well as the qualitative nature of its
potential adverse consequences;
• Stressor-Response Analysis; analyses the relationship between stressor and the probability or the
incidence of its effect; and
• Exposure Quantification; aims to determine the degree to which the stressor impacts on the
environment. The impact can be a function of intensity, time or both.
An evaluation of adversity may include a consideration of the type, intensity, and scale of the effect as well as
the potential for recovery. Risk managers determine the acceptability of adverse effects. Although intended
to evaluate adverse effects, the ecological risk assessment process can be adapted to predict beneficial
changes or risk from natural events.
Previous assessments of ecological risk assessment as applied to fisheries have been either on gear (Astle,
2009) or species specific (Roelofs, 2008; Hobday et al, 2007; Boyd, 2011). This is because the diversity of
fishing techniques and systems, species caught and habitats affected tend to make stressor identification
either species or activity specific. Every gear and fishing technique would have a differing impact depending
on the manner in which the fishing is conducted, where it is undertaken, and the target species involved
(NOAA, 2005).
The risk assessment undertaken in this report, digresses from this approach by looking at the fisheries sector
as a whole. Thus, the risks are not gear or species specific but relate to the sector as a whole. In this respect,
the major stressors to the fisheries sector can be summarized as follows:
a. Overfishing
The impact of overfishing would lead to reductions in breeding populations, which in turn would impact on
recruitment. The impact of overfishing on fish stocks is indicated by the declining CPUE figures from resource
studies as well as the greater incidence of small and juvenile fish in the landings.
b. Biodiversity and Habitat Loss

The continuing degradation and loss of fisheries habitats would seriously decimate the forage base and
recruitment. Habitat loss can be caused by land-based activities such as sediment flows, reclamation and
development of coastal areas. However, fishing can also cause habitat loss, particularly submerged habitats
such as coral reefs and sea grasses. In particular, trawling and other deleterious fishing practices such ‘pukat
appolo’ can destroy sea grass meadows, coral reefs and benthic communities.
33
c. Water Quality Degradation

As with habitat loss, water quality degradation can come from landward sources as well as shipping and
fishing industry. Landward sources of sewage, agricultural and industrial effluent can seriously affect water
quality. Oil discharge, sewage and solid waste from shipping and fishing vessels are also major stressors. In
addition, fishing activities such as trawlers also churn the sea bottom, increasing suspended sediment levels
and degrading water quality even further.
Scenario Modelling
A scenario modelling that takes these three stressors into account and an exposure period of 20 years (up
to 2030) is provided below. In doing the modelling, three probability modes for deleterious effects of the
various hazards are considered as follows:
• Least Probable
• Moderately Probable
• Highly Probable
The outcome of the scenario modelling is as follows.
A. Scenario 1 – Steady State

This “Business as Usual” scenario postulates that the current situation relating to resource management
continues, via the following characteristics:
Fishing Effort
Increases in fishing effort would continue. This is probable but only for coastal fishermen. However, it is
highly probable that there will be no declines in the number of trawls. The use of illegal deleterious gears is
also highly probable.
Fisheries Habitats
Declines in habitat health would continue. This is highly probable given the current pressures on the coastal
ecosystem and the impact of climate change.
Water Quality Degradation

It is likely that there would be some improvement of water quality with the planned investments in sewerage
infrastructure by the government. However, against this would be the decline of nutrient sequestering
capabilities caused by the loss of coastal habitats. On the balance of probabilities, it is highly probable that
current water quality conditions will prevail, if not worsen.
34
Figure 16: Estimated Landings of Trash Fish/Mixed Fish Landings Up to 2030
Given this probability scenario, the following assessment is likely:
 It is Highly Improbable that landings can be sustained at current levels. Even if gross landings can be
sustained, it is likely that there would be a serious decline in the quality of the landings.
 A projection of trash fish and mixed fish landings, based on past trends, is shown in Figure 16. Assuming
the gross catch amounts to about one million tonnes, the mixed fish and trash fish could rise to about
50percent of the catch by 2030. Currently, mixed fish and trash fish accounts for 28percent of the catch.
The increase in trash fish and mixed fish landings to the estimated 2030 levels would mean that food fish
supply from Peninsular Malaysia waters could diminish by at least 22percent over the next 20 years.
 As a consequence, there would be a greater reliance on imports to meet domestic demand.
 The combination on increasing population and demand, coupled with diminished supply, would see fish
prices increase even further.
B. Scenario 2 – Improved Resource Management Based on Fishing Effort Alone

This scenario sees resource rehabilitation interventions pursued based on the present fisheries resource
management model, but which are essentially limited to controls on the fishing effort. The probability matrix
of relating to this scenario is as follows:
Fishing Effort
Reducing the number of fishermen, and more importantly, the number of gears would definitely reduce
fishing pressure. This is a feasible scenario since the licensing of fishermen and their productive assets is
within the ambit of the Department of Fisheries. A deleterious outcome is Least Probable.
35
Fisheries Habitats
Declines in habitat health would continue. This is Highly Probable given the current pressures on the coastal
ecosystem and impact of climate change. Thus, declines in recruitment rates and forage output as they relate
to these habitats would continue.
Water Quality Degradation

It is likely that there would be some improvement of water quality with the planned investments in sewerage
infrastructure by the government. However, against this would be the decline of nutrient sequestering
capabilities caused by loss of coastal habitats. On the balance of probabilities, it is Highly Probable that
current water quality conditions will prevail, if not worsen.

 It is Highly Probable that there will still be a decline in nearshore and coastal fisheries with a continuing
loss of habitats. Offshore pelagic fisheries will be the least affected;
 It is Highly Probable that landings will decline with habitat loss and Moderately Probable that landings
would remain at current levels with possible recovery of pelagic stocks. However, it is Highly Probable
there will be a structural change in landing patterns.
C. Scenario 3 – Ecosystem Management Approach

This scenario sees ecosystem approaches being adopted in full where fisheries management is concerned.
The imposition of the regime is likely to take about 5 years. The probability matrix relating to this scenario is
as follows:
Fishing Effort
Increases in fishing effort would be reduced. This is a feasible scenario since the licensing of fishermen and
gears is by the Department of Fisheries and a deleterious outcome is Least Probable.
Habitat Health
Declines in habitat health would be arrested. Though this is a positive development, a deleterious outcome is
only moderately probable since losses due to climate change will continue, impacting mostly coral reefs.
Water Quality
Given the improvement of water quality with the planned investment in sewerage infrastructure by the
government and the rehabilitation of habitats, it is Highly Probable that current water quality conditions will
improve.

 It is Highly Probable that future landings would increase or, at the very least, remain at current levels.
 It would also be Highly Probable that the decline in the quality of fisheries landings would be arrested.
The three scenarios and their respective risk assessments are summarised in Table 15.
36
Table 15: Summary of Risk Scenarios for Fisheries in Malaysia till 2030
37
3 Valuation Of FISHERIES AND Marine Ecosystems
Economic valuation is a set of techniques to estimate the value of specific resource. These techniques are
based on economic principles and may not necessarily reflect values that are often associated with other
bodies of studies.
3.1 Fisheries Valuation
Table 16: Fish Landings and Value by Fisheries Sector, 2007
Source: Department of Fisheries, Annual Fisheries Statistics 2007.
Table 17: Aquaculture Production and Value by Culture System, 2005
Table 18: Estimated Value of Ornamental Fish Production by Year, 2000-2007

38
Table 19: Estimated Landings of Freshwater Fish from Public Waterbodies, 2005
The following section describes the capacity of the fisheries industry based on the agriculture economic
census carried out in 2006. Fisheries industry is the third largest sub-sector in agriculture after crops and
livestock. The number of set ups/establishments in the fisheries industry in 2005 was recorded at 566 or
around 11 percent of the agriculture sector, with a corresponding RM 331 million worth of outputs and
RM91.6 million value added (Table 20). The Agriculture Economic Census describes value added as the
difference between the value of gross output and the cost of input 1.
Table 20: Output and Value Added by Sub-Sector, 2005
Table 21 shows the summary of the fisheries sector production. Total production of marine capture fisheries,
aquaculture and freshwater fish from public sector reported about 1.59 million tonnes, and valued at RM6.3
billion (using 1.2percent of GDP). With the addition of the recreational fisheries (estimated value of RM3.142
billion), the total value of fisheries sector production is estimated at RM9.6 billion. There are several different
ways in which fisheries could be under-reported in the national accounts, and they are: illegal fishing, own
consumption, and under-enumeration.
Table 21: Summary of the fisheries sector production
3.1.1 Mapping and inventory of associated industry

Here, we intend to do an independent estimate of the size of the inter-industry linkages that will be based on
other information, e.g. some informal surveys of the industries that are upstream of the fishery production
segment. These informal surveys will help us understand the importance of fisheries to these industries, and
vice versa. The findings of these surveys will be delivered in the final report. For the rest of this chapter, the
economic contribution will be analysed based on the I-O tables of the national accounts.
1. Based on the Agriculture Economic Census, the value of gross output includes the sales of agriculture product, stocks of agriculture product (closing),
income from agricultural work done for others, income from processed agricultural products, value of sales from goods/materials related to agriculture,
other income related to agriculture, all other output value minus stocks of agricultural products (opening) and cost of goods/materials purchased
for resale without undergoing further processing. The cost of input includes the cost of direct materials consumed in agriculture, total payment on
agricultural work done by other setups, electricity purchased, fuel, lubricants and gas consumed, payments for current repairs and maintenance work
done by others on establishments’ fixed assets, payment for non agricultural industrial services and all other input values.
39
Figure 17: Fisheries Balance Sheet (Production and Trade), 2005 (mt)
Source: Adapted from MIER (1999), Fisheries Development Study in Malaysia (Interim Report), but using
2005
DOF production and trade statistics.
Figure 17 shows the fish supply utilisation chain for Year 2005 is adapted from MIER (1999) Fisheries
Development Study. It shows the breakdown in quantity terms (metric tonne (mt)) from fish production
supply to final consumption level and also picture the links between imports, exports and, production and
consumption.
The estimated output for year 2005 was 1,421,403 metric tonne (mt) while the apparent fish consumption
was estimated at 1,384,768 mt (consumption per capita was 53kg).Trash fish weighted about 21percent
of total marine capture with 112,718 mt was used as raw material for fish feed or fish meal. 93,918 tonne
of fisheries production was exported which left the total fisheries for local used weighted at 965,115 mt
assuming 10percent wastage8. About 81percent from the 965,115 mt of fisheries went to the local fresh
market while the remaining was used as raw material for processing such as canning, fermented, etc. In
order to satisfy the demand of fisheries products, about 381,274 mt of fisheries products was imported and
we assume that about 20percent or 55,396 mt of 276,980 mt of imported fresh/chilled or frozen fish was
used as raw material for processing. The amount of exported processed products was estimated at 157,386
mt while domestic consumption of processed products weighted about 194,100 mt. In year 2005, Malaysia
only imported 18,105 mt of aquaculture feed/manure while the export was 38,604 mt. The rest of the
aquaculture feed was assumed for local aquaculture use.
Marine capture fisheries comprise of only upstream and downstream activities. The upstream activities
include the necessary ingredients used for fish catch, i.e. ice, fuel, bait, nets and also the use of boats
and engines. Perhaps some food and drinks for the fishermen could also be included as well. For the
40
downstream side, items such as ice, boxes, water, and activities such as auction or purchasing of fish, and
subsequent transport out to the wholesalers who resell the fish to other wholesalers or retail to households
or restaurants. There is a proportion that goes for fish processing (whether for food or feed, etc). Figure 18
shows these relationships graphically.
Figure 18 Fisheries Upstream and Downstream Industries
Aquaculture has three distinct activities: upstream, midstream and downstream activities. The upstream
activities would include those that consist of preparing materials to be used for production, i.e. cleaning the
aquaculture area, nets, fry, and of course the construction of the ponds or the cages. The mid-stream portion
consist of growing up the fry into fish, shrimp or shellfish, and will require inputs such as feed, electricity,
nets, and chemicals that might be needed to ensure that aquaculture area is secure. The mid-stream portion
envisages that the aquaculture commodity reaches mature size and then they are harvested and sorted
before they are sold. The downstream portion consist of distributing the product via wholesalers or retailers,
which in turn could be to retail (e.g. households or restaurants), further distribution to eventual markets or
for export. Figure 19 shows these relationships graphically.
41
Figure 19 Aquaculture Upstream to Downstream Industries

In
terms of recreational fisheries, there are only upstream and mid-stream activities because there is no
distribution of the catch, only personal enjoyment. For the upstream portion, it has similarities with tourism.
Recreational fishermen will the usual tackle, bait, boat services, fuel, ice, and travel to the place of fishing. It
might even resemble something like local tourism in so far as there is a need for accommodation, transport,
tackle repair and also food and drinks for the period of fishing. In addition, if the recreational fishing takes
place in a fishing pond, then more things is needed, this has some similarity with aquaculture. Here, mature
fish is required, pond maintenance and use of electricity and other services needed to maintain the ponds
for recreational fishing. Figure 20 shows these graphically.
Figure 20 Recreational Fisheries Upstream and Midstream Industries

42
The Economic Contribution of Fishery: An Input Output Analysis

Input Structure
The input structure of an industry consists of intermediate inputs and primary inputs. Intermediate inputs
are domestically produced materials and supplies as well as the non-factor services used in production.
Primary input refers to usage of factors of production.
In 2000, 43.6 per cent of the total intermediate input cost of the fishery industry came from usage of petrol
and coal products. Other major intermediate input cost items were “fish etc” (23.6 per cent), wholesale
and retail trade (12.5 per cent), ice (4.7 per cent) and electrical appliances and houseware (2.9 per cent).
Together, these five items accounted for 87.3 per cent of the total intermediate input cost of the fishery
industry (Table 22).
Table 22: Intermediate input structure of the fishery industry

43
Table 23: Industries that sold their products to the fishery industry, percent share of their respective total
output value, 2000
Table 24: Estimated combined output value of the fishery industry and fishery-related manufacturing
industries, 2006
Source: WWF Malaysia, 2009.

44
3.1.2 Summary of I-O Tables 2000 Analysis

The above analysis shows that the fishery industry is an important industry in the Malaysian economy. Most
indicators suggest that it belongs to the top 30 per cent of the most-important-economic-contributors list.
Out of the 94 industries under reviewed, it is the 39th largest industry and fourth largest agricultural industry
in terms of output value. It is the 26th largest contributor in terms of VA and has an above average operating
surplus ratio that reflects the self-employment nature of the fishery activities.
The fishery industry is not an export-oriented industry. More than 50 per cent of its output is meant for
domestic private consumers. Out of the 94 private consumption items analyzed, fish took the top 14th spot.
Private consumers spend about the same amount of money on fish as they spend on electricity and gas and
oil and fats.
The fishery industry does not depend heavily on imported inputs for its domestic production, which explains
why it is not a major contributor to tax revenue on imported inputs. This low import propensity means that
the leakage to the multiplier effect is minimal.
The fishery industry has relatively strong direct forward linkages with the hotel and restaurant industry,
preservation of seafood, fishing, and recreation, manufacture of other food, and meat and meat production.
Its major upstream industries are fuel (classified in the IO Table as crude petrol, natural gas and coal
industry), fishing, wholesale and retail trade, manufacture of ice and manufacture of electrical appliances
and houseware.
Of the 94 industries examined, the fishery industry has the 34th strongest ‘power of dispersion’ (backward
linkage effect) and 20th strongest ‘sensitivity of dispersion (forward linkage effect). The fishery industry is a
‘key industry’ by virtue that it has the above average backward and forward linkage effects.
The contribution of fishery to GDP increases if the primary (fishing) and secondary (processing and
manufacturing) aspects of fishery are taken together into computation (from 1.1percent to 2.1percent using
2006 figures based on the 2000 I-O framework). The fishery industry produced RM8.5 billion worth of output
in 2006, encompassing output from the ‘fishing’, ‘fish processing and preserving’, ‘manufacturing of fishing
nets’, ‘building and repairing of fishing vessels’ and ‘manufacturing of ice’. The figure can increase further if
the output of fishery-related service industries such as ‘sport fishing’, ‘wholesale and retail trade’, ‘hotel and
restaurants’ and ‘transport’ were to classified as part of fishery.
In addition, recreational fisheries activities are increasingly recognized to have great potential. Though there
is lack of data to reflect this magnitude a Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) on recreational
fishing cluster conducted in 2000 estimated that there are at least 1 million anglers in the country who fish at
least once a month. The study also noted that the European Tackle Manufacturers Association estimated that
Malaysia/Singapore market for fishing tackle only to worth at least USD1 billion. The incorporation of other
values in the recreational industry would mean an even bigger value for the sector.
Given its economic importance, the fishery industry warrant due attention and support by the government,
development agencies and donor communities in every area of its development, including management and
protection, R&D, investment etc to ensure its long term sustainability.
Fisheries Subsidy Programme

The subsidy programme of the Malaysian fishing industry include livelihood subsidy, catch subsidy and fuel
subsidy. The Persatuan Nelayan (PN) manages the catch and fuel subsidy, while the livelihood subsidy is
issued by the Fisheries Development Board. The PN has a list of members and this is often used as a ready
45
list for the licensing officer to pass on as the list of genuine fishermen. The fishermen are issued an e-card
that entitles them to all the subsidies, i.e. the livelihood allowance, fuel and catch subsidy. The Department is
expected to ensure that all card carriers are genuine fishermen but this is hard to do because they don’t have
all the information and don’t have enough manpower to undertake the necessary background investigations.
Fishermen are categorised into two types and are offered different subsidies. Type A refers to in-shore
fishermen who are entitled to claim a livelihood subsidy of RM 200 per month, a catch subsidy of maximum
RM 200 per month per person and a maximum of 2000 litres of diesel or petrol per month per boat that has
a subsidy for diesel or petrol of RM 0.60 and RM 0.70 per litre respectively (Table 25).
Type B refers to fishermen who do off-shore fishing and operate larger vessels such as trawlers or purse
seiners. In terms of livelihood subsidy and the subsidy for diesel or petrol, Type B fishermen receive the
same subsidies as Type A fishermen. However, the maximum catch subsidy is higher (RM 500 per month per
person) and the maximum amount of diesel that can be claimed per month for each boat ranges between
5,000 and 8,000 litres depending on boat size (Table 25).
There are 2 types of fuel: diesel (inboard engine) and petrol (outboard engine). Diesel subsidy is RM1.20
(versus RM1.80/ litre) whereas petrol subsidy is RM1.20 (versus RM1.90/ litre). The data provided by LKIM
started from June 2008 when the subsidy was raised to RM1 per litre.
Table 25: The Malaysian Fishing Subsidy Programme
3.1.3 Fuel Subsidy

Since the beginning of the subsidy programme (June 2008) until September 2011, a total of 4,033 million
litres of fuel had been given out to fishermen. As shown in Table 21, the average monthly fuel usage was
152.71 million litres per month in 2008 but reduced to 79.01 million litres per month in 2011.
It is observed that the amount of subsidised diesel given in 7 months of 2008 was almost the same as that
for 12 months of 2009, and the average monthly fuel given out was almost 45percent higher in 2008 than in
2009. If we compare this with the number of fishermen that were eligible for the subsidy scheme (Table 26),
year 2008 had only half the number of eligible fishermen than in 2009, suggesting improved management of
the subsidy programme.
To buy subsidised fuel, fishermen have to show proof of catch or sign a form stating that they didn’t catch
anything. Subsidised fuel is sold at designated skid-tank jetties.
46
Table 26: Total and Average Monthly Usage of Subsidised Fuel, June 2008 to August 2011
Source: LKIM
3.1.4 Catch Subsidy

Table 27 shows the total fish landings that have received RM 0.10 per kilogram catch subsidies since the
beginning of the programme in June 2008 until August 2011. Based on these figures, the monthly average
of fisheries output that received subsidies were found to have increased by about 68percent from 51,706
tonnes in 2008 to 87,012 tonnes in 2011. This provides some indication of how much the catch subsidy has
covered in terms of the catch landings.
Fishermen apply to the PN office to get catch subsidy, after filling in some forms and providing evidence of
catch, usually a receipt from a licensed dealer (by PN) is sufficient. For Type B boats, trash fish is not counted
as catch.
Table 27: Total Fish Landings (kg) with Catch Subsidies, June 2008 and August 2011
Source: LKIM
Note: original data has been edited.
47
From 2008 until 2011, Perak recorded the highest amount of landings that received catch subsidies (Table
27). In 2008, Sarawak recorded the largest amount of landings with subsidies after Perak and was followed
by Pahang. In 2009, the top three states recording large landings with subsidies were Perak followed by
Pahang and then Sabah/ Labuan whereas in 2010 and 2011, the top three states were Perak, Pahang and
then Selangor.
3.1.5 Fishermen (Livelihood) Subsidy

Table 28 shows the total number of fishermen who have received livelihood subsidies of RM 200 from June
2008 to August 2011. In terms of the top three states with the most fishermen receiving subsidies, Perak was
ranked as the first for 2008 to 2010 followed by Sarawak (2008 and 2009) and Sabah/Labuan (2010) then
Terengganu (2008), Sabah/Labuan (2009) and Sarawak (2010). For 2011, Sabah/Labuan recorded the most
number of fishermen with livelihood subsidies followed by Perak and Sarawak.
Table 28: Total Number of Fishermen receiving Livelihood Subsidy, June 2008 to August 2011
Source: LKIM
3.1.8 Total Subsidies to the Fisheries Industry

Table 29 shows the breakdown of the total amount of subsidies provided to the Malaysian fishing industry.
It ranges from RM732 million (2008) to RM865 million (2010), increasing annually. The full year forecast for
2011 is about RM890 million.
Since the program started in June 2008 until August 2011, almost RM 3 billion has been expensed: as
subsidies with 13percent of the total being spent on fishermen or livelihood subsidies, 8percent on catch
subsidies and 79percent on diesel subsidies (Table 30).
In 2008, most of the subsidies were given as fuel subsidies (88percent) while livelihood subsidies amounted
to 7percent and catch subsidies amounted to 5percent of the total subsidies (Table 30). As the programme
progressed, the composition of the subsidies has been readjusted: fuel subsidies dropped to 72percent,
with livelihood subsidies increasing to 16percent and an increase also for the catch subsidies to 12percent.
Looking at these figures, the subsidy programme is largely used for fuel subsidies followed by catch subsidies
which suggest that the focus of the subsidies are to increase fisheries output and not as transfer payments to
48
fishermen. It is possible that there was greater abuse of the fuel subsidies in 2008 when the programme was
first launched and hence that accounted for the high proportion of fuel subsidy. For instance, the average
monthly fuel was RM14.95 million per month but had stabilised to RM5.57 million in the next year.
Table 29: Total Amount of Subsidies, June 2008 to August 2011 (RM million)
*Note: This column is a forecasted amount
Table 30: Percentage composition of each subsidy component, June 2008 to August 2011
3.1.7 Impact of the Subsidy Programme on the Fisheries Industry

Since the introduction of the subsidy programme, about 26percent of the total fisheries output caught in
a year has been covered by the subsidy in 2008 (Table 31). It should be noted that this 26percent output
covered was produced in the last 7 months of 2008. In 2009, 49percent of the output was covered by the
subsidy programme.
In terms of the total number of fishermen who were working on registered vessels and approved foreign
fishermen only about 33percent of all fishermen received subsidies in 2008 and 30percent in 2009 (Table
31). The distinction was in the number of fishermen in the DOF statistics and the number of fishermen
receiving subsidy (LKIM statistics). For instance, in 2008, the total number of fishermen was estimated at
142,823 (11percent foreign fishermen) whereas the numbers receiving subsidy was estimated at 47,222
or about 33percent. In 2009, the DOF statistics reported 160,152 fishermen (22percent foreign fishermen)
whereas those with a fishermen card are registered at 48,117 or about 30percent. Hence, not all fishermen
receive livelihood subsidies; it is not clear who has been excluded nor why.
In terms of productivity, only 13.5percent in 2008 and 13.8percent in 2009 of fisherman productivity was
covered by the subsidy. That amounts to 1.3 tonnes of the total output of 9.76 tonnes in 2008 and 1.2 tonnes
out of 8.7 tonnes in 2009 of fishing output being covered by the subsidy (Table 31).
49
Table 31: Impact of the Subsidy Programme 2008 and 2009
*Note: Percentage of total registered fishermen from the total amount of people obtaining fishermen
livelihood subsidies
The before-after impact of the subsidies seems to suggest it did not raise the productivity of the industry
(as measured by output/ fisherman). In fact, productivity fell despite the fishing industry receiving a large
amount of subsidy. In other words, even with cheaper input (fuel) and rewarding catches to a certain level,
there was no obvious impact on fisheries productivity.
Breakdown of the components of the subsidy programme revealed that the bulk of the subsidy is used on
fuel. The policy rationale for the fuel subsidy is to shield fishermen against rising fuel prices. To complement
that, fishing output was also given a subsidy in order to incentivise fish catch and also increase the protection
of the livelihoods of fishermen.
If combined, both the fuel and catch subsidies accounted for between 88percent and 93percent of the total
subsidy programme between 2008 and 2011. If the resource base is depleting, then the subsidy programme
would have made it worse. The livelihood subsidy (7percent-12percent) is thus only a transfer payment from
the government to the fishermen and does not directly translate into additional fishing output.
Essentially, fisheries output has increased because more fishermen have gone fishing since 2000 (available
data is only until 2009). Catch per fisherman (productivity) declined in almost every state. With the subsidy
scheme introduced in mid-2008, it has made no impact on productivity, although fishing output and the
share of subsidised output has increased. But that could be a result of both the subsidy scheme as well as
more fishermen catching more fish.
If the national statistics are accurate, the one interpretation to be made is that the subsidy scheme did
contribute to more fish being caught because costs were reduced (subsidised fuel) and more fishermen went
fishing. One of the real intent of the fishing subsidy is socio-economic equity (relief for poor fishermen).
Nonetheless, the cost of the subsidies is huge: forecasted to reach RM890 million by the end of 2011 if all
the three components are added together. And in the 3-4 years of the programme, its bill has amounted
to RM 1.49 billion (as of August 2011). Hence, it is a significant transfer payment programme without a
significant increase in output.
3.1.8 Ecosystem Valuation

Methodology
The concept of economic valuation that is often used is that of Total Economic Value or TEV. TEV is further
divided into five sub-components, viz. direct use value (e.g. fisheries output), indirect use value (e.g.
ecological support), option value (e.g. fishing opportunities later), bequest value (e.g. fishing by the next
generation, and existence value (e.g. value as in donations to preserve a resource, e.g. marine park fund that
supports fisheries). TEV is best illustrated by Figure 21.
50
Figure 21: Concept of Total Economic Value
Source: EPU-Danida 2008. Cost Benefit Analysis Session 5 (by Benoit Laplante)
As we are dealing mainly with fisheries, the valuation exercise is relatively less complicated because there is
a market price for fish. Hence, the economic value of fishing can be determined by multiplying the quantity
(e.g. fish caught) by its market price. In the case of ecotourism, the value would be determined by the price
that divers pay to see coral fish (fee paid per diver multiplied by number of divers). When it comes to indirect
use value and non-use value, it is not so easy. For instance, we may know the cost of planting mangroves (to
act as a nursery for fisheries) but we may not fully know the value they may have as ecological barriers to
coastal erosion, tsunami mitigation, etc. Other techniques will need to be deployed1.
As there are no market values for indirect use and non-use values of the marine ecosystem, the usual
technique that economists use is to get a representative sample of respondents and run a contingent
valuation survey, which is to find out what people are willing to pay for the resources in the ecosystem,
assuming that they can perform those ecological services. Such techniques are widely used in valuation
studies of the marine ecosystem.
It is not easy to value the fisheries within the marine ecosystem; it is a difficult exercise. There are issues
concerning the boundaries of such a study, what should get valued and what falls outside. There are issues
regarding the valuation technique, whether the toolkit is able to value the resource accurately so that it can
be used for the purposes it was intended. As this exercise has limited resources, it will have to depend on
studies that have already been done (i.e. benefits transfer technique) in order to arrive at economic values.
Even here, there are problems because there are no known rigorous studies of fisheries valuation. As such,
one would have to infer the values based on other types of studies, e.g. valuation of mangroves, valuation of
marine parks, and economic studies of fisheries.
The first order of the valuation exercise is to determine the boundaries of the study of fisheries in Peninsular
Malaysia. There are two clear outputs from the marine ecosystem system that relates to fisheries: fish
catch and also tourism that’s focused on fisheries. In particular, that would be the tourists that visit marine
national parks, i.e. ecotourists. Given what is available, the ecological values related to fisheries could just be
confined to these two outputs, i.e. fisheries output and tourism values.
51
Since the subject matter is an ecosystem based approach, therefore the boundaries of the study should
include the important ecosystems in which the fisheries depend and which in turn benefit therefrom. In
this regard, the key ecosystem that should be considered include the marine (e.g. corals) and coastal (e.g.
mangroves) environments. As these environments are very diverse in terms of their structure and function,
the study will take a broad view of the economic relationships between them, as we undertake the valuation
exercise. The concept for valuation is called payment of ecosystem services.
Thus far, two studies have been conducted on the TEV: the first is for the marine park at Pulau Payar and the
second is for mangrove ecosystem.
Case Study 1: Total Economic Value of Ecotourism

The first study1 estimated the TEV of ecotourism in Pulau Payar Marine Park to be RM174 million in year
2010. The key components of this value (for 2010 alone) are:
• RM123.3 million in economic value of fisheries;

• RM0.48 million in consumer surplus from ecotourism;
• RM50.6 million in aesthetic value of reef fisheries;
• RM0.22 million in coastal protection;
• RM0.21 million in carbon sequestration;
• RM1.26 million in bequest value; and
• RM1.3 million in management cost.
Based on these estimates, the net present value of the ecotourism in Pulau Payar over 20 years, at 10percent
discount rate, is RM1.7 billion. This study is published by the Marine Parks Department of Malaysia.
Case Study 2: Total Economic Value of Mangroves Ecosystem

The second study is entitled “Sustainable utilisation and management of Mangroves ecosystems in Malaysia”
by V.C.Chong (2006)2. The economic valuation component is based on an earlier MPP-EAS study (1999) “Total
Economic Valuation: Coastal and Marine Resources in the Straits of Malacca”. It is assumed that the values
quoted represent the original study3. The data in the table showed it was for the year 1995. In this study, the
following valuation was reported:
• Direct Use value of USD 32.5 million for charcoal, poles, fish and crabs and also ecotourism;
• Indirect Use value of USD 426 million for nursery role, carbon sequestration, protection from erosion;
• Option value of USD 1.25 million (biodiversity); and
• Non-use value of USD 919 million (existence value).
There are no details of how these values were derived. However, Table 32 shows the values that were
presented in Chong’s (2006) study.
1. There are many good references for economic valuation techniques. This website has many examples to share,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5582e/y5582e08.htm
52
Table 32: Total Economic Value of Mangrove Ecosystems (83,259 ha)

in the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia
Source: Chong, 2006
Results
Total Economic Value (TEV) of Fisheries Based Ecosystem
To generate an updated TEV estimate of this study, we recomputed the values for which there is more recent
data, e.g. fisheries and tourism, and use deflators to update the values that were generated in the earlier
study.
Figure 22 shows graphically the results of the valuation exercise for the marine ecosystem that supports the
fisheries resource base. The key economic features of the marine ecosystem are as follows:
• Direct Use: Fisheries output at 1.4 million tons, valued at RM5 billion in 2009;
• Direct Use: Ecotourism in marine parks is based on DMPM’s register of 530,000 visitors in 2009 and if
each spends (conservatively) RM500 per visit, the value of ecotourism would be RM265 million;
• Direct Use: Mangroves that provide direct use value in terms of charcoal and poles and also support to
fish, shrimp, and mud crabs that is estimated at RM44 million annually (based on US$10 million in 1995);
• Indirect Use: Ecosystem services is valued at RM1.8 billion, which comprise of its role in erosion
mitigation, nursery, carbon sequestration and biodiversity values (based on US$420 million in 1995); and
• Non-use: Values of the marine ecosystem is valued at RM4 billion (based on US$920 million in 1995).
• TEV for the marine ecosystem is estimated at RM11.1 billion in 2009, where the use value component is
RM5.3 billion, indirect use is RM1.8 billion, and non-use value is RM4 billion.
1. http://www.dmpm.nre.gov.my/699-economic_report_pulau_payar.html (accessed 26 April 2012) “Investigating the Total Economic Value of Eco-
tourism in Pulau Payar Marine Park 2011”
2. http://www.google.la/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fportal.nceas.ucsb.
edu%2Fworking_group%2Fvaluation-of-coastal-habitats%2Freview-of-social-literature-as-of-1-26-07%2FChong%25202006.pdf%2Fattachment_
download%2Ffile&ei=tUWYT9K1EcLZrQettvyyAQ&usg=AFQjCNFu4zxVVWoaJE8uF_Zpi-DepPSOuA (accessed 26 April 2012)
3. Table 32 shows the table that was reproduced from Chong (2006).
53
Figure 22: Economic Valuation of Marine Ecosystem (Fisheries Based)
FISHERIES COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

If all of the numbers are added up, the TEV of the marine ecosystem is estimated at RM12 billion. What is
important to note is that the fisheries component accounts for about half of that value. Both the indirect
and non-use values of the coastal and marine ecosystem account for the other half of the values. These are
annual values of all the services that are provided by the marine ecosystem. The net present value of the
marine ecosystem services over 20 years, at say 10percent discount rate, would be RM90 billion, which is
economically a very important resource.
In 2009 alone, the government provided RM802 million in subsidies for fuel, catch and livelihood that would
contribute towards greater hunting pressure for fisheries. The expenditures of the government to manage
the marine parks would be about RM10 million. Subsidies reduce the cost of fishing, i.e. make it cheaper to
roam greater areas and increase the effort. The key question is whether these subsidies have a detrimental
impact on the fisheries resource.
An important qualifier to these estimates is that they are standardised to the year 2010, for those valuations
that were done earlier, and as such, the US$ were converted based on approximate currency rates prevailing
in 1995 (which is around RM3.5=US1). The nominal values have been converted to real values, using
standard year 2000 deflators, to the year 2010.
54
Table 33: The Cost and Benefit of Fisheries and related industries and ecosystems
55
4 CONCLUSION
4.1 Key Findings/ Observation
4.1.1 Ground-Level Views of Subsidy

An interview session with various fishermen revealed some interesting facts. The head of Selangor’s
Persatuan Nelayan (Jaman) estimated that less than 10percent abused the subsidies. The main forms of
abuse were:
• registering family members (to get fishermen subsidy) and then using foreigners to fish (to get catch and
fuel subsidy).
• non-fishermen obtaining a license which entitles them to all subsidies, especially the RM200 allowance,
which is banked into their account.
• transferring subsidised fuel to their land-based vehicles (for non-fishing purpose), which includes selling
them to a third party (which he thinks is minimal).
In terms of income, his estimate is that 50percent have non-fishing incomes, but the proportion of non-
fishing income varies. He admitted that income from fishing activities is insufficient for a family’s needs,
hence a need for supplementary income. In terms of resource, catch has been dwindling so much that many
fishermen (PN members essentially) don’t usually go out fishing because it’s too costly to prospect. Instead,
many wait for fishing “success”, and then head out to the location. So, there’s a bit of secrecy about where
fish is caught.
The most prevalent manner by which fishermen get into the scheme is through PN. But not everyone gets
registered that way. For instance, there is no PN in predominantly Chinese fishing villages, and there the
registration of fishermen is done by the Fisheries Department, and they register the Chinese fishermen as
well. This has caused some unhappiness amongst the PN leaders who want to “control” all entry. And the PN
implied that the abuses are coming from the non-PN fishermen.
The situation is similar with Chinese fishermen in the same fishing district (Jugra Lama). One Chinese
fisherman said that he hadn’t gone fishing for a month. There’s a lot of seasonal variation but overall the
total catch has dropped significantly over the years. The estimate of the current situation is that they use
about 1,000 litres per month, catch about 50 kg of fish per day, valued at about RM13-15/kg. In the past,
they may go out fishing for 20 days (maximum) but today it is much less. It seems that the fuel they quoted
is too little and it could be that they are fishing in the estuary or river stretches near to their jetties; and the
catch is quite minimal.
Interestingly, fishermen do not use up all their fuel allowances most of the time. That they cannot use all
the subsided fuel means that the returns to fishing are so low that it is not worth the effort. Hence, the
subsidised fuel could be hurting the resource at its margins. The fact that prospecting is beyond the reach of
most fishermen could be a sign that the resource is nearing collapse.
Already only 50percent of fishermen’s incomes are from fishing, which means that they cannot survive
without other incomes. Hence, the subsidy is helping shore up catch and income in an otherwise failing
industry. The catch subsidy is likely the key damage factor because it’s the trigger for the fuel subsidy as well.
Perhaps the only “good” thing is the limit on the catch subsidy. If the fishing catch or output statistics are
based on these numbers, then they need to be audited because almost anyone with a PN license can issue a
receipt for sale or purchase of fish, making the whole process faulty.
Hence, the only conclusion is that the fishing subsidy is keeping up the pressure on the resource.
56
4.1.2 Highlights
 Increased trash fish and mixed fish numbers within total catch indicates a decline in commercial
fish of marketable size and hence a possible decline in fisheries stock; and an indication of gross
overfishing.
 Trash fish landings in the West Coast increased 325percent over 1970 to 2009 as compared to
total landings increase of 216percent. Mixed fish landings increased 140percent in the West
Coast and, more ominously, 960percent in the East Coast. The data strongly suggests that
there is a serious diminution of larger individuals and market-sized fish, leaving behind smaller
juveniles in the standing stock.
 The peak for thrash and mixed fish catch occurs in July and August, when the fish is in juvenile
or advanced juvenile stage of development.
 Price increases have not been as great for high value fish (kerapu) as for staple pelagic fish such
as kembong and kerisi, indicating the supply of these species cannot keep up with demand.
 As a consequence of legal and administrative issues, there are no mangroves or seagrass
reserves that have been declared exclusively for marine protection or fisheries purposes.
 As demand has outstripped supply due to limited capture fisheries, aquaculture and imports
have helped cope with much of this increased demand.
 “Business as Usual” scenario: Probable increases in coastal fishing effort would continue.
However, it is highly probable that there will be no declines in the number of trawls. Highly
probable declines in habitat health would continue, given the current pressures on the coastal
ecosystem and the impact of climate change; AGAINST EAFM scenario: Probable reduction
in fishing effort, since the licensing of fishermen and gears is by the Department of Fisheries.
Declines in habitat health would be arrested.
 Not all fishermen receive livelihood subsidies; it is not clear who has been excluded nor why
 Cheaper input (fuel) and rewarding catches to a certain level has no obvious impact on fisheries
productivity
 Combined, both the fuel and catch subsidies accounted for between 88percent and 93percent
of the total subsidy programme between 2008 and 2011. If the resource base is depleting, then
the subsidy programme would have made it worse. The livelihood subsidy (7percent-12percent)
is only a transfer payment from the government to the fishermen and does not directly
translate into additional fishing output.
 Hence, the subsidies are a significant transfer payment programme without a significant
increase in output.
 When the numbers are added up, the TEV of the marine ecosystem is estimated at RM12
billion. The important point is that the fisheries component accounts for about half of that
value.
4.1.3 Current Fisheries Resource Management

The current policy framework, the Agro-Food Policy, stipulates output-oriented goals and detail targets for
landings. It has slanted current management regimes towards emphasising landings rather than quality.
Based on the findings in this study, it is clear that current management regime must be revamped, i.e. move
away from the one-dimension resource management model and consider the fisheries ecosystem as a
whole. Before a new management regime can be implemented well, it is essential to assess the framework
of the current fisheries management regime.
57
In tandem with the legal and policy environment, the institutional environment governing fisheries
management and conservation is disjointed and fragmented. At least five (5) agencies and two (2) ministries
are involved in the matter at the Federal level.
• Biodiversity and Biotechnology Council, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE).
• Department of Forestry, NRE
• Marine Parks Department, NRE
• Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industries (MoA)
• Fisheries Development Authority, MoA
The main institution undertaking fisheries management in Peninsular Malaysia is the Department of
Fisheries. However, their mandate is confined to fish in riverine, marine and estuarine waters. They do not
cover the management of fisheries ecosystems and habitats, which are managed by a spectrum of Federal
and State agencies.
There is a strong sectorial bias within each agency, the nature of which is dependent on the primary goal of
the agency concerned and is summarised below.
Table 34: Agencies dedicated to marine fisheries management and development

58
Table 35: Agencies not dedicated to fisheries conservation and management
The Case for EBFM in Malaysia

Current management regimes must be revamped to look at the fisheries ecosystem as a whole. It needs to
focus on ecosystem conservation, resource health, and improving the quality of the fisheries. This policy
should gear towards the conservation of the fisheries resource in order to provide socio-economic benefits
for Malaysians on a long term basis. A major step forward in ensuring institutional support for input based
strategies would be the management of fisheries-based ecosystem. Towards this end, there is a need to
convince key stakeholders that EAFM has a role in ensuring the resource is not degraded to the point of
depletion but to put in place measures to ensure resource sustainability for the benefit of current and future
generations.
A look at the usual fisheries statistics, e.g. total marine landings, number of people and vessels employed
and the value of fisheries output, suggests a thriving fishing industry in Malaysia. However, the profile of
species caught suggests that the fisheries resource is already overfished and could decline further should no
action be taken. Productivity studies show a massive increase in effort to catch fish.
This situation is further exacerbated with the destruction of ecosystems that directly or indirectly affect the
fisheries resource health. In addition, the introduction of a subsidy programme that focuses heavily on fuel
and catch subsidies potentially heightens the pressure on the fisheries resource.
To improve the situation, EAFM is proposed as a new management regime that takes cognizance of the
complexity of the fishing industry. Nevertheless, it is necessary to overcome the institutional problems within
the fishing industry that currently possess too many stakeholders and sectors and are highly fragmented.
Only through addressing this fundamental issue and keeping in mind the fundamental requirements for
EAFM to be effective, can the status of our fishing industry be changed.
In Malaysia, such a process will have to be initiated at the very top in order for the sectarian interest of
agencies and institutions to be realigned towards a national goal. A common platform must be evolved
for the implementation of EAFM in the country. The fisheries sector needs to move towards a sustainable
outcome.
59
4.1.4 Recommendations
The following recommendations have been framed against this backdrop.
Revision of Current Policy Environment

The current policy environment contained in the Agro Food Policy is inimical to the sustainability of the
fish stocks in the country. Its heavy emphasis on sustaining, if not increasing landing volumes, without
corresponding emphasis on protection and conservation of the marine environment is a serious shortcoming
and must be addressed in future reviews of the policy.
Establishment of Fisheries Ecosystem Management Regime

It is clear that the current fisheries resource management regimes are inadequate and ineffective in
sustaining catch levels. A new regime needs to be framed, one that combines control of fishing effort and
conservation of ecosystems in a cohesive, integrated package.
To ensure that there is a smoother transition into adopting and implementing EAFM as a new fisheries
management regime, the following recommendations are proposed.
a) Establish new Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Fisheries output is not a suitable measure of fisheries health, as the quality of fish catch has been
declining. As the EAFM require input data from various sources and agencies, it is essential to establish
new KPIs to reliably measure both productivity and indicators of all other factors that directly or indirectly
affect the resource stock and catch.
b) Restructure the subsidy programme in stages
The subsidy programme should be restructured to focus on the sustainability of fishing activities so that
the livelihoods of fishermen are also secured.
C) Creating value for existing fishing licenses and cease the issuing of new licenses
To reduce the fishing pressure, the government should consider buying up licenses so that fishermen can
exit the fishing industry. Needless to say, no new licenses should be issued for the time being. The total
number of licenses should be matched against the fisheries resource capacity.
d) Increasing support for aquaculture and fish imports
To address issues of shortages in fish that may result in food security issues, efforts should also be made
to increase the support for sustainable aquaculture and fish imports.
Establishment of a National Fisheries Council

A National Fisheries Council chaired by the Prime Minister and consisting of all Mentris Besar and Chief
Ministers should be established to decide on issues relating to management of fisheries and fisheries
ecosystems. This Council can be modelled after the National Land Council, the National Forestry Council
or the National Spatial Planning Council, all which of which bring State and Federal stakeholders together
to engender a consensus on land use, forestry and spatial planning respectively. The Council would enable
management of fisheries and fisheries-based ecosystems to be discussed collectively among all stakeholders.
In particular, it would involve the State Governments in fisheries management, ensuring that they carry some
responsibility for the health of the resource.
Extension of Fisheries Protected Areas to cover all Fisheries Ecosystems

Section 65 of the Fisheries Act, 1985 provides for the establishment of Fisheries Protected Areas, where
valuable habitats can be afforded protection. However, its use so far has been limited to specific areas,
mainly reef areas. Its use should be expanded to cover seagrass, sea weed and other habitats. The use of
relevant provisions with State Forestry Enactments for declaration of mangrove forests as fisheries reserves
should also be pursued.
60
References
1. Abdul Satar, M.K. and Y. Hiroyuki. 2000. The Present Status of the Catch and Some Biological Information on the
Economically Important fish Species in the Straits of Malacca. Pp 61-88 In: M. Shariff, F.M. Yusoff, N. Gopinath,
H.M. Ibrahim and R.A. Nik Mustafa (eds). Towards Sustainable Management of the Straits of Malacca. Malacca
Straits Research and Development Centre (MASDEC), Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.
2. Abdullahi F. A., M. Zainal Abidin and H. Mahfoor. 2010. The Influence of Consumer’s Socio-Demographic Factors
on Fish Purchasing Behavior in Malaysia. Agribusiness and Information Systems. Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti
Putra Malaysia.
3. Ahmad Adnan, N. 1996. Changes in the Species Composition of Demersal Fish Trawl Surveys in the East Coast of
Peninsular Malaysia. In: P.C. Liong (ed). Proceeding of the Annual Fisheries Research Conference 1996 July 8th –
10th: Fisheries Research Institute Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.
4. Anon. 1987. Final Report – Deep Sea Fisheries Resources Survey within the Malaysian Exclusive Economic Zone.
Department of Fisheries Malaysia, Ministry of Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
5. Anonymous. 1998. Catch Summary of East Coast Survey using K.K. Manchong. 1998 March 30th – June 2nd: Marine
Fishery Resources Development and Management Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center,
Kuala Terengganu, Department of Fisheries Malaysia.
6. Arshad, A., B. Japar Sidik and M.S. Mohd. Zaki. 1997. Roles of Mangrove Ecosystem in Malaysian Fisheries. Pp 95-
104 In: Japar Sidik, B., F.M. Yusoff, M.S. Zaki and T. Petr (eds). Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.
7. Arshad. A., B. Japar Sidik and Z. Muta Harah, 2001. Fishes Associated with Seagrass Habitat. Pp. 151-162 In: Japar
Sidik B., A. Arshad, S.G. Tan, S.K. Daud, H.A. Jambari and S. Sugiyama (eds.). Aquatic Resources and Environmental
Studies of the Straits of Malacca: Current Research and Reviews. Malacca Straits Research Development Centre
(MASDEC), UPM, Serdang.
8. Arste, K.L. P.J.Gibbs, A.S. Steffe and M. Green. 2009. Biological Conservation 142: 759-2773.
9. Ball, M. C. 1988. Ecophysiology of Mangroves. Trees 2: 129 - 142.
10. Barnes, R.D. 1987. Invertebrate Zoology (5th ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanivich College Publishing, Forthworth.
893p.
11. Bell, J.D. and D.A. Pollard. 1989. Ecology of Fish Assemblages and Fisheries Associated with Seagrasses. Pp 565 –
609 In: Larkum A.W.D., A.J. McComb and S.A. Shepherd (eds). Biology of Seagrasses – A Treatise on the Biology of
Seagrasses with Special Reference to the Australian Region. Elsevier. Amsterdam.
12. Bell, J.S and M. Harmelin-Vivien. 1983. Fish Fauna of French Mediterranean Posidonia oceania Seagrass
Meadows. II. Feeding Habits. Tethys 11: 1 - 14.
13. Bell, S.S., R.A. Brooks, B.D. Robbins, M. Fonseca and M.O. Hall. 2001. Faunal Response to Fragmentation in
Seagrass Habitats: Implications for Seagrass Conservation. Biological Conservation 100: 115 - 123.
14. Berkelmans, R. and J.K. Oliver. 1999. Large-scale Beaching of Corals on the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs, 18:
55-60.
15. Berry, A.J., D.R. Wells and C.K. Ng. 1973. Bryde’s Whale in Malaysian Seas. Malayan Nature Journal 26: 19 – 25.
16. Boyd, R.O. 2011. Ecological Risk for the New Zealand Hoki Fisheries. Report to the Deepwater Group, Nelson,
New Zealand. 77p.
17. Broom, M. J. 1982. Structure and Seasonality in a Malaysian Mudflat Community. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 15: 135 – 15.
18. Bulthuis, D.A. 1987. Effects of Temperature on Photosynthesis and Growth of Seagrass. Aquatic Botany 27: 27 –
40.
19. Chan, E.H. 2006. Marine Turtles in Malaysia: On the Verge of Extinction? Aquatic Ecosystem Health and
Management 9(2): 175-184.
20. Chan, E.H. 2007. Threats to Turtle Conservation in Malaysia. Paper Presented at the National Conference on
Coastal and Marine Biodiversity, 17-18 April 2007, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
21. Chan, H.T. 1987. Status Report: Malaysia. Pp 130- 150 In: Umali R.M. (ed.). Mangroves of Asia and the Pacific:
Status and Management. Technical Report of the UNDP/UNESCO Research and Training Pilot Programme on
Mangrove Ecosystems in Asia and the Pacific, Philippines.
22. Chapman, V.J. 1968. The Algae. New York, Macmillan & Company Limited.
23. Chee, C.E. 1991. The Maximum Sustainable Yield of the Demersal Fishery of the West Coast of Peninsular
61
Malaysia and its Use in Managing the Fishery. Pp 23 - 41 In: Proceedings of the Annual Fisheries Research
Conference 1991. Fisheries Research Institute Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.
24. Chee, P.E. 2000. The Pelagic Fishery of the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Pp 127-143 In: Shariff M., F.M.
Yusoff, N. Gopinath, H.M. Ibrahim and R.A. Nik Mustafa (eds.). Towards Sustainable Management of the Straits
of Malacca. Malacca Straits Research and Development Centre (MASDEC), Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang,
Malaysia.
25. Chong V.C., A. Sasekumar and K.H. Lim. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of Prawns in a Malaysian Mangrove
System. Pp 437-445 In: Sundara S., Wilkinson C.R. and Chou L.M. (eds.). Proceeding of Third ASEAN-Australian
Symposium on Living Coastal Resource. Volome 2: Research Papers. Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
26. Chong, V.C. 1980. The Biology of the White Prawn Penaeus merguiensis de Man (Crustacea: Panaeidae) in the
Pulau Angsa Klang Strait waters (Straits of Malacca). M.Sc. Thesis, University of Malaya.
27. Chong, V.C. 2006. Sustainable Utilization and Management of Mangrove Ecosystems in Malaysia. Aquatic
Ecosystem health and Management, 9(2); 249-260.
28. Chong, V.C. and A. Sasekumar. 2002. Fish Communities and Fisheries of Sungai Johor and Sungai Pulai Estuaries
(Johor, Malaysia). Malaysian Nature Journal, 279-302.
29. Chong, V.C., A. Sasekumar, C.B. Low and S.H. Muhammad Ali. 1999. Physico-chemical Environment of the Matang
and Dinding Mangroves (Malaaysia). Pp. 115-121 In: Kiso K. and Choo P.S. (eds.). Fourth JIRCAS Seminar on
Productivity and Sustainability Utilisation of Brackish Water Mangrove Ecosystem: Japan International Research
Center for Agricultural Science, Japan.
30. Chong, V.C., A. Sasekumar, M.C.U. Leh and R. D’Cruz. 1990. The Fish and Prawn Communities of a Malaysian
Coastal Mangrove System, with Comparisons to Adjacent Mudflats and Inshore Waters. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science 31: 703 - 722.
31. Chua, T.E. and J.K. Charles. 1980. Coastal Resources of East Coast Peninsular Malaysia. Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Penang. 507p.
32. Comley, J., D. Allen, A. Ramsay, I. Smith and P. Raines. 2005. Pulau Payar: Coral Reef Ecosystem Resources
Assessment Studies Report. Coral Cay Conservation Ltd and Ministry of Natural resources and Environment.
33. Den Hartog, C. 1970. Seagrasses of the World. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam.
34. Devi, C.G., K. Kassem, K. Hiew, S.N. Phang. 2008. Small-scale Fisheries and Poverty Alleviation in Malaysia. WWF-
Malaysia.
35. Dennison, W.C. and R.S. Alberte. 1982. Photosynthetic Responses of Zostera marina L. (Eelgrass) to In Situ
Manipulations of Light Intensity. Oecologia 55: 137 – 140.
36. Department of Fisheries. 1992. Annual Fisheries Statistics - 1991. Department of Fisheries, Malaysia. Ministry
Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 172p.
43. Department of Fisheries. 2001a. Annual Fisheries Statistics - 1998. Department of Fisheries, Malaysia. Ministry
44. Department of Fisheries. 2001b. Annual Fisheries Statistics - 1999. Department of Fisheries, Malaysia. Ministry
62
50. Department of Fisheries. 2007. Annual Fisheries Statistics – 2005. Department of Fisheries, Malaysia. Ministry of
56. Diez, I., A. Santolaria and J.M. Gorostiaga. 2003. The Relationship of Environmental Factors to the Structure
and Distribution of Subtidal Seaweed Vegetation of the Western Basque Coast. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science56:1041 - 1054.
57. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Analysis. USEPA 63 (93): 26846 –
26924, Washington, USA. 188p
58. EPU. 1985. National Coastal Erosion Study. Phase 1. Report submitted by Stanley Consultants, Inc., Jurutera
Konsultant (SEA) Pte Ltd. And Moffatt and Nichol, Engineers to the Government of Malaysia: Economic Planning
Unit, Malaysia.
59. EPU-Danida. 2008. Cost Benefit Analysis Session 5 (by Benoit Laplante)
60. Erftemeyer, P., G. Allen, and Z.A. Zuwendra. 1989. Preliminary Resource Inventory of Binituni Bay and
Recommendations for Conservation and Management. PHPA, AWB-Indonesia.
61. Fonseca, M.S. and W.J. Kenworthy. 1987. Effects of Current on Photosynthesis and Distribution of Seagrasses.
Aquatic Botany 27: 59 – 78.
62. Furukawa, K., E. Wolanski and H. Mueller. 1997. Currents and Sediment Transport in Mangrove Forests. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 44 (3): 301 - 310.
63. Golley, F.B., J.T. McGinnis, R.G. Clements, G.I. Child and M.I. Duever. 1975. Mineral Cycling in a Tropical Moist
Forest Ecosystem. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
64. Gopinath, N., F.M. Yusoff and M. Shariff. 2001. Status of the Marine Environment off Port Dickson, Negeri
Sembilan, Malaysia. Pp 45-59 In: M. Shariff, F.M. Yusoff, N. Gopinath, H.M. Ibrahim and R.A Nik Mustafa (eds).
Towards Sustainable Management of the Straits of Malacca. Malacca Straits Research and Development Centre
(MASDEC). Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.
65. Hobday, A., J. Dowdney, C. Bulman, M. Sporcic, M. Fuller and S. Ling. 2007. Ecoloigcal Risk Assessments for the
Effects of Fishing: Report on the Southern Blue Fin Tuna Sub-Fishery. Australian Fisheries Management Authority,
Canberra, Australia. 215p.
66. Jahara Y. and S. Chenayah. 2004. Coastal Resource Development In Malaysia: Is There A Need For Sustainable
Mangrove Forest Management? Malaysian Journal of Science 23 (2): 149 - 164.
67. Japar Sidik B., A. Arshad and A.T. Law. 1995. Inventory for Seagrass Beds in Malaysia. Pp 48-79 In: Japar Sidek B.
(ed.). Malaysian Inventory of Coastal Watersheds, Coastal Wetlands, Seagrasses and Coral Reefs. Department of
Environment, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
68. Japar Sidik, B. 1994. Status of Seagrass Resources in Malaysia. Pp 283-290 In: Wilkinson C.R., Sudara S. and
Chou L.M. (eds.). Proceedings Third ASEAN Australia Symposium on Living Coastal Resources, Status Reviews 1.
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok.
69. Japar Sidik, B. and Z. Muta Harah. 2003. Seagrasses: A Threatened Coastal Resources. Fishmail 12(2): 6-14.
70. Japar Sidik, B., A. Arshad and A.T. Law. 1995. Inventory for Seagrass Beds in Malaysia. Pp 48-79 In: Japar Sidik B.
(ed.). Malaysian Inventory of Coastal Watersheds, Coastal Wetlands, Seagrasses and Coral Reefs. Department of
63
Environment, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

71. Japar Sidik, B., A. Arshad, O. Hishamuddin, Z. Muta Harah and S. Misni. 1996. Seagrass and Macroalgal
Communities of Sungai Pulai Estuary, South-West Johore, Peninsular Malaysia. Pp 3-12 In: Kuo J., D.I. Walker
and H. Kirkman (eds.). Seagrass, Biology: Scientific Discussion from an International Workshop, Rottnest Island,
Western Australia. University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia.
72. Japar Sidik, B., Z. Muta Harah and A. Arshad. 2006. Distribution and Significance of Seagrass Ecosystems in
Malaysia. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 9(2): 203-214.
73. Japar Sidik, B., Z. Muta Harah, A. Mohd Pauzi and M. Suleika. 1999. Halodule Species from Malaysia–Distribution
and Morphological Variation. Aquatic Botany 65: 33 - 46.
74. Japar Sidik, B., Z. Muta Harah, Z. Kanamoto and A. Mohd Pauzi. 2001. Seagrass Communities of the Straits of
Malacca. Pp 81-98 In: Japar Sidik B., A. Arshad, S.G. Tan, K. Daud, H.A. Jambari and S. Sugiyama (eds.). Aquatic
Resources and Environmental Studies of the Straits of Malacca: Current Research and Reviews. Malacca Straits
Research and Development Centre (MASDEC), UPM.
75. Jothy, A.A. 1984. Capture Fisheries and the Mangrove Ecosystem. Pp 121-128 In: Ong J.E. and W.K. Gong (eds).
Productivity of the Mangrove Ecosystem: Management Implications. Science Universiti of Malaysia, Penang.
76. Kamarruddin, I., T.M.Y. Ismail and M.N. Azlan. 1996. Status of Nesting Population and Related Research on Marine
Turtle in Peninsular Malaysia. Pp 35-36 In: SEAFDEC (ed) Proceedings of the First SEAFDEC Workshop on Sea
Turtle Research and Conservation, 15-18 January 1996, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia. Marine Fisheries Resources
Development and Management Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre, Kuala Terengganu,
Malaysia.
77. Kannupandi, T., S. Soundarapandian and N. Rajendran. 2003. Prawns and Shrimps, Biodiversity in Mangrove
Ecosystems. UNU UNESCO International Training Course.
78. Kjerfve, B. and D.J. Macintosh. 1997. The Impact of Climatic Change on Mangrove Ecosystem. Pp 1 – 7 In: Kjerfve
B., L.D. Lacerda and S. Diop, (eds). Mangrove Ecosystem Studies in Latin America and Africa. UNESCO, Paris.
79. Krumme, U. 2003. Tidal And Diel Dynamics in a Nursery Area: Patterns in Fish Migration in a Mangrove in North
Brazil. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bremen, Germany.
80. Kushairi, M.R.M. 1998. The 1998 Bleaching Catastrophe of Corals in the South China Sea. pp.2–7. in Proceeding
of JSPS Joint Seminar on Marine and Fisheries Sciences, Bali, Indonesia.
81. Larkum, A.W.D., A.J. McComb and S.A. Shepherd. 1989. Biology of Seagrasses – A Treatise on the Biology of
Seagrasses with Special Reference to the Australian Region. Elsevier. Amsterdam.
82. Lean, G., D. Henrichsen and A. Markham. 1990. World Wildlife Fund Atlas of the Environment. Prentice hall Press,
New York. 192p.
83. Lee, H.K. 1993. Environmental Management of the Sepetang River Basin, Pp 1-14. In: Sasekumar A. (ed.).
Proceedings of a Workshop on Mangrove Fisheries and Connections. 1991 August 26-30: Technical Committee on
ASEAN-Australia marine Science Programme on Living Coastal resources, Kuala Lumpur.
84. Leong, L.F. 1999. Economic Evaluation of the Mangrove Forest in Kuala Selangor, Malaysia. M. tech
(Environmental Management) Thesis. Institute of Postgraduate Studies, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
85. Li, Z.W.D and R. Ounsted. 2007. The Status of Coastal Waterbirds and Wetlands in Southeast Asia. Wetlands
International, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
86. Liew, H.C. 2002. Status of Marine Turtle Conservation and Research in Malaysia. Pp 51-566 In: I. Kinan (ed)
Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management Workshop, 5-8 February
2002 Hawaii, USA. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Hawaii, USA. 300p.
87. Lim, C.F. and T.T. Chuah. 2003. Aquaculture Technology, Fishing Practices, and Processing TechnologyIn Malaysia,
in Strategies and Options For Increasing and Sustaining Fisheries and Aquaculture Production To Benefit Poor
Households in Asia, ADB-RETA 5945, World Fish Centre, Penang, Malaysia.
88. Lim, L.C. 1998. Carrying Capacity Assessment of Pulau Payar Marine Park, Malaysia. BOBP/REP/79. FAO Bay of
Bengal Programme, India.
89. Lim, P.E., K.L. Thong and S.M. Phang. 2001. Molecular Differencetiation of Two Morphological Variants of
Gracilaria salicornia. Journal of Applied Psychology 13: 335 - 342.
90. MacNae, W. 1968. A General Account of the Flora and Fauna of Mangrove Swamps and Forests in the Indo-West
Pacific Region. Advances in Marine Biology 6: 73-270.
91. MacNae, W. 1974. Mangrove Forests and Fisheries. FAO/UNDP Indian Ocean Program (Indian Ocean Fishery
Commission) IOFC/DEV/74/34. Rome.
64
92. Malaysian Institute of Maritime Affairs (MIMA). 2006. National Corals and Coral Reef Report. Final Report
Submitted to Department of Fisheries Malaysia and UNEP/GEF Project on Reversing Environmental Degradation
Trends in the South China Sea and the Gulf of Thailand. 83p.
93. Mansor, M.I, Y.A. Hamid, M.N. Taupek and M.N. Mohd. 1996. Small Pelagic Fisheries off the East Coast of
Peninsular Malaysia. In: P.C. Liong (ed). Proceeding of the Annual Fisheries Research Conference 1996 July 8th –
10th.: Fisheries Research Institute Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.
94. Marsh, H., H. Penrose, C. Eros and J. Hugues. 2002. Dugong Status Report and Action Plans for Countries and
territories. Early Warning and Assessment Report Series. UNEP/DEWA/RS.02-1. 162p.
95. Masalu, D.C.P 2000. Coastal and Marine Resource Use Conflicts and Sustainable Development in Tanzania. Ocean
and Coastal Management 43 (2000): 475-494.
96. Mazda, Y., M. Magi, M. Kogo and P.N. Hong. 1997. Mangrove on Coastal Protection from Waves in the Tong King
Delta, Vietnam. Mangroves and Salt Marshes 1: 127 – 135.
97. Mckee, K.L. 1996. Mangrove Ecosystem: Definition, Distribution, Zonation, Forest Structure, Trophic Structure and
Ecological Significance. In: I.C. Feller, and M. Sitnik (eds). Mangrove Ecology: A Manual for a Field Course. A Field
Manual Focused on the Biocomplexity on Mangrove Ecosystems. Smithsonian Institution.
98. McManus, J.W. 1988. Coral Reefs in ASEAN Region: Status and Management. A Journal of the Human
Environment 7 (3): 189 – 193
99. McRoy, C.P. and C. McMillan. 1977. Production Ecology and Physiology of Seagrass. Pp 53 – 87 In: Mcroy, C.P. and
C. Helfferich (eds). Seagrass Ecosystems: A Scientific Perspective. Marcel Dekker, New York, Basel.
100. Medina, O.K. 2010. They Bop, They Sink: Nature’s Energy Charger and Aquatic Environmental Purifier. An
Inaugural Lecture, University of Benin.
101. Miller, G.T. 1999. Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections and Solutions (11th ed.). Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company, California. 815p.
102. MoA, (Ministry of Agriculture). 1999. Third National Agricultural Policy (1998-2010) Ministry of Agriculture, Kuala
Lumpur.Malaysia. 265p.
103. Mohd. Ibrahim, H.M., A.R. Riadzuan and B. Japar Sidik. 1997. Does the Establishment of Marine Reserves in
Malaysia Fulfil the Original Goals and Objectives?. Pp 107 In: Japar Sidik B., Yusoff F.M., Mohd. Zaki M.S. and Petr
T. (eds.) Fisheries and the Environment: Beyond 2000. Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.
104. Mohd. Ismail, Y. 1983.Control and Management of Water Quality in Malaysia. Pertanika, 6: 69 – 87.
105. Mohd. Mazlan, J. 2000. Management of Living Aquatic Resources in the Straits of Malacca. Pp 15-24 In: M.
Shariff, F.M. Yusoff, N. Gopinath, H.M. Ibrahim and R.A. Nik Mustafa (eds). Towards Sustainable Management of
the Straits of Malacca. Malacca Straits Research and Development Centre (MASDEC), Universiti Putra Malaysia,
Serdang, Malaysia.
106. Mohd. Najib, R. and K.W.P. Hiew. 1999. Marine Turtle Management, Conservation and Protection Programme
in Malaysia. Pp 122-130. In: M.N. Mohd. Taupek, A.K. Abdul Khalil and R. Mohd. Najib (eds) Report of the
SEAFDEC-ASEAN Regional Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Management. Marine Fishery Resources
Development and Management Department, 26-28 July 1999, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia. Marine Fishery
Resources Development and Management Department of Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Kuala
Terengganu, Malaysia.
107. Mohd. Taupek, M.N and J. Ibrahim. 1996. Status of the Demersal Fishery on the East Coast of Peninsular
Malaysia. In: P.C. Liong (ed). Proceeding of the Annual Fisheries Research Conference 1996 July 8th – 10th.:
Fisheries Research Institute Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.
108. Mohd. Zaki, M.S. 1991. Some Aspects of Fisheries and Population of Marine Shrimps in East Johore, Malaysia.
Proceeding of the Coastal Oceanography: Environmental, Characteristic and Resources, Semarang, Indonesia.
109. MPP-EAS. 1999. Total Economic Valuation: Coastal and Marine Resources in the Straits of Malacca. MPP-EAS
Technical Report NO. 24. GEF/UNDP/IMO Philippines.
110. Muta Harah, Z. and B. Japar Sidik. 2003. Marine Macrophytes of the Unexplored Punang-Sari Beach Front
of Lawas, Sarawak. Poster for Exhibition of Invention and Research 8–10 July 2003 at Pusat Kesenian dan
Kebudayaan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah, UPM.
111. Muta Harah, Z., B. Japar Sidik and O. Hishamuddin. 1999. Flowering, Fruiting and Seedling of Halophila beccarii
Aschers. (Hydrocharitaceae) from Malaysia. Aquatic Botany 65: 199 - 207.
112. Muta Harah, Z., B. Japar Sidik, A.T. Law, and O. Hishamuddin. 2000. Seedling of Halophila beccarii Aschers in
Peninsular Malaysia. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 7(2): 99 - 102.
65
113. NOAA. 2005. Guideline for Ecological Risk Assessment of Marine Fish Aquaculture. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-NWFSC-71. National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration, Washington, USA. 105p.
114. Odum, W.E. and E.J. Heald. 1972. Trophic Analysis of an Estuarine Mangrove Community. Bulletin of Marine
Science 22: 671 - 737.
115. Ooi, C.A. 1996. Coastal Erosion Management in Malaysia. Pp 1-12 In: Sasekumar A. (ed). Proceedings of the 13th
Annual Seminar: Impact of Development and Pollution on the Coastal Zone in Malaysia. Malaysian Society of
Marine Sciences, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
116. Panthansali, D. 1976. Assessment of Marine Fisheries Resources of Malaysia- Part 3: Assessment of Potential
Yield from the Coastal Marine Fisheries Resources of Malaysia. Fisheries Bulletin No. 15, Ministry of Agriculture,
Malaysia.
117. Phang, S.M. 1988. The Effect of Siltation on Algal Biomass Production at a Fringing Coral Reef Flat, Port Dickson,
Peninsular Malaysia, Wallaceana 51: 3-5.
118. Phang, S.M. 1995. Distribution and Abundance of Marine Algae on the Coral Reef Flat at Cape Rachado, Port
Dickson, Peninsular Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Science 16A: 23-32.
119. Phang, S.M. 2006. Seaweed Resources in Malaysia: Current Status and Future Prospects. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health and Management 9(2): 185 - 202.
120. Phillips, R.C. and N.A. Milchakova. 2003. Seagrass Ecosystem. Marine Ecological Journal 2(2): 29 - 39.
121. Poineer, I.R., D.J. Staples and R. Kenyon. 1987. Seagrass Communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia.
Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 121 – 131.
122. Ponnampalam, L.S., J.H. Fairul Izmal, G. Minton and A.J. Saifullah. 2010. Marine Mammals in Malaysia – Diversity,
Threats, Conservation and Management. Specialist Paper for the National Ocean Policy of Malaysia. October
2010. 38p.
123. Razani, U. and A.R. Abd. Rahman. 2010. Natural Forest Restoration: Peninsular Malaysia Perspective. Forestry
Department of Peninsular Malaysia.
124. Ridzwan, A.R. 1995. Inventory of Coral Reefs in Malaysia. Pp 80-107 In: Japar Sidik B. (ed.). Integration
Management of Watersheds in Relation to Coastal and Marine Environment: Malaysian Inventory of Watersheds,
Coastal Wetlands, Seagrasses and Coral reefs. Department of Environment, Ministry of Science, Technology and
the Environment.
125. Robert, G.C., J.L.L. Warren, A.W. Reg and J.B. Derbyshire. 1993. Distribution of Seagrasses, and Their Fish and
Penaeid Prawn Communities, in Cairns Harbour, a Tropical Estuary, Northern Queensland, Australia. Australian
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44: 193 – 210.
126. Roelofs, A. 2008. Ecological Risk Assessment of the Queensland Coral Fishery. Department of Primary Industries
and Fisheries. Brisbane, Australia. 23p
127. Rosidi, A, A.C Gambang, R. Hadil, R.H, Raja Bidin, B. Samsudin, K. Shiomi and S. Fujiwara. 1997. Application of
Acuatic Method in Biomass Estimation of Multi-species fish in the South China Sea. Journal of Korean Society
Fisheries Resources 1: 157 – 167.
128. Sasekumar, A. 1984. Mangrove Secondary Productivity. Pp 20-28 In: J.E. Ong and W.K. Gong (eds) Productivity of
Mangrove Ecosystem: Management Implications. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
129. Sasekumar, A., C.M.U. Leh, V.C. Chong, D. Rebecca and M.L. Audrey. 1989. The Sungai Pulai (Johor): a Unique
Mangrove Estuary. Pp 191-211 In: Phang S.M., A. Sasekumar and S. Vickneswary (eds.) Malaysian Society of
Marine Sciences. Universii Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
130. Sasekumar, A., V.C. Chong, K.H. Lim and H.R. Singh. 1994. The Fish Community of Matang Mangrove Waters. Pp
457 - 464 In: Sudara S., C.R. Wilkinson and L.M. Chou (eds). Proceedings, 3rd ASEAN-Australia Symposium on
Living Coastal Resources, Vol. 2 Research Papers. 1994 May 16-20: Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
131. Seung, J.J., H.Y. Ok and L.S. Hae. 2006. Secondary Production of Jassa slatteryi (Amphipoda, Ischyroceridae) on a
Zostera marina Seagrass Bed in Southern Korea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 309: 205 – 211.
132. Short, F.T and H.A. Neckles. 1999. The Effects of Global Climate Change on Seagrasses. Aquatic Botany 63: 169 -
196.
133. Short, F.T. 1987. Effects of Sediment Nutrients on Seagrass: Literature Review and Mesocosm Experiment. Aquatic
Botany 27: 41 – 57.
134. Singh, H.R., Chong, V.C., Sasekumar, A., Lim, K.H., 1994. Value of Mangroves as Nursery and Feeding Grounds. Pp
105 – 122 In: Wilkinson C.R., Suraphol S. and Chou L.M. (eds.). Status Reviews. Proceedings of the Third ASEAN-
Australia Symposium on Living Coastal Resources, vol. 1. Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok.
66
135. Smith, R.L. and T.M. Smith. 2001. Ecology and Field Biology. United States, BenjaminCummings.
136. Spalding, M.D., C. Ravilious and E.P. Green. 2001. World Atlas of Coral Reefs. University of California Press,
Berkely, California. 424p.
137. Sudara, S., S. Satumanatpan and S. Mateekanjanalarp. 1992. A Study of the Interrelationship of Fish Communities
Between Coral reefs and Seagrass Beds. In: Wilkinson, C.R and L.M. Chou (eds.). Third ASEAN Science and
Technology Week Conference Proceeding, Vol. 6. Marine Science: Living Coastal Resource. 21-23 Sept. 1992.
Singapore Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore and National Science and Technology Board,
Singapore.
138. Talib, A. 2002. Demersal Fisheries: Have We Surpassed the Straits’ Sustainable Capacity? Pp 155-173 In: Yusoff
F.M., M. Shariff, H.M. Ibrahim, S.G. Tan and P.Y. Tai (eds). Tropical Marine Environment: Charting Strategies for the
Millennium; Malacca Straits Research and Development Centre (MASDEC), Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang,
Malaysia.
139. Talib, A., M.I. Mahyam, I. Mohamad-Saupi and Y. Sharum. 2000. Abundance and Distribution of Demersal Fish
Resources in the Northern Part of the Straits of Malacca. Pp 25-45 In: Shariff M., F.M. Yusoff, N. Gopinath, H.M.
Ibrahim and R.A. Nik Mustafa (eds). Towards Sustainable Management of the Straits of Malacca. Malacca Straits
Research and Development Centre (MASDEC), Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.
140. Talib A., G.H. Tan and Y. Abd. Hamid. 2003a. Overview of the national fisheries situation with emphasis on the
demersal fisheries off the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. p. 833-884. In G. Silvestre, L. Garces, I. Stobutzki, M.
Ahmed, R.A. Valmonte-Santos, C. Luna, L. Lachica-Aliño, P. Munro, V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Assessment,
Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference
Proceedings 67, 1120pp.
141. Talib A., M. Mohammad Isa, I. Mohamad Saupi and Y. Sharum. 2003b. Status of Countries demersal fishery
resources of Malaysia. p. 83 - 136. In G. Silvestre, L. Garces, I. Stobutzki, M. Ahmed, R.A. Valmonte-Santos,
C. Luna, L. Lachica-Aliño, P. Munro, V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Assessment, Management and Future
Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67, 1120 p.
142. Talib, A.A., A.M Mohd Isa, D. Malek and L.T. Teoh. 1995. The Fifth and Sixth Prawn Resource Survey off the West
Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Fisheries Bulletin No. 100, Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia. 47p.
143. Tan, K.H. 2005. Protection and Management of Mangroves in Malaysia: Meeting the Challenges. MIMA Bulletin
2/2005: 6-10.
144. Tan, K.H. 2007. Protection and Management of Mangroves in Malaysia: Challenges and Strategies. Paper
presented at the National Conference on Coastal and Marine Biodiversity. Kuala Lumpur.
145. Tan, K.H. and B. Mohd Nizam. 2004. National Seagrass Report. Final Report submitted to Department of Fisheries
Malaysia and UNEP/GEF Project on Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and the
Gulf of Thailand. Maritime Institute of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
146. Tan, K.H. and J.H. Primavera. 2008. Conservation and Management of Mangroves in South East Asia. Proceedings
of the International Conference and Exhibition on the Mangroves of Indian and Western Pacific Oceans.
147. Tan. K.H. 2008. Natural Ressources Exploitation and Utilisation. Chapter 3. Profile of the Straits of Malacca.
Malaysia’s Perspective. MIMA, Kuala Lumpur.
148. The Star (Nation), Thursday July 22, 2010 Top Dive Spots Closed due to Coral Bleaching. www.thestar.com.my/
news/story
149. Toda T., T. Okashita, T. Maekawa, A. A Kee Alfian, M.R. Mohd Kushairi, R. Nakajima, C.Wenxi, K.T. Takahashi, R.
Othman and M. Terazaki. 2007. Community Structures of Coral Reefs around Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of
Oceanography 63: 113 – 123.
150. Tomlinson, P. B. 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
151. Veron, J.E.N. 1993. A Biogeographic Database of Hermatypic Corals. AIMS Monograph 10: 1 - 433.
152. Walker, D.I. and A.J. McComb. 1990. Salinity Response of the Seagrass Amphibolis Antarctica (Labill.) Sonder ex
Aschers: An Experimental Validation of Field Results. Aquatic Botany 36: 359 – 366.
153. Wolanski, E. 1995. Transport of Sediment in Mangrove Swamps. Hydrobiologia 295: 31 - 42.
154. Wolanski, E., Y. Mazda and P. Ridd. 1992. Mangrove Hydrodynamics. Pp 43 – 62 In: Robertson A.I. and D.M.
Alongi (eds.). Coastal and Estuarine Studies: Tropical Mangrove Ecosystems. American Geophysical Union,
Washington, D.C., USA.
155. Woodroffe, C. 1992. Mangrove Sediments and Geomorphology. Pp 7 – 41 In: Robertson A.I. and D.M. Alongi
(eds.). Coastal and Estuarine Studies: Tropical Mangrove Ecosystem. American Geophysical Union, Washington
67
D.C., USA.
156. Xiaojun, Y. 2009. Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technologies for Coastal Ecosystem Assessment and
Management. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
157. Yan, N.D., W. Keller, K.M. Somers, T.W. Pawson and R.E. Girard. 1996. Recovery of Crustacean Zooplankton
Communities from Acid and Metal Contamination: Comparing Manipulated and Reference Lakes. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53: 1301-1327.
158. Yeo, B.H. 2004. The Recreational Benefits of Coral Reefs: A Case Study of Pulau Payar Marine Park, Kedah,
Malaysia. Pp. 108–117. In: Economic Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs,
World Fish Center, Malaysia.
159. Zelina, Z. I., A. Arshad, S.C. Lee, B. Japar Sidik, A.T Law, R.A Nuk Mustapha and M. Maged Mahmoud. 2000.
East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Pp 345-359 In: Sheppard C. (ed.). Seas at the Mellinium. Vol 2. Pergamon,
Amsterdam.
160. Zulkifli, T., A. Ahmad, K.Y. Ku-Kassim and M.I. Mahyam. 2004. Conservation and Enhancement of Sea Turtles in the
Southeast Asian Region. Marine Fishery Resources Development and Management Department, Southeast Asian
Fisheries Development Center, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia. 141p.
68
69

2013 Fisheries &amp; Marine Ecosystem Asessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2013 Fisheries &amp; Marine Ecosystem Asessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES

AND MARINE ECOSYSTEM IN

2 ecological risk assessment

2.1.1 Status of Fisheries

* Include sergestid shrimps, Jellyfish and Shellfish

* Include sergestid shrimps, Jellyfish and Shellfish

Source: Department of Fisheries, 2002 - 2011

Source: Department of Fisheries, 2002 - 2011

Output per fisherman

Figure 3: Output per Fisherman (tonnes/fisherman) in Malaysia, 2000-2009

Source: Department of Fisheries, 2002 - 2011

2.1.3 Fisheries Resource Assessments

West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia

Table 3: Catch Rates of Demersal Fisheries in Coastal Waters

Source: Abu Talib et al. 2003b

East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia

Source: Stobutzki et al., 2006

2.1.4 By-catch Landings

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1973 - 2011

Trash fish trends

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1973 - 2011

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1973 - 2011

Source: Department of Fisheries, 2007 - 2011

Mixed fish trends

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1973 - 2011

Source: Department of Fisheries, 2007 - 2011

2.1.5 Fish Price Trends

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1981 - 2011

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1981 - 2011

Table 5: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Kerapu,1979 –2009

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1981 – 2011

Table 6: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Kerisi,1979 –2009

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1981 – 2011

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1981 – 2011

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1981 – 2011

Table 9: Wholesale and Retail Price (RM/kg) for Tamban,1979 – 2009

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1981 – 2011

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1981 – 2011

The price analyses suggest the following:

Source: Department of Fisheries, 1982 – 2011

2.1.6 Status of Marine Ecosystems

Table 11: Mangrove Areas (ha) in Peninsular Malaysia, 2005

Source: Tan, 2007

Figure 13: Mangrove Areas in Peninsular Malaysia

Source: Razani and Abd. Rahman, 2010

The mangroves play a vital role in:

*Area includes for East Coast of Johor

Table 13: Threats to Mangrove Forests in Malaysia

2.1.9 Coral Reefs

Figure 14: Location of Major Coral Reef Aggregations in Peninsular Malaysia

Table 14: Threats to Coral Reefs of Malaysia

Figure 15: Seagrass Areas in Peninsular Malaysia

Source: Tan and Nizam, 2004

The seagrass beds face many and repeated threats:

2.1.11 Ecological Risk Assessment

In the estimation of risks, three basic steps are involved.

b. Biodiversity and Habitat Loss

c. Water Quality Degradation

The outcome of the scenario modelling is as follows.

A. Scenario 1 – Steady State

Water Quality Degradation

Figure 16: Estimated Landings of Trash Fish/Mixed Fish Landings Up to 2030

Given this probability scenario, the following assessment is likely:

B. Scenario 2 – Improved Resource Management Based on Fishing Effort Alone

2013 Fisheries & Marine Ecosystem Asessment

2013 Fisheries & Marine Ecosystem Asessment