found an average increase of SSTs in the coral triangle of 0.2°C/decade, with the regions in the north and the east warming fastest. The above mentioned coral ecosystem service of shore protection is analyzed in more detail by Villanoy et al. (2012). By modeling the waves at a reef in the Philippines, they show their importance for dissipating the wave energy. Their argumentation is that, as the corals are already under pressure due to impacts of climate change, one should protect them from further damage like pollution or destructive forms of fishing (more see also Newton et al., 2007). Villanoy et al. (2012) further state that the ability to protect the coasts depends on SLR and they claim that some reefs may grow fast enough to keep pace with rising level of the water. That point was criticized by the World Bank (2013a), arguing that the assumptions of Villanoy et al. (2012) may be too optimistic. Other literature shows, that even under less warming, most reefs would show severe bleaching in 2050 (Meissner et al., 2012). By analyzing the stability of the Great Barrier Reef, De’ath et al. (2012) found that these three stressors of the ecosystem (TCs, crown-of-thorns-starfish (Acanthaster planci) and coral bleaching) lead to a mortality rate of 3.4% per year. As the surveyed decline in reef cover is roughly 0.5% each year, they assume that, in the absence of these threats, the estimated growth rate of the reef amounts to a yearly rate of nearly 2.9%, showing that there is a substantial capacity for recovery. They argued that, in the absence of the starfish, a small increase in growth (~0.9%/year) is possible but only if the other pressures, in particular those related to climate change, are kept low. The Coral Cay Conservation (2013) presents a monitoring report for the region of Napantao, San Francisco, Southern Leyte. Another very important part of the Philippine coast is the mangrove forest, also providing a multitude of ecosystem functions. Their size amounts to 263,000 ha in the Philippines (Giri et al., 2011). SLR will lead to a loss of these ecosystems in the region, which itself could intensify the erosion occurring at the Philippine coast (Gedan et al., 2011; Giri et al., 2011; World Bank, 2013a). Valiela et al. (2001) specified a strong decrease (4500 km² in 1920 to 1325 km² in 1990) in Mangrove size in the Philippines due to climate change. Brander et al. (2012) analyzed the future changes in mangrove cover and claims that the losses in mangrove area in the Philippines up to 2050 is relatively low (less than 10%) compared to other regions in SEA. They started with a mangrove area of 1020 km² in the year 2000, which corresponds with the former publication. Obviously, the rate of decline became smaller as most of the mangroves have already been lost. The non-climate related pressure on the mangroves is described in Walters (2003). The Philippines is further highly vulnerable to climate change induced coastal erosion, that can lead to land loss and is highly related to wind stress and loss of vegetation (World Bank, 2013a). The problem of land loss and coastal erosion is also valid for the beaches. Zhang et al. (2004) presented empirical results that beach erosion is much faster that actual SLR – which even increases the impact of SLR. For the San Fernando Bay area in the Philippines, Bayani-Arias at al. (2012) projected a beach loss of more than 120.000 m² (which further leads to a loss of more than 280.000 m² of land loss) under the assumption of an increase in seal level of 100 cm. 24