Review of selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES 2008

(Version edited for public release)

SRG 55

Prepared for the European Commission Directorate General Environment ENV.E.2. – Environmental Agreements and Trade

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

February, 2011

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge

CB3 0DL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314

Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136 Email: [email protected] Website: www.unep-wcmc.org

ABOUT UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION CITATION MONITORING CENTRE UNEP-WCMC (2011). Review of species selected on The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and Centre (UNEP-WCMC), based in Cambridge, candidate countries’annual reports to CITES 2008. UK, is the specialist biodiversity information SRG55. Prepared for the European Commission. and assessment centre of the United Nations UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. Environment Programme (UNEP), run cooperatively with WCMC, a UK charity. The PREPARED FOR Centre's mission is to evaluate and highlight the The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium many values of biodiversity and put authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the DISCLAIMER centre of decision-making. Through the analysis and synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge The contents of this report do not necessarily the Centre provides authoritative, strategic and reflect the views or policies of UNEP or timely information for conventions, countries contributory organisations. The designations and organisations to use in the development and employed and the presentations do not imply implementation of their policies and decisions. the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, the European Commission or The UNEP-WCMC provides objective and contributory organisations concerning the legal scientifically rigorous procedures and services. status of any country, territory, city or area or its These include ecosystem assessments, support authority, or concerning the delimitation of its for the implementation of environmental frontiers or boundaries. agreements, global and regional biodiversity information, research on threats and impacts, and the development of future scenarios. © Copyright: 2011, European Commission

Introduction

Table of Contents

1. Introduction to the Analysis of the European Union Annual Reports to CITES ...... 4 2. Introduction to the species sheets ...... 4 SPECIES: Acinonyx jubatus ...... 6 SPECIES: Manis tricuspis ...... 17 SPECIES: yacare ...... 19 SPECIES: Ptyas mucosus ...... 30 SPECIES: Podocnemis unifilis ...... 37

OVERVIEW OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA ...... 44 SPECIES: jardinei ...... 53 SPECIES: ancora ...... 58 SPECIES: sinuosa ...... 63 SPECIES: axifuga ...... 67 SPECIES: wellsi ...... 75 SPECIES: Trachyphyllia geoffroyi ...... 79 SPECIES: Hoodia gordonii ...... 84 ANNEX I & II...... 92

Introduction

1. Introduction to the Analysis of the European Union Annual Reports to CITES UNEP-WCMC undertakes an annual Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES. This Analysis examines patterns of trade into the European Union and candidate countries, trade in groups of particular note, possible transgressions of suspensions and negative opinions, exports of native species, etc. As part of the analysis of 2008 annual reports, import data reported by the EU (and candidate countries) were analysed to identify noteworthy patterns of trade according to five criteria. These criteria were designed to identify: High volume trade in 2008 Globally threatened and near threatened species traded at relatively high volumes in 2008 Sharp increase in trade in 2008 General long term increases or decreases in trade between 1999 and 2008 Long term variability in trade between 1999 and 2008 Imports were considered to be ‗High volume‘ according to thresholds which were determined by taxonomic group and CITES Appendix (Table 1). In order to account for threat status, the Appendix I threshold was also applied to Appendix II and III species considered to be threatened or near threatened by the IUCN (e.g. Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Near Threatened in the 2010 IUCN Red List) when the trade was from wild or ranched sources. Table 1. Minimum number of wild, unknown and ranched individuals imported in 2008 needed to qualify for selection on the basis of high trade volume.

Taxonomic group CITES Appendix I II II III III CR, EN, VU, CR, EN, VU, NT* NT* Mammals 50 50 5000 50 25000 Birds 50 50 5000 50 25000 50 50 25000 50 50000 Amphibians 50 50 25000 50 — Fish 50 50 25000 50 — Invertebrates (non-) 250 250 25000 250 50000 Corals — 10000 25000 10000 50000 Plants (non-tree) 250 250 25000 250 50000 Plants (trees) 250 m³ 250 m³ 500 m³ 250 m³ 2500 m³ * CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened in IUCN Red List The ‗sharp increase‘ criterion was designed to determine if there was a sharp increase in the importer- reported wild-sourced imports in 2008, compared with the average level of imports between 2003- 2007. Species that, despite a sharp increase in trade in 2008, were still only traded in very low volumes (i.e. less than 5 per cent of the levels listed in Table 3.1) were omitted from the chapter. The ‗overall increase‘ criteria took into account more general trends over the period 1999-2008 by calculating the slopes of a best-fit linear function to the trade data, a large positive slope indicating a significant increase in trade levels over time. To account for highly variable trade that may not be picked up by the other criteria, the coefficient of variations were calculated over a ten-year period (1999-2008) and species showing high variation over this period were selected. 2. Introduction to the species sheets On the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual report to CITES 2008, nine Annex A and 66 Annex B taxa were initially considered as candidates for review. Six taxa were selected by the SRG for in-depth review, along with seven Scleractinian corals originating from

Introduction

Australia, for which an overview of the management of coral fisheries in the country was compiled, supplemented by relevant species-specific information where available. Species were selected on the basis of particular patterns of trade to the European Union in 2008. Plerogyra sinuosa, Duncanopsammia axifuga, reniformis, Blastomussa wellsi and Hoodia gordonii were selected on the basis of a sharp increase in trade in 2008. All other species were selected on the basis of the high volume of trade to in 2008. Manis tricuspis, Catalaphyllia jardinei and Trachyphyllia geoffroyi also showed a sharp increase and also showed an overall increase in trade.

Acinonyx jubatus

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

MAMMALIA FELIDAE

SPECIES: Acinonyx jubatus

COMMON NAMES: Jagluiperd (Afrikaans), Gepard (Danish), Cheetah eller jagtleopard (Danish), Jachtluipaard (Dutch), Cheetah (English), Hunting leopard (English), Gepard (Finnish), Guépard (French), Gepard (German), Ghepardo (Italian), Chita (Spanish), Guepardo (Spanish), Gepard (Swedish), Jaktleopard (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan (ex), Algeria (ex?), Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi (ex), Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo Djibouti, Egypt (ex), Eritrea, Ethiopia, India (ex), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (ex?), Iraq (ex?), Israel (ex), Jordan (ex), Kazakhstan (ex), Kenya (ex), Kuwait (ex), Kyrgyzstan (ex), Lebanon (ex), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco (ex?), Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan (ex), Saudi Arabia (ex), Senegal (ex?), Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic (ex), Tajikistan (ex), Togo, Tunisia (ex), Turkmenistan (ex), Uganda (ex), United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan (ex), Western Sahara (ex?), Yemen (ex), Zambia , Zimbabwe

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Namibia

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS:

TRADE PATTERNS: Acinonyx jubatus was selected for review on the basis of a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2008 (based on the threshold of 50 mammals for threatened or near threatened species) and an overall increase in trade into the European Union 1999-2008. Annual export quotas for 150 wild A. jubatus (live, trophies and skins) from Namibia have been established since 1997. According to importer-reported figures, the quota appears to have been exceeded in 2008 and 2009, and in 2009 according to figures reported by Namibia (Table 1). Discrepancies between the 185 live, trophies and skins reported by the importers in 2008 compared with 150 reported by Namibia included the import of four live reported by the United Arab Emirates and Ukraine in 2008, which were not reported by Namibia. An analysis of permit numbers indicated that at least 19 permits (totalling 20 trophies and skins) reported by importers in 2008 gave export permit numbers for Namibia which were in the number range for permits issued in 2007. However, it

Acinonyx jubatus was not possible to determine whether all of the exceeded quota was accounted for by permits issued in 2007, as Namibia did not submit an annual report for 2007, and some imports did not contain the export permit number. In addition, at least five permits (totalling five trophies) reported by importers in 2009 gave export permit numbers for Namibia which were issued in 2008 and reported in Namibia‘s 2008 annual report. Imports of A. jubatus from Namibia to the EU-27 over the period 2000-2009 mainly involved wild- sourced trophies, skulls and skins, as well as a large number scientific specimens (Table 2), the main importers being Germany, Austria and France. In addition, the confiscation/seizure one skull from Namibia was reported by the United Kingdom. Of the 931wild-sourced trophies, skins and skulls reported as exports by Namibia since 2000, 87 per cent were exported to the EU-27. A small amount of indirect trade in skins, skulls and trophies of wild-sourced A. jubatus originating in Namibia was reported by the EU-27 (Table 3). Direct exports from Namibia to countries other than the EU-27 consisted of small quantities of trophies, skins and skulls, as well as a large number of scientific specimens (Table 4), the main importers being South Africa and the United States of America. A few live animals were also exported, mainly for zoos, captive breeding or reintroduction programmes. With the exception of some of the scientific specimens, all reported trade was in wild-sourced A. jubatus. In addition, two seized trophies were reported by the United States of America. Table 1. CITES export quotas for wild Acinonyx jubatus (live, skins and trophies) from Namibia and global exports, reported by importer and exporter.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quota 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Reported by Importers 58 91 95 88 71 89 105 103 185 164

Reported by Exporter 53 106 102 88 78 96 89 150 169

Acinonyx jubatus

Table 2. Direct exports of Acinonyx jubatus from Namibia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. See Annex I for more details

Term Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total bodies H W Importer 1 1 Exporter bones H W Importer 1 1 Exporter skins H W Importer 21 30 48 11 6 5 3 6 1 131 Exporter 2 6 5 13 P W Importer 1 2 1 6 6 1 17 Exporter 2 2 skulls E W Importer 1 1 Exporter 1 1 H W Importer 16 32 37 9 5 3 1 103 Exporter P W Importer 3 1 4 8 Exporter 1 1 S W Importer 4 4 Exporter - I Importer 1 1 Exporter specimens S W Importer 1014 3400 3070 590 1360 1558 1500 1250 13742 Exporter 400 2070 3851 3070 590 1880 1500 1254 14615 teeth H W Importer 4 4 Exporter trophies E W Importer 1 1 Exporter H R Importer 1 1 Exporter W Importer 17 26 36 60 48 70 87 75 113 120 652 Exporter 43 82 93 66 61 86 73 134 124 762 - Importer 1 1

Acinonyx jubatus

Term Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Exporter P W Importer 10 7 2 3 2 5 7 38 12 86 Exporter 3 1 4 T W Importer Exporter 1 1 I Importer 1 1 Exporter R Importer 1 1 Subtotals (skins, bodies, skulls and trophies) Exporter W Importer 65 96 124 83 66 86 93 95 158 138 1004 Exporter 46 87 93 74 61 87 73 134 129 784

Table 3. Indirect exports of Acinonyx jubatus originating in Namibia to the EU-27, 2000-2009.

Exporter Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2009 Total South Africa Austria skins H W Importer Exporter 2 2 skulls H W Importer Exporter 4 4 trophies H W Importer Exporter 2 2 P W Importer 1 1 Exporter Denmark skins H W Importer 1 1 Exporter trophies H W Importer 1 1 Exporter 1 1 Italy trophies H W Importer 2 2 Exporter 2 2 Spain trophies H W Importer 1 1 Exporter

Acinonyx jubatus

Exporter Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2009 Total Switzerland Austria trophies - W Importer Exporter 2 2 Germany specimens S W Importer 260 505 765 Exporter - W Importer Exporter 260 505 765 Slovenia live P C Importer 1 1 Exporter Zimbabwe United Kingdom trophies H W Importer Exporter 2 2 W Importer 1 1 1 2 1 6 Subtotals (live, skins, skulls, trophies) Exporter 8 1 2 2 2 15

Table 4. Direct exports of Acinonyx jubatus from Namibia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total bodies - P W Importer 1 1 Exporter live - B W Importer 3 3 Exporter H W Importer 2 2 Exporter N W Importer 3 3 Exporter P W Importer 2 2 Exporter Z W Importer 10 10 Exporter 10 10 skins - H W Importer 5 3 1 2 5 3 1 20 Exporter P O Importer

Acinonyx jubatus

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Exporter 2 2 W Importer 1 1 Exporter 2 2 skulls - H W Importer 5 4 1 2 5 3 20 Exporter P W Importer 1 1 Exporter specimens flasks S W Importer Exporter 173 277 230 680 g S W Importer 1200 1200 Exporter 1200 1200 - H W Importer Exporter 94 94 S C Importer 80 80 218 200 578 Exporter 200 200 W Importer 173 1083 338 730 110 984 281 1611 304 5614 Exporter 988 375 340 1285 1611 304 4903 teeth - H W Importer Exporter 9 9 S W Importer Exporter 36 10 46 trophies - H I Importer 2 2 Exporter W Importer 5 11 4 12 13 4 7 12 20 29 117 Exporter 8 8 8 15 16 7 16 16 40 134 P W Importer 1 1 2 Exporter 1 1 1 3 T W Importer 2 2 Exporter W Importer 15 32 10 14 13 9 17 12 31 30 183 Subtotals (live, skins, skulls, trophies) Exporter 8 19 9 15 17 9 16 16 40 149

Acinonyx jubatus

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total I Importer 2 Exporter O Importer Exporter 2 2

Acinonyx jubatus

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Acinonyx jubatus (the Cheetah) was once widespread across Africa, and extended into the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula and into the Indian subcontinent; however it is now extinct from much of its former range, with the two largest metapopulations believed to occur in East Africa (mainly Kenya and Tanzania) and southern Africa (mainly Namibia and Botswana) (Nowell and Jackson, 1996; Mills and Hes, 2001; Skinner and Chimimba, 2005). These wild cats are usually associated with the open grasslands, bush, scrub and savanna woodlands of sub-Saharan Africa (Nowell and Jackson, 1996; Stuart and Stuart, 2001a; Skinner and Chimimba, 2005; Hunter, 2005; Sunquist and Sunquist, 2009. Females were reported to first reproduce at 2-3 years of age, producing litters of up to nine young (average 3-4 young), which may be born at any time of year and may suffer a high juvenile mortality due to predation by other large carnivores (Nowell and Jackson, 1996; Hunter, 2000; Marker et al., 2003a; Hunter, 2005). A. jubatus was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Durant et al., 2008), as a population decline of at least 30 per cent was suspected to have occurred over the last 18 years (three generations), from Myers‘ (1975) estimate of 15 000 individuals in Africa in the 1970s, compared with a known population of approximately 7500 mature individuals (and not more than 10 000 mature individuals) in recent years. Marker-Kraus et al. (1996; in: Marker-Kraus and Kraus, 1997) reported that there were fewer than 15 000 A. jubatus remaining in Africa and Hunter (2000) reported that ―Although the Cheetah may still be present in as many as 26 African countries, populations in only five or six of them are considered safe.‖ In southern Africa, the population was estimated to be between 4000 and 6000 individuals (Stuart and Stuart, 2001b) with at least 4500 adults (Purchase et al., 2007). Habitat loss and fragmentation, a declining natural prey base, competition with other large predators (especially lions) and conflicts with humans regarding livestock interests were listed as threats to cheetah populations worldwide (Nowell and Jackson, 1996; Marker-Kraus and Kraus, 1997; Hunter, 2000; Marker, 2000; Hunter, 2005; Marker et al., 2007; Purchase et al., 2007; Durant et al., 2008). Hunting for skins was thought to be a threat in areas where A. jubatus was naturally rare, such as northeast Africa and the Sahel region (Hunter, 2005). The amount of genetic diversity in A. jubatus populations was reported to be extremely low (Mills and Hes, 2001; Marker et al., 2008b; Sunquist and Sunquist, 2009), which may leave the species vulnerable to changing environmental conditions and disease (Purchase et al., 2007; Marker et al., 2008b; Sunquist and Sunquist, 2009). A. jubatus was also reported to be the most difficult large cat to breed in captivity, with approximately one-third of the 1200 individuals in zoos thought to have been captured from the wild (Hunter 2002). Purchase et al. (2007) considered unregulated captive breeding to be linked with illegal trade in wild A. jubatus, particularly in South Africa. Namibia: Population status: Namibia was reported to remain a stronghold for A. jubatus (Marker, 2000; Marker et al., 2007), with populations estimated to be between 2000 and 3000 individuals (Marker- Kraus and Kraus, 1997; Marker, 1998; Marker et al., 2003b; Skinner and Chimimba, 2005; Marker et al., 2007; Purchase et al., 2007; Sunquist and Sunquist, 2009), with an upper boundary in the region of 5000 individuals (Stander and Hanssen, 2004 in: Marker et al., 2007; Purchase et al., 2007). Over 90 per cent of the population was reported to be found throughout the north-central commercial cattle farmlands, covering an area of 275 000 km2 (Marker-Kraus and Kraus, 1997; Marker, 2000). Competition with other large carnivores was reported to be minimal outside of protected areas, although the occurrence of A. jubatus on farmland places it in direct conflict with farmers (Marker-Kraus et al., 1996 in: Marker et al., 2003a; Skinner and Chimimba, 2005). Skinner and Smithers (1990) and Skinner and Chimimba (2005) reported A. jubatus to occur ―widely but sparsely throughout [Namibia], even occasionally as far south as the Orange River mouth‖, and Stuart and Stuart (2001b) reported A. jubatus to be ―still widespread in Botswana and Namibia but nowhere common‖.

Acinonyx jubatus

The Namibian population was estimated to have declined by half since 1980, with an average density of one adult per 50 km2 on Namibian ranchland (Sunquist and Sunquist, 2009). Marker et al. (2007) noted that ―Communication with farmers suggests that cheetah populations in Namibia could be increasing, although there is no current data to substantiate this and could be a result of current land use change‖ and Purchase et al. (2007) reported that ―Overall, it is felt that the population is increasing.‖ There was reported to currently be ―no single low-technology, low-cost technique that can be used to provide repeatable estimates of cheetah abundance across the range of habitats that they occur in‖, hence it is not possible to accurately determine cheetah population size or monitor population trends in Namibia with any certainty (Marker et al., 2007). Threats: The main threats to the Namibian A. jubatus population were reported to be changes in habitat and land use and ongoing conflict with humans (Marker et al., 2007). Marker et al (2007) reported that ―The Namibian farmlands are currently undergoing considerable changes, as land tenure rights change and previously large tracts of land are subdivided into new plots for resettled farmers. The ongoing spread of bush encroachment continues to alter the habitat and impact cheetahs through reduced prey availability and a reduction in preferred habitat patches, and it may also contribute towards continued conflict with landowners.‖ Over the period 1980-1991, 6818 A. jubatus were officially reported to have been removed from the Namibian population, of which 5670 were shot in protection of livestock, 190 were trophy hunted and 958 were exported live (CITES Secretariat, 1992). Marker et al. (2003b) conducted an investigation into the rates and causes of the recorded cheetah captures in Namibia 1991-1999 (376 live-trapped individuals and 63 reported deaths), which revealed that the majority of live captures and almost half of cheetah deaths were due to the perceived threat to livestock or game (despite actual predation by cheetahs on livestock being minimal); in comparison, 11 per cent of overall reported deaths were found to be from trophy hunting. Trapping of A. jubatus by livestock and game farmers was reported to be an ongoing threat, although farmers' tolerance levels were thought to have increased (Marker et al., 2003b; Marker et al., 2007; Marker et al., 2008a). The particularly large home ranges of Namibian A. jubatus (averaging 1,651 km2) (Marker, 2002 in: Marker et al., 2007; Marker et al., 2008a), and hence the large number of farms any individual cheetah is likely to move through, was reported to increase their risk from any farmers who may perceive them as a threat to livestock and ranched wildlife (Marker et al., 2008a). In addition, the relative sociality of cheetahs and relatedness of most cheetah groups was reported to increase the risk of entire social groups being removed in one trapping effort (Marker-Kraus et al., 1996 in: Marker et al., 2003b; Marker et al., 2008b). Capture of wild A. jubatus for live sales was considered a threat by Purchase et al. (2007). Marker et al. (2007) reported that ―there is organized trade from Namibia and Botswana into South Africa, and cheetahs have been moved from South Africa to Namibia for trophy hunting purposes (Dickman, 2006).‖

Management and protection: Since 1975, a Namibian Nature Conservation Ordinance has classified A. jubatus as a ‗protected ‘, although it may be shot in order to protect life or property (Marker- Kraus and Kraus, 1997; Marker et al., 2007; Purchase et al., 2007); most farmers were reported to ―practice ‗preventative management‘ by shooting the animals whenever they are seen or after live- catching them in traps‖ (Marker-Kraus and Kraus, 1997). If killed in defence of livestock, it was reported that the farmer must take the skin and report to the government within ten days (CITES Secretariat, 1992). However, despite the legal protection measures for A. jubatus, the laws were considered not to be well implemented or effectively enforced (Marker et al., 2007). The annual export quota of 150 A. jubatus trophies and live specimens was reported to have been based on a national population estimate of 2500 individuals (Morsbach, 1987 in: Marker et al., 2007). Permitted trophy hunting in southern Africa was reported to have the goal of reducing the indiscriminate killing and encouraging landowners to accept and profit from cheetahs on their lands (CITES Secretariat, 1992; Marker et al., 2007; Sunquist and Sunquist, 2009). Indeed, Marker and Dickman (2004) considered Namibia‘s annual export quota, combined with a suitable high trophy fee, to have increased landowners‘ tolerance of cheetah presence, making it economically viable to maintain cheetah on their

Acinonyx jubatus land. The Ministry of Environment and Tourism was reported to have been discouraging export of live A. jubatus since 1998, in an effort to reduce indiscriminate trapping (Marker et al., 2007). A. jubatus was reported to occur in Etosha National Park and the Namib-Naukluft National Park (Skinner and Chimimba, 2005), although protected areas were thought to harbour less than 100 individuals, due to competition with other large carnivores (Marker et al., 2007) and endemic anthrax in Etosha (Lindeque et al., 1998; in: Marker et al., 2007). The long-term survival of A. jubatus in Namibia was reported to depend on continued work with commercial farmers on livestock and game management techniques, to integrate cheetah conservation efforts with farm management (Marker-Kraus and Kraus, 1997; Marker, 2000; Marker et al., 2003b). Two organisations in Namibia (the Cheetah Conservation Fund and the Africat Foundation) have been conducting research, working with stakeholders and monitoring cheetah removals since the 1990s, to improve cheetah conservation in Namibia (Marker et al., 2007; Cheetah Conservation Fund, 2010). A genetic analysis of 89 unrelated individuals in Namibia found only weak subdivisions between the seven geographic regions, indicating that A. jubatus from different regions in Namibia do not need to be managed separately (Marker et al., 2008b).

REFERENCES: Cheetah Conservation Fund. 2010. Science and research. URL: http://www.cheetah.org/?nd=science_and_research Accessed: 12 December 2010. CITES Secretariat. 1992. Exports of cheetah hunting trophies and skins: quotas for trade in specimens of cheetah. Eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, Kyoto, Japan, 2-13 March 1992. Doc. 8.22 (Rev.). Dickman, A. 2006. Southern African Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). Conservation Planning Workshop. Final workshop report. IUCN/SSC CBSG and Endangered Wildlife Trust. Durant, S., Marker, L., Purchase, N., Belbachir, F., Hunter, L., Packer, C., Breitenmoser-Wuersten, C., Sogbohossou, E., & Bauer, H. 2008. Acinonyx jubatus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 16 November 2010. Hunter, L. 2000. Cheetahs. Colin Baxter Photography, Grantown-on-Spey. Hunter, L. 2005. Cats of Africa. Struik, Cape Town. Lindeque, P. M., Nowell, A., Preisser, T., Brain, C., and Turnbull, P. C. B. 1998. Proceedings of the ARC- Onderstepoort OIE International Congress with WHO Cosponsorship on Anthrax, Brucellosis, CBPP, Clostridial and Mycobacterial diseases. Berg-en-Dal, Kruger National Park, South Africa. Marker, L. 1998. Current status of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), in Penzhorn, B. L., (ed.), A Symposium on Cheetahs as game ranch animals. Wildlife Group of South African Veterinary Association, Onderstepoort, South Africa. Marker, L. 2000. Aspects of the ecology of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) on north central Namibian farmlands. Namibia Scientific Society Journal, 48: 40-48. Marker, L. 2002. Aspects of cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) biology, ecology and conservation strategies on Namibian farmlands. Department of Zoology. University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K. 476 pp.. Marker, L. and Dickman, A. 2004. Human aspects of cheetah conservation: Lessons learned from the Namibian farmlands. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9 (4): 297-305. Marker, L., Dickman, A., Wilkinson, C., Schuman, B., and Fabiano, E. 2007. The Namibian cheetah: status report. Cat News, 3: 4-13. Marker, L. L., Dickman, A. J., Jeo, R. M., Mills, M. G. L., and MacDonald, D. W. 2003a. Demography of the namibian cheetah, Acinonyx jubatus jubatus. Biological Conservation, 114 (3): 413-425. Marker, L. L., Dickman, A. J., Mills, M. G. L., Jeo, R. M., and MacDonald, D. W. 2008a. Spatial ecology of cheetahs on north-central Namibian farmlands. Journal of Zoology, 274 (3): 226-238. Marker, L. L., Dickman, A. J., Mills, M. G. L., and MacDonald, D. W. 2003b. Aspects of the management of cheetahs, Acinonyx jubatus jubatus, trapped on Namibian farmlands. Biological Conservation, 114 (3): 401-412.

Acinonyx jubatus

Marker, L. L., Wilkerson, A. J. P., Sarno, R. J., Martenson, J., Breitenmoser-Wuersten, C., O'Brien, S. J., and Johnson, W. E. 2008b. Molecular genetic insights on cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) ecology and conservation in Namibia. Journal of Heredity, 99 (1): 2-13. Marker-Kraus, L. and Kraus, D. 1997. Conservation strategies for the long-term survival of the Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus by the Cheetah Conservation Fund, Windhoek. International Zoo Yearbook, 35: 59-66. Marker-Kraus, L., Kraus, D., Barnett, D., & Hurlbut, S. 1996. Cheetah survival on Namibian farmlands. Cheetah Conservation Fund. Windhoek. Myers, N. 1975. The cheetah, Acinonyx jubatus, in Africa. IUCN Monograph 4, Morges, Switzerland. Mills, M. G. L. and Hes, L. 2001. Complete book of southern African mammals. New Holland, London. Nowell, K. and Jackson, P. 1996. Wild cats status survey and action plan. IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Purchase, G., Marker, L., Marnewick, K., Klein, R., and Williams, S. 2007. Regional assessment of the status, distribution and conservation needs of cheetahs in southern Africa. Cat News: 44-46. Skinner, J. D. and Chimimba, C. T. 2005. The mammals of the southern African subregion. Cambridge University Press. Skinner, J. D. and Smithers, R. H. N. 1990. The mammals of the southern African subregion. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. Stander, P. and Hanssen, L. 2004. Namibia large carnivore atlas. Volume I. Predator Conservation Trust, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia. Stuart, C. and Stuart, T. 2001a. A photographic guide to mammals of Southern, Central and East Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. Stuart, C. and Stuart, T. 2001b. Field guide to mammals of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town, South Africa. Sunquist, M. E. and Sunquist, F. C. 2009. Family Felidae (cats), in Wilson, D. E. & Mittermeier, R. A., (eds.), Handbook of the mammals of the world - Carnivores. Lynx edicions, Barcelona. 54-169.

Manis tricuspis

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

MAMMALIA MANIDAE

SPECIES: Manis tricuspis

SYNONYMS: Phataginus tricuspis

COMMON NAMES: Boomschubdier (Dutch), Three-cusped Pangolin (English), Tree Pangolin (English), White-bellied Pangolin (English), Pangolin à écailles tricuspides (French), Pangolin commun (French), Tricuspide (French), trädmyrkott (Swedish), Vitbukig myrkott (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso (?), Cameroon, Central African Republic (?), Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia (?), Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau (?), Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal (?), Sierra Leone, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania (?), Zambia

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Togo

IUCN RED LIST: Near threatened

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: -

TRADE PATTERNS: Manis tricuspis was selected for review on the basis of a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2008 (based on the threshold of 50 mammals for threatened or near threatened species) and a sharp increase in trade into the European Union in 2008. No quotas have ever been published for this species. Over the period 2000-2009, the only direct import of M. tricuspis from Togo reported by EU Member States was the import of 500 live ranched individuals by Italy in 2008, for commercial purposes. Togo did not submit an annual report for 2008 (or 2009), so this trade was reported by the importer only. In 2007, Togo reported the export of 15 live, wild-sourced individuals to Italy and one live, wild-sourced individual to the Netherlands, however, this trade was not reported by the importers. No trade in the species from Togo to the EU-27 was reported prior to 2007. No indirect trade to the EU-27 of M. tricuspis originating in Togo was reported 2000-2009. The only reported direct trade from Togo to countries other than the EU-27 was the export of 16 wild- sourced M. tricuspis to the United States of America in 2002 for commercial purposes. This trade was reported by Togo only.

Manis tricuspis

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Manis tricuspis is an arboreal pangolin living in moist forests of Central and Western Africa, where it was reported to inhabit lowland rainforest and plantations, favouring secondary growth (Bräutigam et al., 1994; Kingdon, 1997). Females were reported to reach sexual maturity by eight months, with a gestation period of about 150 days, after which they produce a single offspring (Kingdon, 1997). They have been recorded to live for up to three years in captivity (Bräutigam et al., 1994). M. tricuspis was listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN (under the synonym Phataginus tricuspis) ―because it seems reasonable to assume that this species has undergone a decline in the region of 20- 25% over the past 15 years (three generations) due mainly to the impact of bushmeat hunting‖ (Hoffmann, 2008). It was also noted that the species may soon move to a higher threat category, given that it continues to be harvested at unsustainable levels in parts of its range (Hoffmann, 2008). Of the three western African pangolin species, M. tricuspis was considered to be the most common (Meester and Setzer, 1971). M. tricuspis was reported to be threatened by exploitation for traditional medicine and the bushmeat trade (Bräutigam et al., 1994; Hoffmann, 2008; Soewu and Ayodele, 2009; Soewu et al., 2009), being by far the most common of the pangolins offered for sale in African bushmeat markets (Hoffmann, 2008). M. tricuspis was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade in 1999 and was reviewed for the fifteenth meeting of the Animals Committee (AC15.14.4), where it was concluded that the level of trade in the species was not a problem (AC15 Proceedings). Togo: The distribution map in Kingdon (1997) indicated the species‘ occurrence in Togo and Juhé- Beaulaton (2010) reported the occurrence of M. tricuspis in sacred forests of Burkina Faso, Togo and Benin. M. tricuspis is classified as a Class B protected species in the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, to which Togo is a signatory (Organisation of African Unity, 1968). Species in Class B are totally protected, but may be hunted, killed, captured or collected under special authorization granted by the competent authority (Organisation of African Unity, 1968).

REFERENCES: Bräutigam, A., Howes, J., Humphreys, T., and Hutton, J. 1994. Recent information on the status and utilization of African pangolins. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 15 (1): 15-22. Hoffmann, M. 2008. Phataginus tricuspis. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed : 16 November 2010. Juhé-Beaulaton, D. 2010. Forêts sacrées et sanctuaires boisés: des créations culturelles et biologiques (Burkina Faso, Togo, Bénin). Editions Karthala. Kingdon, J. 1997. The Kingdon field guide to African mammals. Academic Press, London. Meester, J. and Setzer, H. W. 1971. The mammals of Africa: an identification guide. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Organisation of African Unity. 1968. African convention on the conservation of nature and natural resources. CAB/LEG/24.1 Soewu, D. A. and Ayodele, I. A. 2009. Utilisation of Pangolin (Manis sps) in traditional Yorubic medicine in Ijebu province, Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 5 (39).

Caiman yacare

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

REPTILIA

SPECIES: Caiman yacare

SYNONYMS: Caiman crocodilus matogrossiensis, Caiman crocodilus paraguaiensis, Caiman crocodilus yacare, Champsa vallifrons, Crocodilus yacare, Jacare longiscutata, Jacare multiscutata, Jacare ocellata, Jacaretinga crocodilus jacare

COMMON NAMES: Yacare Brilkaaiman (Dutch), Yacare Caiman (English), Caïman yacare (French), Yacaré (Spanish), Yacarekajman (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: , (Plurinational State of), , , Uruguay

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Plurinational State of Bolivia (hereafter referred to as Bolivia)

IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/least concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Bolivia formed on 23/02/1999 and confirmed on 12/06/2006. Current negative opinion for Paraguay formed on 22/05/2003. Previous Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Argentina first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 24/09/2000. Previous Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Bolivia first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/11/1998.

TRADE PATTERNS: Caiman yacare was selected for review on the basis of a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2008. Exports of the species from Bolivia mainly involved skins, tails and meat. Various leather products were also regularly exported. Annual export quotas have been published since 2001, except for 2002, when no quotas were published for any species by Bolivia (Table 1). According to figures reported by importers, quotas appeared to have been exceeded in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008. In addition to

Caiman yacare these years, quotas appeared to have been exceeded in 2006 according to exporter-reported figures. Bolivia did not submit an annual report for 2008 or 2009. Imports of C. yacare from Bolivia to the EU-27 2000-2009 mainly involved skins and, to a lesser extent, tails (Table 2), the main importers being France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Of the 624 558 skins reported as exports by Bolivia since 2000, 95 per cent were exported to the EU-27. Nearly all trade was wild-sourced for commercial purposes. Indirect trade to the EU-27 also consisted of skins and tails, with the only import of meat being 5 kg in 2005 (Table 3). According to importer-reported figures, with the exception of 96 manufactured items which were of captive-bred source, all trade was in wild-sourced C. yacare. The main re-exporters were Switzerland and Panama, with the main importers being Italy, France and Spain. Trade to countries other than the EU-27 consisted largely of tails, skins and meat (Table 4). In addition, 34 kg of seized skin pieces and 210 other seized items were reported by the United States of America. All seizures were reported 2006-2008. Table 1. CITES export quotas for wild Caiman yacare from Bolivia and global exports, reported by importer and exporter.

2001 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 Quota 100000 50000 45082 45082 45082 50000 450800 kg 50000 50000 50000

Term sides tails skins skins skins skins meat skins skins skins Reported by importer 49360 6630 81180 101456 76758 40138 38555 93401 102943 100 Reported by exporter 56339 10861 85050 69456 102360 86676 82020 98228

Caiman yacare

Table 2. Direct exports of Caiman yacare from Bolivia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. See Annex I for more details.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total bodies - T W Importer 2 2 Exporter 2 2 feet - T W Importer Exporter 5 5 meat kg T W Importer 38555 20000 58555 Exporter 21200 60020 81220 sides - T W Importer 34063 34063 Exporter skin kg T W Importer 13 151.58 1750.9 610.5 2525.98 pieces Exporter 13 62 75 - T W Importer 3525 500 350 4375 Exporter 16380 16380 skins sides T W Importer 49360 67435 80124 86354 65096 32208 78911 96770 556258 Exporter 56339 126449 82994 62528 92495 79254 88936 588995 - T C Importer 175 175 Exporter W Importer 4116 1056 12648 2100 4000 510 100 24530 Exporter 1506 210 102 1818 skulls - P W Importer Exporter 1 1 T W Importer Exporter 5 5 small leather - T C Importer 3500 3500 products Exporter W Importer 634 220 854 Exporter tails - T W Importer 6630 17674 39641 15327 7939 10644 28938 41448 6850 175091 Exporter 10861 26751 40820 15548 20080 40167 41644 195871

Caiman yacare

Table 3. Indirect exports of Caiman yacare originating in Bolivia to the EU-27 2000-2009.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total meat kg T W Importer Exporter 5 5 skin pieces kg T W Importer 28 18.8 46.8 Exporter 11.2 18.8 30 - T W Importer 96 1500 1596 Exporter 2 17 2235 6 2260 skins sides T W Importer 40499 1089 2782 5553 2262 52185 Exporter 1066 5885 300 2512 9763 - W Importer Exporter 48999 48999 - T W Importer 14 278 3299 450 4 4045 Exporter 25 2275 12 1 2313 tails - T W Importer 8500 7750 2359 18609 Exporter 9750 9750 unspecified - T W Importer Exporter 5 5 manufactured - T W Importer 13 63 24568 6412 2592 2499 3234 6048 45429 items* Exporter 10 10 1 140 1970 2127 2826 2302 9386 - W Importer 14 13 99 126 Exporter - Importer 2 2 Exporter C Importer 3 41 52 96 Exporter 1 1 pairs T W Importer 208 223 70 37 538 Exporter 4 725 991 586 2306 - W Importer Exporter 4 359 28881 6152 35396 kg T W Importer 16 16

Caiman yacare

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Exporter meat (kg) Importer Exporter 5 5 skins Importer 40499 14 1367 6081 6003 2266 56230 Subtotals Exporter 48999 14 1091 8160 300 2524 1 61075 tails Importer 8500 7750 2359 18609 Exporter 6750 9750 *Products such as small and large leather products, shoes etc. have been combined as ‗manufactured items‘.

Caiman yacare

Table 4. Direct exports of Caiman yacare from Bolivia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total bodies - P I Importer 1 1 Exporter U Importer 1 1 Exporter feet - T W Importer 34 34 Exporter 1550 655 2205 meat kg T W Importer 10 22500 45500 20040 88050 Exporter 10.6 22500 47500 22000 20040 112050.6 sides - H C Importer 6 6 Exporter T W Importer 110 110 Exporter skin pieces kg T I Importer 34 34 Exporter m T W Importer 627 627 Exporter - T W Importer 1400 2000 1000 2800 7200 Exporter skins bellyskins T W Importer Exporter 1 1 sides T C Importer 50 50 Exporter W Importer 2362 11350 130 8206 22048 Exporter 50 6628 9565 5213 9290 30746 - T C Importer 5216 5216 Exporter W Importer 92 312 5700 2284 5663 14051 Exporter 500 90 300 2106 2 2998 skulls - T W Importer 1503 2 1505

Caiman yacare

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Exporter 1801 299 2100 tails kg T W Importer 210 210 Exporter - H C Importer 40 40 Exporter T C Importer 200 3600 3800 Exporter 1050 1050 W Importer 16970 29129 4942 15809 16047 80 82977 Exporter 200 17467 29815 12256 10642 70380 unspecified - T W Importer 294 294 Exporter manufactured - T W Importer 3088 1590 3240 2241 1982 12141 Items* Exporter 300 1 271 5722 pairs T W Importer Exporter 1544 1088 1522 1775 5329 - T I Importer 209 209 Exporter *Small and large leather products and shoes have been combined as ‗manufactured items‘.

Caiman yacare

TAXONOMIC NOTE: The species was formerly listed in CITES as Caiman crocodilus yacare, and the name is still used by some authors (Campos et al., 2010). Busack and Pandya (2001) found that distinguishing C. yacare and C. crocodilus from incomplete skin pieces was difficult due to similar morphological characteristics. Campos et al. (2010) noted that there was a complex gradient of morphological features between C. yacare and C. crocodilus, and that as they have been defined geographically rather than morphologically, this poses legal difficulties if an individual crosses the geographic boundary. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Caiman yacare is a South American caiman that may grow up to 3 m in length (Groombridge, 1987). It was reported to occur in lakes, rivers, marshes, lagoons and small creeks (Aguilera et al., 2008), and avoid salty and brackish waters (Groombridge, 1982). It was considered to be a migratory species, capable of moving over land between water areas (Groombridge, 1982). Nesting was found to generally occur during the rainy season, with typical clutch sizes of 21-38 eggs (Britton, 2009). C. yacare distribution was reported to reach from ―the lowlands of northern and eastern Bolivia and western Brazil, from the Amazon southwards through the Guaporé/Madeira and Paraguay/Paraná River systems and into northern Argentina‖ (Campos et al., 2010). In 1996, the species was classified as Lower Risk/least concern in the IUCN Red List ( Specialist Group, 1996), with the justification ―widespread and numerous populations, although locally depleted‖. The total size of the wild population was estimated to be 100,000- 200,000 individuals (Britton, 2009). It was described as a widely distributed, ecologically adaptable species that often occurs at very high densities during the dry season – however, it was noted that the high levels of utilization in the past had been a cause of concern (Thorbjarnarson, 1999; Britton, 2009). Groombridge (1987) stated that ―each of the four countries in the range appears to hold some adequate populations, although other populations are reportedly depleted or extirpated,‖ and Campos et al. (2010) noted that due to widespread poaching in previous decades, the populations were still somewhat depleted in the early 1990s. Campos et al. (2010) considered the main threats to C. yacare to include the destruction of habitats, building of hydroelectric dams and siltation. Illegal hunting was listed as one of the main threats, although it was noted that it was not a major issue in most range areas (Campos et al., 2010). Furthermore, the species was considered to be resilient to hunting due to its small maturation size, wide variety of suitable habitats and ability to learn wariness to hunters (Campos et al., 2010). It was also considered to be tolerant to habitat alteration (Embert, 2008). However, in the 1982 IUCN Red Data Book, hunting for the hides was considered to be a serious threat to the species (Groombridge, 1982). Improved control of illegal trade was seen as an action of moderate priority in the conservation of C. yacare in all range countries (Campos et al., 2010). Bolivia: Distribution and population status: The distribution map in Embert (2008) covered all but the south- western part of Bolivia, although it was noted by Pacheco (pers. comm., 2008 in: Embert, 2008) that areas of higher altitude should be excluded. The map in Campos et al. (2010) showed a slightly narrower distribution range, covering approximately half of the country in the north and east. Embert (2008) classified C. yacare as ―very common‖ in Bolivia, but considered its national conservation status to be Vulnerable. In the IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group report on a visit to Bolivia, it was stated that ―the wild populations of Caiman crocodilus yacare [Caiman yacare] are good and have supported a wild harvest for the last 6 years‖ (Larriera et al., 2005). In surveys conducted for a pilot C. yacare management program in the department of Beni in northeastern Bolivia, densities between 0.76 and 3.75 individuals/ha were recorded in aquatic habitats (Aparicio and Ríos, 2006); in nocturnal spotlight counts conducted in the Ichiro floodplain area in central Bolivia, a mean population density of 6 individuals per km of shoreline was recorded (Aguilera et al., 2008); and in the department of La Paz in western Bolivia, densities of 7.66 and 20.20 individuals per km of river were recorded (Rios, 2004).

Caiman yacare

Threats: Embert (2008) stated that ―the hunting of the species is somewhat controlled by the state although illegal hunting still is a considerable problem for many populations of this species‖. Peña Vaca (2008) carried out a survey on local hunters‘ groups in the department of Santa Cruz, recording the killing of 33 per cent more individuals than defined in the legal quota. Approximately 9 per cent of killed individuals were smuggled to Brazilian hatcheries; in addition, some individuals had damaged flanks, and hence could not be used as leather, others could not be retrieved from the water after killing, and some were too small to be legally hunted and sold (Peña Vaca, 2008). It was suggested that taking into account that some smuggling takes place between the designated hunting areas within Bolivia, these results indicated that the harvest of C. yacare in some areas may not be sustainable (Peña Vaca, 2008). Van Damme et al. (2007) reported that out of the 30 000-45 000 individuals harvested legally each year, 90 per cent originated in the Bolivian Amazon basin, whereas 10 per cent were from the wetland area in the eastern parts of the country. In the Ichiro floodplain area in central Bolivia, where hunting was banned, general human disturbance was considered the main threat (Aguilera et al., 2008). However, it was found that compared to Melanosuchus niger (the black caiman), C. yacare was far more common in the easily accessible oxbow lakes where human disturbance was higher, indicating that C. yacare had benefitted from the intensive hunting of the larger co-occurring species M. niger (Aguilera et al., 2008). In an interview survey conducted amongst 20 local communities in the department of La Paz, the reported uses of C. yacare included food (93 per cent of respondents), handicrafts (75 per cent) and traditional medicine (40 per cent) (Tejada et al., 2006). It was reported that in this area prices between USD 1.2 and 2.5 were paid for a metre of C. yacare skin, and a litre of medicinal oil extracted from the species was worth USD 2.5-6.2 (Tejada et al., 2006). Management and conservation: Campos et al. (2010) reported that the Bolivian national programme for the conservation and use of C. yacare was initiated in 1997. The process was described as follows: ―During the following years, between 30,000 (1999) and 59,000 (2003) individuals were harvested annually through a management model based on eco-regional population sizes. From 2004, a large group of institutions and specialists participated in the re-design of the program to adapt it to the national reality, and strengthen the regulatory and administrative framework by means of a monitoring plan. In addition, standardized sampling protocols were designed; monitoring of harvests commenced, and a new classification of water bodies was made. Additionally, a new basis of technical data (counts, harvests, habitats) and administrative data (users, farms, quotas history, contraventions) was developed, and geographically assessed together through a GIS. This database is continuously updated with new information.‖ (Campos et al., 2010). Overall, the national harvesting programme was considered to have ―generated economical benefits at macro-level but suffers from weak governmental regulation and poor local stakeholder involvement‖ (Van Damme et al., 2007). It was stated that after several difficulties in the first years, major changes were made to the programme in 2000, based on the recommendations from Profauna Venezuela and the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group (Aparicio and Ríos, 2006). Aparicio and Ríos (2006) concluded that the programme had reached important benefits for the conservation of C. yacare in Bolivia, as well as benefiting the local people. The monitoring of hunting by the CITES Scientific Authority, the complete utilization of hunted animals, and the local design of management plans were considered as strengths of the commercial hunting programme (Larriera et al., 2005). Van Damme et al. (2007) mentioned difficult access to many range areas as a limitation to the monitoring process that was used as the basis of the quota setting, and Aparicio and Ríos (2006) suggested that for effective monitoring, surveys should cover larger areas. It was also noted that the national quota could be increased in cases where the local quotas exceeded it, which was seen to be problematic, because an increase in numbers of hunting applications could potentially allow for overexploitation in some areas (Larriera et al., 2005). Furthermore, the lack of stock centres for the leathers, the centralized definition of the quotas and the lack of control staff and local experts were seen as factors limiting the success of the commercial hunting programmes (Larriera et al., 2005). Aparicio and Ríos (2006) reported that although the implementation of the programme had reduced the

Caiman yacare international illegal trade of C. yacare skins, an illegal national market remained due to some areas of natural distribution remaining outside the programme of allocated legal use. Recent attempts had been made to involve indigenous communities in the process of making the management plans, in cooperation with local organisations and NGOs (Larriera et al., 2005; van Damme et al., 2007; Miranda et al., 2008; Campos et al., 2010). The results of an experimental management process with the Takana community were considered to show that ―there is a wealth of information which could guide the revision and improvement of the regulation guiding caiman harvest in Bolivia and that monitoring efforts of this and other initiatives will continue improving the program to ensure that viable populations of Caiman yacare continue to be available as a sustainable harvested resource for future regenerations‖ (Miranda et al., 2008). C. yacare was reported to be found in several national parks in Bolivia (Embert, 2008). Aguilera et al. (2008) conducted status surveys of the species in the Ichilo river floodplain, where hunting was banned, stating that it was a ―well protected area and probably offers optimal growing conditions for this species‖. In the National Park and Natural Area for Integrated Management (PNANMI-MADIDI) in the department of La Paz, the presence of C. yacare, along with other large-sized herpetofauna, throughout the year, was considered to indicate low or nonexistent hunting (Cortez- Fernandez, 2005). However, some confiscations of illegal skins were reported to have taken place (Larriera et al., 2005). There were also reported attempts to legalize the issuing of hunting permits of C. yacare to indigenous communities that were currently harvesting the species illegally within protected areas (Larriera et al., 2005). Ranching and farming: Dubracic and Ferrer (2008) recently reported the establishment of Crocoland SRL, the first C. yacare farming facility in Bolivia, combining ranching and captive breeding systems with a parental stock of 2000 adult individuals extracted from wild populations of the Pantanal region. The species was reported to have ―excellent captive breeding potential‖ (Groombridge, 1987), and the implementation of ranching programs was considered to be an aim of moderate priority in Bolivia (Campos et al., 2010).

REFERENCES: Aguilera, X., Coronel, J. S., Oberdorff, T., and van Damme, P. A. 2008. Distribution patterns, population status and conservation of Melanosuchus niger and Caiman yacare (Crocodylia, Alligatoridae) in oxbow lakes of the Ichilo river floodplain, Bolivia. Revista de Biología Tropical, 56 (2): 909-929. Aparicio, J. and Ríos, J. N. 2006. Experiencias de manejo en el proceso de aprovechamiento sostenible del lagarto (Caiman yacare) en Bolivia (1995-2004). Revista Electrónica Manejo de Fauna Silvestre en Latinoamérica, 1: 1-11. Britton, A. 2009. Caiman yacare (Daudin, 1802). Crocodilian species list URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csp_cyac.htm Accessed: 27 October 2010. Busack, S.D. and Pandya, S. 2001. Geographic variation in Caiman crocodilus and Caiman yacare (Crocodylia: Alligatoridae): systematic and legal implications. Herpetologica 57(3): 294-312. Campos, Z., Llobet, A. Q., Piña, C. I., and Magnusson, W. E. 2010. Caiman yacare (Yacare caiman), in Manolis, S. C. & Stevenson, C., (eds.), . Status survey and conservation action plan. Third edition Ed. IUCN SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, 23-28. Cortez-Fernandez, C. 2005. Herpetofauna de la zona norte del Parque Nacional y Area Natural de Manejo Integrado Madidi (PNANMI-Madidi). Ecología en Bolivia, 40 (2): 10-26. Crocodile Specialist Group. 1996. Caiman yacare. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 26 October 2010. Dubracic, R.R. and Ferrer, S.T. 2008. Crocoland SRL: First experience on farming and ranching of Caiman yacare in Bolivia. Crocodiles. Proceedings of the 19th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN - The World Conservation

Caiman yacare

Union convened at Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 2-6 June 2008, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 1-2. Embert, D. 2008, Distribution, diversity and conservation status of Bolivian reptiles, PhD Dissertation, Rheinischen Friedrichs-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-reptilia Red Data Book Part 1: Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 426 pp. Groombridge, B. 1987. The distribution and status of world crocodilians, in Webb, G. J. W., Manolis, S. C., & Whitehead, P. J., (eds.), Wildlife management: Crocodiles and . Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd, Chipping Norton, Australia. 9-24. Larriera, A., Ortiz, B., and Velasco, A. B. 2005. Visit to Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay - final report. IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. Miranda, G., Estívariz, A., Llobet, A., Fessy, A., Quenevo, C., and Wallace, R. 2008. Results of the first harvest of Caiman yacare by Takana communities in northern Bolivia: implications for sustainability and harvest regulations. Crocodiles. Proceedings of the 19th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN - The World Conservation Union convened at Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 2-6 June 2008, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 1-2. Peña Vaca, R. 2008. Hunting evaluation of (Caiman yacare) in San Matías, Santa Cruz – Bolivia. Crocodiles. Proceedings of the 19th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN - The World Conservation Union convened at Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 2-6 June 2008, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 21-36. Rios, J. N. 2004. Estado poblacional y uso del lagarto (Caiman yacare) en áreas de uso de recursos naturales del territorio comunitario de origen (tco) tacana, prov. Iturralde, La Paz - Bolivia, MEMORIAS: Manejo de Fauna silvestre en Amazonia y Latinoamérica, pp. 216-228. Tejada, R., Chao, E., Gómez, H., Painter, R. E. L., and Wallace, R. B. 2006. Evaluación sobre el uso de la fauna silvestre en la Tierra Comunitaria de Origen Tacana, Bolivia. Ecología en Bolivia, 41 (2): 138-148. Thorbjarnarson, J. 1999. and skins: international trade, economic constraints, and limits to the sustainable use of crocodilians. Conservation Biology, 13 (3): 465-470. van Damme, P. A., Ledesma, J., Cisneros, F., Mendez, D., and Acebey, S. 2007. Bottom-up management of Caiman yacare in the Bolivian Amazon, International Congress on Development, Environment and Natural Resources: Multi-level and Multi-scale Sustainability.

Ptyas mucosus

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

REPTILIA COLUBRIDAE

SPECIES: Ptyas mucosus

SYNONYMS: Coluber mucosus

COMMON NAMES: Indisk rottesnog (Danish), Oosterse rattenslang (Dutch), Common Rat Snake (English), Dhaman (English), Oriental Rat Snake (English), Elaphe de I'Inde (French), Grand serpent ratier de I'Indie (French), Serpent ratier (French), Serpent ratier indien (French), Serpent ratier oriental (French), Rattennatter (German), Rattenschlange (German), Dhaman (Italian), Serpente dei natti indiano (Italian), Serpenti dei ratti (Italian), Culebra ratera oriental (Spanish), Orientalisk råttsnok (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, , Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam,

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for China formed on 31/08/2001. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from China first applied on 19/09/1999 and removed on 02/02/2001. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Indonesia first applied on 19/09/1999 and removed on 10/05/2006. Previous positive opinion for Indonesia formed on 22/04/1999.

Ptyas mucosus

TRADE PATTERNS: Ptyas mucosus was selected for review on the basis of a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2008. In 1993, the CITES Secretariat recommended that all Parties suspend imports of specimens of the species from Indonesia (CITES Notification No. 775), although an exception was made for 102 285 skins acquired before the trade prohibition entered into force. At its 53rd meeting in 2005, the Standing Committee decided to withdraw its recommendation for import suspension and in 2006 the EC removed the import restriction on the species. Indonesia has published export quotas for the species since 2006 for skins and skin products (Table 1) and for live individuals (Table 2); trade appears to have remained within quota. Currently there is no export quota for dead specimens or meat, although it appears that there has been substantial demand for (and illegal export of) meat (TRAFFIC, 2008). The EU-27 reported direct imports from Indonesia of 50 706 skins and 41 live P. mucosus over the period 2000-2009, all wild-sourced and imported for commercial purposes (Table 3). The main importers were Italy and Spain. Direct trade to the EU-27 represented 24 per cent of all skins exported from Indonesia. No imports to the EU-27 were reported before 2006, when the import suspension was in place. Indirect trade to the EU-27 of P. mucosus originating in Indonesia mainly consisted of wild-sourced skins, along with a range of manufactured leather items, mainly exported via Singapore and Hong Kong (Table 4). Germany and the United Kingdom were the main importers. Direct trade from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009 mainly consisted of wild- sourced skins, the main importer being Singapore (Table 5). In addition, the United States reported the confiscation/seizure of 35 manufactured leather items. Table 1. CITES export quotas for wild Ptyas mucosus skins and skin products from Indonesia and global exports, reported by importer and exporter.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Quota 99500 99500 89550 89550 89550 Reported by importer 68577 59693 70265 19505 Reported by exporter 86483 76792 49900 31505

Table 2. CITES export quotas for wild live Ptyas mucosus from Indonesia and global exports, reported by importer and exporter.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Quota 500 500 450 450 450

Reported by importer 11 4 57 16

Reported by exporter 75 104 139 128

Ptyas mucosus

Table 3. Direct exports of Ptyas mucosus from Indonesia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. All trade was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes.

Importer Term Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total France live Importer 10 10 Exporter 12 10 22 Germany live Importer 16 16 Exporter 15 70 6 91 Italy skins Importer 10 200 17500 5000 22710 Exporter 10 10200 12500 22710 Spain live Importer Exporter 15 15 skins Importer 20596 3000 4400 27996 Exporter 23596 4400 27996 United Kingdom live Importer 4 11 15 Exporter 4 11 15 live Importer 4 27 10 41 Exporter 15 74 29 25 143 Subtotals 20606 3200 21900 5000 50706 skins Importer 23606 10200 16900 50706 Exporter

Table 4. Indirect exports of Ptyas mucosus originating in Indonesia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. Almost all trade was for commercial purposes.

Term Units Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total skin pieces - W Importer Exporter 11 11 skins - O Importer Exporter 51000 51000 U Importer 51000 51000 Exporter W Importer 81940 9394 36096 21900 17625 39254 38635 5208 3514 253566 Exporter 90011 92094 31098 21900 10000 45880 28735 11208 3536 334462 61 174 14 3 254 85 32 504 891 2018 manufactured - W Importer 64 31 11 3 21 86 32 663 678 1548 items* Exporter pairs C Importer 7 7 Exporter 172 W Importer 14 11 197 12 322 Exporter 260 11 605 Importer * Products such as small and large leather products, garments, etc., have been combined as ‗manufactured items‘. Table 4. Direct exports of Ptyas mucosus from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2001 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live - Q W Importer 25 25 Exporter T F Importer Exporter 715 715 W Importer 11 5 6 22 Exporter 60 30 110 103 303

Ptyas mucosus

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2001 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total meat kg T W Importer Exporter 4100 22890 44035 71025 skins - T W Importer 47971 56491 48348 14505 167315 Exporter 62871 66590 33000 31505 193966 manufactured - T I Importer 4 14 17 35 items* Exporter W Importer 307 2 2 311 Exporter 5 2 2 7 * Products such as small and large leather products, garments, etc., have been combined as ‗manufactured items‘. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Ptyas mucosus is widely distributed in South Asia from Iran and Afghanistan in the west to southern China in the east and Indonesia in the southeast (Daniel, 1983; Cox et al., 1998; Ananjeva et al., 2006; TRAFFIC, 2008; Das, 2010). It is a medium-sized, diurnal snake associated with a variety of habitats including agricultural systems (Daniel, 1983; Cox et al., 1998; TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010; Das, 2010). Das (2010) reported its occurrence in forested and agricultural areas, parks and gardens, from sea level to 4000 m a.s.l. Females were reported to reach maturation at around nine months (with average body lengths of ~120 cm) (TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010), producing clutch sizes ranging from six to 18 eggs (Cox et al., 1998). Incubation was reported to last 60-95 days, with hatchlings measuring 300-472 mm (Das, 2010). The global conservation status of P. mucosus has not yet been assessed by the IUCN (IUCN, 2010), and there is a lack of information on global population size, trends and threats (TRAFFIC, 2008). Indonesia: Distribution and population status: P. mucosus was reported to occur in Java (Daniel, 1983; Zhao and Adler, 1993; Cox et al., 1998; Auliya, 2010), Sumatra (Daniel, 1983; Zhao and Adler, 1993; Auliya, 2010; Das, 2010), Bali (Auliya, 2010), Bangka Island (Auliya, 2010), Sulawesi (TRAFFIC, 2008) and possibly Kalimantan (Auliya, 2010). However, the CITES Management Authority of Indonesia (2005) noted that the species‘ occurrence in Kalimantan needed further confirmation because, according to traders, there had never been any reported harvest from Kalimantan. Little was reported to be known about the population status of P. mucosus in Java or the other Indonesian islands (WCMC and IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group, 1992; TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010). Java was thought to be the main, or only, exporting island of Indonesia (TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010), with P. mucosus considered to be most common on this island, particularly in the centre and east (CITES MA Indonesia, 2005; Auliya, 2010). Boeadi et al. (1998) conducted a study in East and Central Java and recorded average snout-vent lengths of 1415 mm and 1329 mm for adult males and females respectively (n = 172), with clutch sizes ranging from 7 to 25 eggs (average 13 eggs, n=37). There was reported to be possibly more than one breeding season in Java, with geographic variation in reproductive cycles possibly relating to the variation in microclimate across the island (Auliya, 2010). TRAFFIC (2008) and Auliya (2010) reported that some traders considered the species to be less common than in the recent past, whilst others considered the species to be just as common as in previous years. TRAFFIC (2008) noted that ―According to eight small-scale harvesters and collectors, who have been active between seven and 35 years, the local abundance of Oriental Rat Snakes, particularly in Central Java, has decreased noticeably.‖ Threats and uses: Little is known about the threats to P. mucosus in Indonesia, although reports have indicated that it was difficult to conclude whether harvest and international trade was sustainable, given the scant information on the status of wild populations (WCMC and IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group, 1992; TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010). WCMC and IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist

Ptyas mucosus

Group (1992) stated that ―it is generally agreed that some populations have been greatly reduced owing to harvesting for the skin trade and indiscriminate killing.‖ A study in central Java indicated that P. mucosus did well in disturbed and agricultural habitats (particularly as they tend to have high densities of rats and frogs), and that due to its high reproductive levels, P. mucosus could support a significant commercial offtake (Boeadi et al., 1998). Commercial harvesting of the species was reported to have begun in the late 1970s (TRAFFIC, 2008). The majority of snakes were reported to be harvested for the international trade in their skins (TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010), with a small proportion of harvested snakes reported to be used locally for meat and production of small leather items for domestic trade (Auliya, 2010). P. mucosus was reported to be mostly caught by farmers in fields and plantations during the wet season (CITES MA Indonesia, 2005). The network of traders involved in the commercial trade of P. mucosus Java was reported to be complex, with large-scale collectors and exporters buying snakes from small-scale collectors or from local animal markets (Auliya, 2010). Most larger operators were reported to slaughter the snakes themselves so that they could profit from selling the skin and meat (Auliya, 2010). There were reported to be at least five registered exporters of P. mucosus in Indonesia: two in Jakarta (Java), one in Makassar (Sulawesi), one in Samarinda (East Kalimantan) and one in Medan (North Sumatra) (Auliya, 2010). Live snakes were reported to sell to collectors for IDR 15 000- 22 000 (USD 1.65- 2.42) and to be sold on by collectors for IDR 17 000-24 000 (USD 1.87–2.64), with the prices for skins being slightly lower than that of live snakes (Auliya, 2010). The 12-year CITES trade ban in P. mucosus skins was considered to have triggered a large and well established illegal trade in meat, skins and gall bladders of the species (CITES MA Indonesia, 2005; TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010). Saputra in litt. (2008 in: Auliya, 2010) reported that Indonesia was one of the major sources supplying the demand from China for P. mucosus and other species. An estimated 50 000 to 100 000 snakes were reported to be exported annually, equivalent to 30-60 tonnes of meat per year and about 50 000-100 000 gall bladders. Auliya (2010) reported that three ports in Java shipped consignments of frozen P. mucosus meat to China and Taiwan, Province of China. Management and protection: P. mucosus was included in the CITES Review of Significant Trade process in the early 1990s, following which the CITES Management Authority of Indonesia was recommended to ―inform the Animals Committee of the scientific basis for its capture quotas and […] introduce a system to ensure that the number of skins permitted for export does not exceed these quotas‖ (CITES Animals Committee, 1992). In 1993, reported imports of P. mucosus skins from Indonesia still exceeded exports reported by Indonesia, leading the Standing Committee to recommend an import suspension. Indonesia conducted various surveys to improve the available information on P. mucosus biology (Sugardjito and Boeadi, 1998; Boeadi et al., 1998). At the 53rd meeting of the Standing Committee in 2005, the trade suspension was removed following an extensive report produced by the Indonesian CITES Management Authority (SC53 Inf. 3), and a cautious export quota of 100 000 specimens was established (SC53 Summary Record). The CITES Management Authority of Indonesia (2005) provided the following information on quota setting: ―The current protocol for establishing annual quotas is highly precautionary. Each year, CITES Management Authority (PHKA) officers in each Province establish harvest levels in the field, which are reviewed and assessed further, in the forms of workshops, by the CITES Scientific Authority (LIPI) involving other stakeholders such as Universities and NGOs. Various parameters, including environmental conditions, are used to set quotas (e.g. quotas in 1998 were reduced due to extensive forest fires in Indonesia the previous year). Once quotas are finalised, PHKA issues an annual decree on the national allowable harvest.‖ A study by Sugardjito and Boeadi (1998), which used the catch per unit effort (snakes per hunter per week), and availability of suitable habitat to estimate the total harvest of P. mucosus throughout Central Java and Jogyakarta Provinces in 1996 (25 000 - 118 000 P. mucosus), was reported to form the basis on which CPUE could be assessed in the future (CITES MA Indonesia, 2005). However, it was noted that market forces could greatly affect the extent of harvesting, with up to 10 times as many

Ptyas mucosus snakes collected by hunters in periods of high demand (Mumpuni et al., 2002 in: CITES MA Indonesia, 2005). Following the lifting of the CITES trade suspension in 2005, an investigation into the non-detriment finding process for P. mucosus considered there to be insufficient information available to ensure that quotas were set at non-detrimental levels and setting export or harvest quotas was thought to be unlikely to reduce harvest, given the low cost and ad hoc nature of some harvesting as well as the apparent illegal trade (TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010). It was recommended that monitoring would be crucial to adaptively manage the species‘ harvest, through measuring changes in catch per unit effort and body length, although it was noted that a much larger and more representative sample would be needed (TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010). Auliya (2010) noted that none of the management proposals put forward by the Indonesian government to regulate trade in P. mucosus were fully operational, including the marking of skins to track them through the trade chain, monitoring programmes to adapt the management and levels of offtake, and awareness raising activities for relevant official agencies. Many harvesters were reported to be unaware of the quotas put in place to regulate harvest (Auliya, 2010). Nevertheless, P. mucosus was thought to be fairly resilient to harvesting, with available information on body lengths indicating that snakes were harvested well after they had reached maturity (TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010). Auliya (2010) provided the following information on national legislation: ―The harvest or capture and distribution of wild plant and animal specimens in Indonesia can only be done under a licence, issued by Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA) (Decree of Ministry of Forestry No. 447/Kpts-11/2003, revised from Decree of the Ministry of Forestry No. 62/Kpts-II/1998). The legal transport of protected or non-protected species within Indonesia is permitted according to Article 42, Chapter X of the Regulations of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia No. 8, 1999. Harvesters and collectors must be registered by the BKSDA offices, who report the annual volumes harvested to PHKA. However, the study shows that most harvesters collect rat snakes and other reptiles as a side business and hence do not possess a licence. All exporters are registered with PHKA and must be members of IRATA [Indonesian and Amphibian Trade Association], if they are to be allotted an annual quota and permission to export.‖ It was also reported that under Indonesian legislation, only the harvest of live specimens and skins of P. mucosus was permitted, and that skins had to be tanned before export (TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010).

REFERENCES: Ananjeva, N. B., Orlov, N. L., Khalikov, R. G., Darevsky, I. S., Ryabov, S. A., and Barabanov, A. V. 2006. The reptiles of northern Eurasia: taxonomic diversity, distribution, conservation status. Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. Auliya, M. 2010. Conservation status and impact of trade on the oriental rat snake Ptyas mucosa in Java, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia. Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Boeadi, S., Shine, J., Sugardijto, M., Amir, M., and Sinaga, M. H. 1998. Biology of the commercially harvested Rat Snake (Ptyas mucosus) and Cobra (Naja sputatrix) in Central Java. Mertensiella, 9: 99-104. CITES Animals Committee. 1992. Common rat snake Ptyas mucosus. Final report. 6th Meeting of the CITES Animals Committee, March 1992. CITES MA Indonesia. 2005. Sustainability of rat snake (Ptyas mucosus) harvests in Indonesia: a discussion of issues. CITES Management Authority of Indonesia. SC53 Inf. 3. Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J., and Thirakhupt, K. 1998. A photographic guide to snakes and other reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland, London, UK. 144 pp. Daniel, J. C. 1983. The book of Indian reptiles. Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford University Press. Das, I. 2010. Field guide to the reptiles of South-East Asia. New Holland Publishers Ltd. London. IUCN. 2010. IUCN red list URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Accessed: 23 October 2010. Mumpuni, Subasli, D. R., & Mulyadi. 2002. Monitoring penangkapan dan penelitian biologi ular Jali (Ptyas mucosus) dan Kobra (Naja sputatrix) di Jawa Tengah dan Jawa Timur. Unpublished LIPI report.

Ptyas mucosus

Sugardjito, J. and Boeadi, A. 1998. Assessment of harvest levels and status for the Spitting Cobra (Naja sputatrix) and the Rat Snake (Ptyas mucosus) in Central Java. Mertensiella - Conservation, trade and sustainable use of lizards and snakes, 9: 105-110. TRAFFIC. 2008. Case study on Ptyas mucosus - a proposed NDF method for Indonesia (Java). NDF Workshop case studies, WG7 Reptiles and Amphibians, Case Study 4. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings, Cancun, Mexico, November 17th to 22nd, 2008. WCMC & IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group. 1992. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II: detailed reviews of 24 priority species. Sixth meeting of the CITES Animals Committee. Zhao, E.-M. and Adler, K. 1993. Herpetology of China. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Oxford, Ohio.

Podocnemis unifilis

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

REPTILIA PODOCNEMIDIDAE

SPECIES: Podocnemis unifilis

SYNONYMS: Emys cayennensis

COMMON NAMES: Terekay-schildpad (Dutch), Yellow-headed Sideneck (English), Yellow-spotted River Turtle (English), Yellow-spotted Sideneck Turtle (English), Podocnémide de Cayenne (French), Terecay (Spanish), Terekay-flodsköldpadda (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), hereafter referred to as Venezuela

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) suspension in place for wild specimens from Suriname first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

TRADE PATTERNS: Podocnemis unifilis was selected for review on the basis of a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2008. Exports of the species from Venezuela mainly involved commercial trade in live animals, but small quantities of scientific specimens were also occasionally exported. No CITES export quotas have ever been published by Venezuela for P. unifilis. The EU-27 reported direct imports from Venezuela of 1420 live P. unifilis during the period 2000-2009, all of which were live (either captive-bred or ranched), imported for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade to the EU-27 represented 22 per cent of all live P. unifilis exported from Venezuela. No imports to the EU-27 of P. unifilis were reported prior to 2005, and Venezuela has not yet submitted their 2009 annual report. No indirect trade to the EU-27 of P. unifilis originating in Venezuela was reported 2000-2009. Direct trade from Venezuela to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009 consisted of live P. unifilis and scientific specimens (Table 2), the main importers being Taiwan and Japan. All trade in live specimens was of captive-bred or ranched source (Table 2). All trade in scientific specimens was wild- sourced and was exported to the United States of America.

Podocnemis unifilis

Table 1. Direct exports of Podocnemis unifilis from Venezuela to the EU-27, 2000-2009. All trade was in live animals for commercial purposes. Importer Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Belgium C Importer 70 250 320 Exporter 400 400 R Importer 550 550 Exporter 400 400 Czech Republic R Importer Exporter 100 100 Spain C Importer 50 500 550 Exporter 50 500 550 R Importer Exporter 25 25 C Importer 50 70 750 870 Subtotals Exporter 50 900 950 R Importer 550 550 Exporter 25 100 400 525

Table 2. Direct exports of Podocnemis unifilis from Venezuela to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009. Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total live - T C Importer 150 150 50 1000 1350 Exporter 150 400 900 1500 2950 R Importer 250 1000 1250 Exporter 100 300 750 780 500 2430 specimens cm3 S W Importer 473 473 Exporter ml S W Importer Exporter 4.73 4.73 - S W Importer 40 40 Exporter 40 80 120

Mittermeier (1978) reported that P. unifilis became popular particularly in the U.S. pet trade in the 1960s. Senneke and Tabaka (2006) stated that ―Importers that date back to those days speak of thousands upon thousands of these arriving in single shipments. Tens of thousands were sold in the mid to late 1960s for as little as 1.50 USD apiece retail.‖ It was noted that currently, ―it is highly unlikely that legal wild caught specimens will be obtained‖ by turtle growers in the U.S., but that ―this species is occasionally available from captive born stock to those with the proper permits‖ (Senneke and Tabaka, 2006). CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Podocnemis unifilis is a medium to large-sized South American freshwater turtle that inhabits rivers, backwaters, ponds, lagoons, swamps and flooded forests along major rivers (Groombridge, 1982; Ernst et al., 2006). The reproductive size was reported to be approximately 30 cm (in carapace length) (Ernst et al., 2006), and estimates of the female reproductive age were reported to vary between four and 15 years (Ojasti, 1996). Senneke and Tabaka (2006) reported typical clutch sizes of 15-20 eggs, whereas Mittermeier (1978) reported 15-41 eggs. It was estimated that in an optimum habitat, P. unifilis was able to produce 3000 eggs per year on each river kilometre (Soini, 1981 in litt. to B. Groombridge in: Groombridge, 1982). Buhlmann et al. (2009) calculated the projected range of P. unifilis to cover 7 184 705 km2, using point locality data combined with information on the distribution of watershed habitats and connections between watersheds. The distribution was reported to cover the ―Amazon Basin of Colombia, eastern Ecuador, northeastern Peru, northern Bolivia, southern Venezuela, and Brazil; drainages of the Guaianas, Venezuela, and Colombia‖ (Fritz and Havaš, 2007). The species was reported to be native to Suriname (Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996), although Groombridge (1982) considered the population in Suriname to be ―probably stragglers from Amazon tributaries‖.

Podocnemis unifilis

Uetz (2010) reported a possible occurrence in Trinidad and Tobago, and an introduced population in Florida, U.S. In an analysis of microsatellite DNA data, Escalona et al. (2009) found evidence of genetic separation between the populations of the Amazon and Orinoco river basin areas. P. unifilis was reported to be ―widespread, still relatively common in a few areas but locally depleted due to continuing heavy human predation on nesting females and eggs‖ (Groombridge, 1982). The lack of synchronised nesting aggregations was considered to make the estimation of population size difficult (Groombridge, 1982). Ojasti (1996) reported that whereas the decline of the larger-sized P. expansa as a result of overharvesting was well documented, data on the abundance of P. unifilis was scarce. However, Mittermeier et al. (2010) considered the populations of P. unifilis to be declining, Groombridge (1982) reported depletion in many areas, and Escalona (2010) reported a population decline of at least 80 per cent during the past ten years. In 1996, the species was classified as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996), although it was noted that the assessment needs updating. Human exploitation of meat and eggs was considered to form the main threat for the species (Groombridge, 1982; Conway-Gómez, 2007; Escalona, 2010). Also habitat destruction was mentioned as an important threat (Escalona, 2010). Out of the Podocnemis species, P. unifilis was considered to have ―perhaps the finest meat‖, and it was reported to be ―heavily exploited throughout its range‖ (Mittermeier, 1978). However, P. unifilis was considered to have a relatively good tolerance to exploitation, mainly due to its tolerance to a variety of nesting habitats (Groombridge, 1982). In addition to riverbanks, the species was reported to rest on lake shores, ponds or backwater streams (Ernst et al., 2006). Along with Podocnemis expansa, P. unifilis was considered to be the most commercially important of the South American Podocnemis species (Mittermeier, 1978). Escalona (2010) reported that the hunting pressure had shifted towards P. unifilis as a result of the decline in the populations of P. expansa, which used to be very abundant in the Orinoco and Amazon rivers. Escalona (2010) stated that the success of the conservation projects of the Podocnemis turtles was limited as most of them ―only rely on basic life history information of the species, as very little scientific data is available, making it hard for managers to develop adequate conservation strategies‖. The emphasis on juvenile survival, and the lack of concern over the adult population were seen as major factors limiting the success of the management and conservation programs in the range countries, and it was stated that despite these programs, the turtles of the Podocnemis were ―still facing a huge depletion in their population levels due to over-harvesting of eggs and adults for food by local inhabitants, and increasingly by commercial hunters‖ (Escalona, 2010).

Podocnemis unifilis

Venezuela Distribution and population status: The species was reported to be restricted to the southern side of the Orinoco river, with occasional observations in the state of Apure, north-west of the river (Ojasti et al., 2008). The largest abundances were reported in the southern parts of the state of Amazonas, which covers the southern tip of the country (Ojasti et al., 2008). Based on interviews conducted with local communities in 1998 in the state of Amazonas in southern Venezuela, Barrio- Amorós and Narbaiza (2008) reported that P. unifilis ―inhabits all the white or brown waters, and some black water rivers though concentrated in the lower waterways and mouths of the latter‖. Escalona and Fa (1998) reported that based on a field survey, P. unifilis was ―at present relatively abundant in the Nichare region‖ in the southeastern state of Bolívar. It was also reported to be abundant in the riverside habitats of the Río Caura in Bolívar (Escalona, 2010). Staton and Dixon (1977) reported that although no P. unifilis was recorded in 11 months of field surveys, the species was ―believed to occur in the central Llanos (Fiasson, 1945; Mondolfi, 1955); no specific locality records are known‖. P. unifilis was classified as Vulnerable in the Venezuelan National Red List of threatened species (Ojasti et al., 2008). Ojasti et al. (2008) reported that although studies had been conducted in certain areas, there were no total population estimates available for Venezuela. The population size was considered to have declined recently, however it was stated that the range of the species in Venezuela may not have decreased significantly (Ojasti et al., 2008). In a study conducted in the Nichare river basin in southern Venezuela, Escalona and Fa (1998) recorded an average density of 5.6±3.1 nests per square meter; and in the Cojedes and Manapire rivers in Southern Venezuela, Hernández et al. (2010) recorded average densities of 13.2 and 6.7 nests per kilometre. Barrio-Amorós and Narbaiza (2008) reported that based on interviews with local people in Amazonas, clutch size varied between 18 and 54 eggs. The average clutch sizes recorded in different surveys varied between 20.1±1.7 eggs in the Nichare and Tawadu Rivers (Escalona and Fa, 1998), 22.1±4.67 eggs in the Nichare river (Escalona, 2010) and 23.3 eggs in the Capanaparo River (Thorbjarnarson et al., 1993). It was suggested that the relatively large clutch sizes recorded in the Manapire River in southern Venezuela (a majority of nests held 26-30 eggs) indicated that the heavy human predation had resulted in low abundance of young hatching females (Hernández et al., 2010). It was further hypothesized that the lack of the biggest clutch sizes could be due to the largest individuals having been removed by hunting (Hernández et al., 2010). Although Ojasti (1996) considered P. unifilis to be potentially capable of producing two nests per season, an examination of ovaries conducted in the Venezuelan Capanaparo River showed that P. unifilis may nest only once per year (Thorbjarnarson et al., 1993). Main threats: The main threats to P. unifilis in Venezuela were considered to be the hunting for food and the collection of eggs (Ojasti et al., 2008). In the Caura river area, also the loss of habitat through deforestation, mining activities and human population growth, was considered to form a threat to the species (Escalona, 2010). In Venezuela, P. unifilis was considered to be the most exploited chelonian as a source of food (Paolillo, 1982, in litt. to B. Groombridge in: Groombridge, 1982). It was reported that in addition to subsistence and commercial harvesting, also sports hunting of P. unifilis was practiced (Fergusson- Laguna, 2010). In the Caura river area, P. unifilis was considered to form the main economic resource for the local communities, and illegal hunting was reported to be prevalent (Escalona, 2010). In this area, P. unifilis was the principal food source during the dry season and the Easter celebrations (Escalona, 2010). In the Capanaparo River area in southern Venezuela, P. unifilis was reported to be ―heavily exploited for food by Yaruro Indians and Venezuelan colonists‖ (Thorbjarnarson et al., 1993). Barrio-Amorós and Narbaiza (2008) recorded ―thousands of nests plundered by humans‖ in the Casiquiaire area in the Amazonas state. Hernández et al. (2010) found in a recent (2009) field survey that in the Manapire river in Southern Venezuela, 85 per cent of nests were lost to predation, mainly by humans. However, in the Cojedes

Podocnemis unifilis

River in the same area, the loss of P. unifilis nests was 28 per cent, caused mainly by flooding (15 per cent) and predation (13 per cent) (Hernández et al., 2010). The lack of human predation in this area was suggested to be due to difficulties navigating the river (Hernández et al., 2010). In a study conducted in the Nichare and Tawadu rivers, Escalona and Fa (1998) found that 83 per cent of the surveyed nests were disturbed by humans or animals, and that humans were the main pest predators, accounting for 85 per cent of the disturbance. It was reported that ―flooding and other undetermined environmental factors had little impact on nests‖ (Escalona and Fa, 1998). Humans were considered to have a stronger impact on nest success than other predators, as they typically removed all eggs from a nest, and mostly collected eggs from nests that were located in the open area, where also hatching success was highest due to higher temperatures and the lack of animal predators (Escalona and Fa, 1998). The collection of eggs from these ‗prime areas‘ was also seen to potentially skew the temperature-dependent sex ratios of the hatchlings (Escalona and Fa, 1998). Based on their study, Escalona and Fa (1998) cautioned that ―the species is under strong pressure from humans for whom it is an important food and a source of monetary income. In time, extraction at levels encountered in the present study (where close to all nests were taken) will severely reduce population viability by limiting recruitment‖, and emphasized that ―protective and management programmes that promote sustainable exploitation and control disturbance to the breeding turtles, nesting grounds and nests, must be implemented‖. Ojasti et al. (2008) reported that whilst hunters could earn USD 8 for each P. unifilis individual caught, they were later resold for the price of USD 15, and in bigger cities, for USD 35-45. However, Hernández and Espín (2003) found that the majority (88 per cent) of P. unifilis harvested in the Río Orinoco area was consumed in the riverside areas, rather than being transported to the cities. In a study covering 73 km of the area along Río Mato in central Venezuela, it was recorded that 47 per cent of the captured turtles were caught for local consumption and 53 per cent were aimed for trade (Escalona, 2010). Just over half (52 per cent) of the individuals captured for local consumption were reported to be males, 35 per cent females and 13 per cent juveniles; however, 98 per cent of the traded P. unifilis were females, which were reported to be worth more when sold (Escalona, 2010). Furthermore, there was a disproportionate number of very large (>40 cm) mature females amongst the traded individuals (Escalona, 2010). Eggs were reported to be collected for consumption and to be sold in nearby towns (Hernández et al., 2010). Management and legal protection: Mittermeier (1978) reported that the egg exploitation of Podocnemis turtles was banned in Venezuela in 1946, along with setting limits to the hunting of adult females. It was reported that the species could be legally hunted in Venezuela during a specific hunting season (Hernández and Espín, 2003; Ojasti et al., 2008). Permit licenses for hunting are issued by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, for the hunting of a maximum of two individuals per season (Hernández and Espín, 2003). P. unifilis was reported to be found in several protected areas, including the National Parks of Cinaruco-Capanaparo, Parima-Tapirapecó and Yapacana, the Biosfere reserve of the Orinoco Delta, and the Refugio de Fauna Silvestre de la Tortuga Arrau (Ojasti et al., 2008). However, Ojasti (1996) noted that nest predation by humans took place inside the protected reserves. Thorbjarnarson et al. (1993) found that in the Cinaruco-Capanaparo National Park, the species was frequently hunted for food. It was reported that a programme in the central Orinoco area was in place to protect P. expansa, and that this program was currently being expanded to cover further areas and include other turtle species, such as P. unifilis (Escalona, 2010). Escalona (2010) emphasized that due to the high importance of P. unifilis as a source of protein in the local communities, any successful management plans should involve a high level of community participation. Ojasti (1996) considered captive breeding programs to be potentially promising management tools for the conservation of the species, along with the protection of the main nesting beaches and egg-laying females, increasing awareness of turtle protection among local communities, rescuing clutches threatened by floods and protection of hatchlings against predators.

Podocnemis unifilis

Ranching: In a ranching questionnaire survey conducted for the CITES Animals Committee (2009), the Venezuelan CITES Management and Scientific Authorities reported that the eggs of P. unifilis were collected by hand from the wild for ranching purposes. The egg harvest was reported to be regulated by quotas, which are based on information on the population structure and geographical attributes of the locality (CITES Animals Committee, 2009). The incubation rate of eggs was reported to be high in the controlled conditions, and the juveniles, reared in concrete, metallic or fiberglass tanks, were reported to have a high survival rate (CITES Animals Committee, 2009). The national environmental authority was reported to supervise the returning of 10-15 per cent of ranched juveniles to the wild (CITES Animals Committee, 2009). Furthermore, trade in ranched juveniles was controlled by a licensing system and inspections (CITES Animals Committee, 2009). The Venezuelan CITES MA considered the ranching of tortoises to be a good conservation measure to reduce the hunting pressure and strengthen the wild populations (CITES Animals Committee, 2009). Based on a study conducted on the Venezuelan Capanaparo River, Thorbjarnarson et al. (1993) reported that ―if done correctly, the collection and artificial incubation of terecay [P. unifilis] eggs can be an effective means of reducing the high natural nest predation rates and increasing the production of hatchlings‖. However, the lack of scientific information on the effects of temperature on sex determination was seen as an important limitation for such programs (Thorbjarnarson et al., 1993). In 2009, Hernández et al. (2010) conducted a study in the Cojedes and Manapire Rivers in southern Venezuela, where hatching success of eggs that were moved to artificial nest sites was compared with the hatching success in natural nest sites. The Cojedes river incubated eggs had a better hatching success (88 per cent) than natural nests (63 per cent) (Hernández et al., 2010). It was stated that ―these results overall demonstrate the effectiveness and potential of these low-technology P. unifilis nest management schemes for increasing the number of hatchlings‖, especially in areas where human predation was a serious problem (Hernández et al., 2010). REFERENCES: Barrio-Amorós, C. L. and Narbaiza, Í. 2008. Turtles of the Venezuelan Estado Amazonas. Radiata, 17 (1): 2-19. Buhlmann, K. A., Akre, T. S. B., Iverson, J. B., Karapatakis, D., Mittermeier, R. A., Georges, A., Rhodin, A. G. J., van Dijk, P. P., and Gibbons, W. 2009. A global analysis of tortoise and freshwater turtle distributions with identification of priority conservation areas. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 8 (2): 116-149. CITES Animals Committee. 2009. Review of the use of source code 'R'. Twenty-fourth meeting of the Animals Committee, Geneva (Switzerland), 20-24 April 2009. AC24 Doc. 8.1. Conway-Gómez, K. 2007. Effects of human settlements on abundance of Podocnemis unifilis and P. expansa turtles in northeastern Bolivia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 6 (2): 199-205. Ernst, C. H., Altenburg, R. G. M., and Barbour, R. W. 2006. Turtles of the World URL: http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/turtles.php Accessed: 1 November 2010. Escalona, T. 2010. Uso local, ecología reproductiva y genética de la "Terecay" (Podocnemis unifilis) en el bajo Río Caura, Venezuela, Simposio: Investigación y manejo de fauna silvestre en Venezuela en homenaje al Dr.Juhani Ojasti.Jardín Botánico de Caracas, 16 al 17 de Octubre de 2008, A. Machado-Allison et al., eds., pp. 85-96. Escalona, T., Engstrom, T. N., Hernandez, O. E., Bock, B. C., Vogt, R. C., and Valenzuela, N. 2009. Population genetics of the endangered South American freshwater turtle, Podocnemis unifilis, inferred from microsatellite DNA data. Conservation Genetics, 10: 1683-1696. Escalona, T. and Fa, J. E. 1998. Survival of nests of the terecay turtle (Podocnemis unifilis) in the Nichare-Tawadu Rivers, Venezuela. Journal of Zoology, 244: 303-312. Fergusson-Laguna, A. 2010. El aprovechamiento sustentable de la diversidad biológica en Venezuela, Simposio: Investigación y manejo de fauna silvestre en Venezuela en homenaje al Dr.Juhani Ojasti.Jardín Botánico de Caracas, 16 al 17 de Octubre de 2008, pp. 185-204. Fiasson, R. 1945. Cinq chelonians et deux sauriens de Haut-Apure (Venezuela). Les Cahiers de L‘ I.F.A.L. III, Mexico, D.F. pp. 33-45. Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Vertebrate Zoology, 57 (2): 149-368. Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-reptilia Red Data Book Part 1: Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 426 pp.

Podocnemis unifilis

Hernández, O. and Espín, R. 2003. Consumo ilegal de tortugas por comunidades locales en el Río Orinoco Medio, Venezuela. Acta Biologica Venezuelica, 23 (2-3): 17-26. Hernández, O., Espinosa-Blanco, A. S., Lugo, M. C., Jiménez-Oraa, M., and Seijas, A. E. 2010. Artificial incubation of yellow-headed sideneck turtle Podocnemis unifilis eggs to reduce losses to flooding and predation, Cojedes and Manapire Rivers, southern Venezuela. Conservation Evidence, 7: 100-105. Mittermeier, R. A. 1978. South America's river turtles: saving them by use. Oryx, 14 (3): 222-230. Mittermeier, R. A, Buhlmann, K. A, Rhodin, A. G. J, and Pritchard, P. C. H. 2010. Giant river turtles - efforts around the world are underway to recover declining turtle populations URL: www.reptilechannel.com/turtles-and-tortoises/wild-turtles-and-tortoises/the-giant-river- turtles.aspx Accessed: 12 November 2010. Mondolfi, E. 1955. Anotaciones sobre la biologia de tres quelonios de los Llanos de Venezuela. Memorias de la Sociedad de Ciencias Naturales "La Salle" 15: 177-183. Ojasti, J. 1996. Wildlife utilization in Latin America - Current situation and prospects for sustainable management. FAO, Rome. Ojasti, J., Arteaga, A., and Lacabana, P. 2008. Terecay Podocnemis unifilis Troschel 1848, in Rodríguez, J. P. & Rojas-Suárez, F., (eds.), Libro Rojo de la fauna venezolana. Provita y Shell Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela. 173. Senneke, D. and Tabaka, C. 2006. Podocnemis unifilis - (Yellow-spotted Amazon River Turtle) Care URL: http://www.chelonia.org/articles/podocnemiscare.htm Accessed: 2 November 2010. Soares de Almeida, S., Brito Pezzuti, J. C., and Felix da Silva, D. 2005. Notes on nesting of Podocnemis unifilis (Chelonia: Pelomedusidae) in small agricultural clearings in Eastern Amazonia, Caxiuanã, Pará, Brazil. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi Ciências Naturais, Belém, 1 (1): 243-245. Staton, M. A. and Dixon, J. R. 1977. The herpetofauna of the Central Llanos of Venezuela: noteworthy records, a tentative checklist and ecological records. Journal of Herpetology, 11 (1): 17-24. Thorbjarnarson, J. B., Perez, N., and Escalona, T. 1993. Nesting of Podocnemis unifilis in the Capanaparo River, Venezuela. Journal of Herpetology, 27 (3): 344-347. Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. 1996. Podocnemis unifilis. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 26 October 2010. Uetz, P. 2010. The URL: www.reptile-database.org/ Accessed: 1 November 2010.

Corals overview

OVERVIEW OF CORAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA Trends and status: The Australian and Papua New Guinean coral reefs were reported to represent 19 per cent of the world‘s total area (Wilkinson, 2008) and Harriot et al. (1995) reported that around 390 Scleractinian species had been described from the waters surrounding the Australian mainland. The coral reefs in Australia were considered to remain in relatively good condition, despite ―some recent setbacks‖ (Côté and Reynolds, 2006). Furthermore, the prognosis for these reefs was considered to be good, due to the combination of the remote location of many reefs and relatively small human populations (Wilkinson, 2008). Threats: Climate change was considered the main threat to corals, with local threats, such as anthropogenic influences, thought to reduce the resilience of corals to withstand global threats (Carpenter et al., 2008). Human pressures on the Australian reefs, however, were considered to be lower than in other parts of the world (Wilkinson, 2008). Overview of trade and management: Commercial-scale coral collection was reported to occur in three parts of Australia (Figure 1): the Northern Territory (NT), Western Australia (WA) and Queensland (Atkinson et al., 2008b). No commercial harvest of corals was reported from South Australia, South New Wales or Victoria (Cairns Marine, 2009). Collectors in Australia were reported to have removed 1-2 per cent of the standing population each year, with the impact on the resources considered not noticeable (International Trade Subgroup, 2000). Wilkinson (2008) reported that cooperative arrangements between state and national governments were in place to manage the Australian reefs and that most management was implemented through Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), whilst fisheries resources were managed through specific fisheries management arrangements. Côté and Reynolds (2006) considered the central planning system to be good and reported that legislation, enforcement, research and monitoring were in place. They considered the extraction of corals in Australia to be thoroughly controlled (Côté and Reynolds, 2006). Australia was considered to have a sustainable and lucrative fishery (Sheppard et al., 2009) and strong political commitment to manage coral reef resources (Wilkinson, 2008). In Australia, export and import of hard coral is subject to Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Regulations and as corals are included in regulations applying to fish, as per Subdivision 2.5(4) in the Fisheries Act 1994, the determination of Non-Detriment-Findings (NDF) to allow export was reported to therefore be made at a State fishery level, based on the applicable management arrangements in place (Atkinson et al., 2008b). Those Australian fisheries that export products were reported to be reassessed every 3-5 years against national guidelines for ecosystem- based management (Atkinson et al., 2008b).

Corals overview

Figure 1: Map of Australia (Source: http://printable-maps.blogspot.com/2009/07/map-of-australia-with-cities.html)

Queensland

Status: The (GBR) was reported to cover an area of approximately 350 000 km2, including 2000 individual reefs along the east coast of Queensland (Wilkinson, 2008). Atkinson et al. (2008b) reported that the area of coral reef extent on the GBR represented about 6 per cent (~20 724 km2) of the total area, whilst the remaining area was composed of other, inter- reefal habitats. The reefs of the GBR were reported to show highly dynamic patterns of short periods of decline from disturbance, followed by longer periods of recovery, with a longer-term trend of gradual decline, which was reported to be especially apparent on inshore reefs affected by coastal pollution (Côté and Reynolds, 2006). Whilst the extent of hard coral cover was reported to have increased in the Cairns, Whitsundays and Swains regions of the GBR, coral cover was reported to have declined on outer-shelf reefs in the northern GBR by 50 per cent over the period 2006-2008, due to storm damage and coral disease (Wilkinson, 2008). Observed changes in community composition, density and diversity of juvenile corals on some inshore reefs were reported to be due to declining water quality and have been attributed to reduced resilience of the GBR through human pressures (Wilkinson, 2008). Atkinson et al. (2008b) reported that whilst globally coral cover and reef area appeared to be declining, the population trends were stable in the GBR. Sweatman et al. (2008) reported that in 2007, coral cover in the GBR ranged from 3.2-27.5 per cent for Acroporidae, 1.3-7.5 per cent for Favidae, 0.2- 6.4 per cent for Pocilloporidae, 0.8-14.1 per cent for Poritidae, 0.9-36.8 per cent for (tabulate), 0.9-13.4 per cent for Acropora (other) and 0.4-7.7 per cent for Montipora. Protection: The establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) in 1975 led to the GBR‘s official protection and in 1981 it was declared a World Heritage Area (WHA) (Wilkinson, 2008). Veron et al. (2004) considered corals to have ―extensive protection‖ in Queensland, Australian Government marine protected areas and National Parks, including the GBRMP. About 33 per cent of the GBRMP was reported to be closed to all forms of fishing (Atkinson et al., 2008b).

Corals overview

Threats: Veron (2008) considered bleaching the most serious threat to corals in the GBR, with further threats being the continuous outbreak of crown-of-thorn starfish (Acanthaster planci), the cumulative effect of changes in water quality and bottom trawling. Coral cover on the GBR was further reported to be greatly affected by disturbances such as cyclones (Wilkinson, 2008), as well as habitat loss and degradation (Atkinson et al., 2008b). Donnelly (2010) considered ocean acidification to be the most serious long-term threat to the GBR. Harvest: A regulated coral fishery was reported to have been in place since 1932 (Harriot, 2001), although the fishery was only accredited as an export fishery in 2006 (Donnelly, 2010). The coral harvest fishery in Queensland was considered to be relatively small and was reported to operate almost exclusively in the GBRMP and World Heritage Area (WHA) (Atkinson et al., 2008a), with most of the collection reported to take place in the Cairns and Keppel region (DEEDI, 2010). The amount of corals exported from Queensland in 2008/09 was reported to represent about 60 per cent of the total live corals exported from Australia (Donnelly, 2010). Around 70 per cent of the annual weight of coral taken was reported to consist of live rock alone (DPI&F, 2010) and (McCormack, 2005) reported that approximately 80 species of corals were harvested by the fishery. In 2009, the total amount of coral collected in the Queensland Coral Fishery was reported to be around 90 t (20 t of live coral and 70 t of live rock/coral rubble/ornamental coral) (Donnelly, 2010). Donnelly (2010) further reported that species from 76 genera were exported, with about 85 per cent of the specimens belonging to just 14 genera. DEEDI (2009) reported that more individual pieces of coral had been collected in 2007–2008 compared to 2006–2007, with most of the increase due to an increase in numbers of LC2 pieces (‗speciality coral‘ pieces of up to 100g weight DPI&F, 2010) harvested and approximately 15 per cent more pieces collected. Commercial harvest in 2007-2008 was approximately 105 t, consisting of 67 t of live rock, 19 t live coral, 14 t ornamental coral and 5 t of coral rubble (DEEDI, 2009). Approximately 50 per cent of the increase was reported to comprise of Catalaphyllia jardinei, Duncanopsammmia spp., Scolymia spp. and Balstomussa spp. In 2008-2009 the harvest was approximately 97 t, consisting of 59 t of living rock, 19 t of ‗specialty coral‘, 10 t of ‗ornamental coral‘ and 9 t of ‗other coral‘ (DEEDI, 2010). Atkinson et al. (2008b) considered the annual amount of corals harvested by the fishery to be a ―miniscule fraction of what naturally accretes in a year on the Great Barrier Reef‖. Management: The Queensland Coral Fishery (QCF) was reported to be managed by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F, 2010), under the Policy for the Management of the Coral Fishery January 2009, in force under the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994 and the Queensland Fisheries Regulation 2008 (DEWHA, 2009), with further legislative instruments impacting on the management of the QCF. The QCF was reported to almost exclusively operate in the GBRMP and WHA (Atkinson et al., 2008a). The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) was reported to manage the natural resources within the marine park boundaries (Atkinson et al., 2008b). Since the establishment of the GBRMP, a system of zoning was implemented, with the designated no-take and no-entry areas considered ―substantial‖ (Atkinson et al., 2008b). Since 2006, the fishery became an accredited Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO), allowing export of corals (Donnelly, 2010), and a new policy framework was established (Atkinson et al., 2008b; Roelofs and Silcock, 2008). The following summarizes the changes introduced by the policy, with regards to the operation and management of the fishery: - ―Roving harvest for all licence holders, in place of individual Coral Collection Areas (CCAs)

- Removal of the inappropriate 6 m depth limit to allow collection in ideal habitats

- Capping the take of live coral at 30 per cent of the commercial fishery's Total Allowable Catch (TAC), which remains at 200 tonnes

- Reporting of catch prior to landing

- More detailed logbook reporting (Roelofs and Silcock, 2008)‖

Corals overview

A review of this policy was undertaken in 2008 (Atkinson et al., 2008b) and the following summarizes the main elements of the updated, current ‗Policy for the Management of the Coral Fishery – January 2009‘ (DPI&F, 2010): - The Queensland fishery area comprises all ―tidal waters and foreshores south of latitude 10°41‘ south and east of longitude 142°31‘49‖ east‖. The area open for harvest within these boundaries is restricted through ―coral authority conditions and Marine Park zoning arrangements‖. Two operators retain their existing leases south of this latitude (exclusively used to supply nearby public aquaria)

- Operators are authorized to harvest coral north of latitude 24°30‘ south within Queensland waters, without a depth limitation. However, in waters north of latitude 24°30‘ south, the additional regulations of the GBRMPA and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) for coral harvesting operations apply

- The categories harvested include: ornamental coral (mainly Pocilloporidae and Acroporidae, either non-living ornaments or living aquarium corals), speciality coral (all corals apart from Pocilloporidae and Acroporidae, live and usually less than 15 cm diameter), live rock, coral rubble and .

- Harvest quantity, time and port of landing must be reported to DPI&F prior to landing to enable compliance checks and enable real-time quota debiting. A detailed reporting of a daily logbook is required, ―reporting catch to family level in most cases and to species or genera for certain target species or at-risk species taken in the fishery‖, along with location and effort.

- The Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is 200 tonnes per year, in a ratio of 60 tonnes ‗specialty coral‘ [includes relatively uncommon species, or species with complex life history characteristics, but also soft corals, zooanthids, corallimorphs and other species that are not CITES-listed (Atkinson et al., 2008b)] and 140 tonnes ‗other coral‘ [ornamental coral, live rock, coral rubble and coral sand (Atkinson et al., 2008b)].

- A ‗limited entry policy guideline‘ applies, harvest of corals in the GBRMP and World Heritage Area is only allowed under licence. A total of 59 licences can be issued annually (DPI&F, 2010), but [in 2008-2009] only 24 operators, several holding multiple of those licences, harvested corals (DEEDI, 2010). A licence covers the licence holder and three nominees, who can take and/or sell corals (QPC, 2008).

- Harvest within the Cairns and Keppel boundaries, as well as any other high-use coral collection areas identified in the future, ―are to be monitored against benchmarks established under the QCF Performance Measurement System.‖

Collection is allowed year round (but only by hand or with non-mechanical instruments), with the aid of underwater breathing apparatus (QPC, 2008). The number of boats and collectors which can operate at any given time was reported to be limited, with further trigger limits reported to apply for high use areas (Cairns and the Keppel region), where coral harvest pressure was reported to be closely monitored (DEEDI, 2010). Recreational coral harvest outside state marine parks and the GBRMP is permitted, however, no underwater breathing apparatus may be used (other than a snorkel) and the catch cannot be sold or traded (QG, 2010). The fishery was most recently assessed in June 2009, where it was considered that the management arrangements for the QCF met ―most of the requirements of the Australian Government Guidelines for the ecologically sustainable management of fisheries 2nd edition‖, and that the fishery would not be detrimental to the survival or conservation status of the taxa to which it relates (DEWHA, 2009). The

Corals overview

QCF ecological risk assessment was reported to be reviewed every three years to account for new information on coral collection fisheries (Roelofs, 2008). The area of the Coral Sea falling under Australia's jurisdiction was declared a Conservation Zone in May 2009, in order to provide interim protection whilst the area was being assessed for possible inclusion in one or more Commonwealth marine reserves (DSEWPC, 2010). The area was reported to cover approximately 972 000 km2, in the east of the GBRMP (DSEWPC, 2010). Fisheries in the Coral Sea were reported to be managed by the Commonwealth Government (DEEDI, 2010) and two of the above licencees were reported to also hold permits to harvest in the Coral Sea (Donnelly, 2010). Wilkinson (2008) reported that the reefs of eastern Australia (particularly the GBR) had a long history of research and monitoring, and considered the management in place to be of world leading standard. Northern Territory Status: Coral communities in the Northern Territory (NT) were considered to be diverse and in pristine condition, with coral colonies reported to reach the maximum size for their species, but the knowledge of the nature, extent, status and condition of coral communities around the NT was considered to be very poor (NRETA, 2010b). Whilst approximately 250 coral species have been recorded along the NT coastline, these species were reported to rarely form large reef systems (NRETA, 2010b). However, smaller coral reefs, dominated by branching Acroporiidae, were reported to have been recorded on the Cobourg Peninsula (NRETA, 2010b). Massive corals, mainly Faviidae, were considered common, especially the genera Favia, Favites, Platygyra and Goniastrea, which were found to be ―overwhelmingly dominant‖ in most sites surveyed in Arnhem Land (Veron, 2004). Several species, which were considered rare elsewhere in Australia, were reported to have been commonly recorded in the NT and some of the species recorded in the Arnhem coast were considered at the limits of their range from both eastern and western Australia (Veron, 2004; NRETA, 2010b). Protection: A number of factors were considered to provide protection to corals, including ―the extensive area of the fishery, seasonal closures and the wide distribution of the species‖ (Sly and Errity, 2004). In 2004, the levels of harvest were considered to be low, with the impact from commercial operations on the resource considered insignificant. However, Sly and Errity (2004) reported that ―the harvesting of coral, particularly in areas adjacent to major populated centres such as Darwin and Nhulunbuy, is a significant issue largely due to a general lack of awareness regarding the impacts of coral harvesting‖. Whilst coral species were reported not to be specifically listed under NT environmental legislation (Veron et al., 2004), they are included under ‗aquatic life‘ in the Fisheries Regulation (NT, 2010b) and as ‗fish‘ in the Fisheries Act (NT, 2009) of the NT. There appear to be no marine areas under specific protection in the NT; however, a new representative system of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) was reported to be being developed (NRETA, 2010a). Coral conservation efforts were reported to be just beginning, with approximately 10 per cent of the coral communities in the Cobourg Marine Park intended to be zoned for conservation (NRETA, 2010b). However, Veron (2004) considered no specific conservation measures to be required for Arnhem Land, ―as fishing practices are non-destructive and population pressures are low‖ and he reported to not have found any evidence of human-induced damage. Threats: Although the effect of the commercial aquarium fishery was reported not to have been assessed (NRETA, 2010b), it was thought to be small (Veron et al., 2004; NRETA, 2010b). Cyclones and bleaching were considered threats and shipping and coastal development were considered to potentially impact corals; however human impacts on coral reefs in the NT were considered ―low at present‖ (NRETA, 2010b). Harvest: The NT Aquarium Fishery, operating in Darwin Harbour and Gove Harbour (NRETA, 2010b), was considered a small-scale, low impact operation (DEWHA, 2008c; Handley, 2010). The fishery was reported to be based on the harvest of a wide range species, including corals (Handley, 2010). Whilst the harvest was considered small, both in numbers and value, the demand for aquarium species was reported to be increasing (Handley, 2010).

Corals overview

In 2006, the commercial harvest of corals and anemones was reported to be 1091 kg and 2349 individuals and that of live rock to be 539 kg (DEWHA, 2008c). In 2009, the harvest of coral and associated benthic species was estimated at approximately 5.5 t, ―well below the trigger point of 60 tonnes‖ (Handley, 2010). Approximately 3358 kg of live rock, 7411 individuals of ‗Corallimorphs‘ and 2131 individuals of ‗Coral other‘ were reported to have been harvested in 2009, during 152 days expended in the fishery (Handley, 2010). Commercial harvesting of marine species was reported to be concentrated in coastal waters near Nhulunbuy, with a small collection occurring in the greater Darwin area (Handley, 2010). Management: Prior to 1994, when a prohibition on coral harvesting was imposed in the NT, all aquarium collection licences permitted to collect coral (Sly and Errity, 2004). Later, only a number of aquarium collectors were permitted to take restricted quantities of coral, and in 2001, a moratorium on the issue of new aquarium collection licences was implemented (Sly and Errity, 2004). In 2003, the Northern Territory Aquarium Association (NTAA) was established and a review of the collection of coral and associated benthic species was undertaken, which ―proposed future management arrangements to promote development within the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development‖ (Sly and Errity, 2004). Following this review, a strict limitation of quantities of coral and associated benthic species harvested was implemented for licence holders (Handley, 2010). In 2003, 18 licences were issued (Veron et al., 2004) and 14 in 2004 (Sly and Errity, 2004); three of which each permitted harvest of up to 10 kg of live coral per month (Sly and Errity, 2004; Veron et al., 2004). Following a review of the fishery in 2004/2005, all of the 13 licensees were permitted to collect limited quantities of coral, as well as associated benthic species; the same number of licences was issued in 2006 (DEWHA, 2008c). Atkinson et al. (2008b) reported that until 2008, there had been no exports recorded from the NT. However in 2008, the management of the fishery was assessed against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries, which led to the accreditation of the fishery as an approved Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (DEWHA, 2008d; Handley, 2010). This assessment was considered to demonstrate that the fishery was managed in a manner not leading to overfishing, with the WTO declaration endorsing export for a period of three years (Handley, 2010). A total of 11 licences were issued in 2009, but only eight operators were reported to have recorded any fishing activity (Handley, 2010) and in 2010, a total of 12 licences were permitted to be issued (NT, 2010b). A re-assessment of the fishery was reported to be due in June 2011 and it was considered likely ―that a further refinement of the performance indicators of the fishery will be required, particularly in relation to the harvest of coral and other associated benthic species‖ (Handley, 2010). A revised 60 t trigger point for coral and associated benthic species was reported to have been in place since July 2009 (Handley, 2010). Coral harvest was reported to be permitted in all NT waters, with the exception of managed areas, Marine Reserves and the Darwin and Grove Harbours (DEWHA, 2008c), sanctuary zones and Aboriginal sacred sites (Handley, 2010). Aboriginal people were reported to hold title to approximately 87 per cent of the NT‘s coast (NLC, 2010), with a permit required to enter Aboriginal land (NT, 2010a). However, the legislation relating to Aboriginal lands does not address the issue of rights to the sea (NLC, 2010). Whilst the fishing season was reported to be open all year, unfavourable weather was reported to limit the activities (DEWHA, 2008c). Furthermore, ―Input and output controls, including limited entry‖, and catch-, area- and gear restrictions were reported to apply (DEWHA, 2008c). In addition, specific ―conditions relating to areas, species, quantities, methods, the use or non-use of vessels and the specific vessel or types of vessels (if any) that may be used, types and amounts of fishing gear, harvesting, handling, specific ports or places where fish or aquatic life may be landed, and periods of time‖ may be imposed on licensees (NT, 2009). Licensees were reported to be required to report catch and effort data by completing and submitting monthly logbook returns (Handley, 2010). No specific regulations appear to apply to the collection of coral specimens for personal aquaria, other than the recreational fishing rules and regulations, and although the recreational harvest of aquarium species was reported to be unknown, it was assumed to be very low (Handley, 2010).

Corals overview

Western Australia Status: The geomorphology of Western Australia (WA) was reported to be very different from either Queensland‘s or the Northern Territories‘, with large tracts of sub-fossilised coral rubble dunes running parallel to/inland from large sections of the coast and the current reef systems (Atkinson et al., 2008b). The reefs in WA were reported to span 44 per cent of the Australian coastline and to include extensive coastal reef systems as well as isolated and remote offshore oceanic reefs and islands (Wilkinson, 2008). Wilkinson (2008) considered the marine biodiversity to be rich and diverse and reported that in terms of endemism it ranked second globally. The reefs were considered in good condition and the prognosis was considered to be good, ―provided reef resilience can be maintained against climate change damage‖ (Wilkinson, 2008). Protection: A number of waters were reported to be closed to fishing (e.g. Rowley Shoals, Reef Protected Areas, Cleaverville Reef and sanctuary zones) and whilst the aquarium fishery was reported to be permitted to operate in general-purpose zones of marine parks, this usually excluded harvest of coral and live rock (DFWA, 2010). Wilkinson (2008) reported that the rezoning of Ningaloo Marine Park in 2005 increased the no-take areas in WA to 34 per cent. A prohibition order on recreational harvest of corals and live rock was implemented in July 2001 (DFWA, 2002; DEWHA, 2008a) and was still in place 2009/2010 (DFWA, 2010). Threats: Threats included fishing (recreational, commercial and illegal foreign fishing), major resource development, pollution, localised recreational use, and outbreaks of the coral eating snail, Drupella cornus (Wilkinson, 2008). Whilst most reefs are close to the coast, they were considered to be far from population centres and terrestrial runoff was considered minimal, due to much of the adjacent coast being dry and arid (Wilkinson, 2008). Harvest: Some coral reef areas in the Gascoyne and Pilbara regions of WA were reported to be particularly popular to both tourists and coral collectors, due to their ease of access from land (DFWA, 2002). The fishery was reported to have been active in waters from Esperance to Broome in the past three years (DFWA, 2010), with much of the coral quota taken from the Dampier region (DEWHA, 2008a). The fishing effort in 2007 and 2008 consisted of 981 and 932 days, respectively, but was reported to have decreased to 639 days in 2009 (DFWA, 2010). Management: The WA Marine Aquarium Fish Managed Fishery (MAF) was reported to be operating in accordance with the WA Marine Aquarium Fish Management Plan 1995 ―and associated management regimes in force under the Western Australian Fish Resources Management Act 1994 and the Western Australian Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995‖ (DEWHA, 2008a). In 2002, five individuals were permitted to collect corals commercially under a ‗Marine Aquarium Fishing‘ licence, which restricted the harvestable amounts (DFWA, 2002). Later, a total of 13 licences were issued annually (DFWA, 2010), with the 13 licence holders permitted to harvest 500 kg of live rock annually (daily landing limit of 100 kg); five of the licensees were allowed to harvest 500-2000 kg corals per year (daily landing limit of 50 kg), depending on the licence (State of Western Australia, 2007). In 2009, one of these licences was reported to have been cancelled due to the expansion of the Ningaloo marine reserve and out of the remaining 12 licences 10 were reported to be operating in 2009 (DFWA, 2010). The DEWHA approved the MAF as ―environmentally sustainable under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999‖ and the MAF was declared as an approved Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) in 2008 for three years (DEWHA, 2008b), thereby allowing the MAF to export corals. The MAF was reported to operate throughout all WA waters (apart from closed areas), with efforts being spread over 20 781 km of coastline and operators allowed to harvest on the landward side of the 200 m isobath (DEWHA, 2008a). Although harvest was reported to be permitted year round, it was considered heavily weather dependent (DEWHA, 2008a). The fishery was reported to be managed though limited entry of the fishery, permanent closed areas, catch limits and gear restrictions (DEWHA, 2008a), including harvest of corals and rock only by non-mechanical tools

Corals overview

(DEWHA, 2008a) and a maximum allowable boat length of 8 m (DFWA, 2010). The fishery is required to report annually on both catch and effort and a daily keeping of a logbook is required for quota species (DEWHA, 2008a). The fishery was also reported to be required to provide notification of departure, fishing and landing for coral, which was introduced in a Section 43 Order (State of Western Australia, 2007). The DEWHA (2008a) considered the MAF‘s risk of impacting on breeding stocks to be low, as they reported that no other fisheries exploited these species and due the low operation extent of the fishery compared to the distribution of the target species. Wilkinson (2008) reported that research, monitoring and management effort had increased significantly in WA.

REFERENCES: Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008a. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. WG9-CS4-S Summary. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008b. Non-detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. WG9-CS4. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings. Cancun, Mexico, 17- 22 November 2008. Cairns Marine. 2009. About our industry URL: http://www.cairnsmarine.com/collection/about-our- industry Accessed: 20 November 2010. Carpenter, K. E., Abrar, M., Aeby, G., Aronson, R. B., Banks, S., Bruckner, A., Chiriboga, A., Cortes, J., Delbeek, J. C., DeVantier, L., Edgar, G. J., Edwards, A. J., Fenner, D., Guzman, H. M., Hoeksema, B. W., Hodgson, G., Johan, O., Licuanan, W. Y., Livingstone, S. R., Lovell, E. R., Moore, J. A., Obura, D. O., Ochavillo, D., Polidoro, B. A., Precht, W. F., Quibilan, M. C., Reboton, C., Richards, Z. T., Rogers, A. D., Sanciangco, J., Sheppard, A., Sheppard, C., Smith, J., Stuart, S., Turak, E., Veron, J. E. N., Wallace, C., Weil, E., and Wood, E. 2008. One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science, 321 (5888): 560-563. Côté, I. M. and Reynolds, J. D. 2006. Coral reef conservation. Cambridge University Press. DEEDI. 2009. The State of Queensland. Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2008. Coral Fishery. DEEDI. 2010. The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2009. Coral Fishery. DEWHA 2008a. Australian Government. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Assessment of the Western Australian marine aquarium fish managed fishery. October 2008. DEWHA 2008b. Australian Government. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Declaration of an approved Wildlife Trade Operation. Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S233, 31 October 2008. DEWHA 2008c. Australian Government. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Assessment of the Northern Territory aquarium fishery. June 2008. DEWHA 2008d. Australian Government. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Declaration of an approved Wildlife Trade Operation. Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S126, 27 June 2008. DEWHA. 2009. Australian Government. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Assessment of the Queensland Coral Fishery. June 2009. DFWA. 2002. Department of Fisheries Government of Western Australia. Review of recreational take of coral in Western Australia. A discussion paper. Fisheries Management Paper No. 163. URL: DFWA. 2010. Department of Fisheries Western Australia. Statewide ecosystem based fisheries management. Identification of State-wide ecological assets used in the EBFM framework. State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10. Donnelly, R. 2010. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Queensland Marine Aquarium Supply Industry. ProVision Reef.

Corals overview

DPI&F 2010. Queensland Government. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Policy for the Management of the Coral Fishery. January 2009. DSEWPC. 2010. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Coral Sea conservation zone URL: http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/coral-sea.html Accessed: 9 November 2010. Handley, A. J. 2010. Fishery status reports 2009. Northern Territory Government Department of Resources. Fishery Report No. 104. Harriott, V. J., Harrison, P. L. and Banks, S. A. 1995. The coral communities of Lord Howe Island. Marine and Freshwater Research 46: 457-465. Harriot, V. J. 2001. The sustainability of Queensland's coral harvest fishery. CRC Reef Research Centre Technical Report No. 40. CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville, Australia. International Trade Subgroup. 2000. International Trade in Coral and Coral Reef Species: The Role of the United States. Report of the Trade Subgroup of the International Working Group to the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force March 2, 2000. Washington, D.C. McCormack, C. 2005. Ecological assessment of the Queensland coral fishery. A report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage of the ecologically sustainable management of the Queensland coral fishery. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. NLC. 2010. Northern Land Council. Land & sea rights URL: http://www.nlc.org.au/html/land_sea.html Accessed: 21 November 2010. NRETA. 2010a. Northern Territory Government. Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport. Conservation planning URL: http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/marine/planning.html#coastal Accessed: 17 November 2010. NRETA. 2010b. Northern Territory Government. Department of Natural Resources, Environments and the Arts. Fact Sheet: Corals in the Northern Territory URL: http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/marine/pdf/coralreefs.pdf Accessed: 17 November 2010. NT 2009. Northern Territory of Australia. Fisheries Act as in force 16 September 2009. NT 2010a. Northern Territory Consolidated Acts. Aboriginal Land Act. NT 2010b. Northern Territory of Australia. Fisheries Regulation as in force at 1 January 2010. QG. 2010. Queensland Government. Harvest fisheries - Coral Fishery. URL: http://dpi.qld.gov.au/28_16072.htm#Coral_fishery Accessed: 15 November 2010. QPC 2008. Queensland Parliamentary Counsel. Fisheries Regulation 2008 as in force on 1 October 2010. Roelofs, A. and Silcock, R. 2008. A vulnerability assessment of coral taxa collected in the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Sheppard, C. R. C., Davy, S. K., and Piling, G. M. 2009. Biology of Coral Reefs. Biology of habitat series. Oxford University Press. Sly, S. and Errity, C. 2004. Wild harvest fisheries. Aquarium fishery status report 2004. State of Western Australia 2007. Fish Resource Management Act 1994. Prohibition on fishing (coral, 'live rock' and algae) Order 2007. Order No. 11 of 2007 under Section 43. 4940-4941. Government Gazette WA. Sweatman, H., Cheal, A., Coleman, G., Emslie, M., Johns, K., Jonker, M., Miller, I., and Osborne, K. 2008. Long-term monitoring of the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Institute of Marine Sciences. Status Report Number 8, 2008. Veron, J. E. N. 2004. Coral survey at selected sites in Arnhem Land. Townsville, Produced for National Oceans Office. Veron, J. E. N. 2008. A Reef in Time. The Great Barrier Reef from Beginning to End. Belknap Press. Veron, J. E. N., Alderslade, P., and Harris, P. 2004. Corals. In: National Oceans Office. Description of key species groups in the Northern Planning Area. National Oceans Office Hobart, Australia. Wilkinson, C. 2008. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, Australia.

Catalaphyllia jardinei

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

ANTHOZOA

SPECIES: Catalaphyllia jardinei

SYNONYMS: Pectinia jardinei

COMMON NAMES: Elegant Coral (English)

RANGE STATES: Australia, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Madagascar, Malaysia, , Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Seychelles, Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Australia formed on 3/12/2010. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Indonesia first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Solomon Islands first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji formed on 22/05/2003 and removed on 15/01/2004. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Solomon Islands formed on 09/10/2003. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Tonga formed on 22/04/2005 and removed on 12/06/2006.

TRADE PATTERNS: Catalaphyllia jardinei was selected for review due to a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2008 (based on the threshold of 10 000 corals for threatened or near threatened species) and a sharp increase in trade to the European Union in 2008. Exports of the species from Australia mainly involved live specimens, with smaller quantities of raw corals. Australia has never published CITES export quotas for the species. All reported trade took place 2006-2009.

Catalaphyllia jardinei

The EU-27 reported direct imports from Australia of 28 966 live and 295 raw corals during the period 2000-2009, all of which were wild-sourced and imported for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade to the EU-27 represented 73 per cent of exports from Australia 2000-2008. At the time of writing, Australia had not submitted an annual report for 2009. There were no indirect exports to the EU-27 of C. jardinei originating in Australia 2000-2009. Direct trade from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 mainly involved live, wild-sourced C. jardinei (Table 2), the main importer being the United States of America. In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of 13 live C. jardinei in 2008. Table 1. Direct exports of Catalaphyllia jardinei from Australia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. All exports were wild- sourced and for commercial purposes.

Importer Term Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Belgium live Importer Exporter 50 50 Denmark live Importer 50 50 Exporter France live Importer 2720 4557 6997 14274 Exporter 1500 2357 3857 raw corals Importer 20 20 Exporter Germany live Importer 526 918 877 2321 Exporter 526 893 1419 raw corals Importer Exporter 108 108 Netherlands live Importer 1490 3523 1675 6688 Exporter 901 1035 1936 raw corals Importer 150 50 200 Exporter Poland live Importer 30 30 Exporter United Kingdom live Importer 100 1300 1996 2207 5603 Exporter 1100 646 1746 raw corals Importer 75 75 Exporter 25 25 live Importer 100 6036 10994 11836 28966 Exporter 4027 4981 9008 Subtotals raw corals Importer 225 70 295 Exporter 133 133

Table 2. Direct exports of Catalaphyllia jardinei from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live P W Importer 10 10 Exporter T I Importer 13 13 Exporter W Importer 90 938 1811 10 2849

Catalaphyllia jardinei

Term Purpose Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Exporter 100 1511 1678 3289 raw corals T A Importer Exporter 10 10 W Importer 42 42 Exporter 52 52

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states C. jardinei was reported to occur in the Indo-West Pacific, where it was found in the southwest and northern Indian Ocean, the central Indo-Pacific, Australia, south-east Asia, Japan, the east China Sea, the oceanic west Pacific (Turak et al., 2008) and Fiji (Lovell pers. comm. in: Turak et al., 2008). The genus Catalaphyllia contains only one species, C. jardinei, which is zooxanthellate (in symbiosis with microalgae) and colonial (Veron, 2000). The species was reported to be an ahermatypic species (i.e. not a main contributor to the reef matrix) (Atkinson et al., 2008c) and was found to be free living or attached (Borneman, 2002). C. jardinei was reported to occur in shallow, tropical reef environments (Turak et al., 2008) and protected, preferably turbid water (Veron, 2000). The depth range of the species was reported to be 0-40 m (Turak et al., 2008). C. jardinei was considered to be seldom common but conspicuous (Veron, 2000) and easy to identify (Turak et al., 2008). Turak et al. (2008) considered the species to be rare but widespread throughout its range and they reported it to be rare in the western Indian Ocean. Atkinson et al. (2008d) considered C. jardinei to be a habitat specialist, whilst Turak et al. (2008) reported that the species occurred in a variety of reef biotypes. The species was considered more common on soft substrates, rather than in areas of dense coral growth (Turak et al., 2008). Mature colonies were reported to be able to reach 100 cm in diameter (Wood, 1983, Turak pers. comm. in: Turak et al., 2008). The species linear growth rates were estimated at 0.8-15.2 cm/year (Green and Shirley, 1999). C. jardinei was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Turak et al., 2008), because: ―This species is widespread and rare throughout its range. However, it is heavily harvested for aquarium trade and extensive reduction of coral reef habitat due to a combination of threats. Specific population trends are unknown but population reduction can be inferred from declines in habitat quality based on the combined estimates of both destroyed reefs and reefs at the critical stage of degradation within its range (Wilkinson 2004). Its threat susceptibility increases the likelihood of being lost within one generation in the future from reefs at a critical stage. Therefore, the estimated habitat degradation and loss of 36% over three generation lengths (30 years) is the best inference of population reduction and meets the threshold for Vulnerable […].‖ Turak et al. (2008) considered global climate change (particularly temperature extremes leading to bleaching and increased susceptibility to disease), disease, increased severity of ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation)events, storms and ocean acidification to be the major threats to corals. More localized threats included fisheries, human development, changes in native species dynamics, invasive species, pollution, sedimentation and human interference (Turak et al., 2008). However, the severity of these combined threats to the global population of C. jardinei was reported to be unknown (Turak et al., 2008). C. jardinei was reported to be mainly collected from deepwater sites with sandy/silty substrates, where the species was found to grow as small free-living colonies (Borneman, 2002). Green and Shirley (1999) noted that corals of the genus Catalaphyllia were frequently colourful and with large polyps, making them attractive in the live aquarium trade. Catalaphyllia spp., (along with Euphyllia spp., Goniopora spp., Trachyphyllia spp. and Heliofungia spp.) were reported to be traded in higher quantities than any of the other genera and these genera had the highest quotas ―despite there being no scientific reason to suppose that they are capable of supporting higher harvests than other

Catalaphyllia jardinei genera‖ (Green and Shirley, 1999). Green and Shirley (1999) therefore concluded that these quotas levels may have been in accordance with market demand, rather than to ensure sustainability. C. jardinei was also believed to ―survive robustly‖ in aquaria (Green and Shirley, 1999). However, Borneman (2008) reported that whilst in the late 1980s and much of the 1990s, C. jardinei had been considered one of the easiest species to keep, since the late 1990s ―virtually all specimens in trade showed signs of [a] lethal condition‖. Whilst the condition was reported to occur in specimens from Indonesia, Australian specimens did not appear to be affected (Borneman, 2008) and Australia prohibits the import of fish and any other aquatic organisms from other countries (ACBPS, 2010). Whilst Green and Shirley (1999) considered propagation of the species though fragmentation to be possible, with fragment viability and survival considered good, Borneman (2008) reported that captive-propagated specimens were ―extremely uncommon‖. Australia: In Queensland the species was reported to be found in ‗WA‘ and Mackay, where it occurred in areas of large tidal movement (Roelofs, 2008). The genus Catalaphyllia was considered ―uncommon or not targeted‖ in the shallow areas of the Northern to Central Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and ―patchily distributed but locally abundant‖ in the deep areas of the Northern to Central and Central to Southern GBR (McCormack, 2005). Roelofs (2008) considered the species to be locally abundant in Queensland, but reported that the species was rarer in southern waters and that there was some evidence of decline in heavily fished waters in the north, whilst in other areas many years of fishing had not led to noticeable declines. Borneman (2008) reported that the species was relatively common in Australia. Blakeway and Radford (2004 in: Stoddart and Stoddart, 2004) reported that C. jardinei represented about 1 per cent of the corals found in the Dampier Port and inner Mermaid Sound surveys. Whilst Atkinson (2008b) considered the species a habitat specialist, Roelofs (2008) reported that the species was ―not particularly specialized in niche environments‖ in Queensland. The species was reported to be collected at depths of 15-20 m in Queensland and whilst small colonies were reported to be collected whole, larger colonies were harvested by segmenting and only removing part of the colony (Roelofs, 2008). C. jardinei was considered in high demand in trade (McCormack, 2005), but Roelofs and Silcock (2008) considered C. jardinei at low risk from the Queensland Coral Fisheries (QCF), as they rated the genus to be moderately common, with the distribution being widespread (found widely throughout the Indo-Pacific and very few spatial restrictions to distribution), low susceptibility to bleaching, a specialist econiche (taxa with limited or defined niche) and the accessibility to the species for harvest was considered ‗accessible‘ (depth between 10-30 m, diving being limited by dive tables). Furthermore, in a detailed assessment of the overall resilience of harvested species in the QCF (based on the scoring of various biological characteristics), C. jardinei was considered to show a ‗high resilience‘ to collection pressure (Donnelly, 2010). C. jardinei was reported to be the most highly harvested and exported coral species in Australia, with more than 12 000 pieces collected and 5000 pieces exported between July 2006 and May 2008 (Atkinson et al., 2008a). Approximately 50 per cent of the increase in coral harvest 2007-2008 was reported to comprise of Catalaphyllia jardinei, Duncanopsammmia spp., Scolymia spp. and Blastomussa spp. (DEEDI, 2009). Harvest of C. jardinei was reported to have increased 2008-2009 in the areas outside the main collection areas, Cairns and Keppels (DEEDI, 2010). In 2008/2009, 64 per cent of Australian exports of this species were reported to have originated in Queensland (Donnelly, 2010). However, the above species were considered low risk species and corals were reported to be closely monitored under the ‗Performance Measurement System‘ in order to ensure sustainable harvest (DEEDI, 2009; 2010). Harvest of C. jardinei in the greater Dampier Archipelago region (Western Australia) was reported to have been prohibited, following anecdotal reports stating that the species was locally depleted, until information on the abundance and distribution the species became available (DEWHA, 2008). A daily bag limit of 5 kg C. jardinei in this region has since been introduced (DFWA, 2010).

Catalaphyllia jardinei

REFERENCES: ACBPS. 2010. Australian Government. Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Prohibited and restricted imports URL: http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page4369.asp. Accessed: 12 December 2010. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008a. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery - Annex. WG9-CS4 (Annex). International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Finding. Cancun, Mexico, 17-22 November 2008. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008b. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Finding. Cancun, Mexico, 17-22 November 2008. WG9-CS4. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008c. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. Annex. International expert workshop on CITES Non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, 17- 22 November 2008. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008d. Queensland coral fishery - case study. Presentation WG9-CS4-P. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings. Cacun, Mexico, 17-22 November 2008. Borneman, E. 2008. Elegance corals; sustainability and disease impacting Catalaphyllia jardinei (Wells 1972) in the aquarium trade. Reefkeeping, 6 (12). Borneman, E. H. 2002. Do you know where your corals are coming from? Ecological information for aquarists from coral collection areas in Indonesia. Advanced Aquarist, 1 (3). DEEDI. 2009. State of Queensland. Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2008. Coral fishery. DEEDI. 2010. The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2009. Coral Fishery. DEWHA. 2008. Australian Government. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Assessment of the Western Australian marine aquarium fish managed fishery. DFWA. 2010. Department of Fisheries Western Australia. Statewide ecosystem based fisheries management. Identification of State-wide ecological assets used in the EBFM framework. State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10. Donnelly, R. 2010. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Queensland Marine Aquarium Supply Industry. ProVision Reef. Green, E. and Shirley, F. 1999. The global trade in corals. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Biodiversity Series No.10. Cambridge, UK. McCormack, C. 2005. Ecological assessment of the Queensland coral fishery. A report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage of the ecologically sustainable management of the Queensland coral fishery. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Roelofs, A. 2008. Ecological risk assessment of the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Roelofs, A. and Silcock, R. 2008. A vulnerability assessment of coral taxa collected in the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Stoddart, J. A. and Stoddart, S. E. 2004. Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction During the Dredging Programs of 2004. MScience Pty Ltd, Perth WA: 11-20. Turak, E., Sheppard, C., and Wood, E. 2008. Catalaphyllia jardinei. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 8 November 2010. Veron, J. E. N. 2000. Corals of the world. 3 vols. Australian Institute of Marine Science and CRR Qld Pty Ltd. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World. Australian Institute of Marine Science. Wood, E. 1983. Reef corals of the world: biology and field guide. TFH Publications, Hong Kong.

Euphyllia ancora

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

ANTHOZOA CARYOPHYLLIIDAE

SPECIES: Euphyllia ancora

COMMON NAMES: Anchor Coral (English), Hammer Coral (English)

RANGE STATES: Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Fiji formed on 14/09/2010. Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Indonesia formed on 15/05/2002 and last confirmed on 30/06/2009. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Indonesia formed on 11/07/2000.

TRADE PATTERNS: Euphyllia ancora was selected for review on the basis of a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2008 (based on the threshold of 10 000 corals for threatened or near threatened species) and an overall increase in trade into the European Union 1999-2008. Exports of the species from Australia mainly involved live specimens, with smaller quantities of raw corals. Australia has never published CITES export quotas for the species. All reported trade took place 2006-2009. The EU-27 reported direct imports from Australia of 13 148 live and 55 raw corals during the period 2000-2009, all of which were wild-sourced and imported for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade to the EU-27 represented 81 per cent of exports from Australia 2000-2008. At the time of writing, Australia had not submitted an annual report for 2009. There were no indirect exports to the EU-27 of E. ancora originating in Australia 2000-2009. Direct trade from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 mainly involved live, wild-sourced E. ancora (Table 2), the main importer being the United States of America. In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of 45 live E. ancora in 2008.

Euphyllia ancora

Table 1. Direct exports of Euphyllia ancora from Australia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. All exports were wild-sourced and for commercial purposes.

Importer Term Reported by 2007 2008 2009 Total Belgium live Importer Exporter 10 10 Denmark live Importer 30 30 Exporter France live Importer 4014 5500 2535 12049 Exporter 2750 2500 5250 raw corals Importer 5 5 Exporter Germany live Importer 23 141 46 210 Exporter 23 123 146 raw corals Importer Exporter 18 18 Netherlands live Importer 30 30 Exporter Poland live Importer 5 5 Exporter United Kingdom live Importer 133 691 824 Exporter 146 146 raw corals Importer 50 50 Exporter live Importer 4037 5774 3337 13148 Exporter 2773 2779 5552 Subtotals raw corals Importer 50 5 55 Exporter 18 18

Table 2. Direct exports of Euphyllia ancora from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live P W Importer 20 20 Exporter T I Importer 45 45 Exporter W Importer 315 1014 8 1337 Exporter 1 379 954 1334 raw corals T W Importer Exporter 9 9

Euphyllia ancora

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states E. ancora was reported to occur in the Indo-West Pacific, where it was found in the northern Indian Ocean, the central Indo-Pacific, Australia, South-east Asia, southern Japan, the East China Sea and east as far as Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands (Turak et al., 2008). It was also reported to have been found in Palau (Randall, 1995 in: Turak et al., 2008). E. ancora is a gonochoric (different sexes in different colonies) (Wabnitz et al., 2003), colonial and zooxanthellate (in symbiosis with microalgae) species (Veron, 2000). It was reported to be found in shallow environments exposed to moderate wave action (Veron, 2000) in up to 30 m depth (Turak et al., 2008). E. ancora was considered an ahermatypic species (i.e. not a main contributor to the reef matrix) (Atkinson et al., 2008). The species was reported to be able to form large, monospecific stands extending over a wide area (Delbeek, 2009) and ―may be a dominant species on protected horizontal substrates and on rocky outcrops in high latitude locations‖ (Veron, 2000). E. ancora was found to occur across very different types of habitats in Indonesia (Borneman, 2002). The species linear growth rates were estimated at 4.6-7.9 cm/year and the minimum area growth rate at 96.5 cm/year (Green and Shirley, 1999). According to Veron (2000), the species was seldom common and colonies of more than one metre diameter were rare. E. ancora was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Turak et al., 2008), because: ―This species is widespread with a patchy distribution, but where it is found it is common. However, it is heavily harvested for the aquarium trade and extensive reduction of coral reef habitat due to a combination of threats. Specific population trends are unknown but population reduction can be inferred from declines in habitat quality based on the combined estimates of both destroyed reefs and reefs at the critical stage of degradation within its range (Wilkinson 2004). Its threat susceptibility increases the likelihood of being lost within one generation in the future from reefs at a critical stage. Therefore, the estimated habitat degradation and loss of 40% over three generation lengths (30 years) is the best inference of population reduction and meets the threshold for Vulnerable [...]‖. Turak et al. (2008) considered global climate change (particularly temperature extremes leading to bleaching and increased susceptibility to disease), disease, increased severity of ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) events, storms and ocean acidification to be the major threats to corals. Further threats were reported to include extensive reduction of coral reef habitat (due to a combination of threats). More localized threats included fisheries, human development, changes in native species dynamics, invasive species, pollution, sedimentation and human interference (Turak et al., 2008). However, the severity of these combined threats to the global population of E. ancora was reported to be unknown (Turak et al., 2008). Furthermore, E. ancora was reported to be particularly susceptible to coral disease (Turak et al., 2008). Green and Shirley (1999) noted that corals of the genus Euphyllia were frequently colourful, with large polyps, making them attractive in the live aquarium trade. According to Bruckner (2000), Euphyllia species were amongst the most abundant corals in trade, partly because they were reported to require continual replacing due to poor survival in captivity, ease of damage during collection, susceptibility to disease and bad acclimatization to artificial conditions. However, Rachello-Dolmen and Cleary (2007) considered Euphyllia species to be ‗stress tolerators‘, able to occur in areas of high sedimentation or eutrophication. Green and Shirley (1999) stated that Euphyllia spp. (along with Goniopora spp., Catalaphyllia spp., Trachyphyllia spp. and Heliofungia spp.) were traded in higher quantities than any of the other genera and that these genera had the highest quotas ―despite there being no scientific reason to suppose that they are capable of supporting higher harvests than other genera‖. Green and Shirley (1999) therefore concluded that these quota levels may have been in accordance with market demand, rather than to ensure sustainability. Green and Shirley (1999) observed that Euphyllia was the fastest growing genus of the main Scleractinian coral species found in international trade. Despite comparatively fast growth rates, the susceptibility of E. ancora to known threats was reported to increase the likelihood of the species being lost within a generation from reefs at a critical stage (Turak et al., 2008).

Euphyllia ancora

Green and Shirley (1999) reported that propagation of Euphyllia species through fragmentation was possible and that fragment viability and survival was good. Australia: The genus Euphyllia was considered ―widespread but not common‖ in both the shallow and deep areas of the Northern to Central Great Barriet Reef (GBR) and Central to Southern GBR (McCormack, 2005). Blakeway and Radford (2004 in: Stoddart and Stoddart, 2004) reported that Euphyllia species represented about 1 per cent of the corals found in the Dampier Port and inner Mermaid Sound surveys. Roelofs and Silcock (2008) considered Euphyllia species as taxa at low risk from Queensland coral fisheries, as they rated the genus to be uncommon, with a widespread distribution (very few spatial restrictions to the distribution), low susceptibility to bleaching, a generalist econiche (wide range of habitats and depth preferences; colonizing species) and the genus was considered accessible (10-30 m, diving limited by timetables). The genus Euphyllia was considered in high demand in trade (McCormack, 2005). Harvest of Euphyllia spp. in 2008-2009 was reported to have increased in the Cairns and Keppels collection areas and had more than doubled in areas outside those main collection areas, compared to 2007-2008 (DEEDI, 2010). In 2008/2009, 57 per cent of all Euphyllia spp. exported from Australia were reported to have originated in Queensland (Donnelly, 2010). However, coral harvest was reported to be closely monitored under the ‗Performance Measurement System‘ in order to ensure sustainable harvest (DEEDI, 2010).

REFERENCES: Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. Annex. International expert workshop on CITES Non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, 17- 22 November 2008. Borneman, E. H. 2002. Do you know where your corals are coming from? Ecological information for aquarists from coral collection areas in Indonesia. Advanced Aquarist, 1 (3). Bruckner, A. W. 2000. New threat to coral reefs: trade in coral organisms. Issues in Science and Technology, 17 (1): 63-68. DEEDI. 2010. The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2009. Coral Fishery. Delbeek, J. C. 2009. The Perfect Coral Euphyllia. URL: http://reeflifemagazine.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/09/Euphyllia.pdf Accessed: 16 August 2010. Donnelly, R. 2010. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Queensland Marine Aquarium Supply Industry. ProVision Reef. Green, E. and Shirley, F. 1999. The global trade in corals. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Biodiversity Series No.10. Cambridge, UK. McCormack, C. 2005. Ecological assessment of the Queensland coral fishery. A report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage of the ecologically sustainable management of the Queensland coral fishery. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Rachello-Dolmen, P. G. and Cleary, D. F. R. 2007. Relating coral species traits to environmental conditions in the Jakarta Bay/Pulau Seribu reef system, Indonesia. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 73 (3-4): 816-826. Randall, R. H. 1995. Biogeography of reef-building corals in the Mariana and Palau islands in relation to back-arc rifting and the formation of the eastern Philippine Sea. Nat. Hist. Res. 3: 193-210. Roelofs, A. and Silcock, R. 2008. A vulnerability assessment of coral taxa collected in the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Stoddart, J. A. and Stoddart, S. E. 2004. Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction During the Dredging Programs of 2004. MScience Pty Ltd, Perth WA: 11-20. Turak, E., Sheppard, C., and Wood, E. 2008. Euphyllia ancora. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed: 16 August 2010.

Euphyllia ancora

Veron, J. E. N. 2000. Corals of the world. 3 vols. Australian Institute of Marine Science and CRR Qld Pty Ltd. Wabnitz, C., Taylor, M., Green, E., and Razak, T. 2003. From ocean to aquarium: the global trade in marine ornamental species. UNEP-WCMC. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World. Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Plerogyra sinuosa

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

ANTHOZOA CARYOPHYLLIIDAE

SPECIES: Plerogyra sinuosa

SYNONYMS: Euphyllia sinuosa, Plerogyra laxa

COMMON NAMES: Bladder Coral (English)

RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Guam, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, United Republic of Tanzania, United States Minor Outlying Islands, Vanuatu, Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia

IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for wild specimens from all countries formed on 22/07/1997. Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Fiji formed on 15/01/2004. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji formed on 22/05/2003. Current Article 4.6 (b) import suspension for wild specimens from Indonesia first applied on 18/02/2005 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Indonesia formed on 11/07/2000. Previous Article 4.6 (b) import suspension for wild specimens from Tonga applied on 03/09/2008 and removed on 21/05/2009. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Tonga formed on 25/07/2005.

Plerogyra sinuosa

TRADE PATTERNS: Plerogyra sinuosa was selected for review on the basis of a sharp increase in trade into the European Union in 2008. Exports of the species from Australia mainly involved live specimens, with smaller quantities of raw corals. All trade was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes. Australia has never published CITES export quotas for the species. All reported trade took place 2006-2009. The EU-27 reported direct imports from Australia of 12 038 live and 100 raw corals during the period 2000-2009, all of which were wild-sourced and imported for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade to the EU-27 represented 92 per cent of exports from Australia 2000-2008. At the time of writing, Australia had not submitted an annual report for 2009. There were no indirect exports to the EU-27 of P. sinuosa originating in Australia 2000-2009. Direct trade from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 mainly involved live P. sinuosa (Table 2). The main importer was the United States of America. Table 1. Direct exports of Plerogyra sinuosa from Australia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. All exports were wild- sourced and for commercial purposes.

Importer Term Reported by 2007 2008 2009 Total Denmark live Importer 40 40 Exporter France live Importer 50 4650 2381 7081 Exporter 2010 2010 Germany live Importer 75 97 288 460 Exporter 76 250 326 Netherlands live Importer 1047 1932 875 3854 Exporter 439 585 1024 raw corals Importer 50 50 100 Exporter Spain live Importer Exporter 10 10 United Kingdom live Importer 24 228 216 468 Exporter 100 148 248 raw corals Importer Exporter 50 50 live Importer 1196 6907 3800 11903 Exporter 625 2993 3618 Subtotals raw corals Importer 50 50 100 Exporter 50 50

Table 2. Direct exports of Plerogyra sinuosa from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009. All exports were wild-sourced and for commercial purposes.

Term Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live Importer 12 40 73 10 135 Exporter 12 46 269 327 raw corals Importer Exporter 15 15

Plerogyra sinuosa

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states P. sinuosa was reported to occur in the Indo-West Pacific, where it was found in the and the Gulf of Aden, the southwest and northern Indian Ocean, the central Indo-Pacific, Australia, South- east Asia, Japan, the East China Sea, the West Pacific and central Pacific (Turak et al., 2008). P. sinuosa was reported to be a zooxanthellate (in symbiosis with microalgae) and colonial species (Veron, 2000) and was thought to be an ahermatypic species (i.e. not a main contributor to the reef matrix) (Atkinson et al., 2008b). The species was reported to occur in protected reef environments, where it was mainly (but not only) found in turbid water (Veron, 2000). Turak et al. (2008) reported that P. sinuosa did not occur in high energy environments and that the species occurred at depths of 3- 35 m. Atkinson et al. (2008c) considered Plerogyra species to be habitat specialists, however Borneman (2002) reported that in Indonesia Plerogyra species occurred in most habitats, but mostly on fringing and patch reef slopes. Veron (2000) considered P. sinuosa to be uncommon. Turak et al. (2008) reported that specific population trends were unknown but ―population reduction can be inferred from estimated habitat loss (Wilkinson, 2004)‖. P. sinuosa was categorised as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List (Turak et al., 2008), because: ―It is widespread and common throughout its range and therefore is likely to be more resilient to habitat loss and reef degradation because of an assumed large effective population size that is highly connected and/or stable with enhanced genetic variability. Therefore, the estimated habitat loss of 20% from reefs already destroyed within its range is the best inference of population reduction since it may survive in coral reefs already at the critical stage of degradation (Wilkinson 2004). This inference of population reduction over three generation lengths (30 years) does not meet the threshold of a threat category. However, since this population reduction estimate is close to a threatened threshold, and because this species is moderately susceptible to a number of threats, it is likely to be one of the species lost on some reefs currently at the critical stage of degradation and therefore is Near Threatened‖. While extensive reduction of coral reef habitat (due to a combination of threats) was considered the major threat to this species, P. sinuosa was also reported to be heavily harvested for the aquarium trade (Turak et al., 2010). Turak et al. (2008) considered global climate change (particularly temperature extremes leading to bleaching and increased susceptibility to disease), disease, increased severity of ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) events, storms and ocean acidification to be the major threats to corals. More localized threats were reported to include fisheries, human development, changes in native species dynamics, invasive species, pollution, sedimentation and human interference. However, the severity of these combined threats to the global population of P. sinuosa was reported to be unknown. Green and Shirley (1999) noted that corals of the genus Plerogyra were frequently colourful and with large polyps, making them attractive in the live aquarium trade. The species was also believed to ―survive robustly‖ in aquaria (Green and Shirley, 1999; Fatherree, 2010). The species within this genus were reported to be under experimentation (but not in commercial production at the time of the report) to establish whether they were culturable through fragmentation (United States, 2002). Green and Shirley (1999) reported that propagation of P. sinuosa though fragmentation was possible and that fragment viability and survival was good. Australia: The genus Plerogyra was considered widespread but uncommon in the Northern to Central and Central to Southern Great Barrier Reef (GBR) (McCormack, 2005). In Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, the genus was found to be amongst a number of ―overwhelmingly dominant‖ Faviids (Veron, 2004). Blakeway and Radford (2004 in: Stoddart and Stoddart, 2004) did not record the species nor genus in the Dampier Port and inner Mermaid Sound surveys (Western Australia), although they considered the recorded species count (120 species from 43 genera) to be relatively high for an inshore reef system. Atkinson et al. (2008a) considered Plerogyra species to be habitat specialists.

Plerogyra sinuosa

Roelofs and Silcock (2008) considered P. sinuosa at low risk from Queensland coral fisheries, as they rated the genus to be uncommon, with the distribution being widespread (found widely throughout the Indo-Pacific and very few spatial restrictions to distribution), low susceptibility to bleaching, a specialist econiche (taxa with limited or defined niche) and accessibility to the species for harvest was considered ‗accessible‘ (depth between 10-30 m, diving being limited by dive tables) to ‗readily accessible‘ (depths between 5-10 m, with diving being unlimited). Furthermore, Plerogra spp. were considered to show a high resilience (Donnelly, 2010). Roelofs (2008) considered Plerogyra species not to be very popular in the aquarium trade, whilst McCormack (2005) reported the species to be in moderate demand in trade. All the Plerogyra spp. specimens exported from Australia in 2008/2009 were reported to have originated in Queensland (Donnelly, 2010). However, coral harvest was reported to be closely monitored under the ‗Performance Measurement System‘ in order to ensure sustainable harvest (DEEDI, 2010).

REFERENCES: Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008a. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Finding. Cancun, Mexico, 17-22 November 2008. WG9-CS4. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008b. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. Annex. International expert workshop on CITES Non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, 17- 22 November 2008. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008c. Queensland coral fishery - case study. Presentation WG9-CS4-P. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings. Cacun, Mexico, 17-22 November 2008. Borneman, E. H. 2002. Do you know where your corals are coming from? Ecological information for aquarists from coral collection areas in Indonesia. Advanced Aquarist, 1 (3). Donnelly, R. 2010. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Queensland Marine Aquarium Supply Industry. ProVision Reef. Fatherree, J. W. 2010. Aquarium corals: the Bubble corals: species of the genera Plerogyra and Physogyra, Advanced Aquarist's Online Magazine, URL: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/4/corals/view Accessed: 2 December 2010. Green, E. and Shirley, F. 1999. The global trade in corals. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Biodiversity Series No.10. Cambridge, UK. McCormack, C. 2005. Ecological assessment of the Queensland coral fishery. A report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage of the ecologically sustainable management of the Queensland coral fishery. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Roelofs, A. 2008. Ecological risk assessment of the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Roelofs, A. and Silcock, R. 2008. A vulnerability assessment of coral taxa collected in the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Stoddart, J. A. and Stoddart, S. E. 2004. Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction During the Dredging Programs of 2004. MScience Pty Ltd, Perth WA: 11-20. Turak, E., Sheppard, C., and Wood, E. 2008. Plerogyra sinuosa. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 5 November 2010. United States. 2002. Coral production systems. Report of the Coral Working Group. 18th Meeting of the CITES Animals Committee, San Jose, Costa Rica, April 2002. Prepared by the United States in consultation with the Coral Working Group. AC 18 COM 23/7/1. Veron, J. E. N. 2000. Corals of the world. 3 vols. Australian Institute of Marine Science and CRR Qld Pty Ltd. Veron, J. E. N. 2004. Coral survey at selected sites in Arnhem Land. Townsville, Produced for National Oceans Office. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World. Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Duncanopsammia axifugia

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

ANTHOZOA

SPECIES: Duncanopsammia axifuga

SYNONYMS: axifuga

COMMON NAMES: Whisker Coral (English)

RANGE STATES: Australia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia

IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Australia formed on 14/09/2007.

TRADE PATTERNS: Duncanopsammia axifuga was selected for review due to a sharp increase of trade into the European Union in 2008. Exports of the species from Australia mainly involved live specimens, with smaller quantities of raw corals. Australia has never published CITES export quotas for the species. All reported trade took place 2006-2009. The EU-27 reported direct imports from Australia of 10 712 live and 105 raw corals during the period 2000-2009, all of which were wild-sourced and imported for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade to the EU-27 represented 36 per cent of exports from Australia 2000-2008. At the time of writing, Australia had not submitted an annual report for 2009. There were no indirect exports to the EU-27 of D. axifuga originating in Australia 2000-2009. Direct trade from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 mainly involved live, wild-sourced D. axifuga (Table 2), the main importer being the United States of America. In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of 113 live D. axifuga in 2008.

Duncanopsammia axifugia

Table 1. Direct exports of Duncanopsammia axifuga from Australia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. All exports were wild-sourced and for commercial purposes.

Importer Term Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Belgium live Importer Exporter 20 20 Denmark live Importer 33 33 Exporter France live Importer 50 2200 3053 5303 Exporter 1000 1000 raw corals Importer 5 5 Exporter Germany live Importer 4 516 344 864 Exporter 4 378 382 raw corals Importer Exporter 48 48 Netherlands live Importer 853 1075 1928 Exporter 55 55 raw corals Importer 50 50 Exporter Poland live Importer 5 5 Exporter United Kingdom live Importer 50 338 932 1259 2579 Exporter 294 331 625 raw corals Importer 50 50 Exporter 30 30 live Importer 50 392 4501 5769 10712 Exporter 298 1784 2082 Subtotals raw corals Importer 50 55 105 Exporter 78 78

Table 2. Direct exports of Duncanopsammia axifuga from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000- 2009. All exports were for commercial purposes.

Term Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live I Importer 113 113 Exporter W Importer 221 1136 2600 60 4017 Exporter 59 1697 1901 3657 raw corals A Importer Exporter 100 100 W Importer 45 45 Exporter 71 71

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states D. axifuga was reported to occur in Australia and Vietnam in the Indo-West Pacific (Hoeksema et al., 2008).

Duncanopsammia axifugia

Duncanopsammia (D. axifuga is the only species in the genus) is one of the four genera within the family Dendrophyllidae, which are all zooxanthellate (in symbiosis with microalgae) (Veron, 2000). D. axifuga was considered an ahermatypic (i.e. not a main contributor to the reef matrix) (Atkinson et al., 2008a) and colonial species (Veron, 2000). The species was reported to be attached to solid substrates in areas where soft sand predominated and to occur in water over 20 m depth (Veron, 2000), whilst Hoeksema et al. (2008) reported that D. axifuga was found in depths up to 30 m. Hoeksema et al. (2008) reported that whilst specific population trends were unknown, ―population reduction can be inferred from estimated habitat loss (Wilkinson, 2004)‖. D. axifuga was categorised as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List (Hoeksema et al., 2008), because: ―It is widespread but disjunct range and is rare. Therefore, the estimated habitat loss of 23% from reefs already destroyed within its range is the best inference of population reduction since it may survive in coral reefs already at the critical stage of degradation (Wilkinson 2004). This inference of population reduction over three generation lengths (30 years) does not meet the threshold of a threat category. However, since this population reduction estimate is close to a threatened threshold, and because this species is moderately susceptible to a number of threats, it is likely to be one of the species lost on some reefs currently at the critical stage of degradation and therefore is Near Threatened‖. Global climate change (particularly temperature extremes leading to bleaching and increased susceptibility to disease), disease, increased severity of ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) events, storms and ocean acidification were considered to be the major threats to corals (Hoeksema et al., 2008). More localized threats were reported to include fisheries, human development, changes in native species dynamics, invasive species, pollution, sedimentation and human interference. However, the severity of these combined threats to the global population of D. axifuga was reported to be unknown (Hoeksema et al., 2008). Australia: The species was reported to occur in the northern and central Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in the east of Australia and south to the Houtman Abrolhos Islands on the west coast (Veron, 1986). The genus Duncanopsammia was considered patchily distributed but locally common in shallow and deep waters of the Central to Southern GBR as well as in deep waters of the Northern to Central GBR, but uncommon or not targeted in the shallow waters of the Northern to Central GBR (McCormack, 2005). Atkinson et al. (2008c) reported that whilst D. axifuga was found throughout the West Pacific, the species was potentially locally rare. Roelofs (2008) reported that the species was more abundant than described in the vulnerability assessment below (by Roelofs and Silcock, 2008), but Blakeway and Radford (2004 in: Stoddart and Stoddart, 2004) reported that the species was uncommon both in Dampier and the wider Indo-Pacific; D. axifuga represented about 1 per cent of coral stock found in the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia. Roelofs and Silcock (2008) considered D. axifuga at low risk from Queensland Coral Fisheries (QCF), as they rated the genus to be uncommon, with the distribution being restricted locally (spread throughout the West Pacific but maybe locally less abundant), low susceptibility to bleaching, a generalist econiche (wide range of habitats and depth preferences; colonizing species) and accessibility to the species for harvest was considered ‗limited‘ (30-60 m, specialist diving) to ‗accessible‘ (10-30 m, diving only and limited by dive tables). Furthermore, in a detailed assessment of the overall resilience of harvested species in the QCF (based on the scoring of various biological characteristics), D. axifuga was considered to show a ‗high resilience‘ to collection pressure (Donnelly, 2010). Slower growing species, such as D. axifuga, were reported to normally be harvested by taking small segments and leaving a ―significant proportion‖ of the adult colony to regrow (Atkinson et al., 2008b). The genus was considered in high demand in trade (McCormack, 2005). D. axifuga was reported to be the third most highly harvested and exported coral species in Australia (after Catalaphyllia jardinei and Trachyphyllia geoffroyi), with more than 6000 pieces collected and more than 2000 pieces exported between July 2006 and May 2008 (Atkinson et al., 2008b). Approximately 50 per cent of the increase in coral harvest in 2007-2008 was reported to comprise of Catalaphyllia jardinei, Duncanopsammmia spp., Scolymia spp. and Blastomussa spp. (DEEDI, 2009). Harvest levels in 2008/2009 appear to have remained

Duncanopsammia axifugia comparable to the ones in 2007/2008 (DEEDI, 2010). In 2008/2009, 55 per cent of all D. axifuga exported from Australia was reported to have originated in Queensland (Donnelly, 2010). However, these species were considered low risk species and were reported to be closely monitored under the ‗Performance Measurement System‘ in order to ensure sustainable harvest (DEEDI, 2009).

REFERENCES: Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008a. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. Annex. International expert workshop on CITES Non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, 17- 22 November 2008. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008b. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Finding. Cancun, Mexico, 17-22 November 2008. WG9-CS4. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008c. Non-detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. WG9-CS4. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings. Cancun, Mexico, 17- 22 November 2008. DEEDI. 2009. State of Queensland. Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2008. Coral fishery. DEEDI. 2010. The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2009. Coral Fishery. Donnelly, R. 2010. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Queensland Marine Aquarium Supply Industry. ProVision Reef. Hoeksema, B., Rogers, A., and Quibilan, M. 2008. Duncanopsammia axifuga. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 4 November 2010. McCormack, C. 2005. Ecological assessment of the Queensland coral fishery. A report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage of the ecologically sustainable management of the Queensland coral fishery. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Roelofs, A. 2008. Ecological risk assessment of the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Roelofs, A. and Silcock, R. 2008. A vulnerability assessment of coral taxa collected in the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Stoddart, J. A. and Stoddart, S. E. 2004. Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction During the Dredging Programs of 2004. MScience Pty Ltd, Perth WA: 11-20. Veron, J. E. N. 2000. Corals of the world. 3 vols. Australian Institute of Marine Science and CRR Qld Pty Ltd. Veron, J. E. N. 1986. Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific. 1993 edn. University of Hawaii Press. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World. Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Turbinaria reniformis

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

ANTHOZOA DENDROPHYLLIIDAE

SPECIES:

SYNONYMS: Turbinaria disparata, Turbinaria veluta

COMMON NAMES: Yellow Scroll Coral (English)

RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, Bangladesh, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tonga, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: -

TRADE PATTERNS: Turbinaria reniformis was selected for review on the basis of a sharp increase in trade into the European Union in 2008. Exports of the species from Australia mainly involved live specimens, with smaller quantities of raw corals. Australia has never published CITES export quotas for the species. All reported trade took place 2007-2009. The EU-27 reported direct imports from Australia of 5057 live corals during the period 2000-2009, all of which were wild-sourced and imported for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade to the EU- 27 represented 99 per cent of exports from Australia 2000-2008. At the time of writing, Australia had not submitted an annual report for 2009. There were no indirect exports to the EU-27 of T. reniformis originating in Australia 2000-2009. The only direct exports from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 consisted of 12 live, wild- sourced T. reniformis to the United States of America for commercial purposes in 2008.

Turbinaria reniformis

Table 1. Direct exports of Turbinaria reniformis from Australia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. All exports were wild- sourced and for commercial purposes.

Importer Term Reported by 2007 2008 2009 Total France live Importer 1680 2200 1020 4900 Exporter 900 1000 1900 Germany live Importer 157 157 Exporter 97 97 raw corals Importer Exporter 35 35 Spain live Importer Exporter 15 15 live Importer 1680 2357 1020 5057 Exporter 915 1097 2012 Subtotals raw corals Importer Exporter 35 35

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states T. reniformis was reported to occur in the Indo-West Pacific, where it is found in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, the southwest and northwest Indian Ocean, the Arabian/Iranian Gulf, the central Indian Ocean, the central Indo-Pacific, tropical and sub-tropical Australia, southern Japan and the South China Sea, the oceanic West Pacific and the Central Pacific (Hoeksema et al., 2008). Within the family Dendrophylliidae the genus Turbinaria was reported to be one of only four zooxanthellate genera (in symbiosis with microalgae) (Veron, 2000). T. reniformis was considered a hermatypic (i.e. reef building) species (Atkinson et al., 2008a). Veron (2000) reported that the species formed large stands on fringing reefs, where the water is turbid. The species was also reported to form plates of over 1 m in diameter and it was found to occur in 2-15 m depths (Hoeksema et al., 2008). The species was reported to be culturable through fragmentation (United States, 2002). The species was reported to be similar in appearance to (Veron, 2000). While Hoeksema et al. (2008) reported that population trends were unknown, ―a population reduction can be inferred from declines in habitat quality based on the combined estimates of both destroyed reefs and reefs at the critical stage of degradation within its range (Wilkinson, 2004)‖. T. reniformis was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Hoeksema et al., 2008), because: ―This species is widespread and sometimes common throughout its range. However, it is susceptible to bleaching and disease due to a more restricted depth range, and extensive reduction of coral reef habitat due to a combination of threats. Specific population trends are unknown but population reduction can be inferred from declines in habitat quality based on the combined estimates of both destroyed reefs and reefs at the critical stage of degradation within its range (Wilkinson 2004). Its threat susceptibility increases the likelihood of being lost within one generation in the future from reefs at a critical stage. Therefore, the estimated habitat degradation and loss of 36% over three generation lengths (30 years) is the best inference of population reduction and meets the threshold for Vulnerable [...]‖. Global climate change (particularly temperature extremes leading to bleaching and increased susceptibility to disease), disease, increased severity of ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) events, storms and ocean acidification were considered to be the main threats to corals (Hoeksema et al., 2008). Further, more localized, threats included fisheries, human development, changes in native species dynamics, invasive species, pollution, sedimentation and human interference. However, the severity of these combined threats to the global population of T. reniformis

Turbinaria reniformis was reported to be unknown. Furthermore, T. reniformis was reported be more susceptible to bleaching and disease, due to its more restricted depth range (Hoeksema et al., 2008). Green and Shirley (1999) reported that propagation of Turbinaria species though fragmentation was possible and whilst fragment viability was good, husbandry was considered ‗marginal‘. The NOAA Fisheries Service (NOAA, 2010) indicated that they were initiating an Endangered Species Act (ESA) status review of 82 coral species, including T. reniformis. Australia: T. reniformis was reported to occur in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in the east and south to Recherche Archipelago on the western coast of Australia (Veron, 1986) and the genus was considered to be one of the ‗open reef‘ taxa (Dinesen, 1983). Blakeway and Radford (2004 in: Stoddart and Stoddart, 2004) reported that the species represented about 6 per cent of the corals found in the Dampier Port and inner Mermaid Sound surveys, Western Australia. Atkinson et al. (2008b) reported that Turbinaria species were considered fast growing and abundant in Australia, however whilst McCormack (2005) considered the genus Turbinaria widespread, the author reported it to be uncommon in the Northern to Central and Central to Southern GBR. Roelofs and Silcock (2008) considered Turbinaria species as taxa at low risk from Queensland coral fisheries, as they rated the genus to be common, with a widespread distribution (very few spatial restrictions to the distribution), low susceptibility to bleaching, a generalist econiche (wide range of habitats and depth preferences; colonizing species) and the genus was considered readily accessible (5- 10m unlimited diving). Blakeway and Radford (2004 in: Stoddart and Stoddart, 2004) considered coral assemblages which predominantly consisted of Turbinaria species to be the least susceptible to turbidity and sedimentation (whether natural or through development). Atkinson et al. (2008b) reported that small, hence juvenile and subadult Turbinaria colonies were generally targeted for trade. The genus was considered in low demand in trade (McCormack, 2005) and harvest levels of this species appears to have decreased in all collection areas in Queensland in 2008- 2009, compared to 2007-2008 (DEEDI, 2010).

REFERENCES: Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008b. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Finding. Cancun, Mexico, 17-22 November 2008. WG9-CS4. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008a. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. Annex. International expert workshop on CITES Non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, 17- 22 November 2008. DEEDI. 2010. The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2009. Coral Fishery. Dinesen, Z. D. 1983. Shade-dwelling corals of the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 10: 173-185. Green, E. and Shirley, F. 1999. The global trade in corals. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Biodiversity Series No.10. Cambridge, UK. Hoeksema, B., Rogers, A., and Quibilan, M. 2008. Turbinaria reniformis. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 3 November 2010. McCormack, C. 2005. Ecological assessment of the Queensland coral fishery. A report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage of the ecologically sustainable management of the Queensland coral fishery. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. NOAA 2010. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Status Review of 82 Coral Species. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm Accessed: 16 August 2010. Roelofs, A. and Silcock, R. 2008. A vulnerability assessment of coral taxa collected in the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.

Turbinaria reniformis

Stoddart, J. A. and Stoddart, S. E. 2004. Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction During the Dredging Programs of 2004. MScience Pty Ltd, Perth WA: 11-20. United States. 2002. Coral production systems. Report of the Coral Working Group. 18th Meeting of the CITES Animals Committee, San Jose, Costa Rica, April 2002. Prepared by the United States in consultation with the Coral Working Group. AC 18 COM 23/7/1. Veron, J. E. N. 2000. Corals of the world. 3 vols. Australian Institute of Marine Science and CRR Qld Pty Ltd. Veron, J. E. N. 1986. Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific. 1993 edn. University of Hawaii Press. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World. Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Blastomussa wellsi

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

ANTHOZOA MUSSIDAE

SPECIES: Blastomussa wellsi

COMMON NAMES:

RANGE STATES: Australia, Egypt, Fiji, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia

IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Australia formed on 14/09/2007. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Indonesia first applied on 18/02/2005 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Indonesia formed on 30/01/2003. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji first applied on 03/09/2008 and removed on 21/05/2009. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji formed on 22/05/2003. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Tonga formed on 22/04/2005 and removed on 12/06/2006.

TRADE PATTERNS: Blastomussa wellsi was selected for review due to a sharp increase in trade to the European Union in 2008. Exports of the species from Australia mainly involved live specimens, with smaller quantities of raw corals. Australia has never published CITES export quotas for the species. All reported trade took place 2006-2009. The EU-27 reported direct imports from Australia of 10 552 live and 205 raw corals during the period 2000-2009, all of which were wild-sourced and imported for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade to the EU-27 represented 73 per cent of B. wellsi exports from Australia 2000-2008. At the time of writing, Australia had not submitted an annual report for 2009. There were no reported indirect exports to the EU-27 of B. wellsi originating in Australia 2000-2009.

Blastomussa wellsi

Direct trade from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 mainly involved live, wild-sourced B. wellsi (Table 2), the main importer being the United States of America. In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of 18 live B. wellsi in 2008. Table 1. Direct exports of Blastomussa wellsi from Australia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. All exports were wild- sourced and for commercial purposes.

Importer Term Reported by 2007 2008 2009 Total Denmark live Importer 30 30 Exporter France live Importer 25 4512 1569 6106 Exporter 2010 2010 raw corals Importer 5 5 Exporter Germany live Importer 7 66 230 303 Exporter 7 266 273 Netherlands live Importer 786 1629 499 2914 Exporter 311 431 742 raw corals Importer 150 50 200 Exporter Poland live Importer 50 50 Exporter United Kingdom live Importer 120 433 596 1149 Exporter 159 63 222 raw corals Importer Exporter 50 50 live Importer 938 6640 2974 10552 Exporter 477 2770 3247 Subtotals raw corals Importer 150 55 205 Exporter 50 50

Table 2. Direct exports of Blastomussa wellsi from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live P W Importer 2 2 Exporter T I Importer 18 18 Exporter W Importer 1 169 861 15 1046 Exporter 4 373 846 1223 Z W Importer 5 5 Exporter raw corals T W Importer 4 4 Exporter 11 11

Blastomussa wellsi

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states B. wellsi was reported to occur in the Indo-West Pacific, where the species was found in the Red Sea, the central Indo-Pacific, Australia, South-east Asia, Japan and the East China Sea, the oceanic West Pacific and Fiji (Turak et al., 2008). All species of the family Mussidae were reported to be zooxanthellate (in symbiosis with microalgae) and B. wellsi is one of the colonial species within the family (Veron, 2000). B. wellsi was considered an ahermatypic species (i.e. not a main contributor to the reef matrix) (Atkinson et al., 2008). The species was reported to occur in the lower reef slopes protected from wave actions and in turbid environments (Veron, 2000), at up to 40 m depth (Turak et al., 2008). Turak et al. (2008) reported that whilst specific population trends were unknown, ―population reduction can be inferred from estimated habitat loss (Wilkinson, 2004)‖. B. wellsi was categorised as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List (Turak et al., 2008), because: ―It is widespread and uncommon throughout its range and therefore is likely to be more resilient to habitat loss and reef degradation because of an assumed large effective population size that is highly connected and/or stable with enhanced genetic variability. Therefore, the estimated habitat loss of 18% from reefs already destroyed within its range is the best inference of population reduction since it may survive in coral reefs already at the critical stage of degradation (Wilkinson, 2004). This inference of population reduction over three generation lengths (30 years) does not meet the threshold of a threat category. However, since this population reduction estimate is close to a threatened threshold, and because this species is moderately susceptible to a number of threats, it is likely to be one of the species lost on some reefs currently at the critical stage of degradation and therefore is Near Threatened‖. Turak et al. (2008) considered extensive reduction of coral reef habitat, due to a combination of threats and harvest for the aquarium trade, the most important threats for this species. Global climate change (particularly temperature extremes leading to bleaching and increased susceptibility to disease), disease, increased severity of ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) events, storms and ocean acidification were considered to be the major threats to corals (Turak et al., 2008). More localized threats included fisheries, human development, changes in native species dynamics, invasive species, pollution, sedimentation and human interference (Turak et al., 2008). However, the impact of these combined threats on the global population of B. wellsi was reported to be unknown, although B. wellsi was reported to be more resilient than other coral species to some of the threats (Turak et al., 2008). Australia: In the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) the species was reported to occur typically at 16-35 m depth and it was considered more common on reefs, but was also reported to extend into inter-reefal areas (Roelofs, 2008). The genus Blastomussa was considered widespread but uncommon in both the Northern to Central and Central to Southern GBR (Dinesen, 1983; McCormack, 2005). Roelofs (2008) reported that B. wellsi was moderately common in deep waters of the GBR. Blakeway and Radford (2004 in: Stoddart and Stoddart, 2004) did not record the species in the Dampier Port and inner Mermaid Sound surveys, Western Australia, although they considered the recorded species count (120 species from 43 genera) to be relatively high for an inshore reef system. Roelofs and Silcock (2008) considered Blastomussa species as taxa at low risk from the Queensland Coral Fisheries (QCF), as they rated the genus to be uncommon, with a widespread distribution (very few spatial restrictions to the distribution), low susceptibility to bleaching, a generalist econiche (wide range of habitats and depth preferences; colonizing species) and the genus was considered readily accessible (5-10 m unlimited diving). Furthermore, in a detailed assessment of the overall resilience of harvested species in the QCF (based on the scoring of various biological characteristics), B. wellsi was considered to show a ‗high resilience‘ to collection pressure (Donnelly, 2010). Whilst Blastomussa species were considered in moderate demand in trade (McCormack, 2005), approximately 50 per cent of the increase in coral harvest in 2007-2008 was reported to comprise of Catalaphyllia jardinei, Duncanopsammmia spp., Scolymia spp. and Blastomussa spp. (DEEDI, 2009). The number of Blastomussa spp. harvested in 2008-2009 was reported to have approximately doubled in

Blastomussa wellsi the Cairns collection area, as well as outside the main collection areas (Cairns and Keppel), compared to 2007-2008; however in the Cairns collection area the overall weight harvested did not increase proportionally (DEEDI, 2010), which may indicate that smaller specimens were harvested. In 2008/2009, 44 per cent of all Blastomussa spp. specimens exported from Australia were reported to have originated from Queensland (Donnelly, 2010). The above species, however, were considered low risk species and were reported to be closely monitored under the ‗Performance Measurement System‘ in order to ensure sustainable harvest (DEEDI, 2009).

REFERENCES: Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. Annex. International expert workshop on CITES Non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, 17- 22 November 2008. Borneman, E. H. 2002. Do you know where your corals are coming from? Ecological information for aquarists from coral collection areas in Indonesia. Advanced Aquarist, 1 (3). DEEDI. 2009. The State of Queensland. Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2008. Coral fishery. DEEDI. 2010. The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2009. Coral Fishery. Dinesen, Z. D. 1983. Shade-dwelling corals of the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 10: 173-185. Donnelly, R. 2010. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Queensland Marine Aquarium Supply Industry. ProVision Reef. McCormack, C. 2005. Ecological assessment of the Queensland coral fishery. A report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage of the ecologically sustainable management of the Queensland coral fishery. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Roelofs, A. 2008. Ecological risk assessment of the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Roelofs, A. and Silcock, R. 2008. A vulnerability assessment of coral taxa collected in the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Stoddart, J. A. and Stoddart, S. E. 2004. Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction During the Dredging Programs of 2004. MScience Pty Ltd, Perth WA: 11-20. Turak, E., Sheppard, C., and Wood, E. 2008. Blastomussa wellsi In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 4 November 2010. Veron, J. E. N. 2000. Corals of the world. 3 vols. Australian Institute of Marine Science and CRR Qld Pty Ltd. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World. Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Trachyphyllia geoffroyi

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

ANTHOZOA TRACHYPHYLLIIDAE

SPECIES: Trachyphyllia geoffroyi

SYNONYMS: Antillia duncani, Antillia flabelliformis, Antillia geoffroyi, Antillia infundibuliformis, Antillia lonsdaleia, Antillia orientalis, Antillia sinuata, Antillophyllia lonsdaleia, Callogyra formosa, Manicina amarantum, Trachyphyllia amarantum, Trachyphyllia lelandi, Trachyphyllia radiata, Turbinolia geoffroyi, Wellsophyllia geoffroyi, Wellsophyllia radiata

COMMON NAMES: Crater Coral (English), Folded Coral (English), Puffed Coral (English)

RANGE STATES: Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Egypt, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mozambique, Myanmar, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Thailand, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia

IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji first applied on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji formed on 22/05/2003 and confirmed on 25/10/2005. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Indonesia first applied on 18/02/2005 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Indonesia formed on 22/05/2003. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Indonesia formed on 16/09/1999 and replaced by positive opinion on 15/05/2002. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Tonga formed on 22/04/2005 and removed on 12/06/2006.

Trachyphyllia geoffroyi

TRADE PATTERNS: T. geoffroyi was selected for review due to a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2008 (based on the threshold of 10 000 corals for threatened or near threatened species) and a sharp increase in trade to the European Union in 2008. Exports of the species from Australia mainly involved live specimens, with smaller quantities of raw corals. Australia has never published CITES export quotas for the species. All reported trade took place 2006-2009. The EU-27 reported direct imports from Australia of 31 309 live and 30 raw corals during the period 2000-2009, all of which were wild-sourced and imported for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade to the EU-27 represented 88 per cent of exports from Australia 2000-2008. At the time of writing, Australia had not submitted an annual report for 2009. There were no indirect exports to the EU-27 of T. geoffroyi originating in Australia 2000-2009. Direct trade from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 mainly involved live, wild-sourced T. geoffroyi (Table 2), the main importer being the United States of America. In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of seven live T. geoffroyi. Table 1. Direct exports of Trachyphyllia geoffroyi from Australia to the EU-27, 2000-2009. All exports were wild- sourced and for commercial purposes.

Importer Term Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Denmark live Importer 25 25 Exporter France live Importer 7150 9900 3555 20605 Exporter 4500 4500 9000 raw corals Importer 5 5 Exporter Germany live Importer 22 543 470 1035 Exporter 22 355 377 raw corals Importer Exporter 116 116 Netherlands live Importer 1380 1870 1100 4350 Exporter 735 510 1245 raw corals Importer 25 25 Exporter Poland live Importer 5 5 Exporter United Kingdom live Importer 100 1300 1664 2225 5289 Exporter 1100 387 1487 raw corals Importer Exporter 50 50 live Importer 100 9852 13977 7380 31309 Exporter 6357 5752 12109 Subtotals raw corals Importer 25 5 30 Exporter 166 166

Trachyphyllia geoffroyi

Table 2. Direct exports of Trachyphyllia geoffroyi from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2009. All exports were for commercial purposes.

Term Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 Total live I Importer 1 6 7 Exporter W Importer 14 320 1298 1632 Exporter 17 464 1131 1612 raw corals W Importer Exporter 24 24

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states T. geoffroyi was reported to occur in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, the Indian Ocean, the central Indo-Pacific, Australia, South-East Asia, Japan, East China Sea and the oceanic southwest Pacific (Sheppard et al., 2008). The genus Trachyphyllia contains only one species, T. geoffroyi, which is colonial, free-living and zooxanthellate (in symbiosis with microalgae) (Veron, 2000). The species was considered an ahermatypic species (i.e. not a main contributor to the reef matrix) (Atkinson et al., 2008b). The species was reported to occur on soft substrates on continental islands and in inter-reef environments (Veron, 2000) and was reported to grow in depths of up to 40 m (Sheppard et al., 2008). Whilst the species was found to typically grow as a solitary unattached colony, occasional formation of large colonies was reported (Sheppard et al., 2008); such colonies were only found in protected and shallow island embayments (Veron, 2000). T. geoffroyi was frequently found with other free living corals of the genera , Heterocyathus, Cycloseris and Diaseris (Veron, 2000). The species was considered a habitat specialist (Atkinson et al., 2008c). Veron (2000) reported that whilst T. geoffroyi was considered rare on reefs, it was reported to be common around continental islands and some inter-reef areas. Sheppard et al. (2008) reported that whilst specific population trends were unknown, ―population reduction can be inferred from estimated habitat loss (Wilkinson, 2004)‖. T. geoffroyi was categorised as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List (Sheppard et al., 2008), because: ―It is very widespread, and although uncommon within its range, it can be found in deeper waters and off-reef areas, and therefore is likely to be more resilient to habitat loss and reef degradation because of an assumed large effective population size that is highly connected and/or stable with enhanced genetic variability. Therefore, the estimated habitat loss of 22% from reefs already destroyed within its range is the best inference of population reduction since it may survive in coral reefs already at the critical stage of degradation (Wilkinson, 2004). This inference of population reduction over three generation lengths (30 years) does not meet the threshold of a threat category. However, since this population reduction estimate is close to a threatened threshold, and because this species is susceptible to a number of threats, it is likely to be one of the species lost on some reefs currently at the critical stage of degradation and therefore is Near Threatened.‖ Extensive reduction of coral reef habitat (due to a combination of threats) was considered the major threat to this species and the species was reported to be highly targeted and highly susceptible to harvesting for the aquarium trade (Sheppard et al., 2008). Sheppard et al. (2008) considered global climate change (particularly temperature extremes leading to bleaching and increased susceptibility to disease), disease, increased severity of ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) events, storms and ocean acidification to be the major threats to corals. More localized threats included fisheries, human development, changes in native species dynamics, invasive species, pollution, sedimentation and human interference (Sheppard et al., 2008). However, the severity of these combined threats to the global population of T. geoffroyi was reported to be unknown (Sheppard et al., 2008).

Trachyphyllia geoffroyi

Green and Shirley (1999) noted that corals of the genus Trachyphyllia were frequently colourful and with large polyps, making them attractive in the live aquarium trade. Borneman (2002) reported that in Indonesia the more colourful specimens found in trade were the ones harvested from deepwater sites, where the species was less abundant, whereas the more drab colored specimens originated from near shore areas, where the species was considered quite abundant. Green and Shirley (1999) further stated that Trachyphyllia spp. (along with Euphyllia spp., Goniopora spp., Catalaphyllia spp., and Heliofungia spp.) were traded in higher quantities than any of the other genera and that these genera had the highest quotas ―despite there being no scientific reason to suppose that they are capable of supporting higher harvests than other genera‖. Green and Shirley (1999) therefore concluded that these quotas levels may have been in accordance with market demand, rather than to ensure sustainability. Australia: In Queensland the species was reported to be found in narrow inlets, off Arlington lagoon bomboras (submerged reef), but it was not found in southern waters (Roelofs, 2008). The species was reported to have a depth range of 16-30 m on the Great Barrier Reef (Fisk, 1983; in Sheppard et al., 2008) and was considered locally prolific (Roelofs, 2008). T. geoffroyi was reported to occur in similar habitats as Catalaphyllia jardinei, but was considered to possibly be more widespread and more generalist (Roelofs, 2008). Blakeway and Radford (2004 in: Stoddart and Stoddart, 2004) reported that the species represented about 1 per cent of the corals found in the Dampier Port and inner Mermaid Sound surveys. Roelofs and Silcock (2008) considered T. geoffroyi at low risk from Queensland coral fisheries, as they rated the genus to be moderately common, with the distribution being widespread (found widely throughout the Indo-Pacific and very few spatial restrictions to distribution), low susceptibility to bleaching, a specialist econiche (taxa with limited or defined niche) and accessibility to the species for harvest was considered ‗limited‘ (30-60 m, specialist diving) to ‗accessible‘ (10-30 m, diving only and limited by dive tables). Furthermore, the species was considered to have a high resilience (Donnelly, 2010). T. geoffroyi was reported to be the second most highly harvested and exported coral species in Australia, with more than 6000 pieces collected and almost 3000 pieces exported between July 2006 and May 2008 (Atkinson et al., 2008a). Harvest of the species was reported to be selective for size and colour, with about 5-10 per cent of the specimens found considered colourful enough for trade (Roelofs, 2008). In 2008/2009, 19 per cent of Australian exports in Trachyphyllia spp. were reported to have originated in Queensland (Donnelly, 2010). Harvest of this species was reported to have decreased in all coral harvesting sites in Queensland in 2008-2009, compared to 2007-2008; however, coral harvest was reported to be closely monitored under the ‗Performance Measurement System‘ in order to ensure sustainable harvest (DEEDI, 2010). Algal growth was reported to potentially camouflage the species in inter-reefal habitats and no decline in the species abundance had been observed over ―long time periods (e.g. 10 yrs)‖ (Roelofs, 2008).

REFERENCES: Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008a. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery - Annex. WG9-CS4 (Annex). International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Finding. Cancun, Mexico, 17-22 November 2008. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008b. Non detriment finding for CITES-listed corals in the Queensland coral fishery. Annex. International expert workshop on CITES Non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, 17- 22 November 2008. Atkinson, M., Kerrigan, B., Roelofs, A., and Smith, T. 2008c. Queensland coral fishery - case study. Presentation WG9-CS4-P. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings. Cacun, Mexico, 17-22 November 2008. Borneman, E. H. 2002. Do you know where your corals are coming from? Ecological information for aquarists from coral collection areas in Indonesia. Advanced Aquarist, 1 (3). DEEDI. 2010. The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Annual status report 2009. Coral Fishery.

Trachyphyllia geoffroyi

Donnelly, R. 2010. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Queensland Marine Aquarium Supply Industry. ProVision Reef. Fisk, D. A. 1983. Free-living corals: distributions according to plant cover, sediments, hydrodynamics, depth and biological factors. Marine Biology, 74 (3): 287-294. Green, E. and Shirley, F. 1999. The global trade in corals. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Biodiversity Series No.10. Cambridge, UK. Roelofs, A. 2008. Ecological risk assessment of the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Roelofs, A. and Silcock, R. 2008. A vulnerability assessment of coral taxa collected in the Queensland Coral Fishery. Brisbane, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Sheppard, C., Turak, E., and Wood, E. 2008. Trachophyllia geoffroyi. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 5 November 2010. Stoddart, J. A. and Stoddart, S. E. 2004. Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction During the Dredging Programs of 2004. MScience Pty Ltd, Perth WA: 11-20. Veron, J. E. N. 2000. Corals of the world. 3 vols. Australian Institute of Marine Science and CRR Qld Pty Ltd. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World. Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Hoodia gordonii

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED FROM THE 2008 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

APOCYNACEAE

SPECIES: Hoodia gordonii

SYNONYMS: Hoodia albispina, Hoodia barklyi, Hoodia pillansii

COMMON NAMES: Bitter Ghaap (English)

RANGE STATES: Botswana (?), Namibia, South Africa

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: South Africa

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: -

TRADE PATTERNS: Hoodia gordonii was selected for review on the basis of a sharp increase in trade into the European Union in 2008. The species was listed in the CITES Appendices in 2005. Global exports of H. gordonii consisted of a range of terms, most frequently seeds and live. No CITES quotas have ever been published for H. gordonii by any country. Imports of H. gordonii from South Africa to the EU-27 over the period 2005-2009 mainly involved dried plants and powder traded for commercial purposes, the main importers being the United Kingdom, Spain and Germany (Table 1). According to South Africa and its trading partners, respectively, 228.3 tonnes and 122.6 tonnes of dried plants and powder were imported to the EU-27 during the period 2005-2009, of which 40.6 tonnes and 5.6 tonnes were wild-sourced, the remainder being artificially propagated. In addition, the United Kingdom reported the confiscation/seizure of H. gordonii derivatives in 2007. Indirect trade to the EU-27 of H. gordonii originating in South Africa consisted of extracts, derivatives and powder along with a small quantity of medicine (Table 2), most of which was imported via Morocco. All trade was for commercial purposes. Direct exports of H. gordonii from South Africa to countries other than the EU-27 consisted mainly of wild-sourced powder, with the United States of America being the main importer (Table 3). In addition, large numbers of live plants and seeds (artificially propagated and wild) were also exported, mainly to Namibia.

Hoodia gordonii

Table 1. Direct exports of H. gordonii from South Africa to the EU-27, 2005-2009. Further details are provided in Annex I

Term Units Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total derivatives kg A Importer Exporter 14.5 3.5 18 W Importer 34.1 34.1 Exporter 44 44 1 89 - I Importer 18 18 Exporter W Importer Exporter 21057 21057 dried plants kg A Importer 467.2 48000 67656 32 116155.2 Exporter 1335 9745 123100 48251 182431 W Importer 452.5 910 204 2790 4356.5 Exporter 400 1051 2 30030 31483 - A Importer 308 308 Exporter extract kg A Importer 60 5 65 Exporter W Importer 10 10 Exporter 345 100 445 l A Importer Exporter 0.8 0.5 1.3 leaves kg A Importer Exporter 34.4 34.4 W Importer 950 950 Exporter 2531.5 400 2931.5 live kg A Importer 34.4 34.4 Exporter 20 20 - A Importer 2017 2017 Exporter 1023 1000 2023 powder kg A Importer 110 280 55.5 420.8 866.3 Exporter 170 1117.2 2879.3 1104.3 5270.8 W Importer 210 930 95 1235 Exporter 2834 1625 1450 3143.8 77.6 9130.4 seeds - W Importer Exporter 15000000 15000000 specimens kg A Importer Exporter 28 28 stems kg W Importer Exporter 100 300 400 All weight units have been converted to kg and all volume units have been converted to l.

Hoodia gordonii

Table 2. Indirect exports of Hoodia gordonii originating in South Africa to the EU-27 2005-2009. All trade was for commercial purposes.

Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Canada powder kg W Importer Exporter 380 380 Japan derivatives kg W Importer Exporter 25 25 extract kg W Importer 25 25 Exporter Morocco extract kg A Importer 800 1000 1800 Exporter 4204.36 2740 6944.36 W Importer 2374.72 2374.72 Exporter powder kg W Importer 1029.6 1029.6 Exporter United States of America derivatives kg W Importer Exporter 79 79 - W Importer Exporter 5223 16980 35550 57753 extract kg W Importer Exporter 3.6 3.6 - W Importer 63 63 Exporter medicine kg W Importer 1.62 Exporter powder kg W Importer 250 250 Exporter 82 82

Table 3. Direct exports of Hoodia gordonii from South Africa to countries other than the EU-27, 2005-2009.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total derivatives bottles P W Importer 6 12 18 Exporter kg T A Importer 466.8 466.8 Exporter 3.2 6.6 0.3 10.1 W Importer 200 13 213 Exporter 80 1204 66.1 298.8 65.1 1714.1 - P W Importer 360 360 Exporter T A Importer 290 290 Exporter dried plants kg S A Importer 20 20 Exporter 1.7 100 101.7 W Importer Exporter 20 20

Hoodia gordonii

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total T A Importer 6.5 6.5 Exporter 710 710 W Importer Exporter 521 2982.5 100.3 3603.8 - S A Importer 9 9 Exporter T W Importer Exporter 1065 1065 extract kg S W Importer 30 30 Exporter T A Importer 0.1 14.7 14.8 Exporter 22.7 22.7 W Importer 2320 100 250 2670 Exporter 400 0.6 0.03 400.6 l T A Importer 125.1 125.1 Exporter 0.4 100 100.4 leaves kg T W Importer Exporter 1510 1100 30 2640 live kg T W Importer 70 70 Exporter 20.2 20.2 - S A Importer 100000 100000 Exporter T A Importer 15000000 15000000 Exporter 274000 274000 W Importer Exporter 5 5 Medicine - T A Importer 1511 1511 Exporter powder kg T A Importer 3 335 1410 2425.7 4173.7 Exporter 0.1 2638.0 5704.0 6964.8 5814.5 21121.4 W Importer 832 12385 9161.3 21068.7 1721 45168 Exporter 11877.7 54069.2 21934.5 29338.4 1756.1 118976.0 roots kg S W Importer Exporter 60 60 seeds - P W Importer Exporter 10000 10000 S A Importer Exporter 47000000 47000000 W Importer Exporter 15000000 15000000 T A Importer 20200000 20200000 Exporter 100000 100000 W Importer 15000000 15000000

Hoodia gordonii

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Exporter 15000000 15000000 specimens kg T W Importer Exporter 0.28 0.28 stems kg T W Importer 10 580 590 Exporter 1379 330 1709 kg A Importer 3 335 1436.5 2425.7 4200.2 Exporter 0.1 3349.7 5704.0 7064.8 5814.5 21933.1 W Importer 832 12385 9161.3 21068.7 1721 45168 Subtotals Exporter 12418.7 57051.7 22034.8 29338.4 1756.1 122599.8 (live, leaves, roots & stems) - A Importer 9 9 Exporter W Importer Exporter 1065 1065 kg W Importer 80 580 660 Exporter 2889 1450.2 90 4429.2 (dried plants & - A Importer 15100000 15100000 powder) Exporter 274000 274000 W Importer Exporter 5 5 All weight units have been converted to kg and all volume units have been converted to l. Swart (2008) reported that nearly half of the wild-sourced H. gordonii material exported was from dead material that was collected. He also anticipated that the pressure on wild-sourced material would decrease as more cultivated material was harvested (Swart 2008). CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Hoodia gordonii is a slow growing, perennial, leafless succulent (van Wyk, 2000; Swart, 2008) which was reported to be widely distributed throughout the arid areas of South Africa and the Republic of Namibia (Barkhuizen, 1978; Court, 1981; Tibe et al., 2008; van Heerden, 2008; Swart, 2008). Swart (2008) reported that, to a lesser extent, H. gordonii occurred in Botswana and Angola, Tibe et al. (2008) reported that H. gordonii grew in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, Xai National Park and Makgadikgadi National Park in Botswana, whereas Foden (2005) stated that H. gordonii did not grow in Botswana and that herbarium records indicated that the species only grew in South African and Namibia. H. gordonii was reported to be primarily associated with the summer rainfall regions of South Africa and Namibia, but also to occur in the winter rainfall areas of Namibia, occurring in a variety of arid habitats, preferring ―arid gravel or shale plains, slopes and ridges, ranging in altitudes from 250 m to 1200 m‖ (Swart, 2008). Its density was reported to vary greatly throughout its distribution range (Swart, 2008), sometimes occurring in extensive colonies (van Wyk, 2000). The species is a multi-stemmed succulent reaching heights of up to 60-75 cm (Barkhuizen, 1978; van Wyk, 2000; Swart, 2008). Its life-span and age at maturity were reported to be unknown (Swart, 2008), although Swart (2008) noted that anecdotal data indicated it to be 15-20 years, with the first flowering event occurring after three to six years. H. gordonii is not currently listed in the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2010). However, Swart (2008) reported that up until 2002, the species was regarded Near Threatened, although in 2005 it was suggested to change it to Least Concern (Unpublished in: Swart, 2008). Swart (2008) gave the following information on its population status: ―Long term population trends are unknown, but drastic population declines have been observed in nature, mostly due to die-back of established plants. The reasons for these drastic die-back events are

Hoodia gordonii

unknown, but they appear to coincide with prolonged high rainfall events when Fusarium (a fungus) and other pests attack the species. No studies have been undertaken to assess the survival rate and recruitment of seedlings. Population size and density is uncertain. H. gordonii clusters vary a lot in density and demography. Cluster densities range between only a few plants per hectare to over 130 plants per hectare (exceptional cases reflected a few hundred plants per hectare).‖ South Africa: The range map in Swart (2008, based on PRECIS data 2005, SANBI), indicated that H. gordonii occurs in the Northern and Western Cape provinces, along the western side of South Africa. Barkhuizen (1978) reported H. gordonii to be particularly prevalent in the northwestern Cape. H. gordonii was also reported to be cultivated in South Africa (Tibe et al., 2008; Wynberg and Chennells, 2009), although Tibe et al. (2008) reported that it had not yet been harvested, and argued that the species could be propagated by seeds, tissue culture and cuttings, and that it survived well in hot areas and light shade. In 2007, and following non-IUCN criteria, H. gordonii was given the regional status of Declining (SANBI, 2007). In the 2009 Red List of South African plants the species was classified as ‗Data Deficient – Insufficient Information‘ according to IUCN criteria (Raimondo et al., 2009). Swart (2008) provided the following information on threats: “Habitat loss/degradation (human induced), invasive alien species (directly affecting the species), harvesting (illegal gathering), accidental mortality (e.g. bycatch), natural die-back and climatic events appear to be important threats. Of all the threats listed, illegal gathering is regarded the most important, followed by agricultural activities. It is uncertain whether the establishment of Hoodia cultivation sites itself are having negative impacts on its natural distribution, but needs to be investigated as these are established within its habitat. Legal wild harvesting appears not to be a local threat at this stage as harvested sites have not died-back, and harvested plants are sprouting again. The possibility of future commercial collection and the accidental (mistake in identity) collection of other Hoodia sp. is of concern.‖ Swart (2008) reported that ―From 2005 until March 2008 a total of 15.7 tonnes of dry illegal material have been confiscated. Anecdotal data indicate that it could be more (more than 41 tonnes dry weight), but it is unconfirmed. It is suggested that only 10-15% of illegal trade is reported and/or caught.‖ H. gordonii was traditionally used as an appetite and thirst suppressant by the Khoi-San people of the Cape Floristic Region (van Wyk, 2008a; van Wyk, 2008b; Wynberg and Chennells, 2009). In recent years, research and commercialization of the species as a natural appetite suppressant has led to its use in many weight loss products (van Heerden, 2008; van Wyk, 2008a; Vermaak et al., 2010), and the species is now in demand in large quantities in the international market (Tibe et al., 2008). Dietary supplements claiming to contain Hoodia are now widely available in pharmacies, as well as being offered for sale over the internet (Wynberg and Chennells, 2009). However, the high consumer demand and limited geographical distribution of H. gordonii was reported to make the product highly susceptible to adulteration, with up to 75 per cent of H. gordonii products thought to be diluted with other materials (Vermaak et al., 2010), and some commercial products thought not to contain Hoodia at all (Whelan et al., 2010). The limited number of plants available in the wild was considered unable to sustain a commercial market (van Heerden 2008), and van Wyk (2008a) considered the species‘ small and widely dispersed populations to make them vulnerable to overexploitation. Future commercialisation of the species was considered to be dependent on cultivation (Tibe et al., 2008; van Heerden 2008), although it was noted that the species is slow-growing hence cultivation would not be easy (van Heerden 2008). Wynberg and Chennells (2009) reported that farmers had already planted hundreds of hectares in the expectation of future commercialization, and that poaching and illegal harvesting of wild Hoodia had already become widespread and unregulated. South African scientists from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) were reported to have patented the active ingredient and licensed the rights of development and production of H. gordonii to Phytopharm in the United Kingdom (Tibe et al., 2008; Swart, 2008), who sub-licensed it to Unilever Plc, to commercialise it as a food product/supplement (Swart, 2008;

Hoodia gordonii

Wynberg and Chennells, 2009). The San‘s traditional knowledge about the appetite suppressant properties of Hoodia also eventually led to a benefit-sharing agreement between the San and the CSIR (Swart, 2008; Wynberg and Chennells, 2009). Van Heerden (2008) reported that there were more than 20 international patent applications/registrations on H. gordonii, and that the species was of considerable interest to commercial companies worldwide. H. gordonii is listed as a Protected Species (an indigenous species of high conservation value or national importance that requires national protection) in South Africa‘s National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004), which contains measures to restrict activities involving threatened or protected species, with permits required for the collection, cultivation and transport or exporting of plants (Government of South Africa, 2007; Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism., 2007; van Heerden, 2008; SANBI, 2010). Swart (2008) reported that H. gordonii was protected in five on the nine Provinces in South Africa: the Western Cape, Free State, North West, Northern Cape and Kwazulu Natal Provinces. Swart (2008) provided the following summary of the management of H. gordonii: ―The Northern Cape Province, South Africa, issued research permits until early 2000, where after permits for commercial harvesting from the wild was put on hold to enable the department to put systems in place to handle such applications (except Patent Rights Owners of P57). Commercial applications only started after the CSIR announced their ‗discovery‘ in the media. However, none of the other provinces in South Africa have put H. gordonii permits on hold like with the Northern Cape Province did, meaning that harvesting continued in the Western Cape Province and the other Provinces transported and exported without strict cross referencing to make sure that it was legal material. Illegal material were accordingly ‗legalised‘ due to this unsynchronised management by Provinces. No permits for wild crafted H. gordonii was issued until the legal aspects of the Patent Rights contravention were resolved. A Review Report has been compiled and a Resource Assessment and Management Report (RAMR) system has been developed to manage the resource should permits be issued. In the review process the information available on the species and the Access and Benefit Sharing aspect (the San has been acknowledged as the Indigenous Knowledge Keepers) was taken into consideration. The RAMR include the applicant‘s details, resource details, harvesting management details, and trade details (trade information is not mandatory due to the free market system). Only landowners are allowed to harvest on their own properties due to illegal activities that were reported in the Western Cape Province. Harvesting methods were prescribed.‖

REFERENCES: Barkhuizen, B. P. 1978. Succulents of southern Africa: with specific reference to the succulent families in the Republic of South Africa and South West Africa. Purnell, Cape Town. Court, D. 1981. Succulent flora of southern Africa. Balkema, Rotterdam. Foden, W. 2005. Information document on trade in Hoodia gordonii and other Hoodia species. South Africa National Biodiversity Institute. URL: http://www.plantzafrica.com/planthij/hoodia.htm Accessed: 2 January 2011. Government of South Africa. 2007. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 0f 2004): Threatened or Protected Species Amendment Regulations, 2007 (No. R. 152 of 2007) URL: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/saf85760.pdf Accessed: 20 November 2010. IUCN. 2010. IUCN red list URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Accessed: 23 June 2010. Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2007. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004): publication of lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected species. Government Gazette, 23 February 2007. No. 29657.

Hoodia gordonii

Raimondo, D., von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi, D.A. and Manyama, P.A. 2009. Red List of South African plants 2009. South African National Biodiversity Institute. Pretoria. SANBI. 2007. Interim Red Data list of South African plant taxa. South Africa National Botanical Institute, Pretoria. URL: www.nationalredlist.org Accessed: 6 December 2010. SANBI. 2010. National Environmental Management Act (NEMBA) regulations on Threatened and Protected Species URL: http://www.speciesstatus.sanbi.org/threatened.aspx Accessed: 15 December 2010. Swart, E. 2008. Hoodia gordonii in southern Africa. NDF Workshop Case Studies, WG 3 - Succulents and Cycads, Case Study 6. Mexico, 17-22 November 2008. Tibe, O., Modise, D. M., and Mogotsi, K. K. 2008. Potential for domestication and commercialization of Hoodia and Opuntia species in Botswana. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7 (9): 1199-1203. van Heerden, F. R. 2008. Hoodia gordonii: a natural appetite suppressant. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 119 (3): 434-437. van Wyk, B. E. 2000. A photographic guide to wild flowers of South Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town, South Africa. van Wyk, B. E. 2008a. A broad review of commercially important southern African medicinal plants. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 119 (3): 342-355. van Wyk, B. E. 2008b. A review of Khoi-San and Cape Dutch medical ethnobotany. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 119 (3): 331-341. Vermaak, I., Hamman, J. H., and Viljoen, A. M. 2010. High performance thin layer chromatography as a method to authenticate Hoodia gordonii raw material and products. South African Journal of Botany, 76 (1): 119-124. Whelan, A. M., Jurgens, T. M., and Szeto, V. 2010. Efficacy of Hoodia for weight loss: is there evidence to support the efficacy claims? Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 35 (5): 609-612. Wynberg, R. and Chennells, R. 2009. Green diamonds of the south: an overview of the San-Hoodia case, in Wynberg, R., Schroeder, D., & Chennells, R., (eds.), Indigenous peoples, consent and benefit sharing: lessons from the San-Hoodia case. Springer, London.

Annexes

ANNEX I & II. For full version of large trade tables and the key to purpose and source codes, please see separate document.