Review of Species Selected on the Basis of a New Or Increased Export Quota in 2008

Home , Phelsuma, Phelsuma abbotti, Phelsuma lineata, Sulaiman Range gecko

Review of species selected on the basis of a new or increased export quota in 2008

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the

European Commission Directorate General E - Environment ENV.E.2. – Development and Environment

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

September, 2008

Prepared and produced by: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK

ABOUT UNEP WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE www.unep-wcmc.org

The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre is the biodiversity assessment and policy implementation arm of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world‟s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation. UNEP-WCMC aims to help decision- makers recognize the value of biodiversity to people everywhere, and to apply this knowledge to all that they do. The Centre‟s challenge is to transform complex data into policy-relevant information, to build tools and systems for analysis and integration, and to support the needs of nations and the international community as they engage in joint programmes of action.

UNEP-WCMC provides objective, scientifically rigorous products and services that include ecosystem assessments, support for implementation of environmental agreements, regional and global biodiversity information, research on threats and impacts, and development of future scenarios for the living world.

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or contributory organisations. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, the European Commission or contributory organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

2 Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 4 2. Update since SRG 44 ...... 5 SPECIES: Tauraco porphyreolophus ...... 6 SPECIES: Tauraco schalowi ...... 8 SPECIES: Sagittarius serpentarius ...... 10 SPECIES: Tyto alba ...... 14 SPECIES: Phelsuma lineata ...... 16 SPECIES: Phelsuma parkeri ...... 22 SPECIES: Eryx tataricus ...... 24 SPECIES: Podocnemis unifilis ...... 27 SPECIES: Testudo horsfieldii ...... 33 SPECIES: Cyclamen coum ...... 41

3 1. Introduction Export quotas are usually established by each Party to CITES unilaterally but they can also be set by the Conference of the Parties or result from recommendations of the Animals and Plants Committees. They generally relate to a calendar year (1 January to 31 December). There is no specific requirement in the text of the Convention to establish quotas to limit the trade in CITES-listed species. When a country sets its own national export quotas for CITES species, it should inform the Secretariat [see Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP13)], which in turn informs the Parties. Early in each year, the Secretariat publishes a Notification to the Parties containing a list of export quotas of which it has been informed. The CITES export quotas for sturgeon were initially published on the CITES website (www.cites.org) on 01/02/2008 and for all other species on 18/12/2007. Since that time, the quotas have been updated on several occasions; the most recent update was the 23/07/2008 for sturgeons and the 17/07/2008 for all other species. Based on the quotas that were available on 13/05/2008, UNEP-WCMC analysed the 2008 CITES export quotas to identify: a) Quotas that were newly established in 2008 (i.e. 2008 quotas for particular species/country/source combinations which had not previously been subject to quota). b) Quotas that increased in 2008 compared with 2007 quotas and the percentage of that increase The analysis was presented at the 44th Meeting of the SRG on 26/05/2008. Ten species/country combinations were selected for review where the new or increased quota in 2008 indicated that further discussion might be necessary to determine whether the trade would have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the species. These were: Tauraco porphyreolophus/United Republic of Tanzania: New quota of 100 live specimens. Tauraco schalowi/ United Republic of Tanzania: New quota of 100 live specimens. Sagittarius serpentarius/ United Republic of Tanzania: Quota increased in 2008 to 20 live specimens. No quotas during 2005-2007, and quotas of 5 live specimens in each of 2003 and 2004. Tyto alba/ United Republic of Tanzania: New quota of 30 live specimens. Phelsuma lineata (P. minuthi)/Madagascar: (New) quota of 2,000 live specimens set for Phelsuma minuthi in 2008. This quota was later in 2008 set for Phelsuma lineata (accepted name) instead of Phelsuma minuthi (synonym). Quotas in previous years had been for Phelsuma lineata. Phelsuma parkeri/United Republic of Tanzania: New quota of 1,000 wild-taken specimens. Endemic to Tanzania. No previous trade reported. Eryx tataricus/Uzbekistan: Quota increased to 1,000 live specimens in 2008 (233% increase on 2007 quota). Podocnemis unifilis/Peru: New quota of 13,810 live specimens. Considered globally Vulnerable. Testudo horsfieldii/Uzbekistan: New quotas of 5,000 eggs and 2,000 live, captive bred specimens. Quota for ranched specimens increased to 18,000 in 2008 (38% increase on 2007 quota). Considered globally Vulnerable. Previously reviewed for SRG 30 in July 2004. Current positive opinion for Uzbekistan. Included in the CITES Significant Review process at the 23rd Animals Committee in

4 April 2008 with the following comments: “Species is heavily traded. Mainly adult specimens are found in trade. With the exclusion of China, all range countries will be contacted.” Cyclamen coum/Georgia: Quota increased to 500,000 tubers in 2008 (317% increase on 2007 quota). 2.1. Trade data Trade data included in this report were downloaded from the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database on 19/6/2008.

2. Update since SRG 44 Since the analysis of CITES export quotas was undertaken in May, 2008, additional CITES export quotas have been published on the CITES website. Of particular note were:  the quota for Acipenser persicus [Caspian Sea] meat from Iran which increased from 100,000 kg in 2007 to 172,000 kg in 2008.  the quota for Amazona ochrocephala for Guyana in 2008 which was 1,000 live birds. The quota for 2007 was not published (but rather was in prep.). However, this quota resulted from recommendations of the Animals Committee and the Standing Committee. A positive opinion was formed for Guyana on 18/07/2001 and last confirmed on 29/10/2001.  the quota for live Python breitensteini for Indonesia which increased from 900 in 2007 to 1,620 in 2008. A positive opinion was formed for Indonesia on 01/07/2004.  the quota for Panthera pardus trophies and skins from Mozambique which increased from 60 in 2007 to 120 in 2008. However, this quota was established by the Conference of the Parties.  the quota for Crocodylus niloticus from Mozambique which increased from 900 in 2007 to 1,800 specimens in 2008 („sport hunting, control of problematic animals and for management purposes‟).  the quota for Strombus gigas from Colombia which increased from 75,000 kg of meat in 2007 to 112,000 kg of meat in 2008. S.gigas from Colombia was reviewed in 2007 (SRG 41) – Review of species selected on the basis of a new or increased export quota in 2007) due to the increased quota in 2007. A positive opinion was formed for Colombia on 14/09/2007.  the quota for Strombus gigas from Jamaica of 400,000 kg meat. No quotas had been published for this species/country combination since 2004 (the quota then was 550,000 kg meat). A positive opinion was formed for Jamaica on 18/07/2001, last confirmed on 29/10/2001.

5 REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF A NEW OR INCREASED EXPORT QUOTA IN 2008

AVES: MUSOPHAGIDAE

SPECIES: Tauraco porphyreolophus

SYNONYMS: Corythaix porphyreolopha, Gallirex porphyreolophus, Musophaga porphyreolopha

COMMON NAMES: Purpertoerako (Dutch), Purple-crested Turaco (English), Violet-crested Turaco (English), Savanniturako (Finnish), Touraco à huppe pourprée (French), Touraco à huppe splendide (French), Touraco à huppe violette (French), Touraco violet (French), Glanzhauben-Turako (German), Turaco crestimorado (Spanish), Turaco crestivioleta (Spanish)

RANGE STATES: Botswana, (v) Burundi, (br) Kenya, (br) Malawi, (br) ? Mozambique, (br) Rwanda, (br) South Africa, (br) Swaziland, (br) Uganda, (br?) United Republic of Tanzania, (br?) Zambia, (br) Zimbabwe (br)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: United Republic of Tanzania

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinions for Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, formed on 13 May 1998. Current Article 6(4)b suspension for wild specimens from Uganda, first imposed on 29 October 2001 and most recently applied on 1 October 2007. Previous negative opinion for Uganda, formed on 18 August 2000.

TRADE PATTERNS: Species selected for review on the basis of a new quota of 100 live specimens from the United Republic of Tanzania (hereafter referred to as Tanzania) in 2008. No trade was reported from Tanzania in the period 1998-2006. Low level trade was reported prior to that period involving live specimens, trophies and scientific specimens both to the European Union and elsewhere.

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES Turner (1997) reported that T. porphyreolophus is „an essentially resident species which, although localized, is quite common in several parts of its southern African range‟ UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Britton (1980) stated that „the race chlorochlamys is locally common in woodland, bushland, tall thickets, riverine forest and edges of larger tracts of forest in plateau country of Tanzania and SE Kenya up to 1300 m, north to Ngara, Biharamulo, Mwanza, Handa, the Chyulus, Machakos, Thika and Embu, and once recorded in S Ankole in SW Uganda.‟

6 Fry et al. (1988) noted: „Main range, from SW Uganda (Ankole, 1 record) through Tanzania (north to Ngara, Biharamulo, Mwanza and Handa) [...] Frequent to locally common.‟ Zimmerman et al. (1996) noted that it was „known formerly in Lake Manyara NP, but no recent records from n. Tanzania.‟ Turner (1996) described this species as „principally a gallery and riverine forest species, habitat loss has contributed much to its decline, while indiscriminate trapping in Tanzania (235 birds exported 1980-90) has further exacerbated the situation, as such it is now an exceedingly scarce species over much of s. Kenya and Tanzania. Clearly this northern race cannot sustain any further trapping and export from Tanzania, and it is hoped that representation can be made to the Tanzanian Government to withdraw this species from its annual export quotas.‟ Turner (1997) stated that „Owing to severe loss of habitat and indiscriminate trapping in Tanzania, however, subspecies chlorochlamys has become a near-threatened taxon within its E African range, where only a few small isolated groups now survive.‟ Stevenson & Fanshawe (2002) mapped the species throughout most of Tanzania and noted that it was „widespread and locally common, although often at low densities from near sea-level to 1300 m.‟ REFERENCES: Britton, P. L. (ed.). 1980. Birds of East Africa. East Africa Natural History Society, Nairobi. Fry, C. H., Keith, S. and Urban, E. 1988. The birds of Africa. Volume 3. Academic Press, London and San Diego. Stevenson, T. and Fanshawe, J. 2002. Birds of East Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi. T. & A. D. Poyser, London. Turner, D. A. 1996. Alarming levels of trade in some East African turacos. Unpublished. Turner, D. A. 1997. Family Musophagidae (turacos). Pp. 480-506 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott & J. Sargatal, eds. Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 4. Sandgrouse to cuckoos. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Zimmerman, D. A., Turner, D. A. and Pearson, D. J. 1996. Birds of Kenya and northern Tanzania. Christopher Helm, London.

7 REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF A NEW OR INCREASED EXPORT QUOTA IN 2008

AVES: MUSOPHAGIDAE

SPECIES: Tauraco schalowi

SYNONYMS: Corythaix schalowi, Tauraco corythaix schalowi, Tauraco livingstonii schalowi

COMMON NAMES: Schalow's Turaco (English), Touraco de Schalow (French), Schalowturako (German), Turaco de Schalow (Spanish), Schalows turako (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Angola, (br) Botswana, (v) Democratic Republic of the Congo, (br) Kenya, (br) Malawi, (br) ? Namibia, (br) United Republic of Tanzania, (br?) Zambia, (br) Zimbabwe (br)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: United Republic of Tanzania

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: None

TRADE PATTERNS: Species selected for review on the basis of a new quota of 100 live specimens from the United Republic of Tanzania in 2008. No trade was reported as exports from Tanzania in the period 2001-2006. Some low level trade reported in previous years although none to the European Union.

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Britton (1980) treated schalowi as a subspecies of Tauraco livingstonii, which they regarded as „locally common in forest and richer woodland.‟ Fry et al. (1988) noted that its range was „W Tanzania (Ufipa to Mahari Mt and Gombe Stream Game Reserve)‟. They treated schalowi as a subspecies of Tauraco persa, which they regarded as „common in forest, locally so in thick woodland‟. Zimmerman et al. (1996) noted that it was „confined to forests in the Mbulu and Crater Highlands, somewhat disjunctly in the Loita Hills and riparian highlands along the Talek and Mara Rivers in the Mara GR, west and north to Lolgorien and Kilgoris [Kenya]. Occasional in northern and western parts of Serengeti NP‟. Stevenson & Fanshawe (2002) noted that the species was „common in forest and riverine woodland in northern Tanzania, with a separate population from western to south-western Tanzania.‟ Glen et al. (2005) noted the species occurrence as follows: „6 November 2003 (07°48‟S, 033°52‟E, altitude 1677 m) and 10 November 2003 (07°45‟S, 34°01‟E, altitude 1812 m). In these localities the density was outstanding.‟

8 REFERENCES: Britton, P. L. (ed.). 1980. Birds of East Africa. East Africa Natural History Society, Nairobi. Fry, C. H., Keith, S. and Urban, E. 1988. The birds of Africa. Volume 3. Academic Press, London and San Diego. Glen, R., Mtahiko, M., De Leyse, L. and Stolberger, S. (2005) Bird records from the Isunkaviola Hills of Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. Scopus 25: 61-66. Stevenson, T. and Fanshawe, J. 2002. Birds of East Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi. T. & A. D. Poyser, London. Zimmerman, D. A., Turner, D. A. and Pearson, D. J. 1996. Birds of Kenya and northern Tanzania. Christopher Helm, London.

9 REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF A NEW OR INCREASED EXPORT QUOTA IN 2008

AVES: SAGITTARIIDAE

SPECIES: Sagittarius serpentarius

SYNONYMS: Falco serpentarius

COMMON NAMES: Secretarybird (English), Messager sagittaire (French), Secrétaire des serpents (French), Serpentaire (French), Secretario (Spanish), Serpentario (Spanish), sekreterarfågel (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Angola, (br?) Benin, (br?) Botswana, (br) Burundi, (br?) Cameroon, (br?) Central African Republic, (br?) Chad, (br?) Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, (br?) Eritrea, Ethiopia, (br) Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, (br) Kenya, (br) Lesotho, Liberia, (v) Malawi, (br) Mali, (br) Mauritania, Mozambique, (br?) Namibia, (br) Niger, (br?) Nigeria, (br?) Rwanda, (v) Senegal, (br?) Somalia, (br) South Africa, (br) Sudan, (br) Swaziland, (br) Togo, Uganda, (br?) United Republic of Tanzania, (br) Zambia, (br) Zimbabwe (br)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: United Republic of Tanzania

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 6(4) b suspension in place for wild specimens from Cameroon, applied on 1 October 2007. Previous negative opinion for Cameroon formed on 25 October 2005. Current Article 6(4) b suspension in place for wild specimens from Guinea, first imposed on 1 March 2003 and most recently applied on 1 October 2007. Previous negative opinion for Guinea formed on 15 May 2001, confirmed on 29 October 2001. Positive opinion for South Africa formed on 26 March 2001. Current Article 6(4) b suspension in place for wild specimens from Togo, first imposed on 10 May 2006, most recently applied on 1 October 2007. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Togo formed on 20 August 2003, confirmed on 13 December 2004. Previous positive opinion for United Republic of Tanzania formed on 26 March 2001, removed on 29 February 2008 at SRG 43, when it was decided that all applications should be referred to the SRG.

TRADE PATTERNS: Species selected for review on the basis of the increased quota of 20 live specimens from the United Republic of Tanzania in 2008 (see Table 1). During the period 1998-2006 reported trade from Tanzania totalled 148 based on reports by importing countries, but only 91 based on reports from Tanzania, a discrepancy that suggests that trade is inadequately reported (and perhaps therefore inadequately controlled). Previously, trade was reported during the period 1983-1997, with a total of 396 live individuals and a peak of 119 in 1986 (CITES Trade Database). The annual export quota remained at 22 from 1998 to 2001 but then decreased to 5 by 2004, followed by a three year period with no quota before the 2008 quota of 20 was established. According to importer-reported figures, quotas were exceeded in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Table 1. CITES Export quotas for Sagittarius serpentarius from U. R. Tanzania and associated global exports, reported by importer and exporter. All quotas refer to live specimens. All trade in wild specimens unless otherwise specified. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Quota (wild) 22 22 22 22 8 5 5 - - - 20 Quota (F1) 53 Exports reported by importer 16 16 14 (4 C) 21 16* 23 6 24 8 - - Exports reported by exporter 18 20 22 9 4 18 - - *Includes four on a permit issued in 2001.

Table 2. Direct exports of Sagittarius serpentarius from U. R. Tanzania to EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live wild specimens. [No indirect trade reported] Importer Purpose Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Belgium Z Importer 4 4 8 Exporter 2 2 Czech Republic T Importer 4 4 Exporter Z Importer 6 8 14 Exporter 6 6 Germany T Importer 2 5 2 9 Exporter Italy T Importer 10 10 Exporter Z Importer 2 2 Exporter Importer 16 19 4 8 47 Total Exporter 2 6 8

Table 3. Direct exports of specimens of Sagittarius serpentarius from U. R. Tanzania to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade in wild specimens unless otherwise specified Importer Term Purpose Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Canada live Z Importer Exporter 2 2 China live Z Importer 4 4 Exporter Cyprus live T Importer 2 2 Exporter Japan Z Importer 2 2 Exporter 2 2

11 Importer Term Purpose Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Malaysia live T Importer 6 6 Exporter Z Importer 2 2 Exporter 4 4 Saudi Arabia live P Importer 4 4 Exporter Singapore live T Importer 4 4 8 Exporter South Africa live T Importer 2 2 Exporter Z Importer 8 8 Exporter 2 2 Thailand live Z Importer 3 3 Exporter 3 3 United Arab Emirates live B Importer 10 10 Exporter Z Importer Exporter 10 10 United States trophies H Importer 1 1 Exporter 1 2 3 live Z Importer 1 1 Exporter (Source C) (Source C) Importer 26 4 2 16 8 56 Total Exporter 10 2 2 12 26

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES Kemp (1994) summarised its status in general: „Widespread and often locally common, both in protected natural areas and in various forms of extensive agriculture. Often protected in recognition of snake and rodent killing abilities, but sometimes persecuted at low accessible nest-sites. Afforestation of grasslands and intensive land use have eliminated habitat, with some compensation where bush has been cleared for grazing or croplands. No total population estimates but over 1000 breeding pairs thought to occur in Transvaal Province of South Africa alone.‟ Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) provided a similar general summary of status: „Widespread and, though uncommon to rare and local in some parts, generally common in others.‟ Under the heading Population they noted: „Home ranges often large: recorded densities vary greatly from 1 pair/ 20 km2 to 1 pair/ 230 km2, with distances between nests of 4.5-15 km; but these data come mostly from optimum areas in southern Africa, and elsewhere often much scarcer, even 1 pair/ 500 km2 in more arid regions or in low-rainfall years….Although benefiting from bush clearance and deforestation, and adapting readily to large-scale ranching and farming, with resulting local increases, generally considered to be declining in face of ever-growing human population and consequent spreading cultivation and urbanisation. Little persecuted, but vulnerable to disturbance.‟

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Britton (1980) stated that „In Tanzania it is reasonably common in the north, from Serengeti to Mkomazi, and breeds south to Rukwa and N Njombe, but it is still unrecorded in most of the east and northwest. It apparently wanders widely, as suggested by a bird circling over Kibondo in NW Tanzania on 30 October 1960‟. In the Serengeti National Park, Schmidl (1982) described it as an „uncommon resident breeder in all types of grassland; usually seen in pairs‟.

12 In Kenya and northern Tanzania, Zimmerman et al. (1996) found it to be „Conspicuous, but nowhere common, on open plains, farmland, and grassland with scattered bushes and trees. Widespread in s. Kenya and n. Tanzania, mainly in areas of moderate rainfall, but scarce in w. Kenya and the arid north and west.‟ Lack et al. (1999) found it to be „common and widespread in more open areas‟ in the Mkomazi area. In East Africa, Stevenson & Fanshawe (2002) mapped the species throughout most of Tanzania, except the south-east corner; they noted that it was „locally common in open bushed and wooded grasslands from near sea-level to 3000 m.‟ REFERENCES: Britton, P. L. (ed.). 1980. Birds of East Africa. Nairobi: East Africa Natural History Society. Brown, L. H., Urban, E. K. and Newman, K. 1982. The birds of Africa, 1. Academic Press, London and New York. Ferguson-Lees, J. and Christie, D. A. 2001. Raptors of the world. Christopher Helm, London. Kemp. A. C. 1994. Family Sagittariidae (Secretarybird). Pp. 206-215 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott and J. Sargata (eds.) Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 2. New World vultures to guineafowl. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Lack, P., Baker, N. and Baker, E. 1999. Checklist: birds of Mkomazi. Pp. 445-454 in M. Coe, N. McWilliam, G. Stone and M. Parker, Mkomazi, the ecology, biodiversity and conservation of a Tanzania savanna. Royal Geographical Society, London. Schmidl, D. 1982. The birds of the Serengeti National Park Tanzania. British Ornithologists‟ Union, London. BOU Check-list No. 5. Stevenson, T. and Fanshawe, J. 2002. Birds of East Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi. T. & A. D. Poyser, London. Zimmerman, D. A., Turner, D. A. and Pearson, D. J. 1996. Birds of Kenya and northern Tanzania. Christopher Helm, London.

13 REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF A NEW OR INCREASED EXPORT QUOTA IN 2008

AVES: TYTONIDAE

SPECIES: Tyto alba

SYNONYMS: Strix alba, Tyto detorta

COMMON NAMES: Sova pálená (Czech), Slørugle (Danish), Kerkuil (Dutch), Barn Owl (English), Common Barn-Owl (English), Tornipöllö (Finnish), Chouette effraie (French), Effraie africaine (French), Effraie des clochers (French), Schleiereule (German), Gyöngybagoly (Hungarian), Barbagianni (Italian), Płomykówka (Polish), Coruja-das-torres (Portuguese), Sipukha (Russian), Lechuza común (Spanish), Lechuza de campanario (Spanish), Tornuggla (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Albania, (br) Algeria, (br) American Samoa, (br) Andorra, (br) Angola, (br) Argentina, (br) Australia, (br) Austria, (br) Bahamas, (br) Bahrain, (br) Bangladesh, (br) Belarus, (br) Belgium, (br) Belize, (br) Benin, (br) Bermuda, (br) Bolivia, (br) Bosnia and Herzegovina, (br) Botswana, (br) Brazil, (br) Bulgaria, (br) Burkina Faso, (br) Burundi, (br) Cambodia, (br) Cameroon, (br?) Canada, (br) Cape Verde, (br) Cayman Islands, (br) Central African Republic, (br) Chad, (br?) Chile, (br) China, (br) Colombia, (br) Comoros, (br?) Congo, (br?) Costa Rica, (br) Côte d'Ivoire, (br) Croatia, (br) Cuba, (br) Cyprus, (br) Czech Republic, (br) Democratic Republic of the Congo, (br?) Denmark, (br) Dominica, (br) Dominican Republic, (br) Ecuador, (br) Egypt, (br) El Salvador, (br) Equatorial Guinea, (br) Eritrea, (br?) Estonia, (v) Ethiopia, (br) Falkland Islands (Malvinas), (br?) Fiji, (br) Finland, (v) France, (br) French Guiana, (br) Gabon, (br) Gambia, (br) Georgia, (br) Germany, (br) Ghana, (br) Gibraltar, (br?) Greece, (br) Grenada, (br) Guatemala, (br) Guinea, (br) Guinea-Bissau, (br) Guyana, (br) Haiti, (br) Honduras, (br) Hungary, (br) India, (br) Indonesia, (br) Iran (Islamic Republic of), (br) Iraq, (br) Ireland, (br) Israel, (br) Italy, (br) Jamaica, (br) Jordan, (br) Kenya, (br) Kuwait, (v) Lao People's Democratic Republic, (br) Latvia, (br) Lebanon, (br) Lesotho, (br) Liberia, (br) Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, (v) Lithuania, (br) Luxembourg, (br) Madagascar, (br) Malawi, (br) Malaysia, (br) Mali, (br) Malta, (br) Mauritania, (br) Mayotte, (br) Mexico, (br) Moldova, (br) Monaco, (br) Morocco, (br) Mozambique, (br?) Myanmar, (br) Namibia, (br) Nepal, (br) Netherlands, (br) Netherlands Antilles, (br) New Caledonia, New Zealand, (v) Nicaragua, (br) Niger, (br) Nigeria, (br) Niue, (br) Norway, (v) Oman, (br) Pakistan, (br) Panama, (br) Papua New Guinea, (br) Paraguay, (br) Peru, (br) Poland, (br) Portugal, (br) Puerto Rico, (v) Romania, (br) Rwanda, (br) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, (br) Samoa, (br) San Marino, (br) São Tomé and Principe, (br) Saudi Arabia, (br) Senegal, (br) Serbia and Montenegro, (br) Seychelles, (br) Sierra Leone, (br) Singapore, (br) Slovakia, (br) Slovenia, (br) Solomon Islands, (br) Somalia, (br) South Africa, (br) South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, (v) Spain, (br) Sri Lanka, (br) Sudan, (br) Suriname, (br) Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands, (v) Swaziland, (br) Sweden, (br) Switzerland, (br) Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, (br) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, (br) Timor-Leste, Togo, (br?) Tonga, (br) Trinidad and Tobago, (br) Tunisia, (br) Turkey, (v) Turks and Caicos Islands, (br) Uganda, (br?) Ukraine, (br) United Arab Emirates, (br) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (br) United Republic of Tanzania, (br?) United States of America, (br) Uruguay, (br) Vanuatu, (br) Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), (br) Viet Nam, (br) Wallis and Futuna Islands, (br) Western Sahara, (br) Yemen, (br) Zambia, (br) Zimbabwe (br)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: United Republic of Tanzania

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: None

TRADE PATTERNS: Species selected for review on the basis of a new quota of 30 live specimens from the United Republic of Tanzania in 2008. No trade was reported from Tanzania in the period 2001-2006. Low level trade was reported prior to that time, although only one live specimen was importer to the European Union, in 1987.

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Fry et al. (1988) mapped the species throughout Tanzania and noted its status in Africa as „generally frequent – sparse in arid zones. Locally abundant‟. Stevenson & Fanshawe (2002) mapped the species throughout Tanzania and noted that it was an „uncommon but widespread resident from sea level to 3000 m‟. Zimmerman et al. (1996) mapped it as occurring sparsely in northern Tanzania and described it as „widely but sparsely distributed at elevations from sea level to almost 3000 m. Often associated with man in urban and suburban areas; otherwise around cliffs and kopjes in many national parks and other largely uninhabited areas‟. In the Serengeti National Park, Schmidl (1982) described it as an „uncommon resident breeder‟. REFERENCES: Fry, C. H., Keith, S. and Urban, E. 1988. The birds of Africa. Volume 3. Academic Press, London and San Diego. Schmidl, D. 1982. The birds of the Serengeti National Park Tanzania. British Ornithologists‟ Union, London. BOU Check-list No. 5. Stevenson, T. and Fanshawe, J. 2002. Birds of East Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi. T. & A. D. Poyser, London. Zimmerman, D. A., Turner, D. A. and Pearson, D. J. 1996. Birds of Kenya and northern Tanzania. Christopher Helm, London.

15 REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF A NEW OR INCREASED EXPORT QUOTA IN 2008

REPTILIA: GEKKONIDAE

SPECIES: Phelsuma lineata

SYNONYMS: Phelsuma minuthi

COMMON NAMES: Lined Day Gecko (English), Side-striped Day Gecko (English), Striped Day Gecko (English), Gecko diurne ligné (French), Gecko diurne rayé (French), Phelsume rayé (French), Streifen-taggecko (German), Felsuma lineata (Italian), Geco diurno de bandas (Spanish), linjerad daggecko (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Madagascar formed on 26 September 2006. Previous Article 6.4(b) suspension for Phelsuma minuthi applied on 22/12/1997 which was removed on 10/10/2007.

TAXONOMIC NOTE: Phelsuma lineata was recognized by CITES at CoP 13 (October 2004), when the standard references for the genus Phelsuma were adopted. Previously, the species had been recognised as Phelsuma minuthi.

TRADE PATTERNS: Species selected for review on the basis of a 2008 quota of 2000 live specimens of Phelsuma minuthi from Madagascar. P. minuthi is not a name accepted by CITES. The quota was later in 2008 set for Phelsuma lineata. The export quotas for Phelsuma lineata are summarised in Table 4. Importers‟ data cannot be used in this case to analyse quotas as the bulk of animals reported as imports are on permits issued by Madagascar in the previous year. According to the annual reports of Madagascar, the 1999 quota was apparently exceeded by 271 specimens and in 2000 and 2001 by 535 and 310 specimens, respectively. For the five years following, reported exports have been below quota. The apparently exceeded quotas could be explained by Madagascar reporting on the basis of permits issued rather than those actually used. A TRAFFIC Europe study of the EU reptile trade (Auliya, 2003) found that P. lineata was the third most highly imported reptile species between 1990 and 1999. A total of 71% of P. lineata imports had been wild caught. Phelsuma collectors in Madagascar received about € 0.03 per specimen for a small species and € 0.06 per specimen for a large species. The animals are exported to Europe for around € 8 to 15 each where they can be purchased for € 80 to 150 each. This high increase in price was reportedly caused by compensation for high mortality (G. Hallmann, pers. comm. 2002, cited in Auliya, 2003). Reported trade was much higher during the 1990s when a total of 45,630 P. lineata was imported into the EU during 1990-1999 compared to the period 2001 to 2006, when 2,775 individuals were imported into the EU.

16 According to importer data in the CITES trade database, the large majority (99%) of P. lineata imported into the EU from 2001 to 2006 were wild-caught. The only reported imports during the period that were not wild-caught were 30 ranched individuals into France in 2001. Germany was the largest EU importer of the species from 2001 to 2006, importing a total of 1,481 wild-caught individuals (54% of total EU imports during the period), with a maximum of 571 in 2005, see Table 4. The second highest EU importer between 2001 and 2006 was the Netherlands, which imported 708 wild-caught individuals (26% of total EU imports during the period), with a maximum of 269 in 2004. Table 4. CITES Export quotas for Phelsuma lineata from Madagascar and associated global exports, reported by importer and exporter. 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Quota (live) 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Exports reported by importer R - - 125 80 - 90 - - - - W 6,002 1510 1,930 510 1,348 1,238 1,737 646 - - Exports reported by exporter R - - 810 115 - 90 - - - - W 2,271 2,535 2,310 1,810 1,755 1,501 479 1,639 - -

Table 5. Main direct exports of Phelsuma lineata from Madagascar to EU-27, 2001-2006. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Belgium live T W Importer Exporter 280 280 Czech Rep. live T W Importer 10 70 80 Exporter 120 24 70 214 France live T R Importer 30 30 Exporter 30 30 W Importer 70 50 120 Exporter 100 50 20 170 Germany bodies S W Importer 5 5 3 1 14 Exporter 5 5 3 1 14 live T R Importer Exporter 100 100 W Importer 130 315 277 571 188 1481 Exporter 480 240 372 521 50 318 1981 Italy bodies S W Importer Exporter 2 1 3 live T R Importer Exporter 20 20 W Importer 102 50 152 Exporter 22 140 162 Netherlands live T R Importer Exporter 45 45 W Importer 245 269 194 708 Exporter 190 269 144 341 944 Spain live T W Importer 35 35 Exporter 35 35 UK live T W Importer 75 50 20 145 Exporter 75 50 20 145 W Importer 445 445 713 838 294 2735 Exporter 1050 485 757 541 334 764 3931 live R Importer 30 30 Subtotals Exporter 175 20 195 S Importer 5 5 3 1 14 bodies Exporter 5 7 3 2 17

Table 6. Indirect exports of Phelsuma lineata originating in Madagascar to EU-27, 2001- 2006. All trade was in live wild specimens for commercial purposes. Exporter Importer Reported by 2004 United States Denmark Importer 10 Exporter

Table 7. Direct exports of Phelsuma lineata from Madagascar to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Canada live T W Importer 35 158 165 77 435 Exporter 20 60 175 136 391 China live T W Importer Exporter 40 25 65 El Salvador live T W Importer Exporter 110 184 294 Hong Kong live T W Importer 30 30 Exporter 60 60 Japan live Q W Importer 5 5 Exporter S W Importer 5 1 6 Exporter T R Importer 40 40 Exporter 100 50 150 W Importer 300 305 64 284 40 993 Exporter 380 450 94 200 40 292 1456 Malaysia live T W Importer 10 10 Exporter Switzerland live T R Importer 50 50 Exporter 20 20 W Importer 30 30 Exporter 20 20 Taiwan, Prov. of China live T W Importer Exporter 30 30 Thailand live T W Importer 70 168 67 305 Exporter 100 168 67 335 Ukraine live T W Importer Exporter 40 40 United States bodies S W Importer Exporter 1 25 15 41 live T R Importer 125 50 175 Exporter 535 115 650 W Importer 1175 475 315 287 453 169 2874 Exporter 880 565 492 545 80 310 2872 W Importer 1485 510 908 530 902 353 4688 Exporter 1261 1325 1023 975 145 875 5604 live R Importer 125 50 90 265 Subtotals Exporter 635 115 70 820 S Importer bodies Exporter 1 25 15 41

18 CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES

MADAGASCAR: Phelsuma lineata is a diurnal gecko of relatively small size (Van Heygen, 2004) and only occurs on Madagascar (Welch, 1982; Van Heygen, 2004). Five subspecies are generally recognised, which are distinguished by size and slight differences in coloration and patterning (Glaw and Vences, 1994). P. lineata lineata was reported to be common at Antananarivo, where high densities were observed on banana plants (Glaw and Vences, 1994). Glaw and Vences (1994) reported that P. l. bifasciata was quite common on Pandanus palms in the rainforest around Andasibe and Moramanga, but also that it was present in villages, e.g. on banana plants. P. l. dorsivittata seems to be restricted to northern Madagascar (Glaw and Vences, 1994). It was reportedly common around the type locality Joffreville and more rarely has been found on Pandanus inside the Montagne d‟Ambre rainforest (Glaw and Vences, 1994). P. l. punctulata is only known from two specimens taken at Tsaratantana in the Sambiro region in the north (Glaw and Vences, 1994; Boumans et al., 2007). P. l. bombetokensis was reported to live in the relatively arid climate of the north-west (Glaw and Vences, 1994). Uetz et al. (2008) also list a sixth subspecies P. l. chloroscelis which was first described by Mertens (1962) and has been found in eastern and central Madagascar around Perinet and Moramanga. It was reported that P. lineata has adapted to human disturbance and that it occurs in relatively high densities near houses, in secondary forest and banana plantations (Glaw and Vences, 1994). Raxworthy (2003) considered P. lineata to be a widespread species and to tolerate considerable human habitat modification. P. lineata has been found frequently on Pandanus plants and may reproduce there, but also lays its eggs in other habitats (Lehtinen, 2002). It is oviparous and in captivity a female can produce six clutches per year, each containing two eggs (Hilgenhof, 1993, cited in Glaw and Vences, 1994). Jenkins (2000) noted that many Phelsuma species appear to benefit from deforestation, and that some species, including P. lineata, „are extremely abundant and occur in greater numbers in cultivated and urbanised areas.‟ The IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group et al. (1993) noted that the species was abundant in degraded forest regions, particularly along the eastern coast from Tolagnaro northwards. They concluded that the trade levels at that time did not pose a threat to the species in general, but were concerned that the restricted distributions of P. l. bombetokensis and P. l. chloroscelis (= P. l. bifasciata) gave cause for concern about the impact of collection on their populations. Within the Parc National de Marojejy, the species is threatened by harvest of Pandanus palm fronds, which provide its microhabitat (Raselimanana et al., 2000). No population estimates or information on population trends could be identified. The following information was submitted by the Management Authority of Madagascar in the context of the country‟s Significant Trade Review (Madagascar MA, 2008): “All of the experts from each fauna subgroup (insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) met in April 2006 to establish an objective methodology for setting quotas. This methodology establishes formulae based on various parameters: range, habitat, fragmentation, abundance, density, population size, and so on. It will shortly be available on the CITES Madagascar website. The data used are drawn from the results of field work by each group in Madagascar. The formulae obtained will be improved or adjusted in the future in the light of new field studies. Prudent quotas are applied for the groups for which the data are unavailable or inadequate. This quota-setting methodology, established in 2006, is still valid at present, no change having been made to it”.

19 It was reported that identification sheets for the species most commonly exported form Madagascar (including Phelsuma species) were prepared (Madagascar MA, 2008). During the Animals Committee discussions „it was also questioned whether Madagascar was yet in a position to make non-detriment findings for all Appendix-II species that were exported, although there was also general acknowledgement that Madagascar had made very good progress in implementation of the action plan.‟ REFERENCES: Anon. (2008) Draft summary record: Twenty third meeting of the Animals Committee. http://www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/23/E-AC23-Sum-Rec-draft.pdf Auliya, M. 2003. Hot trade in cool creatures: A review of the live reptile trade in the European Union in the 1990s with a focus on Germany. Brussels, Belgium: TRAFFIC Europe. http://www.traffic.org/reptiles-amphibians/ Accessed 30 June 2008. Boumans, L., Vieites, D.R., Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 2007. Geographical patterns of deep mitochondrial differentiation in widespread Malagasy reptiles. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 45:822-839. Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 1994. A fieldguide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. Second Edition. Bonn, Germany: Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig. Hilgenhof, R. 1993 Phelsuma lineata bifasciata BOETTGER, 1913. Phelsumen-Steckbrief, AG Phelsuma (DGHT), 1 p. IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group, BIODEV and SSC Madagascar RASG. 1993. A Preliminary review of the status and distribution of reptile and amphibian species exported from Madagascar. JNCC Report Series 155. Peterborough (UK): Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 100 pp. Jenkins, R. W. G. 2000. Commercial use and export of chamaeleonid and phelsumid lizards in Madagascar – an experiment in adaptive management. In Search of Innovative Conservation Initiatives, Journal of Sustainable Use (Report of the Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Sustainable Use of Wildlife Resources). 9 pp. URL: http://www.iwmc.org/sustain/2ndSymposium/terrestrial/terrestrial-08-9.htm Accessed July 2008. Lehtinen, R.M. 2002. The use of screw pines (Pandanus spp.) by amphibians and reptiles in Madagascar. Herpetological Bulletin, 82:20-24. Madagascar MA. 2008. Progress report on the country-based review of significant trade in Madagascar. 23rd Meeting of the Animals Committee, Geveva, Switzerland, 19-24 April 2008. AC23 Doc. 8.2. Mertens, R. 1962. Die Arten und Unterarten der Geckonengattung Phelsuma. Senckenbergiana Biologica, 43:81-127. Raselimanana, A. P., Raxworthy, C. J. and Nussbaum, R. A. 2000. Herpetofaunal Species Diversity and Distribution within Parc National de Marojejy, Madagascar. Fieldiana: Zoology, New Series 97: 157-174. Raxworthy, C.J. 2003. Reptiles. In: Goodman, S.M. and Benstead, J.P. (Eds.) 2003. The natural history of Madagascar. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London. Uetz, P., JCVI and Hallermann, J. 2008. The TGR Reptile Database. Phelsuma lineata http://www.tigr.org/reptiles/species.php?genus=Phelsuma&species=lineata Accessed 6 July 2008. Van Heygen, E. 2004. The genus Phelsuma. Phelsumania. URL: http://www.phelsumania.com/public/systematics/species_list.html Accessed 25 June 2008. Welch, K.G. 1982. Herpetology of Africa: A checklist and bibliography of the orders Amphisbenia, Sauria and Serpentes. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, Florida. 293 pp.

FURTHER READING: Andreone, F., Randrianirina, J.E., Jenkins, P.D. and Aprea, G. 2000. Species diversity of Amphibia, Reptilia and Lipotyphla (Mammalia) at Ambolokopatrika, a rainforest between the Anjanaharibe-Sud and Marojejy massifs, NE Madagascar. Biodiversity and Conservation, 9 (12):1587-1622.

20 Austin, J.J., Arnold, E.N. and Jones, C.G. 2003. Reconstructing an island radiation using ancient and recent DNA: the extinct and living day geckos (Phelsuma) of the Mascarene islands. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 31(1):109-122. Hallmann, G., Kruger, J. and Trautmann, G. 2008. Faszinierende Taggeckos. Die Gattung Phelsuma. Germany: Natur und Tier-Verlag. 229 pp. Henkel, F.-W. and Schmidt, W. 1995. Amphibien und Reptilien Madagaskars, der Maskarenen, Seychellen und Komoren. Ulmer Stuttgart, Germany. Kluge, A. G. 1991. Checklist of Gekkonid lizards. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service 85. 35 pp. Rocha, S., Posada, D., Carretero, M.A. and Harris, J. 2007. Phylogenetic affinities of Comoroan and East African day geckos (genus Phelsuma): Multiple natural colonisations, introductions and island radiations. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 43:685-692. Sound, P., Kosuch, J., Vences, M., Seitz, A. and Veith, M. 2006. Preliminary molecular relationships of Comoran day geckos (Phelsuma). Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica pp.175-179. http://www.gli.cas.cz/seh/files/bonnensis/175_Sound.pdf Accesseded 30 June 2008. Wildscreen 2008. ARKive species information. Lined day gecko (Phelsuma lineata) http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/reptiles/Phelsuma_lineata/more_info.html?section =descriptionata) Accesseded 25 June 2008.

21 REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF A NEW OR INCREASED EXPORT QUOTA IN 2008

REPTILIA: GEKKONIDAE

SPECIES: Phelsuma parkeri

SYNONYMS: Phelsuma abbotti parkeri

COMMON NAMES: Parker's Day Gecko (English), Pemba Day Gecko (English), Gecko diurne de l'Ile Pemba (French), Gecko diurne de Parker (French), Phelsume de Parker (French), Felsuma di Parker (Italian), pembadaggecko (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: United Republic of Tanzania

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: None

TRADE PATTERNS: Species selected for review on the basis of a new quota of 1,000 wild-taken specimens in 2008. There is no reported trade in this species with any country.

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Phelsuma parkeri is a poorly known, green diurnal gecko of medium size reaching about 15 cm in length (Spawls et al., 2002). It has been treated as a subspecies P. abbotti parkeri by some authors (e.g. Borner, 1972; Broadley and Howell, 1991; Spawls et al., 2002), but was elevated to species rank by Mertens (1963) and recent DNA work has confirmed its taxonomic status as a species (Sound et al., 2006; Rocha et al., 2007). Phelsuma parkeri has been recognized by CITES since its inclusion in the Appendices in 1977. P. parkeri is restricted to Pemba Island (Loveridge 1941, 1942, 1957; Anon., 2004). The island covers 1,340 km2 and is 40 km from the Tanzanian mainland (Van Heygen, 2004). Localities where specimens have been taken include Wambaa, Mkoani and Mkanyageni in the south of the island and Kinowe and Kilinde in the north (Pakenham, 1983); also Kinasini and Wete (Loveridge, 1942). Spawls et al. (2002) speculated that given the frequency of trade by boat from Pemba Island and the potential for adults to be transported in cargo such as coconuts, thatch and timber, the species could be expected to occur on Zanzibar, but has been overlooked so far, or it could be accidentally introduced there in future. According to Pakenham (1983) the species is found exclusively or almost so, in coconut palms; Loveridge (1942) also gave the species‟ habitat as coconut palms. Most of Pemba Island has been profoundly altered by human activity and only small patches of native vegetation remain (Catry et al., 2000). Pakenham (1979) described the island as thickly covered with plantations of cloves (mainly) and coconuts. The species‟ habitat is therefore likely to be widespread on the island. Spawls et al., (2002) considered that P. parkeri may be more common than indicated by the few specimens found and might be overlooked. No additional information could be located on the status of the species.

22 REFERENCES: Borner, A.R. 1972. Revision der Geckonidengattung Phelsuma Gray 1825. Koln, Germany: privately published. 145 pp. Broadley, D. G. and Howell, K. M. 1991. A checklist of the reptiles of Tanzania, with synoptic keys. Syntarsus 1: 1-70. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: The National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe. Catry, P., Mellanby, R., Suleiman, K.A., Salim, H., Hughes, M., McKean, M., Anderson, N., Constant, G., Heany, V., Martin, G., Armitage, M. and Wilson, M. 2000. Habitat selection by terrestrial birds on Pemba Island (Tanzania), with particular reference to six endemic taxa. Biological Conservation, 95(3): 259-267. Loveridge, A. 1941. New Geckos (Phelsuma and Lygodactylus), Snake (Lepotyphlops) and Frog (Phrynobarachits) from Pemba Island, East Africa. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 54 (8): 175-178. Loveridge, A. 1942. Revision of the Afro-Oriental Geckos of the Genus Phelsuma. Bulletin of Museum of Comparative Zoology, 89: 439-482. Loveridge A. 1957. Checklist of the reptiles and amphibians of East Africa (Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Zanzibar). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard, 117(2): 153–360. Mertens, R. 1963. Zwei neue Arten Geckonengattung Phelsuma. Senckenbergiana Biologica, 44(5): 349-356. Pakenham, R.H.W. 1979. The birds of Zanzibar and Pemba. British Ornithologists‟ Union. Checklist No. 2. London, UK: B.O.U. Pakenham, R.H.W. 1983. The reptiles and amphibians of Zanzibar and Pemba Island. Journal of East Africa Natural History Society and National Museum, 177: 1-40. Rocha, S., Posada, D., Carretero, M.A. and Harris, J. 2007. Phylogenetic affinities of Comoroan and East African day geckos (genus Phelsuma): Multiple natural colonisations, introductions and island radiations. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 43: 685-692. Sound, P., Kosuch, J., Vences, M., Seitz, A. and Veith, M. 2006. Preliminary molecular relationships of Comoran day geckos (Phelsuma). Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica pp.175-179. URL: http://www.gli.cas.cz/seh/files/bonnensis/175_Sound.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008. Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R. and Ashe, J. 2002. A field guide to the reptiles of East Africa. London, U.K.: Academic Press. 543 pp. Van Heygen, E. 2004. Pemba Island. Phelsumania. URL: http://www.phelsumania.com/public/biogeography/africa/pemba.html Accessed 25 June 2008.

FURTHER READING: Austin, J.J., Arnold, E.N. and Jones, C.G. 2003. Reconstructing an island radiation using ancient and recent DNA: the extinct and living day geckos (Phelsuma) of the Mascarene Islands. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 31: 109-122. Broadley, D.G. 2003. The reptiles of the East African coastal mosaic. BFA Seminar Series No. 19, held 13 February 2003. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. URL: http://www.biodiversityfoundation.org/documents/s19.pdf Accessed 25 June 2008. Hallmann, G., Kruger, J. and Trautmann, G. 2008. Faszinierende Taggeckos. Die Gattung Phelsuma. Germany: Natur und Tier-Verlag. 229 pp. Mertens, R. 1966. Die nichtmadagassischen Arten und Unterarten der Gekkonengattung Phelsuma. Senckenbergiana Biologica, 85-110.

23 REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF A NEW OR INCREASED EXPORT QUOTA IN 2008

REPTILIA: BOIDAE

SPECIES: Eryx tataricus

SYNONYMS: Boa tatarica, Eryx speciosus

COMMON NAMES: Tartary Sand Boa (English), Boa des sables de Tatarie (French), tatarisk sandboa (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, China, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Uzbekistan

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Uzbekistan formed on 05 September 2002.

TRADE PATTERNS: Species selected for review on the basis of increased quota of 1,000 live specimens from Uzbekistan in 2008 (233% increase on 2007 quota – see Table 8). The EU reported a total of 120 specimens from Uzbekistan during the period 2001-2006, compared with a reported total of 340 imported by the USA. Previous reported trade from Uzbekistan involved 50 individuals in both 1999 and 2000, with none reported before 1999. Exports reported annually by Uzbekistan have fluctuated between 40 and 218. Harrison (2003) reported a link to a story in the Russian newspaper Pravda about a man arrested for smuggling 12 Eryx tataricus out of Uzbekistan in bottles of flour to sell for their "pharmaceutical properties" in western Siberia. Apparently they were worth US$1000/dozen. Table 8. CITES Export quotas for Eryx tataricus from Uzbekistan and associated global exports, reported by importer and exporter. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Quota (live) 50 50 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,000 Exports reported by Importer 40 150 70 150 - - Exports reported by Exporter 50 50 40 150 100 70 218 - -

Table 9. Direct exports of Eryx tataricus from Uzbekistan to EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live specimens for commercial purposes. Importer Source Reported by 2003 2005 2006 Total Czech Republic R Importer Exporter 11 11 Germany R Importer Exporter 20 20 W Importer 20 50 70 Exporter United Kingdom W Importer 50 50 Exporter 50 50

24 Importer Source Reported by 2003 2005 2006 Total R Importer Exporter 20 11 31 Subtotals W Importer 50 20 50 120 Exporter 50 50

Table 10. Indirect exports of Eryx tataricus originating in Uzbekistan to EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live wild specimens for commercial purposes. Exporter Importer Reported by 2004 2005 Total Russian Fed. Germany Importer Exporter 60 40 100

Table 11. Direct exports of Eryx tataricus from Uzbekistan to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live specimens. Importer Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Russian Fed. P W Importer Exporter 7 7 T W Importer Exporter 100 100 United States T R Importer Exporter 50 50 W Importer 40 100 50 100 290 Exporter 50 40 100 200 390 R Importer Exporter 50 50 Subtotals W Importer 40 100 50 100 290 Exporter 50 40 100 100 207 497

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES Harrison (2003) provided some general information on the species: “The natural range of E. tataricus is somewhat difficult to figure out due to the difficulty some authors have had defining this taxon. In general, this is a snake of the Steppe, found from the Caspian Sea east into western China and maybe Mongolia (it is listed as Endangered in the 1987 Red Book of Mongolia). In Kyrgyzstan the species is included in the national Red Data Book (Milko & Panfilov, 2006); it occurs sparsely (no more than 2 individuals per 10 km x 4 m transect) and is declining. Tokar (1989) regards the two subspecies of this snake as separate species (E. tataricus and E. vittatus). Kluge (1993) felt that there were two taxa in museum collections under the name tataricus, but felt that they did not correspond to the ranges of the described subspecies tataricus and vittatus. This issue is further complicated by the difficulty some authors have had distinguishing tataricus from both miliaris and jaculus.” (Harrison, 2003).

UZBEKISTAN: Amirkhanov et al. (1987) reported the species as occurring in the following protected areas in Uzbekistan: Aral-Paigambar (common), Arnasansky (occurrence unconfirmed) and Nuratinsky (occurrence unconfirmed). McDiarmid et al. (1999) listed Uzbekistan as within the range of the species but provided no further information. Darevsky and Orlov (1988) reported that the species was uncommon in Uzbekistan. The species is not included in the Red Data Book for Uzbekistan (Azimov, 2003). No evidence was found that the species has any protection status in Uzbekistan. Anon. (2001) noted that one of the threats to biodiversity in Uzbekistan was „Over- exploitation of individual species, through hunting, overfishing, and persecution. With the decline of the strict enforcement capacity of the former Soviet protected area and wildlife systems, citizens of the newly-independent republics have taken advantage to promote

25 hunting, including trophy shooting. Collection of birds of prey for the falconry trade, particularly to the Arab states, has increased, as has collection of threatened reptiles, such as Horsefield‟s tortoise, for the pet trade.‟ In 2002 when the annual export quota had been increased from 50 to 300 and the annual trade in the previous two years was 50 individuals, a positive opinion was formed. REFERENCES: Amirkhanov, A. M. (Ed.) 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in protected areas. Moscow. (In Russian) Anon. 2001. Biodiversity assessment for Uzbekistan Task Order under the biodiversity & sustainable forestry IQC (BIOFOR). Chemonics International, Washington, D.C. Ataev, C. A. 1985. Reptiles of the mountains of Turkmenistan. TSSR Academy of Sciences, Ashkabad. (In Russian) Azimov, Zh. A. (ed.). 2003. [The Red Book of the Republic of Uzbekistan.] Tashkent: Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences. (In Russian) Darevsky, I. S. and Orlov, N. L. 1988. Rare and endangered animals – reptiles and amphibians. Vyshaya Shkola, Moscow. (In Russian) Harrison, C. 2003. The Tartar Sand Boa (Eryx tataricus). URL: http://www.kingsnake.com/sandboa/tataricu.html Accessed July 2008. Kluge, A. G. 1993. Calabaria and the phylogeny of erycine snakes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 107(4): 293-351. McDiarmid, R. W., Campbell, J. A. and Touré, T. A. 1999. Snake species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Volume 1. Washington, DC: Herpetologists' League. Milko, D. A. and Panfilov, A. M. 2006. Amphibians and reptiles. In Milko, D.A. (Ed.) Red Data Book of Kyrgyz Republic, 2nd Ed. Bishkek: State agency on environment protection and forestry under the Government of Kyrgyz Republic, Institute for Biology and Pedology of National Academy of Sciences of Kyrgyz Republic, and Ecological Movement “Aleine” of Kyrgyzstan. 544 pp. (In Russian) Tokar, A. A. 1989. The revision of the genus Eryx (Serpentes Boidae), osteological evidence. Vestnik Zoologii, Kiev 4: 46-55. (In Russian)

FURTHER READING: Azimov, D. A. and Vashetko, E. B. (ed.) 2000. Biodiversity conservation in particularly strictly protected areas of Uzbekistan. Tashkent. 150 pp. (In Russian.) Meklenburtsev, R. N. and Ganiev, S. G. (eds.) 1983. Plant and animal ecology of nature reserves of Uzbekistan. Tashkent. 98 pp. (In Russian.)

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF A NEW OR INCREASED EXPORT QUOTA IN 2008

REPTILIA: PODOCNEMIDIDAE

SPECIES: Podocnemis unifilis

SYNONYMS:

COMMON NAMES: 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 UNDER REVIEW: Peru

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

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 6.4(b) suspension in place for Suriname, first imposed on 19 September 1999 and most recently applied on 1 October 2007.

TRADE PATTERNS: Species selected for review on the basis of a new quota of 13,810 live specimens in 2008 for this globally Vulnerable species. P. unifilis was exploited in large numbers for the pet trade from the 1960s to around 1980, although a number of sources suggested this trade has stopped (Artner, 2006; Bonin. et al., 2006). According to importer data, between 2001 and 2006 a total of 449 live, captive P. unifilis was imported into the EU from Peru, with a maximum of 300 individuals in 2003, see Table 12. In addition 30 „F‟ source individuals were imported by Spain in 2006. The only wild P. unifilis EU imports during the period were six turtles imported by Spain in 2001 destined for zoos. Italy imported the largest number of P. unifilis into the EU between 2001 and 2006, a total of 349 live individuals all of captive origin (77% of the total EU imports for the species during the period), with a maximum of 250 in 2003. The majority of trade reported to countries outside the EU also involved specimens from sources C and F. Peru established an export quota for P. unifilis for the first time in 2008; 13,810 ranched individuals. This figure is far higher than the recorded number of P. unifilis from the country as reported by both importers and exporters during recent years. Table 12. Direct exports of Podocnemis unifilis from Peru to EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live specimens. Importer Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 Total Germany T C Importer

Exporter 100 100

27 Importer Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 Total Italy T C Importer 99 250 349

Exporter 100 299 399

Spain T C Importer 50 50 100 Exporter 254 50 304

F Importer 30 30

Exporter Z W Importer 6 6

Exporter 6 6

C Importer 99 300 50 449 Exporter 100 653 50 803

F Importer 30 30 Subtotals

Exporter

W Importer 6 6

Exporter 6 6

Table 13. Indirect exports of Podocnemis unifilis originating in Peru to EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in wild specimens for educational purposes. Exporter Importer Term Reported by 2003 Brazil Spain Carapace Importer

Exporter 1

Skulls Importer Exporter 1

Table 14. Direct exports of Podocnemis unifilis from Peru to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Hong Kong live T F Importer 100 100 Exporter Indonesia live T C Importer Exporter 100 100 Japan live T C Importer 19 130 143 292 Exporter 45 335 50 430 F Importer 98 200 298 Exporter 99 99 Taiwan, Prov. of China live T F Importer Exporter 50 50 Thailand live T F Importer 449 100 100 Exporter 100 100 United States feet S W Importer Exporter 372 372 live T C Importer Exporter 500 500 I Importer 50 50 Exporter

28 Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total live C Importer 19 130 143 292 Exporter 45 935 50 1030 F Importer 198 300 498 Exporter 249 249 Subtotals I Importer 50 Exporter feet W Importer Exporter 372 372

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES P. unifilis is a large freshwater turtle with a wide range in South America. It occurs in the Caribbean drainages of Guyana, French Guiana, Venezuela, and the upper tributaries of the Amazon River in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, north Bolivia, south Venezuela, and Brazil (Uetz et al., 2008). Iverson (1992) has mapped its distribution. The species lives in the calm waters of big rivers with marked changes in seasonal water levels. During the high water period they are also found in flooded forests, swamps and lagoons whereas during the dry season they concentrate in the principal riverbeds (Ojasti, 1996). Data is scarce on the species‟ abundance, although it was reported to be fairly common in the more remote rivers in its range by Ojasti (1996). P. unifilis was categorised as Vulnerable by the Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group (1996). Populations have reportedly declined drastically throughout the species‟ range chiefly because of over-exploitation of eggs and adults for food by indigenous peoples (Thorbjarnarson et al., 1993; Ojasti, 1996). Adults are also hunted for their oil and shells, as well as for meat (Conway, 2004). Adults were reported to be caught on beaches when they attempt to nest or to be captured with traps and nets in the water (Bonin et al., 2006). Gordo et al. (2001) indicated that this species once formed an important part of the diet for people throughout Amazonia. Other human threats have been reported to be damming of rives for hydroelectric projects, (Vanzolini, 2003), water pollution, and the destruction of gallery forests along river banks (Anon., 2000). Climate change can also potentially threaten turtle species as the sex of offspring is determined by the temperature at which they are incubated (Lovich, 2003). Keeping in captivity and captive breeding Nogueira-Netoulfil (1973) stated that Podocnemis species adapt well in captivity and may occasionally reproduce. However, Artner (2006) indicated that P. unifilis is quite rarely kept in captivity nowadays, because of its large size and its need for a lot of swimming space and therefore a requirement for huge enclosures. Various authors (Alho, 1985; Mittermeier, 1978; Smith 1974) have suggested commercial rearing of hatchling Podocnemis in tanks or lagoons. Alho (1985) estimated that an initial lot of 5,000 baby turtles with a 5% annual mortality rate and the release of 10% each year to build up wild populations would produce 1,500 adult turtles after eight years for an estimated value of US$25,000. By 2000 there were 20 turtle captive breeding centres (including breeding of P. unifilis) in the Brazilian Amazon; some of the turtles are reared for meat (MMA, 2000).

PERU: P. unifilis occurs in the Amazon basin of northeastern Peru (Iverson, 1992; Fritz & Havaš, 2007). The species has been reported from the following protected areas in Peru: Manu National Park (Yallico and Suarez de Freitas, 1995), Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve (Murrieta and Ruiz, 2006), Reserva Ecológica Taricaya (Timson, 2006-8), the Tambopata River watershed in the Tambopata National Reserve and Bahuaja-Sonene National Park (ParksWatch, 2002) and the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve (ParksWatch, 2003). The turtle is also found in the Abanico of Rio Pastaza Wetlands, a Ramsar site in the Amazon region (Anon., 2002).

29 P. unifilis was reported to be scarce in areas of Peru where the species had been collected intensively, chiefly as a result of hunting for food, both for subsistence and commercial purposes (Soini, 1996). Groombridge (1982) indicated that the species was protected in the country, but that enforcement was generally lacking. P. unifilis was considered to be abundant in the Pacaya River (Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve), with at least 14 adult females and 29 nests per km of river (Soini, 1996). It was estimated, however, that more than 90% of the eggs laid in the Pacaya River were collected illegally (Soini, 1994; Soini, 1996). Additionally, it was estimated that 200-300 P. unifilis egg- laying females were illegally collected annually in the Pacaya River (Soini, 1996). One study in this national reserve (Kvist et al., 2001) found that around 170 communities in the area depend on resources extracted from the extensive flood plains in and just outside the national reserve. The highest daily incomes were provided by the extraction of turtle eggs, as well as ornamental fishes and parrots (US$10-3- per day). In 1996, enforcement was not considered successful and illegal collection was reportedly increasing in the Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve (Soini, 1996). As a response, the reserve authorities started gathering the eggs that the P. unifilis turtles deposit in the river banks and breeding the turtles in captivity or semi-captivity, giving them a better chance of survival (Soini, 1996; Pacaya Samiria Amazon Lodge, 2008). Artificial nesting beaches have been created in the Yanayacu Pucate and Pacaya basins in the reserve and were used for egg-laying by the species in 2006 (Murrieta and Ruiz, 2006). Restocking after breeding in this way has resulted in a population increase and the species was considered abundant in the reserve in 2006 (Sánchez et al., 2006), despite illegal extraction of eggs and predicted conflicts with park authorities described by Kvist et al. (2001). Manu National Park was reported to have the „last good populations‟ of P. unifilis (Yallico and Suarez de Freitas, 1995). The Machiguenga and other indigenous tribes living in the area rely on the turtles as a food source (Tropical Rainforest Coalition, 2004). A sustainable management project for the species has been in progress in the national park since at least 1995 (Tropical Rainforest Coalition, 2004; Yallico and Suarez de Freitas, 1995). The aim is to maintain the sustainability of sideneck turtles in the Manu National Park, while benefitting the indigenous groups that inhabit the region (Tropical Rainforest Coalition, 2004). The Taricaya Research Centre has been in operation since 2001. In 2004 the government agreed to the establishment of the Reserva Ecológica Taricaya (480 ha) on land around the centre. P. unifilis is seriously threatened in the area by poaching of eggs and adults for food and also to earn cash. The turtle project is one of the centre‟s main projects. In 2007 the record number of 55 nests and around 1,400 eggs were collected. The eggs were incubated on two artificial beaches that were built by the centre and a few months later 992 baby turtles were released to the wild. Since 2004 local people have collected turtle eggs for the centre and are paid the same amount they would receive from the sale of poached eggs. Other projects have been implemented to provide the locals with a good alternative food source that does not depend on hunting native fauna (Timson, 2006-8).

REFERENCES: Alho, C.J.R. 1985. Conservation and management strategies for commonly exploited Amazonian turtles. Biological Conservation, 32:291-298. Anon. 2000. The Bananal Island Turtle Project. Full Proposal for CFR/Earthwatch. Cangucu Research Center, Bananal Island. August 2000. Earthwatch. URL: http://www.ecologica.org.br/amazonturtle/turtles.pdf Accessed 9 July 2008. Anon. 2002. Abanico of Rio Pastaza Wetlands. Ramsar Information sheet. URL: http://www.wetlands.org/reports/ris/6PE008en.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008. Artner, H. 2006. Keeping and breeding the Yellow-headed Sideneck Podocnemis cayennensis (Schweigger, 1812) over years. European Freshwater Turtle Breeders Association. 17

30 December 2006.URL: http://www.eftba.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1 Accessed 12 July 2008. Bonin, F., Devaux, B. and Dupre, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. London, UK: A & C Black. Conway, K.M. 2004. Human use of two species of river turtles (Podocnemis spp.) in lowland eastern Bolivia. PhD. thesis, University of Florida. URL: http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0001481/conway_k.pdf Accessed July 2008. Fritz, C. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Vertebrate Zoology, 57 (2): 149-368. Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Richmond, Indiana, USA: Published by the author. Gordo, M., Knell, G. and Gonzales, D. E. R. 2001. Amphibians and Reptiles. Rapid Biological Inventory Report No.16, The Field Museum, Chicago, USA. URL: http://fieldmuseum.org/rbi/temp/Matses-English.pdf Accessed 3 July 2008. Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-Reptile Red Data Book. Part 1: Testudines, Crocodylia. Kvist, L. P., Gram, S., Cacares, C. and Ore, I. 2001. Socio-economy of flood plain households in the Peruvian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 150(1-2):175-186. Lovich, J. E. 2003. Turtles and global climate change. U. S. Department of the Interior/U. S. Geological Survey. http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/biology/turtles/ Accessed 2 July 2008. Mittermeier, R.A. 1978. South America's river turtles: saving them by use. Oryx, 14:222-230. MMA. 2000. First national report on the Convention on Biological Diversity, Brazil. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (Brazil‟s Ministry of Environment). URL: http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/br/br-nr-01-p8-en.pdf Accessed 12 July 2008. Murrieta, J. N. and Ruiz, C. G. 2006 Conservation of aquatic biodiversity in Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve, Peru, July – September 2006. Third Narrative Report. URL: http://www.pronaturaleza.org/informes/informe4.doc Accessed 9 July 2008. Nogueira-Neto, P.A. 1973.A criaçao de animals indígenas vertebrados. Peixes, anfibios, repteis, aves, mamíferos. Ed. Tecnapis, Sao Paulo in Ojasti (1996). Ojasti,J. 1996. Wildlife utilization in Latin America: current situation and prospects for sustainable management. FAO Conservation Guide – 25. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0750E/t0750e09.htm#3.1.1%20podocnemis%20expansa%20 and%20podocnemis%20unifilis%20(south%20american%20river%20turtles) Accessed 6 July 2008. Pacaya Samiria Amazon Lodge 2008. Pacaya Samiria National Reserve. The Jungle of the Mirrors. URL: http://www.pacayasamiria.com.pe/pacaya.htm Accessed 9 July 2008. ParksWatch 2002. Tambopata National Reserve and Bahuaja-Sonene National Park. Park profile, Peru. URL: http://www.parkswatch.org/parkprofiles/pdf/tabs_eng.pdf Accessed 9 July 2008. ParksWatch 2003. Amarakaeri Communal Reserve. Park profile, Peru. URL: http://www.parkswatch.org/parkprofiles/pdf/amcr_eng.pdf Accessed 9 July 2008. Sánchez, N., Tantalean, Vela, D. and Méndez, A. 2006. Gastrointestinal parasites of taricaya Podocnemis unifilis (Troschel, 1848) (Testudines: Podocnemididae) from Iquitos, Peru. Revista Peruana de Biología, 13(1):119-120. Smith, N.J.H. 1974. Destructive exploitation of the South American river turtle. Yearb. Ass. Pacific. Coast Geogr. 36:85-102. In Ojasti (1996). Soini, P. 1994. Ecología reproductiva de la Taricaya (Podocnemis unifilis) en el Río Pacaya, Perú. Folia Amazonica 6(1-2):105-124. URL: http://www.iiap.org.pe/Publicaciones/CD/documentos/Folia6.pdf Accessed 2 July 2008. Soini, P. 1996. Reproducción, abundancia y situación de quelonios acuáticos en La Reserva Nacional Pacaya-Samiria, Perú. Folia Amazonica 8(1):145- 187. URL: http://www.iiap.org.pe/publicaciones/folias/folia%208/Folia_8_N_1.pdf#page=145 Accessed 9 July 2008.

31 Thorbjarnarson, J. B., Pérez, N. and Escalona, T. 1993. Nesting of Podocnemis unifilis in the Capanaparo River, Venezuela. Journal of Herpetology 27(3):344-347. Timson, S. 2006-2008 Taricaya Research Centre Project, Peru. URL: http://www.volunteer- conservation-peru.org/projects Accessed 3 July 2008. Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group 1996. Podocnemis unifilis. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN 2007. URL: http://www.iucn.redlist.org Accessed 3 July 2008. Tropical Rainforest Coalition 2004. Save-a-Turtle (Taricayas) The Sideneck Turtle Management and Conservation Program. URL: http://www.rainforest.org/projects/turtle/saveaturtle.html Accessed 6 July 2008.. Uetz, P., JCVI and Hallermann, J. 2008 The TGR Reptile Database. Podocnemis unifilis URL: http://www.tigr.org/reptiles/species.php?genus=Podocnemis&species=unifilis Accessed 6 July 2008. Vanzolini, P. E. On clutch size and hatching success of the South American turtles Podocnemis expansa (Schweigger, 1812) and P. unifilis (Troschel, 1848) (Testudines, Podocnemididae). Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences 75(4):415-430. Yallico, L. and Suárez de Freitas, G. 1995. The Manu Biosphere Reserve Peru. South-South Cooperation Programme on Environmentally Sound Socio-Economic Development in the Humid Tropics. Working Paper No. 8. URL: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001139/113933eo.pdf Accessed 9 July 2008.

FURTHER READING: Caputo, F. P., Canestrelli, D. and Boitani, L. 2005. Conserving the terecay (Podocnemis unifilis, Testudines: Pelomedusidae) through a community-based sustainable harvest of its eggs. Biological Conservation, 126(1):84-92. Dixon, J. R., and Soini, P. 1986. The reptiles of the Upper Amazon Baisin, Iquitos Basin, Peru. Part 1: lizards and amphibisbaenians. Part 2: crocodilians, turtles and snakes. Milwaukee, USA: Milwaukee Public Museum. Ernst, C. H., Altenburg, R. G. M. and Barbour, R. W. Turtles of the world. URL: http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/turtles.php?menuentry=medewerkers Accessed 9 July 2008. Ferreira Jr, P. D. and Castro, P. de T. A. 2006. Geological characteristics of the nesting areas of the giant Amazon river turtle (Podocnemis expansa) in the Crixas-Acu river in Goias State, Brazil. Acta Amazonica, 36(2):249-258. Teran, A. F., Vogt, R. C. and Gómez, M. de F. S. 1995. Food habits of an assemblage of five species of turtles in the Rio Guapore, Rondonia, Brazil. Journal of Herpetology, 29(4): 536-547.

32 REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF A NEW OR INCREASED EXPORT QUOTA IN 2008

REPTILIA: TESTUDINIDAE

SPECIES: Testudo horsfieldii

SYNONYMS: Agrionemys horsfieldii, Homopus burnesii, Testudo baluchiorum

COMMON NAMES: Afghan Tortoise (English), Central Asian Tortoise (English), Four-toed Tortoise (English), Horsfield's Tortoise (English), Steppe Tortoise (English), Tortue des steppes (French), Tortue d'Horsfield (French), Tortuga terrestre afgana (Spanish), fyrtåig sköldpadda (Swedish), rysk stäppsköldpadda (Swedish)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Uzbekistan

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, Armenia, China, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: All countries had an Article 6(4) c suspension first applied on 19 September 1999, and removed on 10/09/2006. Current Article 6.4(b) suspension in place for wild specimens from China, first applied on 22 December 1997, until the present (most recently applied on 1 October 2007). Current Article 6.4(b) suspension in place for for wild specimens from Kazakhstan first applied on 10 May 2006 and re-applied on 1 October 2007. Current Article 6.4(b) suspension in place for for wild specimens from Pakistan has an Article 6 (4) b suspension first applied on 22 December 1997, until the present (most recently applied on 1 October 2007). Current positive opinion for Tajikistan formed on 29 February 2008. Negative opinion for Uzbekistan from sources F/R formed on 11 July 2000. Positive opinion for specimens from sources 'F' and 'R' with plastron length 6-8 cm was subsequently formed on 26 March 2001. Positive opinion for wild specimens from Uzbekistan since 26/09/2006.

33 TRADE PATTERNS: Species selected for review on the basis of new quotas of 5,000 eggs and 2,000 live, captive bred specimens in 2008; increased quota of 18,000 ranched specimens in 2008 (38% increase on 2007 quota) and on the basis of its globally vulnerable status. T. horsfieldii was considered to be one of the most heavily traded chelonians in the world (Bonin et al., 2006). It was identified as one of the top ten live CITES-listed reptile species imported by the EU from 1990 to 1999 (Auliya, 2003). Between 1998 and 2001 export quotas for T. horsfieldii from Uzbekistan were only for live wild- taken individuals and varied between 25,000 in 1998 and 30,000 in 2001, see Table 15. There was no export quota in 2002. An export quota of 5,000 for live ranched individuals was introduced in 2003 and generally increased in the following years reaching a maximum of 17,000 in 2008. During the same period the export quota for wild-taken tortoises was slightly reduced from 25,000 individuals in 2003 to 22,000 annually from 2005-2008. In addition, in 2008 an export quota for 2,000 captive bred individuals was introduced. An export quota of 5,000 eggs was introduced in 2007 and maintained in 2008. When data reported by the exporter are considered for wild-taken T. horsfieldii, the export quota was exceeded in 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2006. It was exceeded by a maximum of 4,877 tortoises in 2006. When considering the data reported by the importers the export quota was exceeded in two years, by 3,000 tortoises in 2005 and 1,500 tortoises in 2006. When data reported by the exporter for ranched individuals is considered, the export quota was apparently exceeded in 2004 by 1,150 individuals. However 1,650 animals destined for the United Kingdom were not reported as imports so it may be that the trade did not take place. When considering data reported by the importers, the export quota for ranched individuals was exceeded in 2006 by 485 tortoises; however 1,200 animals imported that year were on export permits issued in 2005. Some of the exceeded quotas could be explained by the fact that Uzbekistan reports on the basis of permits issued. However in 2006 the United States reported the import of two shipments of animals from Uzbekistan that reportedly originated in Tajikistan, totalling 2,750 animals. One of these shipments shows in the Uzbekistan annual report as being for 3,327 animals with origin Uzbekistan with a note that it was not used. The other shipment, of 1,000 animals, also shows in the Uzbekistan annual report but Tajikistan is not given as the origin. The EU is a significant importer of T. horsfieldii from Uzbekistan. Between 2001 and 2006, the EU reported direct imports of 41,185 individuals (Table 16). The large majority (93%) of these T. horsfieldii involved ranched tortoises (38,185 ranched individuals compared to 3,000 wild- taken individuals). In addition, in 2006, the EU reported the import of 2,121 wild-taken T. horsfieldii from Uzbekistan via the United States (Table 17). Wild-taken individuals were only reported as imported into the EU in two years and at relatively low volumes during the period, in 2002 and 2006. In contrast to EU imports, almost all trade to non EU countries were of wild- taken individuals during the period, with the United States and Japan being the main importers (Table 18).

34 Illegal trade According to Sorochinsky (cited in Theile, 2002), illegal harvest and trade in T. horsfieldii is rather common in Uzbekistan. Mitropolski and Kashkarov (2000) reported that „mass poaching‟ has taken place in recent years in the regions of Bukhara and Samarkand, with large adult tortoises (> 17cm) being targeted. The agencies responsible for the control and enforcement (Customs and Biological State Control Agencies) estimated the volume of annual illegal export to be 7,000 tortoises from Uzbekistan (Theile, 2002). According to Devaux (2007) the Uzbekistan government give the much higher figure of 35,000 T. horsfieldii that are collected illegally each year, and estimate that a further 10,000 a year could escape the statistics. Table 15. CITES Export quotas for Testudo horsfieldi from Uzbekistan and associated global exports, reported by importer and exporter. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Quotas live (W) 25000 35000 35000 30000 25000 23000 22000 22000 22000 22000 live (R) 5000 7000 13000 14000 13000 17000 live (C) 2000 eggs 5000 5000 Exports live (W) 20424 17552 23750 20400 24850 24148 22300 25000 23500 - - reported live (R) 2000 2000 4350 6000 9350 14685 by live (F) 2000 importer Exports live (W) 25000 34100 18500 32700 26850 25150 22300 26001 26877 - - reported live (R) 2000 2000 4350 8150 12800 14000 - - by live (F) 2000 exporter

Table 16. Main direct exports of Testudo horsfieldi from Uzbekistan to EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live specimens for commercial purposes. Importer Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Bulgaria W Importer 2000 2000 Exporter 2000 2000 Czech Republic R Importer 1950 1950 Exporter 1950 1950 France R Importer 1000 1500 1500 1500 5500 Exporter 1000 1500 2000 1500 6000 Germany R Importer 2000 1000 200 500 200 250 4150 Exporter 2000 1000 200 500 200 250 4150 Italy R Importer 500 700 1050 2000 4250 Exporter 500 700 1350 2000 4550 Netherlands R Importer 400 300 600 800 2100 Exporter 400 300 1300 300 2300 Spain R Importer 250 2000 4000 4985 11235 Exporter 250 2000 4000 5000 11250 United Kingdom R Importer 1500 1000 2000 4500 9000 Exporter 1500 2650 4250 4500 12900 W Importer 1000 1000 Exporter 1000 1000 R Importer 2000 2000 4350 6000 9350 14485 38185 Exporter 2000 2000 4350 8150 12600 14000 43300 Subtotals W Importer 2000 1000 3000 Exporter 2000 1000 3000

35 Table 17. Indirect exports of Testudo horsfieldi originating in Uzbekistan to EU-27, 2001- 2006. All trade was in live wild specimens for commercial purposes. Exporter Importer Reported by 2002 2006 Total United States Czech Republic Importer 196 196 Exporter 196 196 Hungary Importer Exporter 12 12 Netherlands Importer 1900 1900 Exporter 1900 1900 United Kingdom Importer 25 25 Exporter 25 25 Importer 2121 2121 Total Exporter 12 2122 2134

Table 18. Direct exports of Testudo horsfieldi from Uzbekistan to countries other than EU- 27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live specimens. Purpos Sour Importer e ce Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Japan T R Importer 200 200

Exporter 200 200

W Importer 10400 7850 6150 6300 5000 3000 38700 Exporter 10500 8850 7150 6300 5000 4300 42100

Russian Fed. P W Importer

Exporter 1 1 Ukraine T W Importer

Exporter 5000 5000

United States T R Importer Exporter 1000

W Importer 10000 15000 17998 16000 20000 19500 98498

Exporter 17200 16000 18000 16000 21000 21577 109777 R Importer 200 200

Exporter 200 200 Subtotals

W Importer 20400 22850 24148 22300 25000 22500 137198 Exporter 32700 24850 25150 22300 26001 24877 156878

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES The Horsfield‟s tortoise Testudo horsfieldii is a small tortoise with a wide range extending from south-eastern Russia southward through Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, eastern Iran, Afghanistan, north-western Pakistan and western China (Das, 1991). It was reported to be widespread and locally abundant throughout Central Asia (Makeyev et al., 1997). Bonin et al. (2006) indicated that populations have started to decline rapidly in most of the range States. The main threats were considered to be capture for export and habitat destruction. T. horsfieldii was assessed in 1996 by the Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group and is considered Vulnerable (Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996). The conservation status of T. horsfieldii throughout its range has been detailed previously by UNEP-WCMC (2004) and is summarised here. The species‟ occurrence in its range countries is reported by Uetz et al. (2008) and mapped by Iverson (1992). Survival during Transport and in Captivity It was reported that eggs and juveniles collected from the wild are more likely to die after harvest than adults, and that individuals smaller than 5 cm are less likely to survive transport

36 than larger ones (Theile, 2002). Concerns over high mortality rates of T. horsfieldii in western and northern Europe are often interpreted as being the result of incorrect or unsuitable husbandry practices for this species (Theile, 2002). Theile (2000) considered that high mortality rates of individuals kept in captivity in the European Union may be due to unsuitable care by inexperienced keepers, poor transport conditions or the state of health of tortoises when they arrive in the EU. The time of year when the animals enter the EU market was regarded as another significant factor, as importation usually occurs in September, which means that animals do no have enough time to adapt to the new environment and may be too weak to hibernate successfully (Theile, 2002). Tortoises originating from captive breeding and/or ranching facilities were considered more likely to survive in captivity than wild-sourced individuals. Juvenile tortoises with an age of 2-3 years were considered more likely to survive in captivity than adults or younger animals (Theile, 2002). Devaux (2007) noted that many importing countries, including most European countries, do not have adequate climate conditions for T. horsfieldii, resulting in high mortalities. The importation of T. horsfieldii was banned at one stage because of poor survivorship of wild-captured individuals (Stubbs, 1989).

UZBEKISTAN: The occurrence of T. horsfieldii was reported by Fritz and Havaš (2007) and Uetz et al. (2008) and was mapped by Iverson (1992). Estimates for the T. horsfieldii population in Uzbekistan vary greatly. A population of about 15-20 million was estimated based on surveys conducted between 1991 and 1999 in central Uzbekistan (Bozhansky and Polinova, 2000; Mitropolski and Kashkarov, 2000). According to information in Theile (2000), Uzbekistan‟s T. horsfieldii population lies between 10 and 20 million tortoises. Devaux (2007) reported there are at least 20 million T. horsfieldii in Uzbekistan, although the main populations are apparently isolated from each other. Devaux (2007) considered that T. horsfieldii is „not yet rare‟ in Uzbekistan, but notes that it is necessary to monitor the most fragile zones and to better manage the population. T. horsfieldii is found in high densities in some places in Uzbekistan. In a 50-km long canyon in the east, three to four tortoises were found per metre, giving an estimate of thousands of tortoises per kilometre (Devaux, 2007). The Kyzyl Kum desert region in the central part of the country was considered to have the highest population densities of the species (Devaux, 2007). Despite these high numbers of T. horsfieldii reported recently from the Kyzil Kum desert, sharp declines in the local population were noted, probably as a direct consequence of large-scale collection (Mitropolski and Kashkarov, 2000 in Theile, 2002). In northwest Nuratau, where commercial collection has occurred since 1996, the average population density was also found to have declined - from 40 animals/hectare in 1998 to 30.6 animals/hectare in 1999 (Bozhansky and Polinova, 2000). Quite high densities were found, even near human settlements. Numerous individuals were reported as exported illegally to Western Europe however, and therefore, despite the abundant population at that time, Michel and Stöck (1996) recommended caution. Due to the apparent reduced reproductive rate, the protection of adults from commercial use was recommended as a requirement in order to maintain the population. Concentrated collection during the tortoise‟s short activity period (April-June) would be likely to cause a rapid demise of the population (Michel and Stöck, 1996). T. horsfieldii densities have been found to vary widely depending on habitat type (Bonarenko, 1997). In piedmont plain densities of 5.0 tortoises/hectare were recorded, with densities of 1.7 tortoises/hectare in flat habitats and 14.5 tortoises/hectare in ravines. Densities of 10.7 tortoises/hectare were observed in salt plain and ranged from 0.1 to 6.4 tortoises/hectare in sandy soil habitats. In oases the tortoise distribution was found to be irregular (Bonarenko, 1997). Mitropolski and Kashkarov (2000) also reported that population density reported varied according to habitat type, ranging from 3.1 to 40.3 individuals/10 hectare, with an average of 11.4 animals/10 hectare. A study in 1993 in the southern Kyzyl Kum desert found

37 that abundance in different habitats varied from 2.5 to 6.8 animals/hectare, with a sex ratio of 1: 1.5, and 91.15% of the population were adults (Michel and Stöck, 1996). Cultivation of land reportedly leads to reduced tortoise numbers and can lead to their elimination (Bonarenko, 1997). They avoid cotton plantations, but densities of up to 8.3 tortoises/hectare were reported on residual nature plots (Bonarenko, 1997). Devaux (2007) reported that the shift from nomadic traditions to agriculture in Uzbekistan is one of the main threats to the species. Tortoises can damage harvesting machines and are therefore intentionally killed by farmers in agricultural areas. Farmers consider the species a nuisance and collect thousands of tortoises to sell or even to convert to food for animals. As a result the range of the species has been reduced and pushed to canyons, dry rivers, isolated valley bottoms and the edge of deserts (Devaux, 2007). The reduction and significant change of natural habitats was identified as the main threat to wildlife in Uzbekistan in the country‟s report to an FAO workshop on sustainable use and conservation of wildlife resources (Anon., 2006). T. horsfieldii was selected for the Significant Trade Review following CoP 14, and at the 23rd meeting of the Animals Committee it was concluded that the species would be retained in the Significant Trade Review process and the following was stated: “Species is heavily traded. Mainly adult specimens are found in trade. With the exclusion of China, all range States will be contacted” (CITES Secretariat, 2008). National regulations T. horsfieldii is not a protected species in Uzbekistan. However, the harvest, possession and trade in this species is regulated under the general provisions outlined in different laws e.g. the Law of Republic of Uzbekistan No. 545-I: On Protection and Use of Animal World of 26 December 1997, and in more detail in the national legislation regulating commercial and sport hunting. The harvest of T. horsfieldii for export requires a harvest licence and export permits (Article 15 of Law No. 545-I) may also be needed. The quotas established for harvesting the species do not indicate the sex or age of the tortoises and are not issued for a specific district or area (Theile, 2002). Wildlife policy was improved in 2004 with the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan On strengthening of the control over rational use of biological resources, their import and export outside the Republic of Uzbekistan No.508 dated 28 October 2004. This resolution regulates the order of import and export of rare species, organisation of international hunting on the basis of CITES quotas and permissions for obtaining rare species in the republic (Anon., 2006). Permanent protected areas cover only two percent of Uzbekistan (Anon., 2006) and it is not known whether T. horsfieldii occurs within this protected area system. However since 1995 some measures have been taken to protect the territory of some regions where local sites with high density of tortoises are situated (Djizak, Kashkadarya and Samarkand regions). Ranching Theile (2000) reported that Uzbekistan started to undertake captive breeding and ranching of T. horsfieldii in 1997. The animals bred and ranched at the UzZookomplex are destined very largely for export to supply the international pet market; this centre is the only legal exporter of the species from Uzbekistan (Theile, 2002). According to Theile (2000), all animals that are involved in breeding and ranching activities at the UzZoocomplex are harvested from the wild populations in Uzbekistan. Local harvesters, who are directly employed by the UzZookomplex, collect these tortoises. The centre issues specific harvest licenses to its harvesters indicating a certain district or region where the tortoises should be harvested. No eggs or juveniles are harvested from the wild because they are more likely to die after the harvest. Most animals harvested are older than 12 years (i.e. they have reached sexual maturity) (Theile, 2002). Theile (2000) reported that the harvested animals are brought to the centre where they are kept for up to three months before most of them are exported. A small number of these tortoises

38 remain at the centre where they hibernate and form the „permanent breeding stock for the UzZookomplex. It was estimated that 40% of the harvested tortoises actively mate at the centre. The eggs are then taken to an incubator and the juveniles that hatch are considered F1- specimens. Some females are gravid when collected and eggs laid by these females are considered as „ranched‟. Between 1997 and 2000, the tortoises harvested for the centre had laid more than 9,928 eggs. Of these, 6,874 eggs hatched (69%) and 5,101 juveniles survived until summer 2000 (Theile, 2002). Theile (2000) indicated that the annual mortality rate of the wild harvested animals kept at the UzZoocomplex ranges from 1-3%, and that the annual mortality rate of the F1-generation born in captivity varies between 5-12%. Most of the animals born in captivity or ranched at the UzZoocomplex are reportedly destined for export. A small number of tortoises is released in the wild (700 animals in 2000) (Theile, 2002). A more up-to-date, although shorter and less detailed account of the situation at the UzZookomplex is provided by Devaux (2007). He indicated that ”production of T. horsfieldii is currently 10,000 tortoises per year, and mortality is under 3%. Malformations, however, are common, probably due to inbreeding; otherwise the tortoises appear to be healthy”. Devaux (2007) also reported that one-third of the production was bred at the centre and that this proportion increases every year. He pointed out that the other two-thirds of the centre‟s production were collected from the wild. Females, after two years of reproduction, are reportedly released to the wild (Devaux, 2007). The author considered that the work done at the UzZookomplex was very good and the tortoise rearing was well managed, but he stated that it would be desirable that the centre achieves complete independence from the wild (Devaux, 2007). Theile (2002) made recommendations to the EU authorities and relevant authorities in Uzbekistan including the following: Restrict the trade in T. horsfieldii from Uzbekistan to live specimens with a plastron length of 8 cm or less (i.e. juveniles) that are captive-bred, born in captivity „F‟, or ranched „R‟. This measure is in accordance with a decision taken under CITES with Pancake Tortoise Malacochersus tornieri originating from Tanzania. This restriction will: - reduce the potential import of wild-collected live specimens that are falsely declared as source „C‟, „F‟ or „R‟ because hatchings are rarely found or collected in the wild. Keeping adult animals out of the trade is seen as one of the most effective conservation measures. - help to limit the number of wild specimens of T. horsfieldii marketed in the EU which can help keep the price for this species relatively high. These high prices should dissuade inexperienced persons from making impulse purchases. - support and facilitate the management of captive breeding and ranching activities for this species in Uzbekistan. Consider not allowing the import of juveniles with a plastron of less than 5 cm because specimens of this size are more likely to have a higher mortality in captivity. Uzbekistan to establish harvest quotas on the basis of regional population surveys, issue harvest permits for certain areas only, and ensure rotation of harvest sites. The EU to review mortality rates of wild T. horsfieldii upon importation into the EU and the concerns that live specimens of wild origin are unlikely to survive in captivity for a considerable proportion of their potential lifespan. REFERENCES: Anon. 2006. Wildlife Policy and Institutions for Sustainable use and Conservation of Wildlife Resources. Country Report Uzbekistan. FAO/Czech Republic/CIC Wildlife Policy Workshop, Prague, 11-15 September 2006. URL: http://www.docpark.net/FAO- Fo/En/Country%20Reports/DOC/Uzbekistan%20NR.doc Accessed 7 July 2008.

39 Auliya, M. 2003. Hot trade in cool creatures: A review of the live reptile trade in the European Union in the 1990s with a focus on Germany. Brussels, Belgium: TRAFFIC Europe. Bonin, F., Devaux, B. and Dupre, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. London. UK: A & C Black. Bonarenko, D. 1997. Distribution and density of Horsfield’s tortoise in south Uzbekistan. In: Z. Roček & S. Hart (eds). Abstracts of the third World Congress of Herpetology, 2-10 August 1997, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 118. Herpetology ‟97. In: UNEP-WCMC 2004. Review of species subject to restrictions under Article 4(6)c of EC Regulation 776/2004. Bozhansky, A.T. and Polinova, G.V. 2000. Results of quantitative countings of steppe tortoise in the place of industrial and potential catching in Uzbekistan. In: Theile, S. 2002. Ranching and breeding Testudo horsfieldii in Uzbekistan. Radiata: 11(4):3-20. http://www.chelonia.org/Articles/russiantortoisecombat.htm Viewed on 3 July 2008. CITES Secretariat 2008. Executive summary. 23rd meeting of the Animals Committee, Geneva, Switzerland, 19-24 April 2008. AC23 Sum. 4 (Rev. 1). Das, I. 1991. Colour guide to the turtles and tortoises of the Indian subcontinent. Portishead, UK: R& A Publishing Ltd. 133 pp. In: Theile, S. 2002. Ranching and breeding of Testudo horsfieldii in Uzbekistan. Radiata, 11(4): 3-20. Devaux, B. 2007. Ouzbekistan – Samarcande tamerlan & les tortues des steppes. La Tortue 78: 54-75. Fritz, C. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Vertebrate Zoology, 57 (2): 149-368. Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Richmond, Indiana, USA: Published by the author. Makeyev, V. M., Shammakov, S., Bozhanskii, A. T., Marlow, R. W. and von Seckendorff Hoff, K. 1997. Agricultural development and grazing as the major causes of population declines in Horsfield‟s tortoise in the Turkmen Republic (abstract). In: J. Van Abbema (ed.) 1993. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles—An International Conference, p. 20. State University of New York, Purchase. New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, New York. In: UNEP-WCMC 2004. Review of species subject to restrictions under Article 4(6)c of EC Regulation 776/2004. Michel, S. and Stöck, M. 1996. Untersuchungen zu Populationsdichte und –struktur der Steppenschildkröte Agrionemys horsfieldii (Gray, 1844) in der südlichen Kysyl-Kum (Usbekistan) (Reptilia: Testudines: Testudinidae). Zoologische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 49: 73-82. In: UNEP-WCMC 2004. Review of species subject to restrictions under Article 4(6)c of EC Regulation 776/2004. Mitropolski, O.V, and Kashkarov, R.D. 2000. Information on size of the population of commercial and hunting species of land vertebral animals in the arid region of Uzbekistan. Pp. 21-30 in: Theile, S. 2000. Ranching and captive breeding of Horsfield Tortoises in Uzbekistan. Unpublished report to TRAFFIC Europe. Stubbs, D. 1989. Testudo horsfieldi Horsfield‟s tortoise. Pp. 37-38 in I. R. Swingland and M. W. Klemens, The conservation biology of tortoises. Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 5. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Theile, S. 2000. Ranching and breeding of Testudo horsfieldii in Uzbekistan. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium. Unpublished report. Theile, S. 2002. Ranching and breeding of Testudo horsfieldii in Uzbekistan. Radiata 11(4): 3-20. Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group 1996. Testudo horsfieldii. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 3 July 2008. Uetz, P., JCVI and Hallermann, J. 2008. The TIGR Reptile Database. URL: http://www.tigr.org/reptiles/species.php?genus=Testudo&species=horsfieldii Accessed 3 July 2008. UNEP-WCMC 2004. Review of species subject to restrictions under Article 4(6)c of EC Regulation 776/2004.

FURTHER READING: Kuzmin, S. L. 2003. The turtles of Russia and other ex-Soviet republics. Germany: Frankfurt am Main, Edition Chimaira.

40 REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF A NEW OR INCREASED EXPORT QUOTA IN 2008

PRIMULACEAE

SPECIES: Cyclamen coum

SYNONYMS: Cyclamen durostoricum

COMMON NAMES:

RANGE STATES: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Lebanon, Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Ukraine

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Georgia

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Turkey formed on 14 September 2007 and confirmed on 26 May 2008.

TRADE PATTERNS: Species selected on the basis of an increased quota of 500,000 tubers in 2008 (317% increase on 2007 quota). Georgia first established an export quota for the species (200,000 tubers) in 2001. Up to 2007, the quota varied between a maximum of 300,000 tubers in 2002 and a minimum of 100,000 tubers in 2006. No export quota was set in 2004 and 2005. The export quota increased from 120,000 tubers in 2007 by 317% to 500,000 tubers in 2008. EU countries reported the import of a total of 1,032,278 wild tubers between 2001 and 2006, with a maximum of 300,000 tubers in 2002. The vast majority of EU imports (over 99.9%) was imported by the Netherlands. Thirteen wild tubers were imported by Germany in 2001 for scientific purposes. Netherland imports matched the export quota for 2001-2003 and in 2006. In addition, 230,000 tubers in 2004 and 2,265 tubers in 2005 were imported by the Netherlands when Georgia had no export quota.

No imports of C. coum were recorded by non-EU countries between 2001 and 2006.

Table 19. CITES Export quotas for Cyclamen coum from Georgia and associated global exports, reported by importer and exporter. All quotas refer to live specimens. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Quota 200,000 300,000 200,000 - - 100,000 120,000 500,000 Exports reported by importer 200,000 300,000 200,000 230,000 2,265 100,000 - - Exports reported by exporter 200,000 300,000 200,000 - 100,000 100,000 - -

Table 20. Direct exports of Cyclamen coum from Georgia to EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live wild specimens. [No indirect trade reported] Importer Purpose Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Germany S Importer 13 13 Exporter 20 20 Netherlands T Importer 200000 300000 200000 230000 2265 100000 1032265 Exporter 200000 300000 200000 100000 100000 1000000

41 Importer Purpose Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Importer 200013 300000 200000 230000 2265 100000 1032278 Total Exporter 200020 300000 200000 100000 100000 900020

Table 21. Direct exports of Cyclamen coum from Georgia to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live wild specimens for scientific purposes. Importer Reported by 2002 United States Importer

Exporter 200

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES C. coum has a wide, though discontinuous, distribution from Bulgaria, through northern and central Turkey to the southern Caucasus and northern Iran and then southwards to Syria and Lebanon. The species also has a wide altitudinal range from sea level to over 2100 m (Grey- Wilson, 1988). On the shores of the Black Sea it is a common plant amongst Corylus (hazel) plantations. At higher altitudes it is typically a woodland plant or a plant of scrub or rock crevices (Grey-Wilson, 1988). C. coum is of economic importance as an ornamental plant (GRIN, 2003). It is popular in gardens and among the hardiest of the 19 recognised cyclamen species (Alpine Garden Society, undated; Cyclamen Society, undated).

GEORGIA: The subspecies C. c. caucasicum was listed as occurring in Georgia (Davis et al., 1999). Reported to grow in broadleaved forests, mainly of oak; up to the alpine zone (Anon., 2004). The Missouri Botanic Gardens considered C. coum as Vulnerable in their list of rare, endangered and vulnerable plants of Georgia (MBG, 2004). In 2000 Georgia designated a CITES Scientific Authority for plants (Anon., 2006). A project “Improving the implementation of CITES for Cyclamen coum and Galanthus woronowii from Georgia” has been elaborated and financed by the Government of the Netherlands. The objectives for both species are to: produce an inventory and assessment of the standing stock; establish conservative export quota in consultation with the CITES Secretariat and Plants Committee; develop guidelines on how to propagate artificially the species, according to CITES (Anon. 2008b), and to develop cost-effective methods of species monitoring and quota establishment (Anon. 2008a). The project is planned to be implemented by June 2008 (Anon., 2008a) and work is due for completion by the next Plants Committee meeting (following the April 2008 meeting) (Anon., 2008b). Work to be carried out by Georgia within the project “Improving implementation of CITES for Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum from Georgia” includes: “Inventory and assessment of the standing stock of Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum. Establishment of conservative export quota in consultation with the CITES Secretariat and Plants Committee for Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum. Developing a monitoring system to assess the trends of Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum populations. Developing guidelines on how to propagate artificially Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum, according to CITES” (Anon., 2008b).

42 REFERENCES: Alpine Garden Society. undated. Cyclamen coum URL: http://www.alpinegardensociety.net/plants/plantportrait/Cyclamen+coum/43 Accessed 1 July 2008. Anon. 2004. Cyclamen coum p.31 in Fourteenth meeting of the Plants Committee, Windhoek (Namibia), 16-20 February 2004. Significant trade in plants. Selection of new species.PC24 Doc.9.3. URL: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/species/sca/pdfs/E-PC14-09-03.pdf Accessed 1 July 2008. Anon. 2006. Sixteenth meeting of the Plants Committee Lima (Peru), 3-8 July 2006. Review of Significant Trade of Appendix II species. PC16 Doc. 10.2 URL: http://www.cites.org/eng/com/pc/16/E-PC16-10-02.pdf Accessed 10 July 2008. Anon. 2008a. Biennial Report of Georgia. 2005-2006. Notification to the CITES Parties. URL: http://www.cites.org/common/resources/reports/pab/05-06Georgia.pdf Accessed 1 July 2008. Anon. 2008b. Regional reports – Europe. Seventeenth meeting of the Plants Committee, Geneva (Switzerland), 15-19 April 2008. PC17 Doc.5.4 (Rev.1). URL: http://www.cites.org/eng/com/PC/17/E-PC17-05-04.pdf Accessed 1 July 2008. Cyclamen Society undated. Cyclamen coum URL: http://www.cyclamen.org/coum.htm Accessed 1 July 2008. Davis, A.P., McGough, H.N., Mathew, B. and Grey-Wilson, C. 1999. CITES bulb checklist for the genera: Cyclamen, Galanthus and Sternbergia. Kew, UK: The Royal Botanic Gardens. 87pp. Grey-Wilson, C. 1988. The Genus Cyclamen. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK in association with Christopher Helm and Timber Press. 147 pp. GRIN. 2003. The Germplasm Resources Information Network. URL: http://www.ars- grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?430748 Accessed 26 June 2008. MBG 2004. Rare, endangered and vulnerable plants of the Republic of Georgia. Research Projects Georgia, Missouri Botanic Garden. URL: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/georgia/pfamily.shtml/Primulaceae.