Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES 2009

(Version edited for public release)

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

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

November, 2011

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge

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

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

ABOUT UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION CITATION MONITORING CENTRE UNEP-WCMC (2011). Review of species selected on The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and Centre (UNEP-WCMC), based in Cambridge, candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES 2009. UK, is the specialist biodiversity information Prepared for the European Commission. UNEP- and assessment centre of the United Nations WCMC, Cambridge. Environment Programme (UNEP), run cooperatively with WCMC, a UK charity. The PREPARED FOR Centre's mission is to evaluate and highlight the The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium many values of biodiversity and put authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the DISCLAIMER centre of decision-making. Through the analysis and synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge The contents of this report do not necessarily the Centre provides authoritative, strategic and reflect the views or policies of UNEP or timely information for conventions, countries contributory organisations. The designations and organisations to use in the development and employed and the presentations do not imply implementation of their policies and decisions. the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, the European Commission or The UNEP-WCMC provides objective and contributory organisations concerning the legal scientifically rigorous procedures and services. status of any country, territory, city or area or its These include ecosystem assessments, support authority, or concerning the delimitation of its for the implementation of environmental frontiers or boundaries. agreements, global and regional biodiversity information, research on threats and impacts, and the development of future scenarios. © Copyright: 2011, European Commission

Table of Contents

1. Introduction to the Analysis of the European Union Annual Reports to CITES ...... 4 2. Introduction to the species sheets ...... 5 SPECIES: maxima ...... 16 SPECIES: Cedrela odorata ...... 29 SPECIES: Cyathea australis ...... 42 Annex: Key to purpose and source codes ...... 48

Introduction

1. Introduction to the Analysis of the European Union Annual Reports to CITES UNEP-WCMC undertakes an annual Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES. This Analysis examines patterns of trade into the European Union and candidate countries, trade in groups of particular note, possible transgressions of suspensions and negative opinions, exports of native species, etc. As part of the 2009 Analysis, imports reported by the EU (and candidate countries) as wild-sourced, ranched, source ‘unknown’ or source ‘blank’ were analysed to identify noteworthy patterns of trade according to five criteria. These criteria were designed to identify: 1. High volume trade in 2009

2. Globally threatened and near threatened species traded at relatively high volumes in 2009 3. Sharp increase in trade in 2009

4. General long term increases or decreases in trade between 2000 and 2009

5. Long term variability in trade between 2000 and 2009.

Imports were considered to be ‘high volume’ according to thresholds which were determined by taxonomic group and CITES Appendix (Table 1). In order to account for threat status, the Appendix I threshold was also applied to Appendix II and III species considered to be threatened or near threatened by the IUCN (Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Near Threatened in the 2010 IUCN Red List). Table 1. Minimum number of wild, ranched, source ‘unknown’ and source ‘blank’ individuals imported in 2009 needed to qualify for selection on the basis of high trade volume.

Taxonomic group CITES Appendix I II II III III CR, EN, VU, NT* CR, EN, VU, NT* Mammals 50 50 5000 50 25000

Birds 50 50 5000 50 25000

Reptiles 50 50 25000 50 50000

Amphibians 50 50 25000 50 —

Fish 50 50 25000 50 —

Invertebrates (non-corals) 250 250 25000 250 50000

Corals — 10000 25000 10000 50000

Plants (non-tree) 250 250 25000 250 50000

Plants (trees) 250 m³ 250 m³ 500 m³ 250 m³ 2500 m³

* CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened in 2010 IUCN Red List The ‘sharp increase’ criterion was designed to determine if there was a sharp increase in importer- reported wild-sourced imports in 2009, compared with the average level of imports between 2004 and 2008. Species that, despite a sharp increase in trade in 2009, were still only traded in very low volumes (i.e. less than 5% of the levels listed in Table 1) were omitted from the chapter. The ‘overall increase’ criteria took into account more general trends over the period 2000-2009 by calculating the slope of a best-fit linear function to the trade data, with a large positive slope indicating a significant increase in trade levels over time. To account for highly variable trade that may not be picked up by the other criteria, the coefficient of variations were calculated for imports over a ten-year period (2000-2009) and species showing high variation over this period were selected.

Introduction

2. Introduction to the species sheets On the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual report to CITES 2009, four Annex B and one Annex C species were initially considered as candidates for review (SRG 57 document). Four species were selected by the SRG for in-depth review. Species were selected on the basis of particular patterns of trade to the European Union in 2009. Chelonoidis denticulata and Tridacna maxima were selected on the basis of the high volume of trade in 2009. Cyathea australis was selected on the basis of a sharp increase in trade in 2009. Cedrela odorata was selected on the basis of both the high volume of trade and sharp increase in trade in 2009.

Chelonoidis denticulata

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE 2009 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

REPTILIA TESTUDINIDAE

SPECIES: Chelonoidis denticulata

SYNONYMS: Geochelone denticulata, Testudo cagado, Testudo denticulata, Testudo hercules, Testudo sculpta, Testudo tabulata, Testudo tessellata

COMMON NAMES: Brazilian giant tortoise (English), Forest tortoise (English), South American tortoise (English), South American yellow-footed tortoise (English), Yellow-footed tortoise (English), Tortue de l'Amérique du sud (French), Tortue dentelée (French), Tortue denticulée (French), Motelo (Spanish), Tortuga de patas amarillas (Spanish), Brasiliansk skogssköldpadda (Swedish), Gulfotad landsköldpadda (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominica (int), Ecuador, , Guadeloupe (int), , Peru, , Trinidad and Tobago, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Guyana, Suriname

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Previous Article 4.6(c) import suspension for live wild specimens from all countries first applied on 21/11/1998 and removed on 10/05/2006.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Bolivia and Ecuador first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous positive opinion for Guyana formed on 15/12/1997 and removed on 21/11/1998. Previous positive opinion for Suriname formed on 22/07/1997 and removed on 21/11/1998.

Chelonoidis denticulata

TRADE PATTERNS: Chelonoidis denticulata was selected for review on the basis of a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2009 (based on the threshold of 50 reptiles for globally threatened or near threatened species). Guyana: Guyana published CITES annual export quotas for 704 live, wild-sourced C. denticulata in each year 2000-2011. According to the CITES Trade Database, trade reported by both Guyana and the importers remained within quota in every year (Table 1); annual reports have not yet been received from Guyana for 2009 or 2010. Imports of C. denticulata to the EU-27 directly from Guyana over the period 2000-2010 consisted exclusively of live, wild-sourced specimens traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). The principal importers were the and the United Kingdom. Of the direct exports reported by Guyana between 2000 and 2010, 5 per cent were to the EU-27.

Indirect trade of C. denticulata originating in Guyana to the EU-27 also comprised live, wild-sourced specimens traded for commercial purposes, the majority of which were re-exported by the United States; the principal importers were the Czech Republic and the Netherlands (Table 3).

Direct exports of C. denticulata from Guyana to countries other than the EU-27 consisted of live specimens traded for commercial purposes; all trade up to 2008 was wild-sourced, with the import of 100 captive- bred specimens reported by the United Arab Emirates in 2009 (Table 4). In addition, small numbers of live specimens were reported as seized or confiscated by the United States.

Table 1. CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced Chelonoidis denticulata from Guyana and global exports, as reported by the importers and exporter (annual reports have not yet been received from Guyana for 2009 or 2010; trade data for 2011 is not yet available).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20101 20112 Quota 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 Reported by Importer 148 482 410 436 351 397 277 635 509 459 41 Reported by Exporter 530 427 438 508 297 474 331 704 663 1 Covers the period 09/03/2010 to 08/03/2011 2 Covers the period 04/04/2011 to 03/04/2012

Table 2. Direct exports of Chelonoidis denticulata from Guyana to the EU-27, 2000-2010. All trade was in live, wild-sourced specimens traded for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2000-2001 or 2004-2005.) Importer Reported by 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Denmark Importer 23 23 Exporter 10 10 France Importer 5 5 Exporter Germany Importer 36 41 77 Exporter 10 10 Greece Importer 6 6 Exporter 6 6 Malta Importer 4 4 Exporter 4 4 Netherlands Importer 6 61 71 138 Exporter 6 14 52 72 United Kingdom Importer 38 20 20 78 Exporter 25 25 53 30 133

Chelonoidis denticulata

Importer Reported by 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Subtotal Importer 4 6 128 96 56 41 331 Exporter 4 25 41 83 82 235

Suriname: Suriname published CITES annual export quotas for live, wild-sourced C. denticulata in every year 2000-2011. According to the CITES Trade Database, trade reported by both Suriname and the importers remained within quota in every year. Suriname’s annual report for 2010 has not yet been received1 . Imports of C. denticulata to the EU-27 directly from Suriname over the period 2000-2010 consisted exclusively of live specimens traded for commercial purposes, with the Netherlands being the main importer. All trade was wild-sourced, with the exception of two captive-born specimens reported as imports by the Netherlands in 2009 (that was not confirmed by Suriname). Of the direct exports of C. denticulata reported by Suriname between 2000 and 2010, 15 per cent were to the EU-27.

Indirect trade of C. denticulata to the EU-27 originating in Suriname over the period 2000-2010 comprised live, wild-sourced specimens re-exported by the United States to Hungary (one specimen) and the Czech Republic (eight specimens) in 2007 and 2008, respectively, for commercial purposes.

Direct exports of C. denticulata from Suriname to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2000-2010 also consisted exclusively of live specimens, of which the vast majority were wild-sourced; small quantities of captive-bred and captive-born specimens were reported in trade in 2001 and 2005, respectively. The majority of trade was for commercial purposes, with small numbers of traded as scientific specimens and for zoological purposes.

Table 5. CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced Chelonoidis denticulata from Suriname and global exports, as reported by the importers and exporter. (Suriname’s annual report for 2010 has not yet been received; trade data for 2011 is not yet available.)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Quota 692 692 703 692 692 692 692 692 692 692 692 692 Reported by Importer 221 305 403 180 221 222 374 428 261 281 73 Reported by Exporter 362 365 404 227 273 238 391 428 234 245

1 Suriname’s annual report to CITES for 2010 was received by the CITES Secretariat on 25/07/2011 but has not yet been received by UNEP-WCMC for entry into the CITES Trade Database.

Chelonoidis denticulata

Table 3. Indirect exports of Chelonoidis denticulata from Guyana to the EU-27, 2000-2010. All trade was in live, wild-sourced specimens traded for commercial purposes (with the exception of Switzerland’s re-exports which were reported without a purpose). Exporter Importer Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Switzerland France Importer Exporter 2 2 United Arab Emirates Netherlands Importer 31 31 Exporter United States of America Czech Republic Importer 6 12 6 6 30 Exporter 6 12 6 6 30 Denmark Importer 3 2 5 Exporter 3 2 5 Hungary Importer 5 5 Exporter 4 5 9 Malta Importer 10 10 Exporter 10 10 Netherlands Importer 10 10 Exporter Slovakia Importer 6 6 Exporter 6 6 United Kingdom Importer 4 10 14 Exporter 4 6 10 Subtotal Importer 3 10 2 10 22 17 16 31 111 Exporter 7 10 2 2 10 12 17 12 72

Chelonoidis denticulata

Table 4. Direct exports of Chelonoidis denticulata from Guyana to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2010. All trade was in live specimens traded for commercial purposes. (No trade has been reported in 2010.) Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total W Importer 148 482 406 436 351 397 271 507 413 403 3814 Exporter 530 427 434 483 297 474 290 621 581 4137 C Importer 100 100 Exporter I Importer 5 8 1 14 Exporter

Table 6. Direct exports of Chelonoidis denticulata from Suriname to the EU-27, 2000-2010. All trade was in live specimens traded for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2005.) Importer Source Reported by 2000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Czech Republic W Importer 4 4 6 14 Exporter 4 4 8 Germany W Importer 30 30 20 15 95 Exporter 30 30 20 80 Italy W Importer 30 30 Exporter Netherlands W Importer 134 158 77 93 52 514 Exporter 134 138 35 52 359 F Importer 2 2 Exporter Spain W Importer Exporter 6 6 United Kingdom W Importer 12 10 22 Exporter 12 10 22 Subtotals F Importer Exporter 2 2 W Importer 134 204 147 117 73 675 Exporter 6 134 184 75 76 475

Chelonoidis denticulata

Table 7. Direct exports of Chelonoidis denticulata from Suriname to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2010. All trade was in live specimens, the majority of which was traded for commercial purposes. Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total W Importer 221 305 403 180 221 222 240 224 114 164 2290 Exporter 356 365 404 227 273 238 257 244 159 169 2691 C Importer 16 16 Exporter F Importer Exporter 15 15

Tridacna maxima

TAXONOMIC NOTE: Chelonoidis was previously considered a subgenus of Geochelone (Walker, 1989), but molecular phylogenetic analysis of testudinids by Le et al. (2006) supported the elevation of Chelonoidis to generic status. Farias et al. (2007) considered the work by Le et al. (2006) to be the most comprehensive testudinid taxon analysis to date. Farias et al. (2007) found that Chelonoidis denticulata and C. carbonaria showed high levels of haplotype sharing in situ, which may indicate hybridization or incomplete lineage sorting. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states The species’ distribution in the northern half of east of the Andes (Fritz and Havaš, 2007) was reported to range from Colombia and Venezuela through and the Amazon Basin (Bonin et al., 2006) to Peru, Bolivia and Brazil (Pritchard, 1979; Iverson, 1992; Ernst et al., 2006). It was also reported to be found in Trinidad island (Iverson, 1992; Bonin et al., 2006; Ernst et al., 2006; Fritz and Havaš, 2007) and introduced populations were reported in Guadeloupe (Bonin et al., 2006; Rhodin et al., 2010) and the Commonwealth of Dominica (Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996). Chelonoidis denticulata, considered the largest of the South American mainland tortoises, was reported to grow to a size of up to 82 cm in length (Ernst et al., 2006), with an average weight of 6.5 kg (Moskovits, 1985 in: Strong and Fragoso, 2006). The species was reported to inhabit evergreen and deciduous rainforests (Ernst et al., 2006), preferring dense forest habitats (Pritchard, 1979), often near water (Ojasti, 1996); however the species was also sometimes found in savannah (Sauer Avila-Pires et al., 2010). The size of the home rage of the species was reported to be between 0.63 ha and 117.5 ha (Moskovits, 1985 in: Strong and Fragoso, 2006). The species was reported to reach sexual maturity at eight to ten years (Conservation International, 2008). Reproduction was thought to be possible several times a year (Ernst et al., 2006), with up to five clutches produced every one to three weeks during the mating season (Ojasti, 1996). Average clutch sizes of four to eight eggs were observed (Pritchard and Trebbau, 1984: in Ernst et al., 2006), with a maximum recorded number of 20 eggs and incubation lasting for four to five months (Bonin et al., 2006). The life expectancy was estimated at approximately 50 to 60 years (Conservation International, 2008), with 30 years considered to be the age at last reproduction (Maldonado Rodríguez, 2010). C. denticulata was classified as Vulnerable by the IUCN, although the assessment was noted to need updating (Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996). Bonin et al. (2006) noted that estimates of the population status were unavailable, partially due to the secretive lifestyle of the species and Jerozolimsk (2009) considered the crypticity of the species to lead to variable density estimates. Hunting for food and degradation of habitat were considered the main threats to the species (Bonin et al., 2006). Ojasti (1996) noted that both C. denticulata and C. carbonaria may have become rarer in most areas due to harvest levels and reported that, to hunt the species, dogs were used or savannah was burned. Pritchard (1979) noted that population densities near human settlements diminished rapidly. C. denticulata was reported to be heavily harvested throughout its range by rural and indigenous people, leading to local extirpation (Pritchard and Trebbau, 1984; Walker, 1989 in: Strong and Fragoso, 2006) or near depletion (Maldonado Rodríguez, 2010). The species was considered to be vulnerable in the northern countries of South America bordering Brazil, due to hunting (Bernard, 2008). The species was also reported to be used for medicinal purposes in some areas (Walker, 1989; Bonin et al., 2006), and to be a much sought after pet in its native rural and urban areas (Walker, 1989; Ojasti, 1996). C. denticulata was considered to be vulnerable to harvest due to its slow growth and low reproduction rates (Ojasti, 1996), but the secretive lifestyle of the species was thought to afford some protection to the species (Pritchard, 1979; Bonin et al., 2006). The species was reported to show high levels of gene flow, suggesting a high capacity to colonise new habitats or to re-colonise areas where populations had been

Tridacna maxima

hunted to depletion (Farias et al., 2007). Walker (1989) noted that the species’ survival was safeguarded in large protected areas such as national parks, reserves and wildlife sanctuaries. C. denticulata was considered relatively difficult to breed in captivity, and the breeding of the species for food was not considered economically viable due to its slow growth and low reproductive rates (Ojasti, 1996). Guyana: Occurrence reported in Guyana (e.g. Walker, 1989; Iverson, 1992; Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996; Bonin et al., 2006; Uetz, 2010). C denticulata was found to occur in the swamp forests along the north-western coast of Guyana, between the Pomerron River mouth and the Waini river mouth (United Nations Development Programme, 2001), the Sipu-Acarai Mountains [East - Corentyne, south Guyana] (Alonso et al., 2008), Iwokrama Forest [central Guyana] (Donnelly et al., 1998; Donnelly et al., 2005) and Rewa [Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo Region, central Guyana] (Pickles et al., 2009). The species was not found in the Kanuku Mountains [southwestern Guyana] during a biological assessment (Parker et al., 1993). C. denticulata was reported to be often hunted by local communities (Henfrey, 2002; Alonso et al., 2008) in Guyana and lower densities of medium to large reptiles were observed in the vicinity of villages, which are part of the local diet (Alonso et al., 2008). The species was considered to be threatened in the country due to the heavy hunting pressure for food and for the international pet trade (Conservation International, 2008). C. denticulata was reported to be one of the main species traded for bushmeat in Guyana (van Andel et al., 2003), with increasing levels of trade observed (Craig- Clark et al., 2000 in: van Andel et al., 2003), particularly in markets in Georgetown (van Andel et al., 2003). Alonso et al. (2008) considered that further research was required on the use of tortoises by the local population in order to develop sustainable harvesting plans. C. denticulata was reported to occur in protected areas, Iwokrama Forest (Conservation International, 2008) and Konashen Community-owned Conservation Area (Donnelly et al., 2005); however the protection status of the species in Guyana is unclear. Grimes et al. (2008) raised concerns over the apparent lack of knowledge on the population status of most species for which export quotas had been issued in Guyana and noted that no baseline data was available to compare levels of harvesting against. Duplaix (2001) also raised concerns over the setting of export quotas in the country possibly being based on levels of export rather than best information available. Illegal trade in wildlife between Guyana and Suriname was also reported to be a problem (Duplaix, 2001). Suriname: Occurrence reported in Suriname (e.g. Walker, 1989; Iverson, 1992; Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996; Bonin et al., 2006; Uetz, 2010). C. denticulata occurrence was reported from the Kwamalasamutu Region [south eastern Suriname] (Conservation International, 2011), and southern Suriname (Heemskerk and Delvoye, 2007). The species was not found in surveys of the Mount Lely and Mount Nassau areas [eastern Suriname] (Watling and Ngadino, 2007; Ouboter et al., 2007). C. denticulata was considered “rather common but very much appreciated as easy storable fresh food”, by the Trio people [upper Sipaliwini-Corantijn River basin and Tapanahoni-Palumeu River, south Suriname], but also other people living and working in the Trio area (Heemskerk and Delvoye, 2007). The species was reported to be becoming rare in readily accessible areas, due to capture for the pet trade and hunting for their meat (Ouboter, 2001 in: van Andel et al., 2003). Savannah areas were reported to be burned at the end of the dry season in order to clear the brush and expose animals, after which “tortoises can then been picked up by dozens” (Heemskerk and Delvoye, 2007). Miglino et al. (2005) reported that illegal trade in wildlife continued to flourish and even expected it to increase, while legal trade showed a slow decline since 1997, when more restrictive measures were introduced. Demand for bushmeat and the exotic pet market were considered to threaten wildlife, with groups of people reported to catch reptiles in the interior, and monitoring and hunting control systems considered to be inadequate (Miglino et al., 2005). Wildlife protection was reported to be subject to the Nature Conservation Act 1954, with new game regulations passed in 2002 in order to comply with CITES regulations (Miglino et al., 2005). However, no information was located on the protection status of C. denticulata in Suriname.

Tridacna maxima

Duplaix (2001) raised concerns over the setting of export quotas in Suriname possibly being based on levels of export rather than best information available. Illegal trade in wildlife between Guyana and Suriname was also reported to be a problem (Duplaix, 2001).

REFERENCES: Alonso, L. E., McCullough, J., Naskrecki, P., Alexander, E., and Wright, H. E. 2008. A rapid biological assessment of the Konashen Community Owned Conservation Area, Southern Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 51. Conservation International. Arlington, VA, USA. Bernard, E. 2008. Inventários Biológicos Rápidos no Parque Nacional Montanhas do Tumucumaque, Amapá, Brasil. Bulletin of Biological Assessment 48.Conservation International. Arlington, VA, USA. RAP Bonin, F., Devaux, B., and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. A&C Black, London. 416 pp. Conservation International. 2008. Rapid Assessment Program. Biodiversity in the Konashen Community- owned Conservation Area, Guyana. Conservation International. Arlington, VA, USA. Conservation International. 2011. A rapid biological assessment of the Kwamalasamutu Region, Suriname, August-September 2010. Preliminary Report. Conservation International. 110 pp. Craig-Clark, I., Carmichael, C., and Craig, K. 2000. Overview of Wildlife issues in Guyana, Unpublished report prepared for Iwokrama workshop on Wildlife Management, Georgetown. Donnelly, M., Chen, M., Watson, C., and Watkins, G. G. 1998. The Vertebrate Fauna of the Iwokrama Forest. Final report from work carried out in the Iwokrama Forest by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 1996-1998. Donnelly, M. A., Chen, M. H., and Watkins, G. G. 2005. Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 154: 55-69. Duplaix, N. 2001. Evaluation of the and plant trade in the Guianas - preliminary findings. WWF- Guianas. Ernst, C. H., Altenburg, R. G. M., and Barbour, R. W. 2006. Turtles of the World URL: http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/turtles.php Accessed: 16-10-2011. Farias, I. P., Jerozolimski, A., Melo, A., das Neves Viana, M., Martins, M., and dos Santos Monjeló, L. A. 2007. Population genetics of the Amazonian tortoises, Chelonoidis denticulata and C. carbonaria, (Cryptodira: Testudinidae) in an area of sympatry. Amphibia-Reptilia, 28: 357- 365. Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Vertebrate Zoology, 57 (2): 149-368. Grimes, A., Fraser, D., and Zweede, M. 2008. FAA 118/119 Biodiversity and tropical forest assessment Guyana. 32 pp. Heemskerk, M. and Delvoye, K. 2007. Trio baseline study: A sustainable livelihoods perspective on the Trio Indigenous Peoples of South Suriname. The Amazon Conservation Team Suriname. Paramarimbo, Suriname. Final report. Henfrey, T. B. 2002, Ethnoecology, resource use, conservation and development in a Wapishana community in the South Rupununi, Guyana. PhD Thesis, Department of Anthropology and Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent at Canterbury. Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Privately Printed, Richmond, Indiana. 363 pp. Jerozolimski, A., Ribeiro, M. B. N., and Martins, M. 2009. Are tortoises important seed dispersers in Amazonian forests? Oecologia: 517-528. Le, M., Raxworthy, C. J., McCord, W. P., and Mertz, L. 2006. A molecular phylogeny of tortoises (Testudines: Testudinidae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 40 (2): 517-531. Maldonado Rodríguez, A. M. 2010, The impact of Subsistence Hunting by Tikunas on Game Species in Amacayacu National Park, Colombian Amazon. Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the award of Doctor of Philosophy, Oxford Brookes University. Miglino, L., Corral, L., Killmer, A. B., Elias, C., da Cunha, M., Grisley, W., and Barreda, G. 2005. Suriname Country Environmental Assessment. Inter-American Development Bank. SU-P1011 Final Report.

Tridacna maxima

Moskovits, D. K. 1985. The behavior and ecology of the two Amazonian tortoises, Geochelone carbonaria and Geochelone denticulata, in northwestern Brazil. PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago, Illinois. Ojasti, J. 1996. Wildlife utilization in Latin America - Current situation and prospects for sustainable management. FAO, Rome. Ouboter, P. E. 2001. Assessment of traded Wildlife species. WWF Guianas, Paramarimbo. Paramarimbo, Suriname. Report # GFECP07. Ouboter, P. E., Jairam, R., and Wan Tong You, K. 2007. Additional records of amphibians and reptiles from Nassau Mountain, Suriname. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment, 43: 126-129. Parker, T. A., Foster, R. B., Emmons, L. H., Freed, P., Forsyth, A. B., Hoffman, B., and Gill, B. D. 1993. A biological assessment of the Kanuku Mountain Region of southwestern Guyana. Conservation International. RAP Working Papers 5. Pickles, R., McCann, N., and Holland, A. 2009. A biodiversity assessment of the Rewa Head, Guyana. The Zoological Society of London, London. ZSL Conservation Report No. 10. Pritchard, P. C. H. 1979. Encyclopedia of turtles. T.F.H. Publications, Inc. Ltd. Pritchard, P. C. H. and Trebbau, P. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela. Contributions to Herpetology; Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Rhodin, A. G. J., van Dijk, P. P., Iverson, J. B., and Shaffer, H. B. 2010. Turtles of the world, 2010 update: Annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status. Chelonian Research Foundation. Chelonian Research Monographs no 5. Sauer Avila-Pires, T. C., Hoogmoed, M. S., and Alves da Rocha, W. 2010. Notes of the Vertebrates of northern Pará, Brazil: a forgotten part of the Guianan Region, I. Herpetofauna. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi Ciências Naturais, Belém, 5 (1): 13-112. Strong, J. N. and Fragoso, J. M. V. 2006. Seed Dispersal by Geochelone carbonaria and Geochelone denticulata in northwestern Brazil. Biotropica, 38 (5): 683-686. Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. 1996. Chelonoidis denticulata. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 8-2-2010. Uetz, P. 2010. The Reptile Database URL: www.reptile-database.org/ Accessed: 1-11-2010. United Nations Development Programme (2001) Guyana: Marine Turtle Conservation Nesting Season, 2001. United Nations Development Programme. van Andel, T., MacKinven, A., and Bánki, O. 2003. Commercial Non-Timber Forest Products of the Guiana Shield. An inventory of commercial NTFP extraction and possibilities for sustainable harvesting. Netherlands Committee for IUCN. Amsterdam, Netherlands. URL: http://www.guianashield.org/site/en/docman/doc_view/20-commercial-non-timber- forest-products-of-the-guiana-shield?tmpl=component&format=raw. Walker, P. 1989. Geochelone denticulata - Yellow-footed tortoise, Forest tortoise, in Swingland, I. R. & Klemens, M. W., (eds.), The conservation biology of tortoises. IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group; The Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, Gland, Switzerland. 22-23. Watling, J. I. and Ngadino, L. F. 2007. A preliminary survey of amphibians and reptiles of the Nassau and Lely plateaus, eastern Suriname. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment, 43: 119.

Tridacna maxima

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE 2009 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

BIVALVIA TRIDACNIDAE

SPECIES: Tridacna maxima

COMMON NAMES: Kleine doopvontschelp (Dutch), Maxima clam (English), Small (English)

RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory (?), China, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Comoros, Cook Islands, Egypt, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Hong Kong, India (ex), Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Myanmar, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia (?), South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Vanuatu (int), Viet Nam, Wallis and Futuna Islands

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia, Kiribati

IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/conservation dependent

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild species from Fiji, Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Tonga, Vanuatu and Viet Nam first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild species from New Caledonia first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Current negative opinion for Cambodia formed on 11/03/2011. Current negative opinion for Solomon Islands formed on 12/03/2009. Positive opinion formed for all other countries on 22/07/1997. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji, Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, New Caledonia, Tonga and Vanuatu formed on 22/05/2003. Previous negative opinion for Viet Nam formed on 22/05/2003 and confirmed on 09/03/2006.

Tridacna maxima

TRADE PATTERNS: Tridacna maxima was selected for review on the basis of a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2009 (based on the threshold of 250 non-coral invertebrates for globally threatened or near threatened species). Australia: Australia has never published any export quotas for this species. Imports of T. maxima by the EU-27 directly from Australia over the period 2000-2010 principally comprised live, captive-bred specimens traded for commercial purposes, with small volumes of live, captive-born and wild-sourced specimens imported between 2008 and 2010 (Table 1). In addition, Poland reported the seizure or confiscation of one shell in 2005. The principal importers of T. maxima between 2000 and 2010 were Germany and the United Kingdom. Of the direct exports of T. maxima reported by Australia between 2000 and 2009, 65 per cent were to the EU-27. Australia has not yet submitted an annual report for 2010. Indirect trade in T. maxima to the EU-27 originating in Australia 2000-2010 consisted of live, captive-bred specimens re-exported by Singapore for commercial purposes between 2008 and 2010 (Table 2). Direct exports of T. maxima to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2000-2010 consisted principally of live specimens traded for commercial purposes, of which the majority were captive-bred and smaller volumes were wild-sourced (Table 3). Importer-reported wild-sourced trade increased over ten-fold between 2008 and 2009. Kiribati: Kiribati is not a Party to CITES and therefore has not submitted any annual reports or published any export quotas for T. maxima. Direct imports of T. maxima reported by the EU-27 from Kiribati over the period 2000-2010 comprised live specimens traded for commercial purposes (Table 4). From 2007 onwards, imports were reported to be ranched or captive-bred specimens, with no reported imports in wild-sourced specimens since 2003. No indirect trade in T. maxima originating in Kiribati was reported by the EU-27 over the period 2000-2010. Table 4. Direct trade in Tridacna maxima from Kiribati to the EU-27 reported by importers, 2000-2010. All trade was in live specimens for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2000-2001 or 2004-2005.)

Importer Source 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total France F 1300 1300 Germany R 1832 925 1241 500 4498

C 400 491 891

W 200 200

The only direct trade in T. maxima from Kiribati to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2000- 2010 was the export of 600 live, captive-born specimens to the United States for commercial purposes in 2003.

Tridacna maxima

Table 1. Direct exports of Tridacna maxima from Australia to the EU-27, 2000-2010. (No trade was reported 2000-2002.) Importer Term Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Germany live C T Importer 2476 12158 9364 5990 10500 6627 3724 1000 51839 Exporter 8355 8814 8490 8000 5000 2000 40659 F T Importer 600 600 Exporter W T Importer 109 18 127 Exporter 119 18 137 Netherlands live W T Importer 76 30 30 136 Exporter 26 30 56 Poland shells I - Importer 1 1 Exporter United Kingdom live C T Importer 170 1300 1342 5000 3850 3000 4000 1000 19662 Exporter 1800 5712 6500 4000 2000 2000 22012 shells C T Importer Exporter 1000 1000 Subtotals live C & F Importer 2646 13458 10706 10990 14350 9627 7724 2000 71501 Exporter 10155 14526 14990 12000 7000 4000 600 63271 W Importer 185 48 30 263 Exporter 145 48 193 shells C Importer Exporter 1000 1000 I Importer 1 1 Exporter

Tridacna maxima

Table 2. Indirect exports of Tridacna maxima from Australia to the EU-27, 2000-2010. All trade was in live, captive-bred specimens re-exported by Singapore for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2000-2007.) Importer Reported by 2008 2009 2010 Total Italy Importer 370 370 Exporter 800 800 Spain Importer 90 70 160 Exporter 60 40 100 United Kingdom Importer 300 300 Exporter Subtotal Importer 60 460 370 830 Exporter 840 900

Table 3. Direct exports of Tridacna maxima from Australia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2010. (No trade was reported 2000-2002 or 2010.) Term Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live C T Importer 1460 320 500 600 300 2988 6168 Exporter 390 2550 7300 7300 3800 11706 33046 P Importer 600 600 Exporter - Importer 800 800 Exporter W T Importer 170 50 1000 10141 11361 Exporter 2 2 U T Importer 100 100 Exporter shells C T Importer Exporter 1000 1000 meat C T Importer Exporter 200 200 specimens W S Importer Exporter 20 20 Subtotal C Importer 1460 320 500 600 600 1100 2988 7568 (live only) Exporter 390 2550 7300 7300 3800 11706 33046 W & U Importer 270 50 1000 10141 11461 Exporter 2 2

Tridacna maxima

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Tridacna maxima is a marine mollusc that may reach a maximum size of 35-40 cm shell length, although it does not usually exceed 25 cm (Raymakers et al., 2003; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Similarly to other species in the family Tridacnidae (giant clams), it was reported to host symbiotic photosynthetic algae in its mantles, and hence, to have a distribution limited to relatively shallow and clear waters (Sutton and Hoegh-Guldberg, 1990; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Othman et al., 2010), to approximately 20 m depth (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Raymakers et al. (2003) reported that the species may reach sexual maturity as a male at 35 mm length and as a fully mature hermaphrodite at 2 years of age and 45 mm length. All Tridacnidae species were reported to have similar spawning patterns, where synchronous spawning is induced by pheromones (Kinch, 2009), and the release of sperm is followed by the release of eggs (Lucas, 2003; Apte et al., 2004). This kind of reproductive method was found to be unsuccessful in low densities of mature individuals (Kinch, 2009), and in a study conducted in India, Apte et al. (2004) showed that for successful recruitment, a minimum density of 60-100 adult individuals per hectare may be required. Tridacnidae fecundity was found to generally increase with age and size (Apte et al., 2004). Apte et al. (2004) indicated that after fast growth in the early years, Tridacna spp. are slow-growing, and Wells (1997) reported that the natural recruitment rates were low due to high early mortality. Chambers (2007) considered juvenile T. maxima particularly vulnerable to predation. Richter et al. (2008) described T. maxima as morphologically highly variable, and accordingly to McMichael (1974), many variants had been erroneously described as new species in the past. T. maxima was considered to be the most widely distributed Tridacnidae species (Newman and Gomez, 2000), with its range reaching from East Africa to the Red Sea, eastern Polynesia and Japan (Munro and Heslinga, 1982; Ellis, 1999; Othman et al., 2010). T. maxima was classified as Lower Risk/conservation dependent in the IUCN Red List, although it was noted that the assessment needed updating (Wells, 1996). The species was reported to be relatively abundant throughout its range, although it was noted that its status in the Indian Ocean was poorly known (Wells, 1997; Wabnitz et al., 2003). The population trend of all Tridacna spp. was considered to be declining in the entire Indo-Pacific region (Isamu, 2008; Othman et al., 2010). All Tridacnidae species were reported to be widely used for food and other purposes throughout their range (Munro and Heslinga, 1982; Munro, 1989; Shang et al., 1991; Wells, 1997; Ellis, 1999; Mingoa- Licuanan and Gomez, 2002; Lucas, 2003; Lindsay et al., 2004; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010; Othman et al., 2010). Apte et al. (2004) considered overharvesting and collection for the souvenir trade as the main causes of T. maxima population decline. The bright mantle colour was reported to make the species particularly suitable for the aquarium trade (Hart et al., 1998; Wabnitz et al., 2003; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2008), and according to Lindsay et al. (2004), the farm gate prices of USD 6-10 and retail prices of USD 60-100 paid for T. maxima were high compared to other Tridacna species. Waters (2008) showed in an experimental study that T. maxima may be particularly sensitive to the impacts of ocean acidification. A study by Nuryanto and Kochzius (2009) revealed significant genetic differentiation among populations in the Indo-West Pacific and across the Indo-Malay Archipelago, cautioning that the current network of protected areas may be insufficient. Aquaculture: Tridacnidae mariculture was initiated in the 1980s (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008a), and promoted due to the low nutritional requirements of the species, high initial fecundity, availability of suitable shallow coastal areas and relatively simple techniques required for breeding and rearing (Bell et al., 1997; Wells, 1997; Ellis, 1998). Lindsay et al. (2004) stated that most Pacific Island nations had established facilities for Tridacnidae aquaculture, although the majority of exported specimens were still wild-caught. However, efforts to restore depleted populations using hatchery-reared individuals were reported to have generally had poor success, due to limited monitoring and production efforts; the high cost and long time needed for the production of clams; and limited participation from local communities (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b; Othman et al., 2010).

Tridacna maxima

The initial aim of aquaculture production was to produce meat and shells of large-sized species; however, this was found to be costly due to slow growth and low survival (Hambrey and Gervis, 1993; Hart et al., 1998), and it was suggested that the production of smaller species, including T. maxima, for aquarium trade could be economically more viable (Hart et al., 1998), and marketable-sized specimens could be produced in a relatively short period of 18-24 months (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Lindsay et al. (2004) noted that increased interest had been shown towards T. maxima aquaculture due to the increased demand of the aquarium industry and the development of improved production technologies. Australia: The range map in Othman et al. (2010) indicated that the range of T. maxima covered roughly the northern half of Australia’s coastline, and Smith (2011) considered the small population in the Solitary Islands Marine Park in northern New South Wales to represent the southernmost distribution limit of the species. T. maxima was also reported to occur on Lord Howe Island (Hedley, 1921), the Dampier Archipelago in western Australia (Slack-Smith and Bryce, 2004), and on the Australian Indian Ocean Territories Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Island (Hourston, 2010). According to Braley (1993), the stocks of Tridacna species in Australia were in “good shape, due to the extensive coral reef habitat, especially the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) of NE Australia, which has the largest stocks of giant clam in the world”. Along with T. squamosa, it was considered to be the most common Tridacnidae species on the GBR (Hutchings et al., 2007) and “probably elsewhere” (McMichael, 1974). Wells (1994) regarded T. maxima as common in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. A survey conducted between 1997 and 2005 indicated relatively stable populations of Tridacnidae in the Islands (DEH, 2005). However, Hourston (2010) found indications of Tridacna population declines on the easily accessible areas. Hourston (2010) regarded the populations at Christmas islands as “naturally small”. In a study conducted over the period 1966-1969 on the One Tree Island reef on Queensland’s coast, McMichael (1974) recorded T. maxima in densities of approximately 0.8 individuals per square metre, estimating that the total population size in the area may be “substantially greater than 2 million individuals of measurable size”. In field surveys conducted in 2003 on Ashmore, Cartier and Mermaid Reef marine reserves on the northwestern coast of Australia, the population numbers of Tridacnidae were considered healthy, although the larger proportion of dead individuals encountered at Ashmore and Cartier reefs was suggested to be a result of Indonesian fishers or episodes of warm water (Rees et al., 2003). T. maxima was found to have the most widespread distribution of all Tridacnidae species in the reefs, with healthy populations found on all three reefs surveyed (Rees et al., 2003). The density of T. maxima in these reefs was reported to be similar or greater than the densities found in comparable studies conducted in areas with little exploitation (Rees et al., 2003). Threats: Poaching by foreign vessels was considered a threat to the Australian Tridacnidae in the 1960s and 1970s, however “good numbers” of stocks were reported to have remained after the peak in illegal fisheries (Braley, 1993). Braley (1993) reported that Tridacnidae collection for food was allowed only for the Aboriginal communities, and that they were eaten by a small number of people. However, Shang et al. (1991) reported that there was demand for Tridacnidae meat in Australia by Pacific Island immigrants. Hourston (2010) reported that Tridacna species were commonly harvested for food by the local communities in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, but that significant harvesting did not take place in the Christmas Island. Hourston (2010) cautioned that “The apparent local extinction of Tridacna gigas indicates that the stocks of similarly exploited [Tridacnidae] species may also be under immediate threat”. A survey conducted by Shang et al. (1994) in 1989-1990 indicated that some Australian aquarium retailers in the past had sold small quantities of locally collected T. maxima, but that none were available at the time of the study, since Tridacnidae had reportedly been declared a protected species. Furthermore, domestic demand for the aquarium trade was estimated to be relatively small, and easily met by farming (Shang et al., 1994). No shells of T. maxima were marketed in Australia according to the survey (Shang et al., 1994).

Tridacna maxima

Management and legal protection: The Australia Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations (2000) specified that the maximum amount of Tridacnidae species that could be exported from Australia was three specimens per person, provided the total weight did not exceed 3 kg and each specimen was one intact shell or two matching halves (Government of Australia, 2000). In the State of Queensland, the species was not listed as extinct in the wild, endangered, vulnerable or near threatened under the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation (2006) (Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, 2010). In the Northern Territory, the Fisheries Regulations considered Tridacnidae species as “fish not to be taken” (Northern Territory of Australia, 2011). Tridacnidae recreational harvest was reportedly unregulated in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Islands (Hourston, 2010). However, Tridacna species were listed as fully protected from all harvesting in the proposed island-specific recreational fishing rules of Christmas Island (Department of Fisheries, 2010a), and the proposed island-specific recreational fishing rules of Cocos (Keeling) Islands included a bag limit of 10 individuals of Tridacna spp. per person per day (Department of Fisheries, 2010b). Neither proposed regulations had yet entered into force as of November 2010 (Department of Fisheries, 2010a; Department of Fisheries, 2010b), and were considered as non-enforced guidelines (Hourston, 2010). Hourston (2010) cautioned that “Commercial fishing of giant clams is not recommended for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands given the restricted recruitment and substantial recreational pressure already on stocks. The same recommendation is made for Christmas Island due to the naturally small stock size of these invertebrates”. Hourston (2010) cautioned that “Additional reports on this activity and an in-depth assessment of the existing operation is recommended prior to any additional venture being approved or expansion of existing operations”. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park protected species policy guidelines for broodstock collection specified that the collection of a maximum of 20 T. maxima was permitted for broodstock; however, it was also noted that “a permission must not be granted if doing so would result in there being more than 60 individuals ... being taken from the Marine Park per financial year” (GBRMPA, 2005). Furthermore, it was specified that individuals collected for aquaculture could not be returned back to the wild (GBRMPA, 2005). T. maxima was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade at the 20th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2004 (AC20 Summary Record). The Secretariat received no response from Australia regarding possible problems with the implementation of Article IV of Resolution Conf. 12.8 (AC21 10.1.1), and following a review of the species, Australia was classified as a country of Least Concern due to it having traded “almost totally in captive-bred specimens over the period” (AC22 Doc. 10.2, Annex 8f). Kiribati: T. maxima was reported to occur in all the three main island groups of Kiribati: the Line Islands (Barott et al., 2010), the Phoenix Islands (The Government of Kiribati, 2009) and the Gilbert Islands (Thomas, 2001). Teiwaki (1988) reported that Tridacnidae species were found “in abundance” in the Tarawa lagoon in Gilbert Islands. Thomas (2003b) considered T. maxima to be more abundant than T. gigas or Hippopus hippopus in the Gilbert Islands. In surveys conducted in 1985 in the Abaiang, Abemama, Maiana and Tarawa Atolls in the central Gilbert Islands, Munro (1988) recorded T. maxima; however, as the species was considered common, no systematic estimates of density were made. In a study comparing coral reef flora and fauna communities in uninhabited and populated atolls in Kiribati and nearby United States territories in the Line Islands at depths of 10-12 m, Sandin et al. (2008) found that the densities of T. maxima were highest (mean 0.75±0.83 individuals per 100 square metres) in the uninhabited Kingman atoll (US territory), while lower densities were observed in the Kiritimati atoll of Kiribati (mean 0.45±0.78individuals per 100 square metres), where T. maxima was harvested for food by local inhabitants. Barott et al. (2010) conducted transects at depths of 3-5 m in the remote Millenium atoll, which is part of the Southern Line Islands Chain, reporting that T. maxima was abundant, although “patchy in

Tridacna maxima

distribution”. High numbers of dead individuals were found in raised areas, and it was suggested that there may be mortality due to aerial exposure (Barott et al., 2010). The highest recorded density of live T. maxima was 3.5 individuals per square metre, and it was noted that at one site, the coverage of T. maxima was 100% (Barott et al., 2010). When comparing these results to similar surveys conducted in 1988 by Sirenko and Koltun (1992) conducted at depths of 0-1 m, where average density was 35 individuals per square metre, Barott et al. (2010) concluded that there were signs of population decline. The stocks of all Tridacnidae species in Kiribati were considered to be in decline, particularly in the Gilbert Islands (Tamuera Aram, 2009b; Tamuera Aram, 2010). Threats: The main threat to Tridacnidae species in Kiribati was considered to be overexploitation (Tamuera Aram, 2009b), and Tikai (1993) stated that although there was an adequate resource of Tridacnidae available in the Kiribati waters to support local consumption and domestic market, “they could easily be fished out if their export were to be encouraged without proper planning”. It was noted that as domestic trade was largely unrecorded, there were no estimates available on trade volumes (Thomas, 2003b; Tamuera Aram, 2009b). Referring to the results of a socioeconomic survey, Tamuera (2009b) reported that 146 800 Tridacnidae individuals may be caught annually for subsistence harvesting and local markets. Sant (1995) stated that all Tridacnidae species in Kiribati were “heavily exploited for local consumption”, and Aram (2010) noted that “In Kiribati, wild giant clams provide a source of protein, but with changing lifestyles, giant clams have been extensively harvested, resulting in the declining of stocks”. In surveys conducted in 1985 in the Abaiang, Abemama, Maiana and Tarawa Atolls in the central Gilbert Islands group, Munro (1988) reported that Tridacnidae stocks were “relatively heavily utilised for domestic consumption”, and although the harvesting of T. maxima for the Tarawa market was considered “moderate”, it was noted that “because of the slow growth of this species, it is also liable to overexploitation”. Barott et al. (2010) considered poaching as a possible cause of T. maxima decline in the southern part of the Millenium atoll in the Line Islands group, and noted that lower densities were found in more easily accessible sites. They also observed that although temporary residents were harvesting T. maxima in the site, there was “little or no monitoring or enforcement” in the area to control the use (Barott et al., 2010). Thomas (2003b) reported that the consumption of molluscs had increased with urbanization and population growth in the capital of South Tarawa, and at the same time, the water quality on the areas surrounding the urban settlements was getting worse. T. maxima was reportedly “taken from the outer islands and is the target for supporting a domestic commercial fishery” (Thomas, 2003b). Thomas (2001) studied the use of molluscs by local communities in the central Gilbert Islands between 1993 and 1998, and revealed that T. maxima was regularly harvested for export from Abaiang atoll to Tarawa and that it was important in subsistence economy in the Tabiteuea atoll (Thomas, 2001). Shells of the species were reportedly used to mash leaves in traditional medicine (Thomas, 2001). In the Gilbert Islands, T. maxima was commonly gathered by local inhabitants in shallower areas and also on ocean reef flats, if encountered during fishing trips (Thomas, 2002). It was, however, noted that the Gilbert Island divers often left individuals deeply embedded in corals uncollected due to the high effort needed to remove them (Thomas, 2007b). Harvests of T. maxima were reportedly often stored in salt, unlike those of T. gigas and H. hippopus, which were typically stored as live specimens (Thomas, 2007a). Alling et al. (2007) observed very high rates of coral mortality in the Phoenix Islands in 2004 as a result of increased ocean temperatures, and surveys conducted before and after the event indicated a related decline of Tridacnidae species in the area. Aquaculture production: The development of aquaculture facilities was seen to be important for Kiribati’s economic development (Thomas, 2003a; Thomas, 2003b); however, early plans to culture and restock T. gigas were reportedly discontinued due to lack of resources (Thomas, 2003a), and the focus of production was later solely focused on hatchery-reared T. maxima, with an annual production volume of 2000 individuals reported in 2009 (Tamuera Aram, 2009b). Tamuera (2010) reported that one company was responsible for all exports of cultured Tridacnidae from Kiribati.

Tridacna maxima

In a workshop organised in 2009 on the management of Tridacnidae fisheries and CITES capacity building in the Pacific Region (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), Tamuera (2010) described the current production of T. maxima as follows: “These giant clams are hatchery-reared, but grown-out by village farmers who then sell them back to the company. The current annual production of this company is around 2000 giant clams, but is expected to increase to between 5000-10 000 ind/yr.”. It was also noted that there was interest in Tridacnidae farming in the Line Group of islands area, and that the government of Kiribati supported the expansion of production (Tamuera Aram, 2010). Tamuera (2009b) reported that the highest exports of T. maxima between 2002 and 2008 had taken place in 2007, when 3150 pieces, worth AUD 31 500, were exported from the country (Table 6). Table 6. T. maxima exports from Kiribati between 2002 and 2008 according to Tamuera (2009b). Year Pieces Exported Value (AUD) 2002 100 1500 2003 1800 27000 2004 2226 33390 2005 60 900 2006 1200 18000 2007 3150 31500 2008 1100 16500

In a workshop on marine ornamental trade in the Pacific, Tamuera (2009a) reported that Tridacnidae were the second-most exported aquaculture commodity in the country. Tamuera (2009b) noted that hatchery-reared T. maxima could be grown to sizes of 30-45 mm (suitable for export) within three years in Kiribati. The benefits of hatchery rearing were considered to include reduced pressure on wild populations, high potential of production expansion and income generation to local communities (Tamuera Aram, 2009b). The main limitations to Tridacnidae aquaculture production in Kiribati were considered to include the high cost of transportation and difficulties of market access (Tamuera Aram, 2009b; Tamuera Aram, 2010); furthermore, Thomas (2003a) considered the establishment of ownership rules as a potential problem for village-based aquaculture production, as reef resources were generally considered as common resource. Management and legal protection: Tamuera (2009a) stated that Kiribati “lacks the capacity to carry out CITES --- requirements and is therefore seeking regional assistance, especially from SPC [Secretariat of the Pacific Community], to enable Kiribati to become a full member”. Tamuera (2009b) regarded Kiribati’s capacity to implement relevant legislation, control local exploitation, and record fisheries catch as insufficient, and Tamuera (2009a) noted that the management of aquarium organisms was “very weak”, and that management regulations had been developed only for the main traded species, flame angel (Centropyge loriculus). Tamuera (2009b) reported that several activities were in place to improve the sustainability of the use of Tridacnidae stocks in Kiribati, including surveys on population status in the Gilbert Islands group; a socioeconomic survey on the use of marine resources; establishing Marine Protected Areas; developing Tridacnidae enhancement in cooperation with a private company; and awareness raising through a radio programme. Aram (2010) noted that the “Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Development is also working closely with Island Councils on establishing marine managed areas to address the issue of declining marine species, including giant clam species”. T. maxima was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade at the 20th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2004 (AC20 Summary Record). The Secretariat received no response from Kiribati regarding possible problems with the implementation of Article IV of Resolution Conf. 12.8 (AC21 10.1.1), however as the recorded trade was at a low level, the country was classified as Least Concern (AC22 Doc. 10.2, Annex 8f). The Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA) Management Plan 2010-2014 (The Government of Kiribati, 2009) listed the occurrence of T. maxima in the area, and stated that “The density of these giant clams in Orona lagoon is an outstanding feature of PIPA and augurs well for the long term conservation of this increasingly threatened species.”.

Tridacna maxima

REFERENCES: Alling, A., Doherty, O., Logan, H., Feldman, L., and Dustan, P. 2007. Catastrophic coral mortality in the remote Central Pacific Ocean: Kiribati Phoenix Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin 551 Apte, D., Idrees Babu K.K., Sahib, K., and Dutta, S. 2004. Species conservation action plan - Ecology, population dynamics and conservation of Giant Clam Tridacna maxima (Roding, 1798) in Lakshadweep Archipelago. Bombay Natural History Society, LEAD International, Darwin Initiative. Barott, K. L., Caselle, J. E., Dinsdale, E. A., Friedlander, A. M., Maragos, J. E., Obura, D., Rohwer, F. L., Sandin, S. A., Smith, J. E., and Zgliczynski, B. 2010. The lagoon at Caroline/Millennium Atoll, Republic of Kiribati: Natural history of a nearly pristine ecosystem. PLoS ONE, 5 (6): 1-10. Bell, J. D., Lane, I., Gervis, M., Soule, S., and Tafea, H. 1997. Village-based farming of the giant clam, Tridacna gigas (L), for the aquarium market: Initial trials in Solomon Islands. Aquaculture Research, 28 (2): 121-128. Black, R., Johnson, M. S., Prince, J., Brearley, A., and Bond, T. 2011. Evidence of large, local variations in recruitment and mortality in the small giant clam, Tridacna maxima, at Ningaloo Marine Park, Western Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF11093. Braley, R. 1993. Country report: Australia, Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of giant clams, P. Munro, ed., ICLARM, pp. 35-36. Chambers, C. N. L. 2007. Pasua (Tridacna maxima) size and abundance in Tongareva Lagoon, Cook Islands. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 13: 7-12. DEH. 2005. Status of the coral reefs at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. A report on the status of the marine community at Cocos (Keeling) Islands, East Indian Ocean, 1997-2005. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government. Department of Fisheries. 2010a. Future island-specific recreational fishing rules - Christmas Island. The Government of Western Australia. Department of Fisheries. 2010b. Future island-specific recreational fishing rules - Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Government of Western Australia. Ellis, S. 1998. Spawning and early larval rearing of Giant Clams (: Tridacnidae). Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture. Publication no. 130. Ellis, S. 1999. Lagoon farming of giant clams (Bivalvia: Tridacnidae). Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture. GBRMPA. 2005. Policy on managing activities that include the direct take of a protected species from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Australian Government Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Government of Australia. 2000. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. Statutory rules 2000 No. 181 as amended, made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Prepared by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney-General's Department, Canberra. Hambrey, J. and Gervis, M. 1993. The economic potential of village-based farming of Giant Clams (Tridacna gigas) in Solomon Islands, in Fitt, W. K., (ed.), Biology and mariculture of Giant Clams. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra. 41-49. Hart, A. M., Bell, J. D., and Foyle, T. P. 1998. Growth and survival of the giant clams, , T. maxima and T. crocea, at village farms in the Solomon Islands. Aquaculture, 165: 203-220. Hedley, C. 1921. A revision of the Australian Tridacna. Records of the Australian Museum, 13 (4): 163- 172. Hender, J., McDonald, C. A., and Gilligan, J. J. 2001. Baseline survey of marine environments and stock size estimates of marine resources of the south Cocos (Keeling) Atoll (0-15M), Eastern Indian Ocean. Report for FRRF (Fisheries Resources Research Fund). Hourston, M. 2010. Review of the exploitation of marine resources of the Australian Indian Ocean Territories: the implications of biogeographic isolation for tropical island fisheries. Government of Western Australia, Department of Fisheries. Fisheries Research Report No. 208. Hutchings, P., Ahyong, S., Byrne, M., Przeslawski, R., and Wörheide, G. 2007. Vulnerability of benthic invertebrates of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change, in Climate change and the Great Barrier Reef: A vulnerability assessment. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia. 309-356.

Tridacna maxima

Hutchins, J. B., Slack-Smith, S., Bryce, C. W., Morrison, S. M., and Hewitt, M. A. 1996. Marine biological survey of the Muiron Islands and the Eastern Shore of Exmouth Gulf. Western Australian Museum for Ocean Rescue 2000 Program. Hutchins, J. B., Slack-Smith, S., Marsh, L. M., Jones, D. S., Bryce, C. W., Hewitt, M. A., and Hill, A. 1995. Marine biological survey of Bernier and Dorre Islands, Shark Bay. Western Australian Museum and Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management for Ocean Rescue 2000 Program. Isamu, T. 2008. Palau case study - Tridacnidae. International expert workshop on CITES non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, November 17-22, 2008. Kinch, J. 2009. The importance of giant clam fisheries management and trade to the Pacific, Regional management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building workshop, CITES, Nadi, Fiji Islands (4th to 7th August 2009). Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2008. Proceedings of the sub-regional workshop on the marine ornamental trade in the Pacific, SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community). Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridancidae) and CITES capacity building 4-7 August 2009. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, New Caledonia. Lindsay, S. R., Ledua, E., and Stanley, J. 2004. Regional assessment of the commercial viability for marine ornamental aquaculture within the Pacific Islands (giant clam, hard & soft coral, finfish, live rock & marine shrimp). Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Aquaculture Section. Noumea, New Caledonia. Lucas, J. 2003. Giant Clam mariculture. Global Aquaculture Advocate, June 2003: 52-54. McMichael, D. F. 1974. Growth rate, population size and mantle coloration in the small giant clam Tridacna maxima (Röding). at One Tree Island, Capricorn Group, Queensland, Proceedings of the Second International Coral Reef Symposium Vol.1, A. M. Cameron et al., eds., Great Barrier Reef Committee, Brisbane, pp. 241-256. Mingoa-Licuanan, S. and Gomez, E. D. 2002. Giant clam conservation in Southeast Asia. Tropical Coasts, 2: 24-56. Munro, J. L. 1988. Status of giant clam stocks in the Central Gilbert Islands Group, Republic of Kiribati, Workshop on Pacific Inshore Fishery Resources, South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia, 14-25 March 1988. Munro, J. L. 1989. Fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae: Bivalvia) and prospects for stock enhancement, in Caddy, J. F., (ed.), Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York/Chichester. 541-558. Munro, J. L. and Heslinga, G. A. 1982. Prospects for the commercial cultivation of giant clams (Bivalvia: Tridacnidae), 35th Meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Nassau, Bahamas. Newman, W. A. and Gomez, E. D. 2000. On the status of giant clams, relics of Tethys (: Bivalvia: Tridacnidae). Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia 23-27 October 2000, 2. Northern Territory of Australia. 2011. Fisheries Regulations - Regulations under the Fisheries Act. In force at 21 September 2011. Nuryanto, A. and Kochzius, M. 2009. Highly restricted gene flow and deep evolutionary lineages in the giant clam Tridacna maxima. Coral Reefs, 28: 607-619. Othman, A. S., Goh, G. H. S., and Todd, P. A. 2010. The distribution and status of Giant Clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58 (1): 103-111. Queensland Parliamentary Counsel. 2010. Nature Conservation Act 1992: Nature conservation (wildlife) regulation 2006. Reprinted as in force on 21 May 2010. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N., and Sant, G. 2003. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam. Unpublished draft report. TRAFFIC Europe and TRAFFIC Oceania. Brussels and Sydney. 37 pp. Rees, M., Colquhoun, J., Smith, L., and Heyward, A. 2003. Surveys of Trochus, Holothuria, Giant Clams and the coral communities at Ashmore Reef, Cartier Reef and Mermaid Reef, northwestern Australia: 2003. The Australian Institute of Marine Science. Richter, C., Roa-Quiaoit, H., Jantzen, C., Al-Zibdah, M., and Kochzius, M. 2008. Collapse of a new living species of giant clam in the Red Sea. Current Biology, 18: 1349-1354.

Tridacna maxima

Sandin, S. A., Smith, J. E., DeMartini, E. E., Dinsdale, E. A., Donner, S. D., Friedlander, A. M., Konotchick, T., Malay, M., Maragos, J. E., Obura, D., Pantos, O., Paulay, G., Richie, M., Rohwer, F., Schroeder, R. E., Walsh, S., Jackson, J. B. C., Knowlton, N., and Sala, E. 2008. Baselines and degradation of coral reefs in the Northern Line Islands. PLoS ONE, 3 (2): e1548. Sant, G. 1995. Marine invertebrates of the South Pacific - an examination of the trade. TRAFFIC International. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Shang, Y. C., Tisdell, C., and Leung, P. 1991. Report on a market survey of giant clam products in selected countries. Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, Publication #107. Shang, Y. C., Tisdell, C., and Leung, P. 1994. Markets for giant clam products in selected countries: an initial overview concentrating on East Asia, Australia and the United States, in Tisdell, C., Shang, Y. C., & Leung, P., (eds.), Economics of commercial giant clam mariculture. ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) Monograph no 25, 48-66. Sirenko, B. I. and Koltun, V. M. 1992. A study of the benthic communities of Caroline Atoll (Line Islands, Pacific Ocean), in Results of the first joint US-USSR Central Pacific expedition (BERPAC), Autumn 1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 166-169. Slack-Smith, S. and Bryce, C. W. 2004. A survey of the benthic molluscs of the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum, 66: 221-245. Smith, S. D. A. 2011. Growth and population dynamics of the giant clam Tridacna maxima (Röding) at its southern limit of distribution in coastal, subtropical eastern Australia. Molluscan Research, 31 (1): 37-41. Tamuera Aram, K. 2009a. Country profiles by government representatives: Kiribati, Proceedings of the sub-regional workshop on the marine ornamental trade in the Pacific, J. Kinch & A. Teitelbaum, eds., Noumea, New Caledonia, p. 13. Tamuera Aram, K. 2009b. Giant clams trade and CITES in Kiribati, Fisheries Division, Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources Development, Republic of Kiribati, URL: https://www.spc.int/aquaculture/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=37 &limit=5&limitstart=5&order=date&dir=DESC&Itemid=32 Tamuera Aram, K. 2010. Country profiles by government representatives: Kiribati, Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building, J. Kinch & A. Teitelbaum, eds., SPC Aquaculture Technical Papers, Nadi, Fiji, pp. 24-25. Teitelbaum, A. and Friedman, K. 2008a. Current status and prospects for cultured giant clams, Proceedings of the sub-regional workshop on the marine ornamental trade in the Pacific, SPC, p. 39. Teitelbaum, A. and Friedman, K. 2008b. Successes and failures in reintroducing giant clams in the Indo-Pacific region. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 14: 19-26. Teiwaki, R. 1988. Management of marine resources in Kiribati. Atoll Research Unit, Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific. Suva, Fiji. The Government of Kiribati. 2009. Phoenix Islands Protected Area management plan 2010-2014. Thomas, F. 2007a. The behavioural ecology of shellfish gathering in Western Kiribati, Micronesia 2: Patch choice, patch sampling, and risk. Human Ecology, 35 (515): 526. Thomas, F. R. 2001. Mollusk habitats and fisheries in Kiribati: An assessment from the Gilbert Islands, 1. Pacific Science, 55 (1): 77-97. Thomas, F. R. 2002. An evaluation of central-place foraging among mollusk gatherers in Western Kiribati, Micronesia: Linking behavioral ecology with ethnoarchaeology. World Archaeology, 34 (1): 182-208. Thomas, F. R. 2003a. 'Taming the lagoon': Aquaculture development and the future of customary marine tenure in Kiribati, Central Pacific. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 85 (4): 243-252. Thomas, F. R. 2003b. Fisheries development in Kiribati: Sustainability issues in a "mirab" economy. Pacific Studies 26(1/2) Thomas, F. R. 2007b. The behavioral ecology of shellfish gathering in Western Kiribati, Micronesia 1: Prey choice. Human Ecology, 35: 179-194. Tikai, T. 1993. Fisheries development, in Van Trease, H., (ed.), Atoll politics - the Republic of Kiribati. Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies and Institute of Pacific Studies, Suva, Fiji. 168- 182.

Tridacna maxima

Wabnitz, C., Taylor, M., Green, E., and Razak, T. 2003. From ocean to aquarium: the global trade in marine ornamental species. UNEP-WCMC. Walker, D. I. 1997. Marine biological survey of the Central Kimberley Coast, Western Australia. The University of Western Australia. Waters, C. G. 2008, Biological responses of juvenile Tridacna maxima (Mollusca: Bivalvia) to increased pCO2 and ocean acidification, A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies, The Evergreen State College. Wells, F. E. 1994. Marine molluscs of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin, 410: 1-22. Wells, F. E., Hanley, J. R., and Walker, D. I. 1995. Marine biological survey of the Southern Kimberley, Western Australia. Western Australian Museum. Wells, S. 1996. Tridacna maxima. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 5-9-2011. Wells, S. M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 77 pp.

Cedrela odorata

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE 2009 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

MELIACEAE

SPECIES: Cedrela odorata

SYNONYMS: Cedrela brownii, C. guianensis, C. paraguariensis, C. mexicana, C. velloziana, C. glaziovii, C. paraguariensis var. brachystachya, C. paraguariensis var. multijuga, C. adenophylla, C. imparipinnata, C. oxidentalis, C. paraguariensis var. hassleri, C. mexicana var. puberula, C. hassleri, C. caldasana, C. rotunda, C. mourae, C. sintenisii, C. brachystachya, C. yucatana, C. whitfordii,C. huberi, C. longipes, C. palustris, C. odorata var. xerogeiton, C. cubensis, Surenus brownii, S. glaziovii, S. guianensis, S. mexicana, S. paraguariensis, S. velloziana

COMMON NAMES: Cedar (English), Cedarwood (English), Cigar-box cedar (English), Cigar-box wood (English), Red cedar (English), Spanish cedar (English), Stinking mahogany (English), West Indian cedar (English), Cedrat (French), Cedrela (French), Suren (Indonesian), Surian (Indonesian), Cedro rojo (Spanish), Yom-hom (Thai)

RANGE STATES: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, , Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Cayman Islands, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico, Montserrat, , Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States Virgin Islands, Venezuela

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Bolivia, Brazil

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: N/A

TRADE PATTERNS Cedrela odorata was selected for review on the basis of a high volume of trade into the European Union in 2009 (based on the threshold of 250m3 for globally threatened or near threatened tree species) and a sharp increase in trade into the European Union in 2009. Since the species was selected, a change to the term and unit of one shipment imported by the EU-27 in 2009 was requested by the importer (from 3503 m3 of sawn wood to 3503 m2 of veneer), with the result that the species no longer meets the threshold for selection on the basis of a high volume of trade in 2009. C. odorata from Bolivia and Brazil

Cedrela odorata

was listed in Annex D on 11/04/08; the Bolivian population was listed in Appendix III on 14/10/10 while the Brazilian population was listed in Appendix III on 27/04/2011. Bolivia: Imports of C. odorata to the EU-27 directly from Bolivia between 2000 and 2010 principally comprised wild-sourced sawn wood traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). Only Spain and Italy reported imports of C. odorata 2000-2010, although Bolivia also reported exports to France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Greece and Slovenia. Of the sawn wood reported exported by Bolivia since 2000, 89 per cent was exported to the EU-27. In 2009, the only reported direct trade in C. odorata from Bolivia to the EU-27 was the import of 20 000 m2 of veneer for commercial purposes by Spain; this trade was not confirmed by Bolivia. Prior to 2009, only very small volumes of veneer were reported in trade. No indirect trade of C. odorata to the EU-27 originating in Bolivia was reported between 2000 and 2010. Direct exports of C. odorata from Bolivia to countries other than the EU-27 consisted principally of sawn wood, with smaller quantities of timber pieces and veneer; all trade was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes (Table 2). The principal non-EU importers were the United States and Mexico. Brazil: Imports of C. odorata to the EU-27 directly from Brazil between 2000 and 2010 principally comprised wild-sourced sawn wood traded for commercial purposes, with a large volume of wild- sourced veneer imported for commercial purposes in 2009 and small volumes of wild-sourced timber imported for commercial purposes in 2002 and 2005 (Table 3). None of this trade was confirmed by Brazil. The principal importers were Spain and Germany. No indirect trade of C. odorata to the EU-27 originating in Brazil was reported between 2000 and 2010. Direct exports of C. odorata from Brazil to countries other than the EU-27 consisted principally of sawn wood, with smaller quantities of veneer; all trade was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes (Table 4). The principal non-EU importer of C. odorata from Brazil was Argentina.

Cedrela odorata

Table 1. Direct exports of Cedrela odorata from Bolivia to the EU-27, 2000-2010. Trade was wild-sourced predominantly for commercial purposes; quantities were rounded to 1 decimal place. (No trade was reported 2000-2001 or has been reported in 2010.) Importer Term Units Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total France sawn wood m3 Importer Exporter 2500 27 11 13.3 2551.3 Germany sawn wood m 3 Importer Exporter 93.1 10 103.12 veneer m 3 Importer 10 10 Exporter 3 3 Greece sawn wood m 3 Importer Exporter 17.7 17.7 Italy sawn wood m 3 Importer 16 84.1 100.1 Exporter 167.9 93 126.1 83.1 41 4 515.0 veneer m 3 Importer Exporter 5 1 6 Netherlands sawn wood m 3 Importer Exporter 89.6 89.6 Slovenia sawn wood m 3 Importer Exporter 4 4 Spain sawn wood m 3 Importer 30.3 32.0 40.2 54.1 95.4 251.9 Exporter 8542.1 6 35.6 21.26 119 88 8811.8 veneer m 2 Importer 8.5 20000 20008.5 Exporter m 3 Importer 6 6 Exporter 1.8 1.8

3 United Kingdom sawn wood m Importer Exporter 71.9 226.6 298.6 Subtotals sawn wood m 3 Importer 30.3 32.0 16.0 84.1 40.2 54.1 95.4 352.0 Exporter 11375.0 370.3 172.6 207.1 160 106 12391.0

Cedrela odorata

Importer Term Units Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total veneer m2 Importer 8.5 Exporter m 3 Importer 6 10 16 Exporter 6.8 4 10.8

Table 2. Direct exports of Cedrela odorata from Bolivia to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2010. All trade was wild-sourced traded for commercial purposes; quantities were rounded to 1 decimal place. (No trade was reported in 2000.) Term Units Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total sawn wood m2 Importer 125.0 125.0 Exporter m 3 Importer 141.9 132. 8 626.1 3081.9 755.5 194.3 4932.4 Exporter 1372.3 35663.3 23020.9 13976.8 10688.5 11579.0 7592.1 103892.8 timber pieces - Importer 4657.0 4657.0 Exporter veneer m 3 Importer Exporter 2.8 49.3 52.1

Table 3. Direct exports of Cedrela odorata from Brazil to the EU-27, 2000-2010. Trade was predominantly for commercial purposes; quantities were rounded to 1 decimal place. (No trade was reported 2000-2001.) Importer Source Term Units Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Germany W sawn wood kg Importer 14.4 14.4 Exporter m 3 Importer 18.9 56.3 75.2 Exporter veneer m 2 Importer 3503.0 3503.0 Exporter Italy - sawn wood m 3 Importer 32.9 32.9 Exporter

Cedrela odorata

Importer Source Term Units Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Netherlands W sawn wood m3 Importer 30.8 71.3 5.9 56.7 164.7 Exporter Spain W sawn wood m 3 Importer 568.6 941.8 1691.0 1482.2 598.4 904.5 57.2 43.5 48.9 6336.0 Exporter - Importer 1408.0 1408.0 Exporter United Kingdom W sawn wood m 3 Importer 181.8 181.8 Exporter timber m 3 Importer 140.1 34.3 174.3

Exporter Subtotals sawn wood m 3 Importer 599.4 1194.9 1696.9 1538.9 598.4 904.5 76.1 43.5 138.1 6790.6 (main trade only) Exporter veneer m 2 Importer 3503.0 3503.0 Exporter

Table 4. Direct exports (m3) of Cedrela odorata from Brazil to countries other than the EU-27, 2000-2010. All trade was wild-sourced traded for commercial purposes; quantities were rounded to 1 decimal place. (No trade was reported 2000-2005 or 2010.)

Term Units Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total sawn wood m3 Importer 62.5 547.9 3052.4 739.3 4402.1 Exporter veneer m3 Importer 9.0 9.3 18.3

Exporter

Cedrela odorata

TAXONOMIC NOTE Cedrela odorata was considered to be a species with a high degree of population variation (Cintron, 1990) and Muellner et al. (2010) suggested that three genetically distinct species existed within the present name of C. odorata, with Mesoamerican, Brazilian and Ecuadorian populations representing different clades. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Cedrela odorata was considered to have a wide distribution, which was reported to range from Mexico southwards into Central America to Panama, including the Greater and Lesser Antilles, to Southern America, ranging across the north and along the Amazonian and Pacific drainage of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and northern Argentina (Pennington and Muellner, 2010). The species was also reported to have been introduced in various Pacific islands (GISD, 2006; PIER, 2011), Australia, China (PIER, 2011) and African countries (Lemmens, 2008) and it was reported to have become an invasive species locally in South Africa (GISD, 2006). C. odorata was considered to be very variable ecologically, occurring from subtropical dry forests to subtropical wet forests, including premontane zones (Holdridge, 1976 in: Cintron, 1990; Pennington and Muellner, 2010), generally from near sea level to 800 m (Pennington and Muellner, 2010). C. odorata was generally found to grow in mixed forests dominated by a range of other species, where it was often associated with Swietenia spp. (Cintron, 1990). C. odorata was considered to be most abundant in lowland and foothill areas of moist forests (Cintron, 1990). The species was reported to be very common in secondary forest derived from lowland evergreen rain forest and seasonal rain forest (Pennington and Muellner, 2010) but rare in evergreen forests (Lamb, 1960 in: CoP14 Prop. 33). Although the species was also reported to be widespread in drier semi-deciduous forests, trees were noted to grow much smaller in these habitats (Pennington and Muellner, 2010). C. odorata, a deciduous, monoecious (Cintron, 1990) and insect pollinated tree (Cavers et al., 2004), was reported to reach maturity at an age of 10 to 12 years (Cintron, 1990). Despite a high seed viability (Más and Luyano, 1974 in: Cintron, 1990) and rapid germination (Marrero, 1930; Marshall, 1930 in: Cintron, 1990), initially high seedling densities near fruiting trees were reported to diminish quickly, due to shade, competition or root problems (Más and Luyano, 1974 in: Cintron, 1990). The species was considered to be a fast growing species, with reports of growth rates ranging from 2.5 cm diameter and about 2 m in height per year under suitable conditions (Cintron, 1990) to 4 m per year (Navarro et al., 2004). Trees were reported to reach a maximum adult size of 45-60 m height and 2 m in diameter (Pennington and Muellner, 2010). The species was considered to be widespread throughout moist tropical American forests, although never very common (Cintron, 1990). Large trees were reported to have become scarce (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), particularly in Amazonia (Americas Regional Workshop, 1998). In the Americas, the density of the species was considered to be low in natural forests, but it was not clear whether this was due to natural scarcity or past exploitation combined with lack of regeneration (Styles, 1972; Styles, 1981 in: Cintron, 1990). C. odorata was found to be one of the most common species in secondary forests or farm gardens throughout Latin America (Pennington and Muellner, 2010). The distribution was considered to be fragmented in the Neotropics, due to extensive deforestation (CoP14 Prop. 33). Estimates of the global population size were reported to be unavailable (CoP14 Prop. 33). C. odorata was categorised as Vulnerable globally by the IUCN, although it was noted that the assessment needed updating (Americas Regional Workshop, 1998). The species was considered to be Endangered in Mesoamerica (Navarro et al., 2004). However, Pennington and Muellner (2010) suggested that a categorisation of Least Concern would be appropriate for this species, but pointed out that if further studies confirmed the proposed pattern of geographically separate, but closely-related species, according conservation measures would be required. Large scale exploitation, as observed over the past 200 years [prior to 1998], was reported to widely threaten the species at the provenance level (Americas Regional Workshop, 1998). C. odorata trees were

Cedrela odorata

reported to often be cut opportunistically and while natural regeneration was considered to be good, some trees were thought to be felled before reaching maturity (Americas Regional Workshop, 1998). Selective harvesting was found to lead to genetic erosion, with specimens of “good form” only found in isolated areas (Pennington, 1981 in: Cavers et al., 2004) and was reported to have left insufficient parental stock for regeneration in some areas (Cintron, 1990). Navarro et al. (in press in: Cavers, 2008) found that mature trees that were more than 500 m from the nearest conspecific produced progeny of inferior quality, compared to those trees with pollen donors at shorter distances. C. odorata, considered one of the most important commercial hardwood timber species in the Latin American and international markets (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), was reported to be in high demand in the American tropics due to its natural resistance against rot and insects, including termites (Cintron, 1990). The species was thought to provide the most widely used timber throughout tropical America (Pennington and Muellner, 2010) and its fragrant wood was reported to also be used for furniture and joinery, and was still the first choice for cigar box linings. The species was also found to have anti-malarial properties (MacKinnon et al., 1997; Omar et al., 2003). The increased regulation of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) trade was suggested to have increased the demand for C. odorata (Pérez Contreras, 2011). Attempts to establish plantations in the tropics were reported to have been unsatisfactory (Navarro et al., 2004) and plantations in tropical America were reported to have failed mainly due to the species’ vulnerability to damage by Hypsipyla grandella, a Lepidopteran shoot borer, which induces undesired multi-stemmed growth through destruction of the apical shoot if depredation occurs during the first 3-5 years (Pennington and Muellner, 2010). Lemmens (2008) nevertheless considered C. odorata to be a promising species for timber plantations, due to its rapid growth and multipurpose timber and Pennington and Muellner (2010) noted that the species should be planted at low densities and mixed with other species, as they found a reduced risk of depredation by H. grandella under such a regime. The species was reported to be present in many protected areas throughout South America (Pennington and Muellner, 2010) and national parks and agricultural landscapes were reported to afford protection to some populations (Americas Regional Workshop, 1998). Bolivia: The presence of the species was reported from the departments of Beni (Smith, 1960 in: CoP14 Prop. 33; Killeen et al., 1993; Pérez Contreras, 2011), Chuquisaca (Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011), Cochabamba (Pérez Contreras, 2011), La Paz (Killeen et al., 1993; Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011), Pando (Killeen et al., 1993; Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011), Santa Cruz (Killeen et al., 1993; Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011) and Tarija (Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011). Pérez Contreras (2011) indicated that no distribution or density studies were available for the species in Bolivia. Large populations of C. odorata were reported to occur in the Madidi area [now a National Park] (Conservation International, 1990). C. odorata was reported to have been removed from most but pristine forests, which were reported to only remain in more remote areas (Stoian, 2000). Medina et al. (2009) reported that in Vaca Diez province in the department of Beni, the majority of C. odorata stocks had been depleted. Classified as Vulnerable by Meneses and Beck (2005) Commercial timber extraction was reported to have been centred around Santa Cruz, La Paz and Beni (Pérez Contreras, 2011), with an average annual timber production of 29 300 m3 between 2000 and 2009, and a fluctuating but generally decreasing trend during this period, from a maximum of 61 900 m3 in 2000 to a minimum of 13 700 m3 in 2009. Average annual sawn wood production for this period was estimated at 14 700 m3 (Pérez Contreras, 2011). Seventy two per cent of production was reported to be for the international trade in the period 2004-2008 (Pérez Contreras, 2011). Average freight on board (FOB) prices for exported timber were reported to be USD 578/m3, with an increasing trend from USD 485/m3 in 2000 to USD 892/m3 in 2008 (Pérez Contreras, 2011). Rapid exploitation of the species by logging companies with concessions in the Madidi area was reported in 1991 (Conservation International, 1990). Timber extraction rates in the late 1990s in northern Amazonian Bolivia were considered to be higher than those of natural regeneration (Stoian, 2000) and

Cedrela odorata

Mostacedo and Fredericksen (1999) observed little regeneration in many commercial timber species in Bolivia, with the regeneration of C. odorata limited due to irregular or lack of seed sources and lack of large clearings with sufficient light, and noted that while solutions were known for the species, they were considered to be costly. In 1996, a new forestry law, Ley Forestal No. 1700 (regulating the sustainable use and protection of forests), was introduced (Congreso National, 1996), putting Bolivian forests under State control (ITTO, 2004). The law created a ‘Superintendencia Forestal’ (Forestry Superintendence) to enforce forestry laws and review and monitor compliance with management plans (Fredericksen et al., 2003). ITTO (2004) summarized the following main regulations and technical standards of Ley Forestal No. 1700: - “drafting of a general forest management plan (GFMP) based on a total forest inventory of the area (following systematic sampling as defined in the regulations). These results help determine which species offer potential for timber yield, the logging cycle to be used (minimum 20 years) and the size of the annual logging areas, which are a function of the logging cycle. The GFMP must be updated every five years; - restriction of the logging of species with fewer than 0.25 specimens per hectare, or the so-called rare species (taking into account specimens with over 20 cm diameter at breast height (DBH)); - establishment of minimum cutting diameters (MCD) for commercial species according to forest type – for mahogany it is 70 cm DBH; - maximum logging levels: only 80% of trees with a diameter over the MCD may be logged. The remaining trees are left as insurance for the following cycle and to ensure the regeneration of harvested species; - definition and demarcation of ecological reserves in the area under forest management. Respect for key species and species of significance as wildlife food. Census of all commercial species in the annual logging areas to determine the volume to be logged per species, on the basis of the MCD; - preparation of an annual forest operational plan (AFOP) based on the commercial census. AFOPs include maps indicating the location of trees to be logged and trees to be left standing, possible collection areas, and planning of major and secondary roads; - establishment of permanent monitoring plots to determine the impact of logging on forest dynamics and yield; and - the application of silvicultural treatments as required”. Furthermore, concessions were reported to be granted for 40 years under Ley Forestal No. 1700 and extendable subject to approval of management plans and audits (Guzmán Gutiérrez and Quevedo, 2007). Timber harvest prior to the introduction of Ley Forestal No. 1700 was reported to have been selectively targeting C. odorata, Swietenia macrophylla and Amburana cearensis, leading to a high impact on the populations (IBI, 2011). Since the introduction of the law any declines of the species were considered to be due to illegal harvest (IBI, 2011). The forestry reforms were considered to put emphasis on fostering of sustainable low-impact forest management and to reduce the selective felling of high value timber species (Contreras-Hermosilla and Vargas Ríos, 2002; van Rheenen et al., 2004). Ley Forestal No. 1700 was considered to have improved the management of forests in Bolivia (Fredericksen et al., 2003; MWG1 Doc. 7, ITTO, 2004; Guzmán Gutiérrez and Quevedo, 2007; Grogan et al., 2009). Fredericksen (2003) nevertheless noted higher extraction rates in Bolivia for those timber species with higher value, such as Cedrela spp. Regeneration problems were also found to remain and were attributed to the absence of silvicultural treatments (Fredericksen et al., 2003). ITTO (2004) noted problems with regard to timber exports, including that the Scientific Authority was only required to confirm that the logging had been done in forests under management plans and forest operational plans based on the commercial census approved by the Forestry Superintendence, with insufficient information thought to be available on production chains. Mostacedo (2006) highlighted issues

Cedrela odorata

including conversions of sawn wood, concealing of timber amongst other timber species, illegal use of chainsaws, and verification of the origin of the timber. A change in government in Bolivia in 2006 led to the elimination of the Forestry Superintendence in 2009, with its functions amalgamated under a new ‘National Forest and Land Authority’ (Pacheco et al., 2010). The new administration identified 7.8 million ha of Bolivia’s territory as public forests by 2008 and concerns were raised over the possibility of forests being converted to agricultural use, in the absence of mechanisms to support community forestry development (Pacheco et al., 2010). However existing land-use zoning plans were reported to remain (Pacheco et al., 2010). In 2004, Bolivia was reported to have 7 996 065 ha of natural forests under forest management plans (ITTO, 2004) and by 2008, Bolivia had 1.9 million ha of FSC certified forest (4% of the country’s total forest cover and 22% of managed forests) (Ebeling and Yasué, 2009). The species was reported to occur in a number of protected areas, such as Carrasco National Park, Madidi National Park, Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve (SERNAP, 2011) and Choré Forest Reserve (Killeen et al., 1993). Brazil: C. odorata was reported to occur in Amazonian, central and eastern coastal regions of Brazil (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), where it was found in the states of Acre (Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011), Amazonas (Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011), Amapá (Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011), Bahiá (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), Distrito Federal (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), Espirito Santo (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), Goias (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), Maranhão (Pérez Contreras, 2011), Mato Grosso (Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011), Minas Gerais (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), Pará (Parrotta et al., 1995; Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011), Paraiba (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), Pernambuco (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), Rio de Janeiro (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), Roraima (Pennington and Muellner, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011), Santa Caterina (Pennington and Muellner, 2010), São Paulo (Pennington and Muellner, 2010) and Tocantes (Pérez Contreras, 2011). IBAMA (2007) and Pérez Contreras (2011) indicated that no distribution, density or regeneration studies were available for the species in Brazil. The western Amazonian regions of Brazil were reported to contain some of the last areas with large specimens of this species (Pennington and Muellner, 2010). C. odorata was found to occur in patches of the same species within a study area on the border of the States of Amazonas and Acre in the western Brazilian Amazon (Contente de Barros et al., 2011). The species was reported to be found in all types of forest in Brazil, with the exception of Cerrado (IBAMA, 2007). Reported from the Tapajós National Forest, western Pará (Parrotta et al., 1995). Strong selective cutting of this species was reported from the várzea forests of the Amazon (Brune and Melchior, 1976 in: CoP14 Prop. 33). Commercial timber extraction was reported to be centred in the States of Amazonas, Acre, Mato Grosso, Pará and Rondônia (Pérez Contreras, 2011). Timber production was reported to have decreased 2007- 2009, from 140 100 m3 to 71 300 m3 (Pérez Contreras, 2011). Average annual sawn wood production for 2008 was estimated at 34 7900 m3 (Pérez Contreras, 2011). Thirty six per cent of production was reported to be for the international trade in the period 2007-2009 (Pérez Contreras, 2011). Average freight on board (FOB) prices for exported timber were reported to be USD 561/m3, with an increasing trend from USD 427/m3 in 2000 to USD 1086/m3 in 2008 (Pérez Contreras, 2011). IBAMA [Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources], acting as both Management and Scientific Authority, was reported to monitor standards regulating forest management and the timber harvesting process (ITTO, 2004). In 2006, the PFML (Public Forest Management Law) was passed, detailing forest management on public land and creating the Brazilian Forest Service (Banerjee et al., 2009). The main objective of forest management plans, each one designed for one year before harvest shifts to the next area, was reported to be the exploration of timber, with the following regulations and standards considered relevant to the management of C. odorata: - cutting cycle of at least 25 years but maximum 35 years;

Cedrela odorata

- harvest of 30 m3 per hectare; - minimum harvestable diameter is 50 cm at breast height (DBH); - a minimum of 10% of trees per species per area of exploitation needs to be maintained; - minimum of three trees per species per 100 ha must remain; and - maintaining all tree species where the density of trees of harvestable diameter is equal to or less than three trees per 100 hectares in the area of effective exploitation in the annual production unit (IBAMA, 2007). IBAMA (2007) further considered the following list of legislation to be relevant to C. odorata in Brazil: Portaria IBAMA 03/2004 [establishing procedures for the issuing of CITES licenses], Portaria IBAMA 63/2005 [establishing procedures for the issuing of CITES licenses for live specimens], Decree 76.623/75 [listing species occurring in Brazil and included in CITES Appendices], Law 4771/1965 [federal forest code], Instução Normativa 04/2006, Instução Normativa 05/2006, Instução Normativa 03/2002, and Decree 3.607/2000 [establishing procedures for the international trade in species listed in CITES]. ITTO (2011) reported significant increases in the area subject to management plans in Brazil between 2005 and 2010, while the estimated area of natural-forest protection was noted to have decreased from 271 million hectares to 175 million hectares over that period of time. Banerjee et al. (2009) expected Brazil’s transition towards sustainable forest management to lead to shifts in policy and practice of forest resource management. Medina et al. (2009) reported that in Porto de Moz, Pará State, the government agency did generally not allow the harvest of C. odorata under the forest management plans. High levels of illegal timber harvest (roundwood in particular) was reported to take place in Brazil (ITTO, 2010) and while modelling showed that the establishment of forest concessions on public forestland reduced illegal deforestation in the north east of Brazil, it increased the growth of illicit activities in the north (Banerjee and Alavalapati, 2010). The majority of timber and timber products originating from Brazil was reported to be sold in the domestic market (ITTO, 2010; Pérez Contreras, 2011). Smith et al., (1995 in: CoP14 Prop. 33) reported that more than 70 000 seedlings of the species were planted in Pará since 1989 by CEMEX (Comercial Madeiras Exportação, S.A.) in order to reforest/enrich existing forests. However IBAMA (2007) reported that the species was not included in plantations in Brazil.

REFERENCES: Americas Regional Workshop. 1998. Conservation & Sustainable Management of Trees, Costa Rica. Cedrela odorata. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 18-10-2011. Banerjee, O., Macpherson, A. J., and Alavalapati, J. 2009. Toward a Policy of Sustainable Forest Management in Brazil: A Historical Analysis. Journal of Environment & Development, 18 (2): 130-153. Banerjee, O. and Alavalapati, J. 2010. Illicit exploitation of natural resources: The forest concessions in Brazil. Journal of Policy Modeling, 32 (4): 488-504. Brune, A. and Melchior, G. H. 1976. Ecological and genetic factors affecting exploitation and conservation of forests in Brazil and Venezuela, in Burley, J. & Styles, B. T., (eds.), Tropical trees: variation, breeding and conservation. Academic Press, London. 203-215. Cavers, S. 2008. Developing best practice for seed sourcing of planted and natural regeneration in the neotropics. Seedsource, CEH. 003708 - Third reporting period. URL: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/4126/1/SEEDSOURCE_003708_Periodic_activity_report_RP3.pdf. Cavers, S., Navarro, C., and Lowe, A. J. 2004. Targeting genetic resource conservation in widespread species: a case study of Cedrela odorata L. Forest Ecology and Management, 197 (1-3): 285-294. Cintron, B. 1990. Cedrela odorata. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Vol 2.

Cedrela odorata

Burns, R., and Honkala, B. (tech. cords) URL: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/cedrela/ordota.htm Accessed: 18-10-2011. Congreso Nacional. 1996. Ley Forestal No. 1700. Conservation International. 1990. A biological assessment of the Alto Madidi Region and adjacent areas of Northwest Bolivia. Washington DC, USA. Rapid Assessment Program. URL: http://www.conservation.org/Documents/RAP_Reports/RAP01_Alto_Madidi_Bolivia_Ma y-1990.pdf. Contente de Barros, P. L., Pereira de Carvalho, J. O., Dantas de Almeida, M. R., Fernandes da Silva, J. L., Pantoja da Silva, T., Rogério de Oliveira, L., and Paulino da Costa, J. 2011. Ecology and silviculture of Mahogany (Swietenia macropylla King) in the western Brazilian Amazon. Federal rural University of the Amazon. Foundation for supporting research extension and teaching in agrarian sciences. International Tropical Timber Organization. Company Batisflor Florestal LTDA. Pará, Brazil. URL: http://www.itto.int/files/user/cites/brazil/Ecology%20%20silviculture%20of%20mahogan y_final%20report.pdf. Contreras-Hermosilla, A. and Vargas Ríos, M. T. 2002. Social, Environmental and Economic Dimensions of Forest Policy Reforms in Bolivia. 1-39. Center for International Forest Research. Forest Trends. Ebeling, J. and Yasué, M. 2009. The effectiveness of market-based conservation in the tropics: forest certification in Ecuador and Bolivia. Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 1145-1153. Fredericksen, T. S. 2003. Forest Management and Biodiversity Conservation in Bolivian Tropical Forests. Lyonia, 5 (1): 9-14. Fredericksen, T. S., Putz, F. E., Pattie, P., Pariona, W., and Peña-Claros, M. 2003. Sustainable forestry in Bolivia - beyond planned logging. Journal of Forestry, 101 (2): 37-40. GISD. 2006. Global Invasive Species Database. Cedrela odorata URL: http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=343&fr=1&sts=sss Accessed: 18-10- 2011. Grogan, J., Blundell, A. G., Landis, R. M., Youatt, A., Gullison, R. E., Martinez, M., Kómettter, R., Lentini, M., and Rice, R. E. 2009. Over-harvesting driven by consumer demand leads to population decline: big-leaf mahogany in South America. Conservation Letters, 3 (1): 12-20. Guzmán Gutiérrez, R. and Quevedo, L. 2007. The forestry concession system in Bolivia URL: http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/9482.pdf Accessed: 18-10-2011. Holdridge, L. R. 1976. Ecología. de las Meliáceas Latinoamericanas. Studies on the shootborer Hypsipyla grandella Zeller. Miscellaneous Publication 1. edn. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, Turrialba, Costa Rica. 7 pp. IBAMA. 2007. National report on progress with the implementation of the action plan on Cedrela odorata, Dalbergia granadillo and Dalbergia stevensonii (Decision 14.156). Seventeenth meeting of the Plants Committee, 15-19 April 2008. PC 17 Doc. 16.3. IBI. 2011. Instituto Boliviano de Investigación Forestal. Proyecto: Densidad poblacional y efecto del aprovechamiento forestal en la regeneración natural y el crecimiento diamétrico de la mara (Swietenia macrophylla King). Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. ITTO. 2004. Making the mahogany trade work - Report of the workshop on capacity-building for the implementation of the CITES Appendix-II listing of mahogany. International Tropical Timber Organization. ITTO Technical Series No. 22. ITTO 2010. Annual review and assessment of the world timber situation. Yokohama, Japan, International Tropical Timber Organization. 186 pp. ITTO 2011. Status of tropical forest management 2011. Tropical Forest Update 20 No. 3 Killeen, T., García, E. and Beck, S.G. 1993. Guía de árboles de Bolivia. Herbario Nacional de Bolivia & Missouri Botanical Garden: La Paz, Bolivia Lamb, A. F. A. 1960. Fast growing timber trees of the lowland tropics. No. 2 Cedrela odorata. Commonwealth Forestry Institute, Dept. of Forestry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 46 pp. Lemmens, R. H. M. J. 2008. Cedrela odorata, in Louppe, D., Oteng-Amako, A. A., & Brink, M., (eds.), Plant Resources of Tropical Africa 7(I). Timbers. PROTA Foundation, Waeningen, Netherlands/Blackhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands/CTA, Waeningen, Netherlands.

Cedrela odorata

MacKinnon, S., Durst, T., Arnason, J. T., Angerhofer, C., Pezzuto.J., Sanchez-Vindas, P. E., Poveda, L. J., and Gbeassor, M. 1997. Antimalarial activity of tropical Meliaceae extracts and gedunin derivatives. Journal of Natural Products, 60 (4): 336-341. Marrero, J. 1949. Tree seed data from Puerto Rico. Carribean Forester, 10 (1): 11-30. Marshall, R. C. 1930. Notes on the silviculture of the more important timber trees of Trinidad and Tobago. 23-25. Trinidad Forestry Department and Government Printing Office, Trinidad. Más, P. J. and Luyano, G. B. 1974. ¿Es posible mediante el sistema taungya aumentar la productividad de los bosques tropicales? Forestales Boletín Técnico.Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, National Forest Research Institute, Mexico, 39: -41. Medina, G., Pokorny, B., and Campbell, B. 2009. Community forest management for timber extraction in the Amazon frontier. International Forestry Review, 11 (3): 408-420. Meneses, R. I. and Beck, S. 2005. Especies amenazadas de la flora de Bolivia. Herbario Nacional de Bolivia. La Paz. Mostacedo, B. 2006. Inventarios y ordenación de la caoba en Bolivia. Instituto Boliviano de Investigación Forestal. Bolivia MWG3 National Report. Mostacedo, C. B. and Fredericksen, T. S. 1999. Regeneration status of important tropical forest tree species in Bolivia: assessment and recommendations. Forest Ecology and Management, 124 (2-3): 263-273. Muellner, A. N., Pennington, T. D., Koecke, A., V, and Renner, S. S. 2010. Biogeography of Cedrela (Meliaceae, Sapindales) in Central and South America. American Journal of Botany, 97 (3): 511- 518. Navarro, C., Cavers, S., and Lowe, A. J. In press. Seedsourcing recommendations for forest restoration: Isolation impacts progeny performance in the neotropics. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. Navarro, C., Montagnini, F., and Hernandez, G. 2004. Genetic variability of Cedrela odorata Linnaeus: results of early performance of provenances and families from Mesoamerica grown in association with coffee. Forest Ecology and Management, 192 (2-3): 217-227. Omar, S., Godard, K., Ingham, A., Hussain, H., Wongpanich, V., Pezzuto, J., Durst, T., Eklu, C., Gbeassor, M., Sanchez-Vindas, P., Poveda, L., Philogene, B. J. R., and Arnason, J. T. 2003. Antimalarial activities of gedunin and 7-methoxygedunin and synergistic activity with dillapiol. Annals of Applied Biology, 143 (2): 135-141. Pacheco, P., de Jong, W., and Johnson, J. 2010. The evolution of the timber sector in lowland Bolivia: examining the influence of three disparate policy approaches. Forest Policy and Economics, 12: 271-276. Parrotta, J.A., Francis, J.K. and Rolo de Almeida, R. 1995. Trees of the Tapajós: a photographic field guide. General technical report IITF-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry: Río Piedras, Puerto Rico. Pennington, T. B. 1981. Flora Neotropica. Monograph 28. Meliaceae. New York Botanic Garden, New York. 472 pp. Pennington, T. D. and Muellner, A. N. 2010. A monograph of Cedrela (Meliaceae). dh books, Milborne Port, England. 112 pp. Pérez Contreras, O. 2011. Estudio de mercado de Cedrela odorata en Bolivia, Brasil y Peru. Organización International de Maderas Tropicales. PIER. 2011. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk. Cedrela odorata URL: http://www.hear.org/pier/species/cedrela_odorata.htm Accessed: 18-10-2011. SERNAP. 2011. Servicio Nacional de Areas Protegidas Bolivia. Detalle de areas protegidas. URL: http://www.sernap.gob.bo/ Accessed 30-10-2011. Smith, N. J. H. 1960. A revision of Cedrela (Meliaceae). Fieldiana: Botany, 29 (5): 295-342. Smith, N. J. H., Adilson, E., Serrão, S., Alvim, P. T., and Falesi, I. C. 1995. Amazonia - Resiliency and Dynamism of the Land and its People. United Nations University Press, Tokyo and New York. Stoian, D. 2000. Shifts in forest product extraction: the post-rubber era in the Bolivian Amazon. International Tree Crops Journal, 10: 277-297. Styles, B. T. 1972. The flower biology of the Meliaceae and its bearing on tree breeding. Silvae Genetica, 21: 175-183. Styles, B. T. 1981. Subfamily Swietenioideae, in Pennington, T. B. & Styles, B. T., (eds.), Meliaceae. Flora Neotropica. vol. 28. New York Botanical Garden, New York. 359-418.

Cedrela odorata

van Rheenen, H. M. P. J. B., Boot, R. G. A., Werger, M. J. A., and Ulloa Ulloa, M. 2004. Regeneration of timber trees in a logged tropical forest in North Bolivia. Forest Ecology and Management, 200: 39-48.

Cyathea australis

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE 2009 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

CYATHEACEAE

SPECIES: Cyathea australis

SYNONYMS: Alsophila australis australis

COMMON NAMES: Rough tree-fern (English)

RANGE STATES: Australia

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia

IUCN RED LIST: Not Evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: N/A

TRADE PATTERNS: Cyathea australis was selected for review on the basis of a sharp increase in trade into the European Union in 2009. No quotas have ever been published for this species. Imports of C. australis by the EU-27 directly from Australia over the period 2000-2010 consisted of live specimens traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). The majority of trade was wild-sourced, with comparatively small volumes of trade in artificially propagated specimens. The principal importer was the United Kingdom. From 2008 to 2009, trade reported by EU importers increased from 200 to 7583 live, wild-sourced specimens (a 38-fold increase), all of which was to the United Kingdom. In 2010, the only imports reported by the EU-27 were 20 live, wild-sourced specimens imported by the Netherlands; Australia has not yet submitted an annual report for 2010 and the United Kingdom reported no imports of this species. Of the direct trade in C. australis reported by Australia 2000-2010, 99 per cent was to the EU-27. No indirect trade in C. australis to the EU-27 originating in Australia was reported over the period 2000-2010. Direct trade in C. australis from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2000-2010 comprised live, wild-sourced specimens exported to Japan for commercial purposes in 2008 (40 specimens) and 2009 (five specimens); Japan confirmed the trade in 2008 but has not yet submitted an annual report for 2009. According to Rickard (2005), C. cooperi in trade has often been mislabelled as C. australis.

Cyathea australis

Table 1. Direct exports of Cyathea australis from Australia to the EU-27, 2000-2010. All trade was in live specimens traded for commercial purposes. Importer Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Ireland A Importer Exporter 20 20 W Importer 36 78 114 Exporter 10 2 44 15 71 Netherlands W Importer 20 20 Exporter United Kingdom A Importer 730 140 870 Exporter 755 30 20 805 W Importer 576 332 250 140 107 126 200 7583 9314 Exporter 180 519 341 192 267 326 280 235 2340 Subtotals A Importer 730 140 870 Exporter 755 50 20 825 W Importer 576 332 286 140 185 126 200 7583 20 9448 Exporter 180 519 351 194 311 341 280 235 2411

Cyathea australis

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Taxonomic note: Cyathea australis norfolkensis, endemic to Norfolk Island [a small island in the South Pacific Ocean, 1600 km east of Sydney] was reported to be regarded as a separate species by some authors and to be in need of comparative work with Cyathea australis on the Australian mainland (Braggins, 1996). According to the Tasmania Forest Practices Authority (2007), Cyathea x marcescens was a natural sterile hybrid of C. australis and C. cunninghamii. It was noted that the hybrid, along with C. cunninghamii, could be potentially confused with C. australis (Threatened Species Section, 2010). Australia: Cyathea australis is a deciduous tree-fern endemic to Australia (Orchard, 1998; Rickard, 2005). It was reported to typically grow to 5-10 m in height (Understorey Network, 2011), maturing at around 30 cm in height, which was considered a relatively small size compared to other similar species (Threatened Species Section, 2010). Preferred habitats were reported to include coastal moist forests, rainforests, open forests, forest margins, table lands, gullies and hillsides (Rotherham, 1975; Orchard, 1998; Wilson, 2011). Rotherham (1975) described it as a typical understorey plant in eucalypt forests. The range of C. australis was considered to include south-eastern Queensland, eastern New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, southern Victoria and Tasmania (Bostock, 1998; Orchard, 1998). The range map in the Australian Virtual Herbarium Database (AVH, 2011) also showed a single occurrence in the state of South Australia (Figure 1). Wilson (2011) considered C. australis to be widespread in New South Wales. In the Victorian Central Highlands, the species was reported to be absent in the montane wet forest, but present in damp forest, swampy riparian sites, and particularly abundant in wet forest (Commonwealth of Australia, 1997). The Tasmania Forest Practices Authority (2007) reported that the species was found in northern and eastern Tasmania, and in “scattered locations” on the West Coast. Braggins (1996) considered C. australis norfolkensis to be widespread on Norfolk Island, where it was reported to occur in “valleys and upper slopes of Mt Pitt and Mt Bates” (Director of National Parks, 2010).

Figure 1. Map of Cyathea australis distribution (Source: AVH, 2011).

Rickard (2005) considered the species rare. However, Orchard (1998) reported that it was found in relatively high abundances in preferred habitats, Bostock (1998) considered it “often very abundant”, and Bezona et al. (1994) considered it “probably the most common tree fern of southeastern Australia”. The Australian Native Plants Society (2007) stated that the plant was not “at risk in the wild”, describing it as “probably the most common tree fern encountered”, occurring “widely from coastal areas to the mountains”.

Cyathea australis

Ough and Murphy (2004) considered it “common and widespread” in the wet forests of Victorian Central Highlands. The Tasmania Forest Practices Authority (2007) regarded it as “common but not abundant” in Tasmania, and the Understorey Network (2011) described it as “locally abundant in moderate to high rainfall areas in the north and east of the State [of Tasmania]”. In a survey of ferns in northeastern Tasmania, Garrett (1992) found C. australis to be common in suitable habitats. C. australis norfolkensis was classified as Vulnerable in the 1997 IUCN Red List of threatened plants (Walter and Gillett, 1997), and it was considered “not common” in the Norfolk Islands (Croft, 1999; Director of National Parks, 2010). However, Braggins (1996) described the subspecies as “common and widespread, not threatened”. Threats: As slow-growing species, tree-ferns were considered vulnerable to the impacts of clear- felling (Ough and Murphy, 2004), and it was noted that the reproductive mechanism of C. australis was particularly sensitive to the physical disturbance caused by logging (Commonwealth of Australia, 1997). In a study conducted in the Central Highlands of Victoria, Ough and Murphy (2004) found that 11 per cent of C. australis survived one year after clear-felling, and during the following 3-5 years, a further 65 per cent of the surviving individuals died. They also noted that tree-ferns in general seemed to be more capable of regenerating after fires than after logging and suggested that the clear-felling of wet forests in Victoria was a threat to C. australis, potentially leading to declines in local abundance (Ough and Murphy, 2004). However, in a survey of ferns in northeastern Tasmania, Garrett (1992) found that C. australis “successfully re-establishes in roadside drains and other moist, disturbed sites”, and the Understorey Network (2011) considered the species able to re-establish from spores in logged and otherwise disturbed areas. The Tasmania Forest Practices Authority (2007) considered the species tolerant of fire. Oldfield (1995) reported that live tree ferns were used as pot plants and for landscaping in the horticultural market. C. australis was considered popular in cultivation due to its hardiness and ability to tolerate moderate frost (Australian Native Plants Society, 2007). However, Rickard (2005) noted that the plant was “relatively new to cultivation in Europe and its hardiness still needs to be proven”. Oldfield (1995) reported that tree ferns could generally be cultivated from spores and tissue culture, and Deppler (1997) considered C. australis to be a species that could be grown easily from spores, however its growth to a ‘reasonable’ size was said to take about five years. Bezona et al. (1994) reported that the spores of C. australis may remain viable for 10-15 years. The Tasmania Forest Practices Authority (2007) considered the species to be unsuited to harvesting from the wild “due to its relative inability to establish adventitious roots”, and Bramwells (2002) considered the species unsuited to commercial harvesting due to the additional effort required during harvesting to prevent the plant’s death during translocation. Management and legal protection: C. australis was not considered a threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 of Australia (Australian Government, 2009). Oldfield (1995) stated that “nursery production of tree ferns is well-established in Australia with many nurseries propagating species such as Cyathea australis --- from spores.” In Queensland, the species was classified as ‘least concern’ under Schedule 6 of the Queensland Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation (2006), on the basis that it was not listed as ‘extinct in the wild’, ‘endangered’, ‘vulnerable’ or ‘near threatened’ (Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, 2010). The regulation specified that the “taking, keeping or use of least concern wildlife may be authorised under the Act only if it is consistent with the management principles for the wildlife” (Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, 2010). In New South Wales, C. australis was listed as a protected species along with other native plants, and it was protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, 2011). However, it was not considered a threatened species requiring additional protection (NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, 2011). The species was reported to occur in the Mount Gibraltar Forest and the Robertson Rainforest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, both of which were listed as endangered ecological communities (New South Wales, 2011). Hunter (2004) also recorded the species in the Basket Swamp National Park.

Cyathea australis

In Victoria, Bramwells (2002) listed C. australis, along with Dicksonia antarctica, as the only tree-fern species available for commercial harvesting from the wild. It was stated that the utilisation of tree- ferns was not permitted “from native forest on public land, other than from areas being permanently cleared, such as roadlines associated with forestry or other activities”, and that the commercial harvest of geographically significant populations was restricted to areas where timber harvesting was going to take place (Bramwells, 2002). On private lands, the harvesting of native plants was reportedly regulated under the Planning and Environment Act of 1987, which sets the requirement of permits from local government for removing native vegetation (Bramwells, 2002). Harvesting from the wild was allowed mainly at sites of low conservation status, however it was noted that “consideration may also be given to wild-harvesting for the purpose of cultivation” (Bramwells, 2002). It was also stated that a harvesting plan, including a monitoring system, was required of all authorised wild-harvesting operations (Bramwells, 2002). Bramwells (2002) reported that the artificial propagation of tree-ferns in nurseries was also practiced in Victoria, however these plants were typically sold in smaller size than the wild-harvested plants. The establishment of tree-fern farms on private lands was considered a new method of producing marketable specimens; these farms may rely on natural regeneration or the planting of artificially propagated specimens (Bramwells, 2002). It was stated that the selection of local provenances for farming was encouraged, particularly where farms were adjacent to populations of geographical significance (Bramwells, 2002). A tagging system was in place for preventing the sale of illegally harvested specimens, however it was noted that “There are reports of traders failing to comply with tagging requirements” (Bramwells, 2002). Actions were planned to minimise the risk of potential disease and genetic mixing problems due to importing tree-ferns (Bramwells, 2002). In Tasmania, the Forest Practices Authority (2011), reported that the only species of trunked tree-fern allowed to be harvested or traded in Tasmania under the Forest Practiced Act 1985, was Dicksonia antarctica. C. australis was not classified as ‘endangered’, ‘vulnerable’ or ‘rare’ in the State under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, nor on the regulations of the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (Government of Tasmania, 2011). However, it was stated that permits were needed for any removal or killing of native plants from public lands managed by the State Government or from Private Sanctuaries and Private Nature Reserves, when not collected by the owner of the area (Government of Tasmania, 2011). In a pteridophyte survey in Tasmania, Garrett (1993) recorded C. australis in several Tasmanian Forest Reserves: Abel Tasman, Dalgarth, Lost Falls, Lower Marsh Creek, Mt Maurice, Mt Victoria and Sandspit. The Norfolk Island Trees Regulations of 1999 listed C. australis subsp. norfolkensis as a protected tree species (Norfolk Island, 1999).

REFERENCES: Australian Government. 2009. EPBC Act list of threatened flora, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, URL: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora Accessed: 25-10-2011. Australian Native Plants Society. 11/2007. Cyathea australis URL: http://anpsa.org.au/c-aus.html Accessed: 21-10-2011. AVH. 2011. Australia's Virtual Herbarium URL: http://www.chah.gov.au/avh/ Accessed: 20-10- 2011. Bezona, N., Rauch, F. D., and Iwata, R. Y. 1994. Tree ferns for Hawai'i gardens. Research Extension Series/Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources 144 Bostock, P. D. 1998. Cyathea australis (R.Br.) Domin, Pteridophyta 262 (1929), in Flora of Australia Online URL: http://www.anbg.gov.au/abrs/online-resources/flora/ Accessed: 24-10-2011. Braggins, J. E. 1996. Report on the conservation status of Norfolk Island ferns. Unpublished report commissioned by and prepared for the Norfolk Island National Park, part of Environment Australia, then as the Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Bramwells, H. 2002. Victorian tree-fern management plan. The State of Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment. East Melbourne, Australia.

Cyathea australis

Commonwealth of Australia. 1997. Biodiversity assessment technical report. Published by the joint Commonwealth and Victorian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) Steering Committee. Croft, J. 1999. Ferns and fern allies of Norfolk Island, Australian ferns & fern allies. Australian National Botanic Gardens, Australian National Herbarium, URL: http://www.anbg.gov.au/fern/norfolk_taxa.html Accessed: 24-10-2011. Deppler, L. 1997. Introducing Australian ferns, in Australian Plants online URL: http://anpsa.org.au/APOL9/mar98-4.html Accessed: 24-10-2011. Director of National Parks. 2010. Norfolk Island region threatened species recovery plan. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Canberra. Garrett, M. 1992. Pteridophytes of North-eastern Tasmania. Tasforests, 4: 57-68. Garrett, M. 1993. Pteridophyte distribution within Tasmanian forest reserves. Tasforests, 5: 25-33. Government of Tasmania. 10/14/2011. Scientific collection and commercial use of native plant species URL: http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/PWOD- 7PN4Z3?open#Tasmaniannativeplant Accessed: 21-10-2011. Hunter, J. T. 2004. Vegetation of Basket Swamp National Park, Northern Tablelands, New South Wales. Cunninghamia, 8 (4): 453-466. New South Wales. 2011. Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales. Friday, 14 October 2011 containing number 99. 6102 pp. Norfolk Island. 1999. Trees Regulations 1999 under the Trees Act 1997 - Regulations No. 1 of 1999. NSW Office of Environment & Heritage. 2011. Protected species URL: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/animals/ProtectedSpecies.htm Accessed: 25-10-2011. Oldfield, S. 1995. Significant trade in CITES Appendix II plants. Tree ferns. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Orchard, A. E. 1998. Flora of Australia. ABRS/CSIRO Australia. Ough, K. and Murphy, A. 2004. Decline in tree-fern abundance after clearfell harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management, 199: 153-163. Queensland Parliamentary Counsel. 2010. Nature Conservation Act 1992: Nature conservation (wildlife) regulation 2006. Reprinted as in force on 21 May 2010. Rickard, M. 2005. Gardening with ferns. Horticulture Publications, Boston, Massachusetts. Rotherham, E. R. 1975. Flowers and plants of New South Wales and Southern Queensland. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.. Tasker, E. M. and Bradstock, R. A. 2006. Influence of cattle grazing practices on forest understorey structure in north-eastern New South Wales. Austral Ecology, 31: 490-502. Tasmania Forest Practices Authority. 2007. Tree fern management plan for the sustainable harvesting, transporting or trading of Dicksonia antarctica in Tasmania. Tasmania Forest Practices Authority. 2011. Regulation of treefern harvesting in Tasmania. Threatened Species Section. 2010. Flora recovery plan: Threatened Tasmanian ferns. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. Hobart, Australia. Understorey Network. 2011. Cyathea australis, in Tasmanian Native Species Database. Understorey Network. URL: http://www.understorey-network.org.au/ Accessed 21-10-2011. Walter, K. S. and Gillett, H. J. 1997. IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants. Compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 412 pp. Wilson, P. G. 2011. Cyathea australis (R.Br.) Domin, in New South Wales Flora Online URL: http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi- bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Cyathea~australis Accessed: 21-10-2011.

Cyathea australis

Annex: Key to purpose and source codes Purpose of trade

Code Description T Commercial Z Zoo G Botanical garden Q Circus or travelling exhibition S Scientific H Hunting trophy P Personal M Medical (including biomedical research) E Educational N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation L Law enforcement / judicial / forensic

Source of specimens

Code Description W Specimens taken from the wild R Ranched specimens: specimens of animals reared in a controlled environment, taken as eggs or juveniles from the wild, where they would otherwise have had a very low probability of surviving to adulthood D Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Appendix-I plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention A Plants that are artificially propagated in accordance with Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP15), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 (specimens of species included in Appendix I that have been propagated artificially for non-commercial purposes and specimens of species included in Appendices II and III) C Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 F Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that do not fulfil the definition of ‘bred in captivity’ in Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof U Source unknown (must be justified) I Confiscated or seized specimens (may be used with another code) O Pre-Convention specimens