Review of Asian Species/Country Combinations Subject to Long-Standing Import Suspensions

Home , Alpine musk deer, Anhui musk deer, Dwarf musk deer, Lankaran Lowland, Oryx, Siberian musk deer

Review of Asian species/country combinations subject to long-standing import suspensions

(Version edited for public release)

SRG 54

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, 2010

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring PREPARED FOR Centre 219 Huntingdon Road The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium Cambridge

CB3 0DL DISCLAIMER United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314 The contents of this report do not necessarily Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136 reflect the views or policies of UNEP or Email: [email protected] Website: www.unep-wcmc.org contributory organisations. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply ABOUT UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on MONITORING CENTRE the part of UNEP, the European Commission or contributory organisations concerning the The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring legal status of any country, territory, city or Centre (UNEP-WCMC), based in Cambridge, area or its authority, or concerning the UK, is the specialist biodiversity information delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. and assessment centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), run cooperatively with WCMC, a UK charity. The © Copyright: 2010, European Commission Centre's mission is to evaluate and highlight the many values of biodiversity and put authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre of decision-making. Through the analysis and synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely information for conventions, countries and organisations to use in the development and implementation of their policies and decisions.

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

CITATION UNEP-WCMC. 2010. Review of Asian species/country combinations subject to long- standing import suspensions. SRG 54. UNEP- WCMC, Cambridge.

Introduction

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 4 2. Species reviews ...... 5 Overview of Moschus spp...... 5 SPECIES: Moschus anhuiensis ...... 13 SPECIES: Moschus berezovskii ...... 15 SPECIES: Moschus chrysogaster ...... 19 SPECIES: Moschus fuscus ...... 23 SPECIES: Moschus moschiferus ...... 25 SPECIES: Canis lupus ...... 38 SPECIES: Lynx lynx ...... 43 SPECIES: Varanus salvator ...... 47 SPECIES: Python molurus ...... 56 SPECIES: Python reticulatus ...... 64 SPECIES: Geochelone elegans ...... 74 SPECIES: Geochelone platynota ...... 77 SPECIES: Indotestudo elongata ...... 80 ANNEX I Full version of large trade tables ...... 86 ANNEX II Purpose and Source Codes ...... 89

Introduction

1. Introduction Article 4.6(b) import suspensions for some species/country combinations have been in place for a relatively long time. It was agreed that a review of such import suspensions be undertaken in order to determine whether or not they are still appropriate. Species subject to long-standing import suspensions from Madagascar and Indonesia were reviewed at the 49th and 50th meetings of the SRG and it was agreed to remove 11 and 24 import suspensions respectively. An overview of trade in a further 323 species/country combinations subject to EC import suspensions formed in 2001 or earlier (but not subject to trade suspensions formed through CITES processes) was presented at SRG 51, and the SRG agreed to the removal of 184 of these import suspensions, based on the current or anticipated levels of trade. The remaining 139 species/country combinations were suggested for in-depth review by the SRG, to determine whether the listing in the Suspensions Regulations may still be warranted. An SRG 52 document presented in-depth reviews for the African mammal and bird species/country combinations, and an SRG 53 document for the African reptile species/country combinations, for which the SRG agreed to the removal of 28 and 8 import suspensions, respectively, from the EC Suspensions Regulations. CITES Trade Data were extracted in September 2010; as this was one month before the October 31st deadline for submission of the CITES annual reports and many 2009 annual reports had not yet been received, only trade data up until 2008 are included in this report.

Overview of Moschus spp. SRG 54

2. Species reviews Overview of Moschus spp. Much of the information for Moschus deer was reported at the genus level, including some trade data. This information is presented as an overview prior to the individual species reviews. TRADE PATTERNS: China: The only reported direct trade from China to the EU-27 of Moschus deer traded at the genus level 1979-2008 were derivatives and musk imported for the purpose of enforcement, and numerous confiscations/seizures of derivatives and musk (Table 1). The only indirect trade into the EU-27 of Moschus spp. originating in China was the import by Portugal of one derivative re-exported from Macao in 1989 for educational purposes. Direct exports of Moschus spp. from China to countries other than the EU-27 mainly consisted of derivatives (primarily wild-sourced or confiscated/seized items) (Table 2). Smaller quantities of Moschus spp. were also exported under a variety of other terms including bone, meat, musk and skin pieces. Russian Federation: The only reported direct trade from the Russian Federation to the EU-27 of Moschus deer traded at the genus level 1979-2008 was the import by Germany of 33.7 kg of wild- sourced musk in 1996 for commercial purposes. There was no reported indirect trade into the EU-27 of Moschus spp. originating in the Russian Federation. The only reported direct trade of Moschus spp. from the Russian Federation to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 1979-2008 was the import by the United States of 4 wild-sourced Moschus spp. of unspecified term in 1997. New Zealand also reported the confiscation/seizure of one derivative from the Russian Federation in 2003.

Overview of Moschus spp. SRG 54

Table 1. Direct exports of Moschus spp. from China to EU-27, 1979-2008. (No trade was reported at the genus level prior to 2000) Importer Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Greece derivatives bottles L W Importer Exporter 2 2 boxes L W Importer Exporter 1 1 musk - L W Importer Exporter 1 1 Hungary derivatives - - I Importer 83 3 86 Exporter Poland derivatives - - I Importer 1 1 Exporter Slovenia derivatives - - I Importer 660 117 777 Exporter United Kingdom derivatives kg - I Importer 0.04 0.5 0.04 0.57 Exporter - - I Importer 107 30 526 30 122 49 864 Exporter musk - - I Importer 200 200 Exporter Subtotal derivatives - I Importer 107 30 526 30 782 200 3 49 1 1728 (main trade only) Exporter

Overview of Moschus spp. SRG 54

Table 2. Direct exports of Moschus spp. derivatives from China to countries other than EU-27, 1979-2008. (Units reported as grams have been converted to kilograms) Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1989-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total derivatives bags - I Importer 309 309 Exporter bottles T W Importer Exporter 29400 29400 boxes P I Importer 2 2 Exporter W Importer Exporter 1 20 21 T W Importer Exporter 18200 18200 cartons T I Importer 21 21 Exporter U Importer Exporter 500 500 - I Importer 19 19 Exporter kg P I Importer 0.60 0.04 4 0.05 4.69 Exporter W Importer 0.06 0.03 0.16 0.02 0.27 Exporter 0.05 0.05 T I Importer 0.13 0.26 1 1.39 Exporter W Importer 14 5 0.06 19.06 Exporter 7 0.01 3.9 0.04 10.82 5.76 27.53 ml P I Importer 500 70 570 Exporter W Importer 25 25 Exporter - P I Importer 10 331 2443 944 1927 1563 151 207 983 282 723 9564 Exporter U Importer 10 20 10 40 7

Overview of Moschus spp. SRG 54

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1989-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Exporter W Importer 32 274 116 198 394 548 836 298 117 95 2908 Exporter T I Importer 2730 424 127 1178 264 229 1638 11 200 63 209 7073 Exporter O Importer 38 38 Exporter U Importer 1 1 Exporter W Importer 1415 226 806 57 201 20 2725 Exporter - I Importer 2162 1297 733 1408 2176 3222 3536 41 14575 Exporter U Importer 139 6 145 Exporter W Importer 2087 233 5 2325 Exporter derivatives I Importer 6954 3303 3530 4367 5014 5325 259 1183 345 932 31212

Subtotals - Exporter

(main trade W & U Importer 3683 733 128 1004 451 548 1037 318 127 115 8144 only) Exporter

Overview of Moschus spp. SRG 54

TAXONOMIC NOTE: Sokolov and Prikhod‟ko (1997 in: Wilson and Reeder, 2005) only recognized one species, Moschus moschiferus, in the genus. Groves et al. (1995) included the following six species within the genus: M. berezovskii (with five subspecies: berezovskii, anhuiensis, bijiangensis, caobangis, yunguiensis). M. chrysogaster (with two subspecies: chrysogaster, sifanicus). M. cupreus (which the authors considered might be a subspecies of leucogaster). M. fuscus (with one subspecies, M. f. fuscus, and perhaps an unnamed form from Nepal). M. leucogaster (with one subspecies, M. l. leucogaster, and perhaps two unnamed forms in southern Tibet/Nepal and northwest India). M. moschiferus (with three subspecies: moschiferus, parvipes, sachalinensis). Wilson and Reeder (2005) also accepted the above six species and included a seventh, M. anhuiensis as a full species. The individual species reviews contain further details on the taxonomy at species and subspecific level. CONSERVATION STATUS: Moschus deer are distributed sporadically throughout Asia, from just north of the Arctic Circle south to the northern edge of Mongolia and to Korea; further south they occur in China, northern Vietnam, Myanmar and the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (Flerov, 1952; Flerov, 1930; Dao, 1977 in: Green and Kattel, 1997). Moschus deer were reported to inhabit montane forests and subalpine scrub throughout much of their distribution (Green and Kattel, 1997). The incidence of twins and even triplets was reported to be relatively high in M. berezovskii and M. moschiferus (Green and Kattel, 1997), while Smith and Xie (2008) reported that the usual number of offspring in M. chrysogaster was one. Females were reported to be able to breed in their first year (Green, 1989). Male Moschus deer of 12-18 months were reported to secrete musk during rut (Green and Kattel, 1997), with most musk being produced by animals of three to eight years of age (Bista et al., 1979 in: Green and Kattel, 1997). Musk, a secretion of the preputial gland (musk pod) of the male (Green, 1986) was reported to be produced at a rate of about 25 g per male and per year (Green, 1988; Green, 1989). According to Sheng and Ohtaishi (1993), the population of Moschus deer in China decreased from three million individuals in the 1950s to one million individuals in the 1970s. Zhou et al. (2004) estimated the overall population of Moschus species in China to be between 220 000 and 320 000 individuals. The populations were reported to be in decline in some areas and close to extinction in others (Zhou et al., 2004). Wild populations of Moschus species in China had reportedly been declining for decades (Wemmer, 1998; Homes, 1999), but according to Zhou et al. (1998), the gravity of the situation had been underestimated. According to Green and Kattel (1997), the relatively high reproductive rate of musk deer had probably been an important factor, amongst other aspects of the deer‟s ecology, in preventing extinction of the species. Threats: Over-hunting was reported to be the main threat to Moschus species in China (Green, 1986; Wemmer, 1998; Sheng, 1998; Zhou et al., 2004), with habitat loss also playing an important role (Wemmer, 1998; Zhou et al., 2004). Yang et al. (2003) found that Moschus deer appeared to require dense vegetation in the form of intact forests or shrublands, and that excessive forest clearing or grazing could therefore preclude deer from using such lands. Guns and snares made of wire were reported to be used for the largely unselective hunting of Moschus deer (Wemmer, 1998), killing many females and young, although they have no musk

Overview of Moschus spp. SRG 54

(Wemmer, 1998; Homes, 1999). Green (1986) reported that for every pod-bearing male, four to five Moschus deer may be killed. According to Sheng (1998), Homes (1999) and Zhou et al. (2004), it was particularly the expansion of snare use that had brought Moschus deer close to extinction. Uses: Moschus deer were reported to be primarily hunted for their musk; the meat and other products may also be used in remote areas (Wemmer, 1998). Musk was reported to be highly valued for its fixative and scent properties in perfumery and medicine (Green, 1986). Homes (1999) reported that in the 1990s, the price of musk in Europe reached three to five times that of gold. According to Green (1986; 1989), musk pods were traditionally harvested by killing the deer, although Flerov (1952 in: Green, 1989) reported that it was possible to obtain musk from live deer. Holmes (1999) reported that only a small number of perfume companies in Europe, primarily in France, worked with very old, traditional recipes which may contain musk. According to Holmes (1999), the use of natural musk in the European perfume industry had declined in the 1990s and perfume and scent manufacturers had indicated that the use of natural musk would continue to diminish, due to various factors such as cost, fluctuations in supply and concerns over animal welfare. Furthermore, newer synthetic musk compounds were reportedly increasingly replacing natural musk in perfumes (Homes, 1999). However, Meng et al. (2006) reported that the demand for musk for the perfume industry and for traditional medicines was increasing. Musk was reportedly used in some 300 Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions (Mills, 1998) and it was the most frequently listed ingredient of the medicines documented in an identification guide for traditional Asian medicines in trade (Cameron et al., 2004). According to Mills (1998), the demand for musk for the production of pharmaceuticals was 500–1000 kg each year in China, which would require the glands of 100 000 deer. Whilst Mills (1998) reported that research was taking place to find replacement substances (natural or synthetic) for musk in TCM, Yang et al. (2003) stated that it had been difficult to find suitable substances. Zhou et al. (2004) reported that Chinese farms contained some 1900 Moschus deer. Moschus species were reported to be difficult to manage and breed on farms, because of their solitary behavior, territoriality and excitability (Green, 1989 in: Homes, 1999), which had led to the failure of many farming operations and the closure of most established farms (Sheng, 1998). According to Kang et al. (2008), an average of 8.8g musk was harvested annually per animal in musk deer farms. The worldwide demand for musk was considered to be larger than the amount legally available and exceeding the supply from the export market of Moschus deer range countries (Wemmer, 1998). Furthermore, China reportedly had a high domestic demand for musk (Homes, 1999), which, according to Zhou et al. (2004), originated from both legal and illegal sources within the country. Holmes (1999) reported that illegal trade in musk in various countries in Europe was centered primarily on medicines used in traditional East Asian medicine. Management and previous CITES discussions: All species of Moschus were reported to be listed in Category II of key species under the Chinese federal Wildlife Protection Law in 1988 (Wemmer, 1998). The hunting, capture, killing, sale or purchase of wildlife under special State protection (Categories I and II) is prohibited (People‟s Republic of China, 1988). According to Zhou et al. (2004), the Chinese government had also launched a series of further laws and regulations to preserve rare animals and their habitat, which included the Forestry Law and the Environmental Protection Law, under which illegal activities such as poaching, trapping, selling and trading of musk and musk deer are severely punished. However, according to Homes (1999), there were no indications that the protection of musk deer in China was effective in aiding the species and Harris (1991) reported instances of guards poaching wildlife. Sharma (2005) considered the legal controls in China inadequate to protect state- protected endangered species. At the 11th meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties, Moschus spp. was selected for Review of Significant Trade. Recommendations were directed to China at the end of 2002 with regards to Moschus spp. and the Secretariat, in consultation with the Chairman of the Animals Committee (AC) presented their findings and recommendations at the 53rd meeting of the Standing Committee (SC53 Doc. 25). Whilst the information provided by China showed that China was committed to improving the conservation of Moschus spp. (SC54 Doc. 42), three recommendations formulated by

Overview of Moschus spp. SRG 54 the AC had not been acted upon, and seven others had been implemented only partially (SC53 Summary Record, SC53 Doc. 42). China was recommended to respond to outstanding questions by the end of 2005. In December 2005, China provided information on the actions it had undertaken in response to new recommendations (reviewed at SC53, see SC54 Doc. 42): a) A population survey in 2004 showed a total of 66 000 Moschus deer in China and almost all of its natural range is now strictly protected under the Natural Forest Protection Programme. There are about 2500-3000 musk deer in captivity. The registration of stockpiles is ongoing but, reportedly, very large quantities have been accumulated by the Chinese Government and enterprises in previous decades. b) The production of synthetic musk has expanded to several thousand kilos per year; the use of natural musk has been restricted since 2003. Since 2005 only four medicines may contain raw musk, to be produced by just five manufacturers. Only labelled products may be marketed and 500 000 labels were distributed. For medicines produced before 2005 held by other manufactures or distributors, an additional 39,389,900 labels were issued. c) China reported on considerable law enforcement activities, noting that musk deer or musk deer products were rarely, if ever, detected during large-scale operations. d) In addition to the normal CITES provisions for international trade in musk, China prohibits the export of natural musk, while all imported raw musk must comply with the stockpile control systems and all imported derivatives with the compulsory labelling scheme. e) A maximum of 500 kg of natural musk from stocks may be consumed annually. Additional demand was to be met by synthetic musk or raw musk from breeding operations or from legally imported sources. f) China expressed an interest in collaborating with Mongolia and the Russian Federation on the management of wild populations of Moschus spp., facilitating legal trade and captive breeding, and requested the Secretariat to foster such collaboration. In 2006 Moschus spp. were removed from the Review of Significant Trade (SC54 Doc. 42, AC23 Doc. 8.3).

REFERENCES: Bista, R. B., Shrestha, M. N., and Kattel, B. 1979. Domestication of the dwarf musk deer (Moschus berezovskii) in China. Kathmandu: National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Office. Cameron, G., Pendry, S., Crawford, A., and Wu, J. 2004. Traditional Asian medicine identification guide for law enforcers: Version II. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK. Dao, V. T. 1977. Sur quelques rares mammiferes au nord du Vietnam. Mitteilungen- Zoologischen Museum in Berlin 53: 325-330. Flerov, C. C. 1930. On the classification and geographical distribution of the genus Moschus (Mammalia, Cervidae). Yearbook of the Zoological Museum of the USSR Academy of Science 3 (1): 1-20. Flerov, C. C. 1952. Fauna of the USSR, I. Mammals: musk deer and deer. USSR Academy of Sciences. Green, J. B. 1986. The distribution, status and conservation of the Himalayan musk deer Moschus chrysogaster. Biological Conservation, 35: 347-375. Green, M. J. B. 1988. The musk trade, with particular reference to its impact on the Himalayan population of Moschus chrysogaster. In: Conservation in developing countries. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. Green, M. J. B. 1989. Musk production from musk deer, in Hudson, R. J., Drew, K. R., & Baskin, L. M., (eds.), Wildlife production systems: economic utilization of wild ungulates. University Press, Cambridge. 401-412. Green, M. J. B. and Kattel, B. 1997. Musk deer: little understood, even its scent. Paper presented at The First International Symposium on Endangered Species Used in Traditional East Asian Medicine: Substitutes for Tiger Bone and Musk, 7-8 December 1997, Regal Riverside Hotel, Hong Kong. TRAFFIC/IUCN. 11

Overview of Moschus spp. SRG 54

Groves, C. P., Yingxiang, W., and Grubb, P. 1995. Taxonomy of musk-deer, genus Moschus (Moschidae, Mammalia). Acta Theriologica Sinica, 15 (3): 181-197. Harris, R. B. 1991. Conservation Prospects for Musk Deer and Other Wildlife in Southern Qinghai, China. Mountain Research and Development, 11 (4): 353-358. Homes, V. 1999. On the scent: Conserving musk deer. The uses of musk and Europe's role in its trade. TRAFFIC Europe. Brussels, Belgium. Kang, F., Liu, Z., Chen, J., Wang, C., Liang, L., Xu, Z., and Deng, K. 2008. The musk production of captive alpine musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) from Xinglongshan Musk Deer Farm of Gansu Province, China. Acta Theriologica Sinica, 28 (2). Meng, X. X., Zhou, C. Q., Hu, J. C., Li, C., Meng, Z. B., Feng, J. C., Zhou, Y. J., and Zhu, Y. J. 2006. Musk deer farming in China. Animal Science, 82: 1-6. Mills, J. 1998. Need for further research into tiger bone and musk substitutes agreed. TRAFFIC Dispatches, April 1998: 3-4. People‟s Republic of China. 1988. Law of the People‟s Republic of China on the protection of wildlife 1988. In: Foreign-Related Laws & Regulations of the P.R.C., Bureau of Legislature Affairs of the People‟s Republic of China. Sharma, C. 2005. Chinese endangered species at the brink of extinction: a critical look at the current law and policy in China. URL: http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/vol11_p215.pdf (Accessed 15 January 2010). Sheng, H. 1998. Moschus spp. In: Wang S. (ed.) China Red Book of endangered animals. Science Press, Beijing, Hong Kong, New York. Sheng, H. and Ohtaishi, N. 1993. The status of deer in China. In: Ohtaishi, N. & Sheng, H.-I., (eds.), Deer of China. Biology and Management. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Deer of China held in Shanghai, 21-23 November 1992. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. The Netherlands. 1-11. Smith, A. T. and Xie, Y. 2008. A guide to the mammals of China. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Oxford. Sokolov, V. E. and Prikhod'ko, V. I. 1997. Taxonomy of the musk deer Moschus moschiferus (Artiodactyla, Mammalia). Biology Bulletin, 24 (6): 557-566. Wemmer, C. (ed.) 1998. Musk deer Moschus spp. Deer. Status and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 77 pp. Wilson, D. E. and Reeder, D. M. 2005. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Yang, Q. S., Meng, X. X., Xia, L., and Feng, Z. J. 2003. Conservation status and causes of decline of musk deer (Moschus spp.) in China. Biological Conservation, 109 (3): 333-342. Zhou, Y. J., Meng, X. X., Feng, J. C., Yang, Q. S., Feng, Z. J., Xia, L., and Bartos, L. 2004. Review of the distribution, status and conservation of musk deer in China. Folia Zoologica, 53 (2): 129-140.

Moschus anhuiensis SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

MAMMALIA MOSCHIDAE

SPECIES: Moschus anhuiensis

SYNONYMS:

COMMON NAMES: Anhui Musk Deer (English)

RANGE STATES: China

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: China

IUCN RED LIST: Endangered

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from China first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009.

TRADE PATTERNS: No quotas have ever been published for Moschus anhuiensis by any country. There was no reported trade in M. anhuiensis over the period 1979-2008. However, due to taxonomic issues with regards to this species, trade in specimens of this species may have been reported under the names of M. berezovskii or M. moschiferus. TAXONOMIC NOTE: The species was originally described as a subspecies of M. moschiferus by Wang et al. (1982) and then included in M. berezovskii by Groves and Feng (1986). It was later considered both a valid species by Li Ming et al. (1999) and sister taxon of a group including M. chrysogaster, M. fuscus, M. leucogaster and M. berezovskii on the basis of analysis of mtDNA sequences by Su et al. (2001). CONSERVATION STATUS in range states China: M. anhuiensis was only known from Anhui Province in China (Wilson and Reeder, 2005), where it was reported to occur in and around the Mount Dabie area (Smith and Xie, 2008). Wang and Harris (2008) reported that it might also occur in the Hubei section of Mount Dabei. The distribution range of M. anhuiensis was estimated not to be much greater than 5000 km2 (Wang and Harris, 2008). According to Yan (1979; unreferenced, in: Sheng, 1998), the total population of Moschus deer in Anhui province was 600-700 individuals in 1985. Wang (2008) reported that the geographic distribution of the species had been reduced by 70% between 1957 and 1977. According to Sheng (1998), a survey in 1993 in Mazongling Nature Reserve (Jinzhai county in Anhui province) estimated that 6-8 individuals remained above 1000 m a.s.l. Sheng (1998) reported that a survey in

Moschus anhuiensis SRG 54

1995 had found densities of 0.1-0.3 individuals/km2 and suggested that the species was still declining, although Yang et al. (2003) suggested that its population status had recently improved, due to improved conservation of Moschus species in the province. M. anhuiensis was classified as globally Endangered by the IUCN (Wang and Harris, 2008) due to “a probable serious population decline, estimated to be more than 50% over the last three generations (approximately 21 years).” Smith and Xie (2008) considered M. anhuiensis to be poorly known but that its natural history was likely to be similar to that of M. berezovskii and M. moschiferus. Smith and Xie (2008) presumed therefore that it inhabited coniferous or broad-leaved forests, or mixed forests at high elevations. However, M. anhuiensis was found to occur below 500 m altitude (Wang et al., 1982; Groves et al., 1995). According to Smith and Xie (2008), female M. anhuiensis matured rapidly, were capable of breeding in their first year and were more likely to produce twins than single births. M. anhuiensis was considered threatened by habitat loss and hunting and to be particularly at risk due to its limited distribution (Smith and Xie, 2008). This species is included in the Chinese Red List as Endangered (Sheng, 1998; Wang and Harris, 2008). According to Wang and Harris (2008) this species had been listed on Category I of State Key Protected Wildlife List in China since 2002. Wang and Harris (2008) reported that M. anhuiensis was not known from any protected area.

REFERENCES: Groves, C. P., Yingxiang, W., and Grubb, P. 1995. Taxonomy of musk deer, genus Moschus (Moschidae, Mammalia). Acta Theriologica Sinica, 15 (3): 181-197. Li Ming, Li Yuanguang, Sheng Helin, Tamate, H., Masuda, R., Nagata, J., and Ohtaishi, N. 1999. The taxonomic status of Moschus moschiferus anhuiensis. Chinese Science Bulletin: 719-723. Sheng, H. 1998. Moschus spp. In: Wang S. (ed.) China Red Book of endangered animals. Science Press, Beijing, Hong Kong, New York. Smith, A. T. and Xie, Y. 2008. A guide to the mammals of China. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Oxford. Su, B., Wang, Y. X., and Wang, Q. S. 2001. Mitochondrial DNA sequences imply Anhui musk deer a valid species in genus Moschus. Zoological Research, 22 (3). Wang, Q., Hu, X., and Yan, Y. 1982. A new subspecies of Siberian musk deer (M. moschiferus) in China. [in Chinese with English abstract]. Acta Theriologica Sinica, 2 (3): 133-138. Wang, Y. 2008. Pers. comm. to IUCN. In: Wang, Y. and Harris, R. B. 2008. Moschus anhuiensis. IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 20 October 2010). Wang, Y. and Harris, R. B. 2008. Moschus anhuiensis. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 21 September 2010). Wilson, D. E. and Reeder, D. M. 2005. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Yang, Q. S., Meng, X. X., Xia, L., and Feng, Z. J. 2003. Conservation status and causes of decline of musk deer (Moschus spp.) in China. Biological Conservation, 109 (3): 333-342.

Moschus berezovskii SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

MAMMALIA MOSCHIDAE

SPECIES: Moschus berezovskii

SYNONYMS: Moschus chrysogaster berezovskii

COMMON NAMES: Dwerg muskusher (Dutch), Chinese Forest Musk Deer (English), Dwarf Musk Deer (English), Forest Musk Deer (English), låglandsmyskdjur (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: China, Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: China

IUCN RED LIST: Endangered

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from China first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009.

TRADE PATTERNS: China was the only direct exporter of Moschus berezovskii of any source over the period 1979-2008. No quotas have ever been published for M. berezovskii by any country. China: No direct or indirect trade of M. berezovskii to EU-27 Member States was reported over the period 1979-2008. Direct exports from China to countries other than EU-27 over the period 1979-2008 consisted of derivatives (all wild-sourced) and musk (all captive-bred), with no trade reported since 2003 (Table 1). All trade from China reported as „derivatives‟ was reported by the exporter only. The main country of import was Japan.

Moschus berezovskii SRG 54

Table 1. Direct exports of Moschus berezovskii from China to countries other than EU-27, 1979-2008. (Trade reported in grams was converted to kilograms) Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 Total derivatives boxes P W Importer 40 40 Exporter cartons T W Importer 20 20 Exporter kg T W Importer 0.644 0.644 Exporter musk kg S C 2 2 4 Importer 3 1 6 10 Exporter T C 3 3 6 Importer 1 3 4 Exporter - T C 1000 1000 Importer Exporter

TAXONOMIC NOTE: M. anhuiensis had in the past been included in this species (Yang et al. 2003) and according to Wang and Harris (2008), it was still not clear whether or not the recognized subspecies [see overview] are part of M. berezovskii. Until recently, Russian scientists considered the Vietnamese population to be M. moschiferus (J. W. Duckworth, undated; pers. comm. in: Wang and Harris, 2008). CONSERVATION STATUS in range states M. berezovskii was reported to occur in China and to extend marginally into northern Viet Nam (Sheng, 1998; Zhou et al., 2004); the species occurrence in Lao People‟s Democratic Republic was reported to be unconfirmed (Wang and Harris, 2008). The population of M. berezovskii in China had been estimated at over one million individuals in the 1960s, over the period 1978-1980 at less than 600 000 individuals and after 1980 at 200 000-300 000 individuals (Sheng, 1998). Sheng (1998) reported that the populations of M. berezovskii and M. moschiferus were estimated at 100 000 to 200 000 individuals. Wang and Harris (2008) noted that “the basis for these estimates is unclear, though the strong declining trend is likely to be correct”. Research on captive populations in China by Guan et al. (2009) indicated that the effective population size of M. berezovskii was small and that captive populations had undergone a population bottleneck. According to Do Tuoc (undated; pers. com. in: Wang and Harris, 2008) the population in Viet Nam was estimated at 200 in the late 1990s, but he considered the species “now very rare”. The species was classified as globally Endangered by the IUCN (Wang and Harris, 2008) due to “a probable serious population decline, estimated to be more than 50% over the last three generations (approximately 21 years)”. Wang and Harris (2008) further stated that “if this level of decline is roughly correct, then the species might even qualify for listing as Critically Endangered”. M. berezovskii was found to occur mainly in mixed forests at 2000-3800 m altitude (Sheng, 1998). M. berezovskii is the smallest of the Moschus species, reaching sexual maturity by 18 months of age; twin births predominate (Wemmer, 1998; Homes, 1999). The life expectancy of this species was reported to be up to 20 years (Smith and Xie, 2008). Whilst hunting for musk was considered the main threat to the species (Sheng, 1998), shrinkage in distribution and habitat destruction and degradation were also considered to threaten the species (Wang and Harris, 2008). China: M. berezovskii was reported to be the most widely distributed and abundant of the five Moschus species of China (Wemmer, 1998), and was reported to occur in the following provinces: Sichuan, Qinghai, Xizang, Yunnan, Guangxi, Guangdong, Guizhou highland, Hunan, Jiangxi, Gansu, Ningxia, Shaanxi, Hubei and Henan (Smith and Xie, 2008).

Moschus berezovskii SRG 54

The population of M. berezovskii and M. moschiferus was estimated to be 100 000–200 000 individuals in the 1990s (Sheng, 1998). Wang and Sheng (1988, in: Sheng, 1998) reported that a survey in 1986 in Sichuan indicated that the density of M. berezovskii in broadleaf forests at altitudes of lower than 1600 m was 0.3/km2, in virgin mixed forests at altitudes of 2100-2400 m it was 7.29/km2, in broadleaf forests the density was 1.39- 2.48/km2 and in coniferous forests at altitudes of 2400-2800 m the density was 1.19/km2. Yang and Hu (1989, in: Sheng, 1998) reported densities of 9.15/km2 in mixed forests and 4.42- 5.15/km2 in coniferous forests, whilst the species was seldom noticed in secondary forests. According to Xue et al. (2007), Fengxian County (Shaanxi province) was historically one of the main distribution areas of M. berezovskii in the Qinba Mountains, although since the 1980s the numbers of M. berezovskii in the county had decreased dramatically, with the species‟ current distribution area reportedly restricted to one third of the historical one. The habitat of M. berezovskii in Fengxian County (Shaanxi Province) was reported to be extremely fragmented and it was not considered suitable for further development of the musk deer population (Xiao et al., 2008). Wang et al. (1993) reported that 60% of all musk produced within China originated from M. berezovskii. M. berezovskii (including M. anhuiensis, according to Yang et al. (2003)) was reported to be the most commonly farmed species (Meng et al., 2006), as it was considered to be the easiest species to farm (Zhang, 1979; Deng, 1987 in: Zhou et al., 2004). M. berezovskii was included in the Chinese Red List as Endangered (Sheng, 1998). Homes (1999) noted that efforts to establish a network of protected areas to conserve the Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) had “indirectly contributed to the protection of Forest Musk Deer, since both species occur in the same habitat”.

REFERENCES: Deng, F. 1987. The farming of musk deer. Shaanxi People's Education Press. Do Tuoc. Undated. In Wang, Y. and Harris, R. B. 2010. Moschus berezovskii. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 21 Sepember 2010). Guan, T. L., Zeng, B., Peng, Q. K., Yue, B. S., and Zou, F. D. 2009. Microsatellite analysis of the genetic structure of captive forest musk deer populations and its implication for conservation. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 37 (3). Homes, V. 1999. On the scent: Conserving musk deer. The uses of musk and Europe's role in its trade. TRAFFIC Europe. Brussels, Belgium. J.W.Duckworth. Undated. Pers. comm. in Wang, Y. and Harris, R. B. 2008. Moschus berezovskii. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 21 Sepember 2010). Meng, X. X., Zhou, C. Q., Hu, J. C., Li, C., Meng, Z. B., Feng, J. C., Zhou, Y. J., and Zhu, Y. J. 2006. Musk deer farming in China. Animal Science, 82: 1-6. Sheng, H. 1998. Moschus spp. In: Wang S. (ed.) China Red Book of endangered animals. Science Press, Beijing, Hong Kong, New York. Smith, A. T. and Xie, Y. 2008. A guide to the mammals of China. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Oxford. Wang, Y. and Harris, R. B. 2008. Moschus berezovskii In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 21 September 2010). Wang, Y., Ma, S., and Li, C. 1993. The taxonomy, distribution and status of forest musk deer in China, in Ohtaishi, N. & Sheng, H.-I., (eds.), Deer of China Biology and Management. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 22-30. Wemmer, C. (ed.) 1998. Musk deer Moschus spp. Deer. Status and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 77 pp.

Moschus berezovskii SRG 54

Xiao, Y., Jiang, H. R., Xue, W. J., Wang, Y., Hu, Z. J., and Xu, H. F. 2008. Evaluation of habitat fragmentation and landscape index for Moschus berezovskii in Fengxian county, Shaanxi province. Zhejiang Linxueyuan Xuebao, 25 (3). Xue, W. J., Jiang, H. R., Hu, Z. J., and Xu, H. F. 2007. Changes of Moschus berezovskii distribution in Fengxian County of Shaanxi Province in last fifty years. Shengtaixue Zazhi, 26 (6). Yang, Q. S., Meng, X. X., Xia, L., and Feng, Z. J. 2003. Conservation status and causes of decline of musk deer (Moschus spp.) in China. Biological Conservation, 109 (3): 333-342. Zhang, B. 1979. The taming and raising of musk deer. Agriculture Press, Beijing. Zhou, Y. J., Meng, X. X., Feng, J. C., Yang, Q. S., Feng, Z. J., Xia, L., and Bartos, L. 2004. Review of the distribution, status and conservation of musk deer in China. Folia Zoologica, 53 (2): 129-140.

Moschus chrysogaster SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

MAMMALIA MOSCHIDAE

SPECIES: Moschus chrysogaster

SYNONYMS: Moschus moschiferus moschiferus, Moschus sifanicus

COMMON NAMES: Himalaya bosmuskushert (Dutch), Alpine Musk Deer (English), Himalayan Musk Deer (English), himalayamyskdjur (Swedish), skogsmyskdjur (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bhutan, China, India, Nepal

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: China

IUCN RED LIST: Endangered

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for all wild specimens from China first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009.

TRADE PATTERNS: China was the only direct exporter of Moschus chrysogaster of any source 1979-2008. No quotas have ever been published for M. chrysogaster by any country. The only reported direct trade of M. chrysogaster from China to EU-27 Member States over the period 1979-2008 was the export of 20 wild-sourced cartons of M. chrysogaster derivates to Hungary in 2000 for commercial purposes. This trade was not reported by Hungary. There has never been any reported indirect trade into the EU-27 of M. chrysogaster originating in China. Direct exports from China to countries other than EU-27 1979-2008 consisted of wild-sourced derivatives and captive-bred musk and specimens imported by Malaysia, Singapore, Republic of Korea and Japan, with no trade reported since 2002 (Table 1). Wild-sourced derivatives reported as exports by China in 2001 and 2002 were not reported by the importers (Malaysia and Singapore).

Moschus chrysogaster SRG 54

Table 1. Direct exports of Moschus chrysogaster from China to countries other than EU-27, 1979- 2008

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 Total derivatives - T W Importer Exporter 20000 20000 40000 musk kg S C Importer 3 3 Exporter 3 3 specimens - E C Importer 2 2 Exporter 2 2

TAXONOMIC NOTE: Groves et al. (1995) and Grubb (1982, in: Wilson and Reeder, 2005) considered the chrysogaster of Cai and Feng (1981 in: Wilson and Reeder, 2005) as subspecifically or specifically distinct, with the available name for this taxon likely to be leucogaster Hodgson, 1839. Some Chinese authors continued to recognize M. sifanicus as a full species (e.g. Zhou et al., 2004). Wilson and Reeder (2005) however included the following species: anhuiensis, berezovskii, chrysogaster, cupreus, fuscus, leucogaster and moschiferus. Records of „M. chrysogaster’ from Afghanistan, Pakistan, north-western India and western Nepal refer to M. cupreus and M. leucogaster, according to Wang and Harris (2008). Two subspecies, M. c. chrysogaster and M. c. sifanicus, occurred in China, according Smith and Xie (2008), although Wang and Harris (2008) noted that there appeared to be no “documentation of a clear delineation between these two forms”. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states M. chrysogaster was reported to occur in northern Bhutan, South and Central China to North India and Nepal (Wilson and Reeder, 2005). Green (1986) estimated the size of available habitat at up to 50 000 km2, which according to Green (1986) may support no more than 30 000 M. chrysogaster. According to Wang and Harris (2008) “a widely repeated, but poorly documented estimate is that there were 180 000 wild individuals in China in the 1960s and 1970s (Yang et al., 2003; Zhou et al., 2004), but Sheng (1998) reported no more than 100 000 within China in the 1990s”. The species was classified as globally Endangered by the IUCN (Wang and Harris, 2008) due to “a probable serious population decline, estimated to be more than 50% over the last three generations (approximately 21 years)”. The species was found to occur mainly in scrub, coniferous and deciduous forests at altitudes between 2000 and 5000 m (Sheng, 1998). Smith and Xie (2008) reported the species to occur on barren high altitude plateaus and to occupy meadows, fell-fields, shrublands and fir forests. Where the species overlapped with M. berezovskii, it was reported to inhabit the higher elevations of the range (Smith and Xie, 2008). M. chrysogaster was considered the largest species of Moschus deer (Green, 1989) and reported to reach sexual maturity by 18 months of age (Sheng and Ohtaishi, 1993). Single births were reported to predominate (Smith and Xie, 2008). Whilst hunting for musk was considered the main threat to the species (Sheng, 1998), shrinkage in distribution and habitat destruction and degradation were also considered to threaten the species (Wang and Harris, 2008). China: In China, M. chrysogaster was reported to range from the highlands of Central China and south to the Himalayas and to occur in Qinghai, Gansu, Ninxia, west Sichuan and north-west Yunnan (Smith and Xie, 2008). Sheng (1998) also reported the species to occur in Shaanxi.

Moschus chrysogaster SRG 54

The population of M. chrysogaster was estimated at 100 000 individuals (Sheng, 1998). According to Sheng (1998), the population decreased from 180 000 individuals in the 1960s to 30 000 individuals in the 1970s. Sheng (1998) further reported that according to Zheng Shenwu (1984, referenced in Chinese, in: Sheng, 1998) there were 15 000 individuals in 1973 and 8800 individuals in 1982. Sheng (1998) noted that the formerly large populations in Sichuan and Shaanxi had declined rapidly. Sheng (1998) also reported that the population in Xinglonshan Reserve numbered 4000- 5000 individuals and that the species had formerly been abundant in Qinghai, as it was regarded as a holy animal and was not hunted until the 1960s. Smith and Xie (2008) reported that the densities of M. chrysogaster in Qinghai may be as low as 2- 3 individuals per km2. According to Liu and Sheng (2008), high densities of M. chrysogaster were found in the Xinglong Mountains and Shoulu Nature Reserve as a result of strict management. Zhou et al. (2004) reported that according to Sheng (1998) the density of M. chrysogaster was 23- 51 individuals/km2 in Gansu province at the beginning of the 1990s, with an estimated 5000 individuals. Sheng (1992) reported that a census in Qinghai in 1973 found the densities to range from 0.4 to 7.4 individuals/km2 (average of 2.59 individuals/km2). Yang et al. (2003) considered the population of M. chrysogaster to be low and recommended ex-situ conservation measures for reintroductions into former range areas. There were an estimated 200 individuals of this species in captivity in Gansu province (Sheng and Ohtaishi, 1993). Zhou et al. (2004) and Yang et al. (2003) provided further details on numbers in captivity, although how many are M. chrysogaster is unknown. Bista et al. (1979 in: Green, 1989) considered M. berezovskii easier to domesticate that M. chrysogaster. M. chrysogaster was included in the Chinese Red List as Endangered (Sheng, 1998).

REFERENCES: Bista, R. B., Shrestha, M. N., and Kattel, B. 1979. Domestication of the dwarf musk deer (Moschus berezovskii) in China. Kathmandu: National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Office. Cai Gui-quan and Feng Zuo-jian 1981. On the occurrence of the Himalayan Musk Deer (Moschus chrysogaster) in China and an approach to the systematics of the genus Moschus. Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica, 6: 106-110. Green, J. B. 1986. The distribution, status and conservation of the Himalayan musk deer Moschus chrysogaster. Biological Conservation, 35: 347-375. Green, M. J. B. 1989. Musk production from musk deer. In: Hudson, R. J., Drew, K. R., & Baskin, L. M., (eds.), Wildlife production systems: economic utilization of wild ungulates. University Press, Cambridge. 401-412. Groves, C. P., Yingxiang, W., and Grubb, P. 1995. Taxonomy of musk-deer, genus Moschus (Moschidae, Mammalia). Acta Theriologica Sinica, 15 (3): 181-197. Grubb, P. 1982. The systematics of Sino-Himalayan musk deer (Moschus), with particular reference to the species described by B. H. Hodgson. Säugetierliche Mitteilungen, 30: 127-135. Liu, Z. and Sheng, H. 2008. A conceptual ecological model of an isolated population of Alpine musk deer Moschus chrysogaster: conservation implications for Chinese musk deer. Pacific Conservation Biology, 14 (1-2). Sheng, H. 1992. The deer of China. East China Normal University Press. Sheng, H. 1998. Moschus spp. In: Wang S. (ed.) China Red Book of endangered animals. Science Press, Beijing, Hong Kong, New York. Sheng, H. and Ohtaishi, N. 1993. The status of deer in China, in Ohtaishi, N. & Sheng, H.-I., (eds.), Deer of China. Biology and Management. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Deer of China held in Shanghai, 21-23 November 1992. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. The Netherlands. 1-11. Smith, A. T. and Xie, Y. 2008. A guide to the mammals of China. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Oxford. Wang, Y. and Harris, R. B. 2008. Moschus chrysogaster. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 23 September 2010).

Moschus chrysogaster SRG 54

Wilson, D. E. and Reeder, D. M. 2005. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Yang, Q. S., Meng, X. X., Xia, L., and Feng, Z. J. 2003. Conservation status and causes of decline of musk deer (Moschus spp.) in China. Biological Conservation, 109 (3): 333-342. Zhou, Y. J., Meng, X. X., Feng, J. C., Yang, Q. S., Feng, Z. J., Xia, L., and Bartos, L. 2004. Review of the distribution, status and conservation of musk deer in China. Folia Zoologica, 53 (2): 129-140.

Moschus fuscus SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

MAMMALIA MOSCHIDAE

SPECIES: Moschus fuscus

SYNONYMS: Moschus chrysogaster fuscus

COMMON NAMES: Himalaya muskushert (Dutch), Black Musk Deer (English), Dusky Musk Deer (English), svart myskdjur (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: China

IUCN RED LIST: Endangered

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from China first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009.

TRADE PATTERNS: The only reported global trade in Moschus fuscus 1979-2008 was the import by the United States in 1997 of two wild-sourced skin pieces originating in China and imported via France. In addition, the United States reported the confiscation/seizure of 4 derivatives from China in 2005. There has never been any reported direct or indirect trade into the EU-27 of M. fuscus originating in China. No quotas have ever been published for M. fuscus by any country. TAXONOMIC NOTE: According to Wilson and Reeder (2005), „Moschus saturatus‟ may be a prior name of the species and Gao (1985, in: Wilson and Reeder, 2005) treated this species as a subspecies of M. chrysogaster. Wemmer (1998) and Groves et al. (1995) reported that an undescribed subspecies of M. fuscus occurred in the Everest region of Nepal, India (Sikkim) and Bhutan. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states M. fuscus was reported to occur in northern Burma [Myanmar], China, India and Nepal (Wilson and Reeder, 2005) and northern Bhutan (Wemmer, 1998). The range of M. fuscus was considered to be relatively restricted (Wang and Harris, 2008). The species was classified as globally Endangered by the IUCN (Wang and Harris, 2008) due to “a probable serious population decline, estimated to be more than 50% over the last three generations (approximately 21 years)”.

Moschus fuscus SRG 54

M. fuscus was reported to occur in coniferous and mixed forests, but especially in fir forests (Wang, 1998) and rocky ridges at high elevations, ranging from 2600 m to 4200 m a.s.l. (Smith and Xie, 2008). Smith and Xie (2008) considered M. fuscus a poorly known form and assumed that life history parameters were likely to be similar to those of M. chrysogaster. M. fuscus was reported to reach sexual maturity by 18 months of age (Sheng and Ohtaishi, 1993). Whilst hunting for musk was considered the main threat to the species (Sheng, 1998), shrinkage in distribution and habitat destruction and degradation were also considered to threaten the species (Wang and Harris, 2008). China: The species distribution in China was considered very narrow and the range was reported to be restricted to western Yunnan and southeastern Xizang (Yang et al., 2003) as well as Southeast Tibet (Wilson and Reeder, 2005). Within Yunnan, M. fuscus was reported to occur in Gongshan, Fugong and Bijiang counties (Wang, Y.X., unpublished data, 2008, in: Wang and Harris, 2008). Yang et al. (2003) considered M. fuscus rare and on the “edge of extinction”. M. fuscus was reported to be making up less than 10% of Moschus deer found within Yunnan, with even fewer reported from Tibet (Wang, 1998). The population size was reported to be unknown (Wang, 1998). This species is in included in the Chinese Red List as Vulnerable (Sheng, 1998). According to Wang (1998), both Nujiang Reserve and Gaoligongshan Reserve in Yunnan, which cover an area of 499 000 ha, included M. fuscus habitats. REFERENCES: Gao, Y. T. 1985. Classification and distribution of the musk deer (Moschus) in China, in Kawamichi, (ed.), Contemporary Mammalogy in China and Japan. Mammalogical Society of Japan, 113-116. Groves, C. P., Yingxiang, W., and Grubb, P. 1995. Taxonomy of musk-deer, genus Moschus (Moschidae, Mammalia). Acta Theriologica Sinica, 15 (3): 181-197. Sheng, H. 1998. Moschus spp. In: Wang S. (ed.) China Red Book of endangered animals. Science Press, Beijing, Hong Kong, New York. Sheng, H. and Ohtaishi, N. 1993. The status of deer in China, in Ohtaishi, N. & Sheng, H.-I., (eds.), Deer of China. Biology and Management. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Deer of China held in Shanghai, 21-23 November 1992. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. The Netherlands. 1-11. Smith, A. T. and Xie, Y. 2008. A guide to the mammals of China. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Oxford. Wang, Y. and Harris, R. B. 2008. Moschus fuscus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 12 October 2010). Wang, Y. X. 1998. Moschus fuscus, in Wang, S., (ed.), China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals. Science Press, Beijing, China. Wemmer, C. (ed.) 1998. Musk deer Moschus spp. Deer. Status and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 77 pp. Wilson, D. E. and Reeder, D. M. 2005. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Yang, Q. S., Meng, X. X., Xia, L., and Feng, Z. J. 2003. Conservation status and causes of decline of musk deer (Moschus spp.) in China. Biological Conservation, 109 (3): 333-342.

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

MAMMALIA MOSCHIDAE

SPECIES: Moschus moschiferus

COMMON NAMES: Siberisch muskushert (Dutch), Siberian Musk Deer (English), Cerf porte-musc (French), Chevrotain porte-musc (French), Porte-musc (French), Ciervo almizclero (Spanish), sibiriskt myskdjur (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: China, Russian Federation

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from China first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from the Russian Federation first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009.

TRADE PATTERNS: China and the Russian Federation were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Moschus moschiferus 1979-2008. The majority of global direct exports of M. moschiferus from all countries 1999-2008 consisted of wild-sourced derivatives and wild-sourced musk. Due to the range of reporting units used it is not possible to quantify how much of this trade went to the EU-27 during this period. China: No export quotas have ever been published for the species from China. According to China, a total of 10 118 cartons of M. moschiferus derivatives were imported into the EU-27 over the period 1979-2008 (Table 1), of which 79 cartons were wild-sourced, with the majority being of unspecified source. No imports of M. moschiferus from China have ever been reported by EU Member States. However, Poland reported the confiscation/seizure of 200 derivatives from China in 2005. There was no reported indirect trade into the EU-27 of M. moschiferus originating in China 1979-2008. However, Poland reported the confiscation/seizure of 400 derivatives (units unspecified) from China imported via Mongolia in 2005 Direct exports from China to countries other than EU-27 1979-2008 consisted mainly of derivatives and musk, the units used for the majority of shipments being boxes or cartons, with Hong Kong SAR, 25

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

Malaysia and Singapore being the main importers (Table 2). According to China, 711 851 boxes of M. moschiferus derivatives were exported 1979-2008, of which 51% were wild-sourced, 48% were of unspecified source and <1% were captive-bred. Also, according to China, 182 205 cartons of M. moschiferus derivatives were exported 1979-2008, of which 82% were of unspecified source, 18% were wild-sourced, and the remainder were captive-bred or pre-convention specimens. The majority of trade was not reported by the importers. Russian Federation: Russia has published CITES export quotas for M. moschiferus musk for every year since 1997 (although no quota has been published for 2010). The quota for 1997 appears to have been exceeded according to figures reported by both the Russian Federation and the importers (Table 3), but exports appear to have remained within quota in all subsequent years. In 2008 and 2009, the unit given in the quota was “musk pods”, even though trade was reported by weight. Based on an average musk pod weight of 25 g (Khan et al., 2006), the 2008 quota of 3164 musk pods would be equivalent to 79.1 kg, and therefore the reported trade of 28 kg and 45 kg as reported by importers and Russian Federation, respectively, was within quota. According to the Russian Federation and its trading partners, respectively, a total of 68 kg and 20 kg M. moschiferus musk were imported to the EU-27 over the period 1979-2008 (Table 4), the majority of which were wild-sourced. Small numbers of live captive-born and captive-bred individuals were also reported as imports by Poland, the Netherlands, Germany and France. China also reported the export of seven live individuals of unspecified source, although these were not reported by the importers. M. moschiferus was also traded under several other terms such as specimens, teeth, trophies and carvings. Indirect trade into the EU-27 of M. moschiferus originating in the Russian Federation and imported by France, Germany and the United Kingdom (Table 5) included roughly 30.8 kg and 32.8 kg of musk as reported by the importers and by the Russian Federation, respectively (predominantly from wild sources). Direct exports from the Russian Federation to countries other than EU-27 over the period 1979-2008 mainly consisted of M. moschiferus musk, with roughly 509 kg and 632 kg of musk (wild-sourced or source unspecified) as reported by the importers and by the Russian Federation respectively (Table 6). Several confiscations/seizures of musk from the Russian Federation were also reported.

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

Table 1. Direct exports of Moschus moschiferus from China to EU-27, 1979-2008. All terms reported as derivatives. Importer Units Purpose Source Reported by 1990 1991 1992 1999 2005 Total Belgium cartons T - Importer Exporter 5 1 6 Bulgaria cartons T - Importer Exporter 10012 10012 Denmark cartons T - Importer Exporter 1 1 Italy cartons T W Importer Exporter 4 4 Poland - - I Importer 200 200 Exporter Portugal cartons T - Importer Exporter 10 10 Romania cartons T W Importer Exporter 50 50 Spain - T - Importer Exporter 10000 10000 United Kingdom cartons T W Importer Exporter 25 25 - Importer Exporter 10 10 W Importer Exporter 54 25 79 Subtotals (Cartons only) - Importer Exporter 16 10023 10039

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

Table 2. Direct exports of Moschus moschiferus from China to countries other than EU-27, 1979-2008. The main purpose was commercial trade (T), with much smaller quantities reported as Purposes P, S, E, Q or unspecified. (Trade reported in milligrams and grams was converted to kilograms) Term Units Source Reported by 1983-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total bodies - W Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

- Importer

Exporter 1 1

derivatives bags Importer

Exporter 174000 174000

bottles - Importer

Exporter 10 10

boxes C Importer

Exporter 7000 7000

W Importer 500 500

Exporter 329346 390 9749 5890 15500 360875

- Importer

Exporter 343976 343976

cartons C Importer

Exporter 58 58

O Importer

Exporter 50 50

W Importer 20 20

Exporter 30684 1400 15 32099

- Importer

Exporter 149998 149998

cases W Importer

Exporter 107 107

kg A Importer

Exporter 0.13 0.13

C Importer

Exporter 808 808

W Importer <0.01 <0.01

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

Term Units Source Reported by 1983-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Exporter 47.01 0.01 2.07 1.72 <0.01 3.79 8.1 3.6 66.30

- Importer 0.03 0.03 Exporter 512 512

- C Importer

Exporter 60 60 I Importer 148 148

Exporter

W Importer 530 30 170 400 1130 Exporter 3730710 148000 179000 112050 680000 215000 85000 155000 5304760

- Importer

Exporter 609990 609990 musk kg W Importer 0.03 0.03

Exporter <0.01 <0.01

- Importer 0.5 0.5 Exporter

- W Importer

Exporter 100000 100000

Table 3. CITES Export quotas for wild-sourced Moschus moschiferus from the Russian Federation and global exports, reported by importers and by the exporter. (Units reported as milligrams and grams have been converted to kilograms) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quota (kg) 40 35 134.6 83.255 76.200 65.5 84.2 79.4 59.5 70 68.3 3164 musk pods* 2805 musk pods Reported by importers 46.18 29.16 47.86 30.84 52.73 25.04 31.47 39.52 12.45 39.19 23.94 27.98 Reported by Russian Federation 47.81 30.7 60.4 69.54 54.72 44.4 34.39 43.36 21.13 32.81 45.37 *approximately 79.1 kg

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

Table 4. Direct exports of Moschus moschiferus from Russian Federation to EU-27, 1979-2008. For more details see Annex 1 (Musk reported in grams was converted to kilograms)

Term Units Purpose Source Values 1993-1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 Total bodies - H W Importer 1 1

Exporter

P W Importer

Exporter 1 1 2

carvings - - O Importer

Exporter 6 6

derivatives g T C Importer 15 15

Exporter

extract g T C Importer 20 20

Exporter

live - S C Importer 5 5

Exporter 8 8

T C Importer

Exporter 6 6

F Importer

Exporter 10 2 12

- Importer

Exporter 7 7

Z C Importer 7 7

Exporter

F Importer 1 3 2 6

Exporter

- C Importer 6 6

Exporter

musk kg T C Importer 0.02 0.02

Exporter 0.02 0.02

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

Term Units Purpose Source Values 1993-1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 Total E W Importer

Exporter 0.072 0.072

W Importer 10 10

Exporter 9.678 9.678

- Importer 10 10

Exporter

skins - Q O Importer

Exporter 1 1

skulls - P W Importer

Exporter 1 1

specimens g S - Importer 8000 8000

Exporter

teeth - E O Importer 1 1

Exporter

Q O Importer

Exporter 1 1

- O Importer

Exporter 15 15

trophies - H W Importer 3 1 1 5

Exporter 2 2 1 5

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

Table 5. Indirect exports of Moschus moschiferus originating in Russian Federation to EU-27, 1979-2008. Trade was either for commercial purposes or unspecified purposes. (Trade reported in grams was converted to kilograms)

Exporter Importer Term Units Source Purpose Values 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2004 2006 Total Hong Kong, SAR France extract kg W T Importer 0.5 0.5

Exporter

musk kg C T Importer

Exporter 3.92 3.92

- Importer 3.92 3.92

Exporter

W T Importer 6.97 3.66 10.62

Exporter 2.04 6.98 0.3 3.66 5.5 1 0.4 19.88

- Importer 3 2.04 0.27 5.305

Exporter

- - Importer

Exporter 3 3

Germany musk kg W T Importer 5 5

Exporter 5 5

United Kingdom musk kg W T Importer

Exporter 0.26 0.26

Switzerland France musk kg W - Importer 5 1 6

Exporter 1 1

- W - Importer

Exporter 5 5

Subtotals (main trade only) musk kg C Importer 3.92 3.92

Exporter 3.92 3.92

W & source Importer 8 2.04 7.23 6 3.66 26.93 unspecified Exporter 3 2.04 7.12 6.3 3.68 5.5 1 0.4 29.04

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

Table 6. Direct exports of Moschus moschiferus from Russian Federation to countries other than EU-27, 1979-2008. (Trade reported in grams was converted to kilograms) Term Units Purpose Source Values 1992-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total feet - S - Importer Exporter 12 12 garments - Q O Importer Exporter 2 2 musk kg P W Importer 0.05 0.05 Exporter T I Importer 3.97 5.6 7.19 16.76 Exporter 3.97 6.75 3.29 14.00 W Importer 150.54 47.86 30.79 52.73 25.04 31.47 39.52 12.45 39.19 20.79 27.98 478.36 Exporter 200.12 60.40 69.46 54.72 44.40 34.39 43.36 21.13 32.81 45.37 606.16 - Importer 7.43 7.43 Exporter 26.2 26.2 - - Importer 23.14 23.14 Exporter pieces T W Importer 852 852 Exporter skin pieces - Q O Importer 2 2 Exporter skins - S - Importer Exporter 3 3 small leather products - E O Importer 1 1 Exporter Q O Importer 1 1 Exporter specimens kg S - Importer Exporter 2.5 2.5 ml S - Importer Exporter 250 250 - Q O Importer Exporter 1 1 S - Importer 33

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

Term Units Purpose Source Values 1992-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Exporter 20 20 trophies - H W Importer 1 1 2 Exporter 1 2 3 P W Importer Exporter 1 1 - W Importer 1 1 Exporter Subtotals (main trade only) Musk (kg) I Importer 3.97 5.6 7.19 16.76 Exporter 3.97 6.75 3.29 14.00 W & source Importer 173.68 47.86 38.27 52.73 25.04 31.47 39.52 12.45 39.19 20.79 27.98 508.98 unspecified Exporter 226.32 60.40 69.46 54.72 44.40 34.39 43.36 21.13 32.81 45.37 632.36

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

TAXONOMIC NOTE: According to Nyambayar et al. (2008), there were four subspecies in Russia: M. m. moschiferus (Siberia); M. m. turovi (Russian Far East); M. m. arcticus (Verkhoyansk Ridge); and M. m. sachalinensis (Sakhalin Island), however they were treated as synonyms of M. moschiferus by Wilson and Reeder (2005). Nyambayar et al. (2008) reported two subspecies to be found in China: M. m. moschiferus in Xinjiang (Altai mountains), Nei Mongol, and Heilongjiang; and M. m. parvipes along the border with North Korea in the Lesser Xing‟an and Changbai mountain ranges, as far west as the Ordos Plateau. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states M. moschiferus was reported to occur in the Russian Federation (Siberia and the Far East), extreme eastern Kazakhstan, north-eastern and north-western China, Mongolia, Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Tsendjav, 2002 in: Nyambayar et al., 2008). The species was classified as globally Vulnerable by the IUCN (Nyambayar et al., 2008) due to past population declines and a predicted further reduction of at least 30% over the next three generations, primarily due to exploitation. Nyambayar et al. (2008) further stated that “Further research could show that the species is declining more seriously than has been supposed, and could possible qualify for listing as Endangered”. M. moschiferus reaches sexual maturity by 18 months of age (Sheng, 1992) with twin births reported to be more common than single births (Sheng and Ohtaishi, 1993). According to Nyambayar et al. (2008), M. moschiferus reached up to 10-14 years of age in the wild. M. moschiferus was found to occur mainly in mixed, coniferous and broadleaf forests (mainly Theropencedrymion forest), from low elevations to 3000-4000 m altitude (Sheng, 1992). While unsustainable hunting for musk was considered the main threat to the species (Sheng, 1998), human disturbance associated with mining and other resource extraction activities (Nyambayar et al., 2008) and habitat fragmentation were also considered to threaten the species (Togtokhbayar et al., 2000 in: Nyambayar et al., 2008). China: Green and Kattel (1997) reported that M. moschiferus occurred in northern Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang and Jilin. It was also reported to occur in Hebei and Shanxi (Wutaishan) province, Da Higgan Ling and Xiao Hinggan Ling, Wandashan, Zhangguangcai Ranges, Laoye Ranges and Changbaishan of northeast China (Nyambayar et al., 2008). However, according to Bannikov et al. (1980, in: Wemmer, 1998), the species had disappeared from Sinkiang, Shanxi, Shaanxi and Hebei, and Nyambayar et al. (2008) reported that it had disappeared from Xinjiang by the end of the 19th century. The population of M. berezovskii and M. moschiferus was estimated at 100 000–200 000 individuals (Sheng, 1998). Ma Yiquing (undated, in: Sheng, 1998) reported that M. moschiferus were plentiful in the forested regions of north-eastern China in the 1950s-1960s. According to Sheng (undated, in: Sheng, 1998) surveys conducted 1983-1984 showed that there were 15 400 (13 800-17 000) individuals in Da Hinggan Ling and 3200 individuals in other places, but after forest fires in 1987 the numbers were reported to have declined. Sheng (1998) reported 20 000 musk deer to occur in north-eastern China (including Jilin, inner Monglolia, Liaoning and Helongjiang). The density in Xinglongshan Reserve was reported to range from 23 to 51 individuals/km2 (Sheng, 1992). Sheng (1998) reported a density of 9.15 individuals/km2 in Theropencedrymion forests in western Sichuan. Sheng (1992) reported that home range sizes varied between 2.8 and 5.5 ha for females and 7 ha for males. M. moschiferus was included in the Chinese Red List as Endangered (Sheng, 1998). Russian Federation: M. moschiferus was reported to be widely distributed throughout eastern Siberia (Altai Mountains in the west to Kolymsky Mountains in the east), the Ussurisk region of the eastern Russian Federation and Sakhalin Island (Sheng, 1998). 35

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

The total population of M. moschiferus was estimated to be 100 000 individuals in the former USSR, based on a mean density of 0.6 ind./km2 (Bannikov et al., 1980; in Wemmer, 1998). Nyambayar et al. (2008) reported that the species numbers were drastically reduced through hunting during the 1920s and 1930s. Poyarkov and Chestin (1993, in: CoP 11 Prop. 11.29) reported that in the 1970s, the Russian population consisted of around 100 000-120 000 individuals, but by 1991 it had declined by about 50%. Similar numbers were reported by Prohod'ko (pers. comm., 1994, in: Green and Kattel, 1997), with the populations of the former USSR reported to have declined by 50% during the mid-1980s and estimated at 56 000-60 000 individuals in 1994, with 29 000-30 000 individuals in the Altai and Sajany, 18 000-19 000 individuals around Lake Baikal, 5000-6000 individuals in Siberia, 4000-5000 individuals in the Far East and 300-350 individuals on Sakhalin Island. However, on 23rd December 1994, the Russian Federation informed the CITES Secretariat that the musk deer population was 150 000 individuals (AC16 Doc 16.7.4). In 1999, the [Russian] Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife estimated the Sakhalin population at about 600-650 individuals and considered it to be still declining; the Eastern Siberian population was estimated at about 27 000-30 000 individuals and the population in the Russian Far East at up to 150 000 individuals (K. Tsytsulina pers. comm., undated, in: Nyambayar et al., 2008). The Altai population had previously been estimated at 40 000-45 000 individuals in 1986 (Prikhodko, 1987 in; Wemmer, 1998). Prikhodko (2002) reported that the Russian population was estimated to be 160 000-170 000 individuals in 1988 and that by 2002 the population had decreased to 32 000-40 500 individuals. The published population estimates were reportedly too low and the population of M. moschiferus in the Russian Federation was thought to be higher than the published figures (Plescher, 2005, in: SRG 35 Inf. 1). Nyambayar et al. (2008) considered all populations in the Russian Federation to be declining. M. moschiferus was reported not to occur above 1600 m a.s.l. in the former USSR (Wemmer, 1998). In the Russian Federation, the species was reported to inhabit the mid-mountain belt, preferring dark coniferous forest with dense shrubs and rocky outcrops (Prikhodko, 2002). According to Prikhodko (2002) the population density was up to 5 animals per km2 under favourable conditions. Nyambayar et al. (2008) reported that the Sakhalin subspecies (M. m. sachaliensis) was listed in the Red List of the Russian Federation as Category I (Critically Endangered) and that M. moschiferus occurred in a number of protected areas within the Russian Federation. Prohod'ko (pers. comm., 1994, unreferenced, in: Green and Kattel, 1997) reported that the species occurred in one National Park, 21 zapovedniks [scientific nature reserve] and 5 other protected areas within the area of the former USSR.

REFERENCES: Bannikov, A. G., Ustinov, S. K., and Lobanov, P. N. 1980. The musk deer Moschus moschiferus in the USSR. IUCN Gland, Switzerland. 46 pp. Green, M. J. B. and Kattel, B. 1997. Musk deer: little understood, even its scent. Paper presented at the first international symposium on endangered species used in traditional east Asian medicine: substitutes for tiger bone and musk, 7-8 December 1997, Regal Riverside Hotel, Hong Kong. TRAFFIC/IUCN. Khan, A. A., ud din Qureshi, B., and Awan, M. S. 2006. Impact of musk trade on the decline in Himalayan musk deer Moschus chrysogaster population in Neelum Valley, Pakistan. Current Science, 91 (5): 696-699. Nyambayar, B., Mix, H., and Tsytsulina, K. 2008. Moschus moschiferus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 21 September 2010). Pletscher, A. 2005. A study of musk deer (Moschus moschiferus L., 1758, Moschidae) in the Russian Federation. Evaluation trip from the 18th of July to the 11th of September 2005. Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH, Baden-Baden. Poyarkov, A. D. and Chestin, I. E. 1993. Status of large predators and ungulates in Russia. Lutreola, 2: 22- 24. Prikhodko, V. I. 2002. Kabarga [Siberian musk deer]. [In Russian]. URL: http://bio.1september.ru/2002/14/1.htm (Accessed 21 October 2010). 36

Moschus moschiferus SRG 54

Prikhodko, V. J. 1987. Breeding of musk deer (M. moschiferus L.) for the production of musk. XVIII Congress of the International Union of Game Biologists, Jagiellonian University, Krakow. Abstracts. Pp. 159-160. Sheng, H. 1992. The deer in China. East China Normal University Press. Sheng, H. 1998. Moschus spp. In: Wang S. (ed.) China Red Book of endangered animals. Science Press, Beijing, Hong Kong, New York. Sheng, H. and Ohtaishi, N. 1993. The status of deer in China, in Ohtaishi, N. & Sheng, H.-I., (eds.), Deer of China. Biology and Management. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Deer of China held in Shanghai, 21-23 November 1992. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. The Netherlands. 1-11. Togtokhbayar, D., Buyantsog, B., and Monkhtsog, B. 2000. Information on Musk Deer Distribution. Proceedings of the Institute of General and Experimental Biology of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, 22: 245-246. Tsendjav, D. 2002. Mongolian Musk deer (Moschus moschiferus Linnaeus, 1758). Jinst Cargana Co. Ltd, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Wemmer, C. (ed.) 1998. Musk deer Moschus spp. Deer. Status and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 77 pp. Wilson, D. E. and Reeder, D. M. 2005. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Zhou, Y. J., Meng, X. X., Feng, J. C., Yang, Q. S., Feng, Z. J., Xia, L., and Bartos, L. 2004. Review of the distribution, status and conservation of musk deer in China. Folia Zoologica, 53 (2): 129-140.

Canis lupus SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

MAMMALIA CANIDAE

SPECIES: Canis lupus

SYNONYMS: Canis familiaris, Canis familiaris dingo, Canis lupus dingo, Canis lycaon, Canis niger, Canis rufus, Canis rufus floridanus, Canis rufus rufus

COMMON NAMES: Ujku (Albanian), Vuk (Croatian), Vlk (Czech), Ulv (Danish), Wolf (Dutch), Common Wolf (English), Grey Wolf (English), Timber Wolf (English), Wolf (English), Hunt (Estonian), Susi (Estonian), Susi (Finnish), Loup (French), Loup gris (French), Loup vulgaire (French), Wolf (German), Bheriya (Hindi), Bighana (Hindi), Nekra (Hindi), Farkas (Hungarian), Úlfur (Icelandic), Lupo (Italian), Lupo comune (Italian), Vilkas (Lithuanian), Lupu (Maltese), Ulv (Norwegian), Wilk (Polish), Lobo (Portuguese), Lobo comum (Portuguese), Lup (Romanian), Vlk dravý (Slovak), Lobo (Spanish), Lobo común (Spanish), Varg (Swedish), Kurt (Turkish)

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Austria (ex), Azerbaijan, Bangladesh (ex), Belarus, Belgium (ex), Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark (ex), Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Hungary (ex?), India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland (ex), Israel, Italy, Japan (ex), Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg (ex), Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Myanmar (?), Nepal, Netherlands (ex), Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea (ex?), Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (ex), Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (ex), United States of America, Uzbekistan, Yemen

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Kyrgyzstan

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

Canis lupus SRG 54

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(a) suspension for wild hunting trophies from Belarus first imposed on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009; from Kyrgyzstan, first imposed on 29/10/2001 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009; and from Turkey first imposed on 01/03/2003 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009. Current positive opinion for hunting trophies from Canada first applied on 11/11/1997 and confirmed (for British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador) on 09/03/2006; for hunting trophies from Kazakhstan first formed on 10/09/1998 and confirmed on 27/03/2007; for hunting trophies from the Russian Federation formed on 11/11/1997 and confirmed on 09/03/2006; for hunting trophies from Ukraine formed on 22/02/2000; and for hunting trophies from the United States of America formed on 11/11/1997. Current negative opinion for hunting trophies from Mongolia formed on 30/11/2009 and last confirmed on 16/02/2010. Previous positive opinions for specimens from Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania and Romania that were removed upon accession of these countries to the EU. Previous negative opinion for hunting trophies from Latvia formed on 10/11/1999 and replaced by a positive opinion on 07/11/2000, also removed upon accession to the EU. Previous positive opinion for hunting trophies from Mongolia formed on 11/11/1997.

TRADE PATTERNS: Canada was the main global exporter of wild-sourced Canis lupus 1977-2008. According to exporter- reported figures, the most frequently used term in global direct exports of C. lupus from all countries 1999-2008 was wild-sourced skins (totaling 34 095 wild-sourced skins, none of which were exported from Kyrgyzstan). Ten per cent of these wild-sourced C. lupus skins (3563 out of 34 095 skins) were imported by EU-27 Member States, according to exporter-reported figures. Romania has published CITES export quotas for C. lupus since 1997 and Uzbekistan, Mongolia and Turkey have also published CITES export quotas for C. lupus during subsequent years, though not every year. No export quotas have ever been published for the species from Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan: Kyrgyzstan became independent from the former USSR in 1991 and acceded to CITES in 2007. The first annual report received from Kyrgyzstan was for 2009. Hence, CITES trade data are unavailable for Kyrgyzstan over the period 1991-2008, with trade prior to this reported by the former USSR. No imports of C. lupus from Kyrgyzstan were reported by EU Member States 1991-2008. Kyrgyzstan‟s 2009 annual report included the export of three wild-sourced C. lupus hunting trophies to the EU-27 in 2009 (one each to Denmark, Germany and Hungary). The import of one wild-sourced trophy was also reported by Denmark in 2009, but the exports to Germany and Hungary were not reported by these Member States. Indirect trade into the EU-27 of C. lupus originating in Kyrgyzstan consisted mainly of wild-sourced trophies re-exported via the Russian Federation (Table 1). None of the trophy imports were reported by EU Member States; however, Germany reported the import of four skins and one skull. The only reported trade in C. lupus from Kyrgyzstan to countries other than EU-27 over the period 1991-2008 was the import in 2005 of one wild-sourced plate reported by the United States (for personal purposes). Kyrgyzstan‟s 2009 annual report included the export of five wild-sourced

Canis lupus SRG 54 hunting trophies in 2009 (two to the Russian Federation, two to the United States and one to Switzerland). Table 1. Indirect exports of Canis lupus originating in Kyrgyzstan to EU-27, 1991-2008. All trade was wild-sourced, imported for purpose H (hunting trophies). Exporter Importer Term Reported by 1993 1997 1998 1999 2001 2004 2007 Total Russian Federation Austria trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Czech Republic trophies Importer

Exporter 4 4

Germany skins Importer 1 3 4

Exporter skulls Importer 1 1

Exporter

trophies Importer

Exporter 1 3 1 1 6

Importer

Exporter 2 2 Italy trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Spain trophies Importer

Exporter 2 2 9 13

trophies Importer Subtotals (main trade only)

Exporter 2 1 3 4 1 7 9 27

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Canis lupus was historically the world‟s most widely distributed mammal, occurring throughout the northern hemisphere north of 15°N latitude in North America and 12°N in India (Mech and Boitani, 2004). The species has however become extinct in much of Western Europe (Boitani, 1995 in: Mech and Boitani, 2004), Mexico and the USA (Mech, 1970 in: Mech and Boitani, 2004) and its present distribution was reported to be more restricted, particularly to wilderness and remote areas, especially in Canada, Alaska, northern USA, Europe, and Asia from about 75°N to 12°N (Mech and Boitani, 2004). According to Mech and Boitani (2008), poisoning and deliberate persecution due to predation on livestock led to a reduction of the species‟ original worldwide range by about one third. However, C. lupus population declines were reported to have been arrested since about 1970 due to the introduction of legal protection, land-use changes and rural human population shifts to cities; as well as through fostering reintroduction and natural recolonization in parts of the species‟ range (Mech and Boitani, 2008). C. lupus was classified as of Least Concern globally by the IUCN, as “its relatively widespread range and stable population trend mean that the species does not meet, or nearly meet, any of the criteria for the threatened categories” (Mech and Boitani, 2008). C. lupus were reported to be pack-living animals, with most packs consisting of up to 36 (Rausch, 1967; Mech, 1970) related individuals (Mech, 1970; Mech, 1999), although smaller sizes (5–8) were found to be more common (Mech, 1974). Territory sizes were found to vary from 33 km2 to more than 6000 km2 (Mech and Boitani, 2003), depending on prey density and the number of wolves in a pack (Mech, 1970). Wolf densities were found to vary from about 1/12 km2 to 1/120 km2 (Mech and Boitani, 2004). Only the dominant pair was reported to reproduce, while other maturing pack members only bred if they inherited a position that allowed breeding with an unrelated animal 40

Canis lupus SRG 54

(stepparent) within the pack (Fritts and Mech, 1981; Mech and Hertel, 1983, in: Mech, 1999); otherwise pack members were reported to disperse sooner or later in order to attempt to breed elsewhere (Mech, 1999). The age at sexual maturity was reported to be 22 months or older (Rausch, 1967, in: Mech, 1970) and litter sizes were reported to range from one to eleven, with a mean of six pups (Mech, 1974). The reproductive age was reported to probably extend to 11 years and life expectancy in the wild was reported to be up to 13 years (Mech, 1988). Competition with humans for livestock, persecution and loss and fragmentation of habitat were considered to be the major threats to the species (Mech and Boitani, 2008). Mech and Boitani (2004) reported that the species was hunted and trapped for fur in Alaska, Canada, the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Mongolia, although at the time of writing, Mech and Boitani (2004) considered conservation measures unnecessary for most of Asia. The harvesting of wolves for fur was not considered a threat to the populations, as only furs from northern populations are of commercial value and the northern populations were considered the most secure (Mech and Boitani, 2003). Kyrgyzstan: The species was reported from Sary Chat-Ertash State reserve in the Tien Shan Mountains in eastern Kyrgyzstan (Kyrgyzstan-Science, 2009) and McCarthy et al. (2010) recorded the species in Jangart hunting reserve (80 km southeast of Sary Chat-Ertash); but they did not record it in Sary Chat-Ertash. According to Mech and Boitani (2004), the species‟ population was fully viable within its range in the former USSR, with an overall population of about 50 000 individuals occupying about 75% of the range. Sillero-Zubiri (2009) considered the species to be “stable to fully viable in north and Central Asia”. The C. lupus population in Kyrgyzstan was estimated to number about 4000 individuals (Mech andBoitani, 2003; International Wolf Center, 2007). The Asian Development Bank (2007) considered the species to be widely spread and quite common in the Kyrgyz steppes. Hazell (2001) reported that the C. lupus population may have been declining since the breakup of the Soviet Union, mainly due to a significant decline in the prey base for the species in less than 10 years, due to habitat destruction, increased human exploitation of game species and a decline in domestic livestock. In Osh Oblast, southern Kyrgyzstan, the C. lupus population was reported to have declined from approximately 1100 to 600 wolves (44% decline) between 1988 and 1999 (Hazell, 2001). Hazell (2001) suggested that “official reports that C. lupus populations in Kyrgyzstan are stable or increasing are inaccurate and C. lupus populations may actually be declining.” However, the International Wolf Center (2007) considered the population trend to be stable. Mech and Boitani (2004) considered persecution and habitat destruction to be threats to the species throughout its range in the former USSR. According to the International Wolf Center (2007), the species was not legally protected in Kyrgyzstan and Mech and Boitani (2004) stated that the species was subject to reduction and control even in nature reserves. Hazell (2001) also reported that a government policy offered substantial bounties for killing specimens. According to TRAFFIC (1998), hunting was open to both residents and foreigners in Kyrgyzstan. REFERENCES: Asian Development Bank. 2007. Southern transport corridor road rehabilitation project Kyrgyz Republic - revised Initial Environmental Examination (IEE). LOAN 2106-KGZ(SF). Boitani, L. 1995. Ecological and cultural diversities in the evolution of wolf-human relationships, in Carbyn, L. N., Fritts, S. H., & Seip, D. R., (eds.), Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Occasional Publication 35. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3-11. Fritts, S. H. and Mech, L. D. 1981. Dynamics, movements and feeding ecology of a newly protected wolf population in northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs, 80: 3-79.

Canis lupus SRG 54

Hazell, C. J. 2001. The status of the wolf population in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan. Endangered Species UPDATE, 18 (4): 142-146. International Wolf Center. 2007. Wolves of the world – Kyrgyzstan. URL: http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/wow/regions/Asia/Kyrgyzstan.asp (Accessed 17 September 2010). Kyrgyzstan-Science. 2009. Specially protected natural territories. URL: http://www.kyrgyzstan- sci.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=190:specially-protected-natural- territories&catid=901:useful-information&Itemid=71&lang=ky (Accessed 17 September 2010). McCarthy, J. L., McCarthy, K. P., Fuller, T. K., and McCarthy, T. M. 2010. Assessing variation in wildlife biodiversity in the Tien Shan Mountains of Kyrgyzstan using ancillary camera-trap photos. Mountain Research and Development (MRD), 30 (3): 295-301. Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Natural History Press, Doubleday Publishing Co., New York, USA. Mech, L. D. 1974. Mammalian species: Canis lupus. The American Society of Mammalogists, 37: 1-6. Mech, L. D. 1988. Longevity in wild wolves. Journal of Mammalogy, 69 (1): 197-198. Mech, L. D. 1999. Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne de Zoologie, 77 (8): 1196-1203. Mech, L. D. and Boitani, L. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press. Mech, L. D. and Boitani, L. 2004. Grey wolf (Canis lupus), in Sillero-Zubiri, C., Hoffmann, M., & MacDonald, D. W., (eds.), Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 124- 129. Mech, L. D. and Boitani, L. 2008. Canis lupus, 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 17 September 2010). Mech, L. D. and Hertel, H. H. 1983. An eight year demography of a Minnesota wolf pack. Acta Zoologica Fennica, 174: 249-250. Rausch, R. A. 1967. Some aspects of the population ecology of wolves, Alaska. American Zoologist, 7: 253-265. Sillero-Zubiri 2009. Family Canidae (dogs), in Wilson, D. E. & Mittermeier, R. A., (eds.), Handbook of the mammals of the world - Carnivores. Lynx edicions, Barcelona. 352-447. TRAFFIC. 1998. Overview of wildlife trade in the Central Asian countries. A TRAFFIC Europe Report.

Lynx lynx SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

MAMMALIA FELIDAE

SPECIES: Lynx lynx

SYNONYMS: Felis lynx

COMMON NAMES: Rreqebulli (Albanian), Europski ris (Croatian), Rys ostrovid (Czech), los (Danish), Euraziatische lynx (Dutch), Los (Dutch), Lynx (Dutch), Eurasian Lynx (English), Ilves (Estonian), Tava- ilves (Estonian), Ilves (Finnish), Lynx (French), Lynx boréal (French), Lynx d'Eurasie (French), Eurasiatischer Luchs (German), Luchs (German), Közönséges hiúz (Hungarian), Gaupa (Icelandic), Lince (Italian), Gaupe (Norwegian), rys (Polish), Lince-europeu (Portuguese), Râs (Romanian), Rys ostrovid (Slovak), Lince (Spanish), Lince boreal (Spanish), Lince europeo (Spanish), europeiskt lodjur (Swedish), Lo (Swedish), Lodjur (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria (ex), China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (ex?), Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Italy (?), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Republic of Moldova (ex), Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia (ex, reint), Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (ex, reint), Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Azerbaijan

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(a) import suspension for wild-sourced hunting trophies from Azerbaijan first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009. Current positive opinion for hunting trophies from Norway formed on 11/02/1998. Previous Article 4.6(a) import suspension for wild-sourced hunting trophies from Lithuania, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine first applied on 19/09/1999 and removed on 18/02/2005 (Lithuania) and 21/05/2009 (Moldova and Ukraine). 43

Lynx lynx SRG 54

Previous positive opinion for hunting trophies from Estonia and Latvia formed on 11/11/1997 and 26/11/1998, respectively and removed on 01/05/2004 upon accession to the EU. Previous positive opinion for hunting trophies from Romania formed on 11/11/1997 and removed on 01/01/2007 upon accession to the EU. TRADE PATTERNS: The Russian Federation was the main global direct exporter of wild-sourced Lynx lynx 1977-2008. The majority of global direct exports of L. lynx from all countries 1999-2008 consisted of wild-sourced skins (totalling 2609 skins, of which 19 were imported by EU Member States, according to exporter- reported figures) followed by wild-sourced teeth and scientific specimens. Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and Belarus have all published CITES export quotas for L. lynx at some point during the period 1977-2008. No export quotas have ever been published for the species from Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991 and acceded to CITES in 1998 (entered into force February 1999). Hence, CITES trade data are unavailable for Azerbaijan over the period 1991-1999, with trade prior to this reported by the former USSR. Annual reports or CITES permits have been received each year between 2000 and 2007, however Azerbaijan‟s 2008 annual report has not yet been received. There was no reported direct or indirect trade of L. lynx originating in Azerbaijan during the period 1991-2008. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Lynx lynx was reported to have a very wide distribution in Europe and temperate Asia, including the boreal forest from Scandinavia to east Siberia, montane forests in Europe, Asia Minor, Caucasus and the Kopet Dag, and from central Asia across the Tibetan Plateau to Mongolia and northern China (Tumlison, 1987; Broad et al., 1988; Macdonald et al., 2010). Although the species is primarily associated with forested areas (particularly old, high-timbered forests with dense undergrowth) in Europe and Siberia, in central Asia it was reported to occur in more open, sparsely wooded habitats, and in northern latitudes it is reportedly found in the tundra (Guggisberg, 1975; Nowell and Jackson, 1996; Breitenmoser et al., 2000). The population of L. lynx in the former USSR was estimated at 36 000–40 000 individuals (Zheltuchin, 1992), and the European population (excluding Russia) was reported to have been estimated as 8000 individuals (Macdonald et al., 2010). Breitenmoser et al. (2008) noted that populations in Europe and south-west Asia were generally “small and widely separated”, but that the bulk of the range from Scandinavia, through the Russian Federation and central Asia was “largely intact”. In a recent survey of L. lynx range states, 30% of countries responding reported their national populations to be decreasing, 35% (including the Russian Federation) reported them as “stable”, 14% as stable to slightly increasing, and 16% as increasing (CITES Authorities of the United States of America, 2007). Breitenmoser et al. (2008) gave the overall population trend as “stable”, and the species has been listed as Least Concern since 2008. Broad et al. (1988) observed that L. lynx had been “hunted extensively for its valuable fur”, was persecuted by hunters and farmers (as a consequence of predation on game animals and livestock), and had “lost a large amount of habitat due to clearance for agriculture, construction and fuel”. Nowell and Jackson (1996) also indicated that the species was “vulnerable to destruction of [its] ungulate prey base”. Breitenmoser et al. (2000) noted that, although a “viable” population could “tolerate a controlled harvest” (through hunting or trapping), overexploitation or illegal killings could “threaten a local population, especially a small one”. Breitenmoser et al. (2008) suggested that illegal skin trade, together with habitat loss and prey depletion, remained the principal threat to the species.

Lynx lynx SRG 54

Azerbaijan: In their account of the species' distribution in the Caucasus, Heptner and Sludskii (1992) reported that in north-eastern Azerbaijan it was “not uncommon in small deciduous forests among mountains and in dense thickets of Christs thorn if some large trees and many European hares are present”, noting that, in winter, it occasionally “intrudes into the steppe and semidesert […] for example at the Apsheron [=Absheron] Peninsula”. Despite suggesting that the range in the eastern South Caucasus did “not extend beyond the foothills of the Great and Little Caucasus”, Heptner and Sludskii (1992) also indicated that there was “an isolated section of habitat […] in the Talyshinsk [=Talysh] mountains and Lenkoran [Lankaran] lowland”, in extreme south-eastern Azerbaijan. The species was also listed as occurring in Azerbaijan by Wilson and Reeder (2005). According to Heptner and Sludskii (1992), L. lynx was formerly “particularly common” in Azerbaijan, with an average of 73 skins tanned annually over the period 1931–1940, and over 100 individuals captured each year during the 1950s and 1960s, but that, as a result of deforestation and cultivation, the population had “greatly declined or even disappeared” in some regions of the country. More generally, Nowell and Jackson (1996) subsequently noted that the species was reportedly “quite rare in the Caucasus”, and Zazanashvili (2009) indicated that numbers of large carnivores such as L. lynx had “fallen dramatically” within the Caucasus as a whole in the past century. Nevertheless, the Azerbaijan population was reported as “stable” in a recent survey of L. lynx range states (although deforestation was identified as a threat; CITES Authorities of the United States of America, 2007). Neither harvest nor export of L. lynx is reportedly allowed in Azerbaijan (CITES Authorities of the United States of America, 2007).

REFERENCES: Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Okarma, H., Kaphegyi, T., Kaphegyi-Wallmann, U. and Müller, U. M. 2000. Action plan for the conservation of Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe. Nature and Environment, No. 112. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, France. Breitenmoser, U., Mallon, D.P., von Arx, M. and Breitenmoser-Wursten, C. 2008. Lynx lynx. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 26 October 2010). Broad, S., Luxmoore, R. and Jenkins, M. (eds.) 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of selected species in CITES Appendix II. Volume 1: mammals. IUCN and CITES Secretariat, Gland and Lausanne, Switzerland. CITES Authorities of the United States of America. 2007. Additional information on amendment proposal CoP14 Prop. 2. Document prepared by the United States of America and CITES Secretariat for the 14th meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP14 Inf. 30). Guggisberg, C. A. W. 1975. Wild cats of the world. David & Charles, Newton Abbot, UK. Heptner, V. G. and Sludskii, A. A. 1992. Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2. Carnivora (hyaenas and cats). E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. Macdonald, D. W., Loveridge, A. J. and Nowell, K. 2010. Dramatis personae: an introduction to the wild felids. In: Macdonald, D. W. and Loveridge, A. J. (eds.) Biology and conservation of wild felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 3–58. Nowell, K. and Jackson, P. (eds.) 1996. Wild cats: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Tumlison, R. 1987. Felis lynx. Mammalian Species, 269: 1–8. Wilson, D. E. and Reeder, D. M. (eds.) 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. Volume 1. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA. Zazanashvili, N. 2009. The Caucasus hotspot. Pp. 15–25 in Zazanashvili, N. and Mallon, D. (eds.) Status and protection of globally threatened species in the Caucasus. CEPF and WWF, Tbilisi, Georgia. Zheltuchin, A. 1992. Distribution and numbers of lynx in the Soviet Union. In: The situation, conservation needs and reintroduction of lynx in Europe. Environmental Encounters, No. 11. Council of Europe Press, Strasbourg, France. 19-22.

Lynx lynx SRG 54

Varanus salvator SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

REPTILIA VARANIDAE

SPECIES: Varanus salvator

SYNONYMS: Monitor bivittatus celebensis, Monitor exilis, Stellio salvator, Varanus vittatus

COMMON NAMES: bandvaraan (Dutch), Common Water Monitor (English), Malayan Monitor (English), No-mark Lizard (English), Plain Lizard (English), Rice Lizard (English), Ring Lizard (English), Two-banded Monitor (English), Water Monitor (English), Varan à deux bandes (French), Varan aquatique commun (French), Varano de dos bandas (Spanish), bandvaran (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Viet Nam,

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: China, India, Singapore

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild-sourced specimens from China, India and Singapore first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009. Current positive opinion for specimens from Indonesia first formed on 23/06/1999 and last confirmed on 29/02/2008. Current positive opinion for specimens from Malaysia first formed on 05/09/2002 and last confirmed on 07/12/2007. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild-sourced specimens from Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Myanmar and Viet Nam first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 24/09/2000. TRADE PATTERNS: Indonesia and Malaysia were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Varanus salvator 1975- 2008. Global direct exports of V. salvator from all countries 1999-2008 included a wide range of terms, such as skins, live animals and a variety of manufactured leather products, the majority of which were wild-sourced or had no source specified.

Varanus salvator SRG 54

No export quotas have ever been published for the species by China, India or Singapore. Indonesia has published quotas for wild V. salvator every year since 1997 and Malaysia published quotas in 2002. China: The only reported export of V. salvator from China to the EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 was one captive-bred specimen exported to Germany in 2008 for educational purposes; this transaction was not reported by Germany. In addition, the United Kingdom reported the confiscation/seizure of one small leather product from China in 2008. The only reported indirect trade into the EU-27 of V. salvator originating in China 1975-2008 was the import by Belgium of 1300 small leather products of unspecified source and purpose in 2007. An identical import of 1300 small leather products of unspecified source and purpose was also report by Belgium in 2009. Direct exports from China to countries other than EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 consisted mainly of skins and various leather products, with a small amount of trade in live specimens (Table 1). Skin imports totalled 3250 and 55 800 skins as reported by the importers and by China respectively, with Hong Kong SAR and Thailand being the main importers. India: India has never reported any direct exports of V. salvator to any country. According to EU-27 Member States, imports from India over the period 1975-2008 consisted of skins or skin pieces, with no trade reported since 1983 (Table 2). Indirect trade into the EU-27 of V. salvator originating in India consisted of skins and various manufactured leather items (Table 3), with no indirect trade reported since 1987. The only direct trade in V. salvator from India to countries other than EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 consisted of 25 pre-convention skin/leather items imported by the United States in 1996. Singapore: There was very little direct trade to the EU-27 of V. salvator from Singapore over the period 1975-2008 (Table 4), the majority of which was wild-sourced scientific specimens. Indirect trade into the EU-27 of V. salvator originating in Singapore mainly consisted of skins and various manufactured leather items (Table 5), the only reported trade 1999-2008 consisted of two small leather products imported by Italy via the United States in 2006. Direct exports from Singapore to countries other than EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 consisted mainly of wild-sourced skins imported by the United States (Table 6). The only reported direct trade to countries other than EU-27 since 2001 was the import of one small leather product by the United Arab Emirates in 2008.

Varanus salvator SRG 54

Table 1. Direct exports of Varanus salvator from China to countries other than EU-27, 1975-2008

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1981 1982 1983 1988 1990 1991 1992 1994 1995 1996 2005 2008 Total live - T C Importer 6 6 Exporter W Importer 4 4 Exporter Z C Importer Exporter 6 6 W Importer Exporter 1 1 - Importer Exporter 4 4 shoes - T W Importer Exporter 504 504 skin/leather items - T - Importer 611 611 Exporter skins m2 T W Importer 89 89 Exporter - T U Importer Exporter 9000 9000 - Importer 600 1850 800 3250 Exporter 800 6000 6800 Z - Importer Exporter 40000 40000 small leather products - T O Importer 726 726 Exporter W Importer 335 335 Exporter watchstraps - T - Importer Exporter 103759 103759

Varanus salvator SRG 54

Table 2. Direct exports of Varanus salvator from India to EU-27, 1975-2008. All units were numbers of specimens and all sources were unspecified.

Importer Term Purpose Reported by 1980 1983 Total Germany skins T Importer 1000 1000 Exporter United skin Kingdom pieces T Importer 3000 3000 Exporter skins S Importer 1 1 Exporter

Table 3. Indirect exports of Varanus salvator originating in India to EU-27, 1975-2008. All units were numbers of specimens and all sources were unspecified.

Exporter Importer Term Purpose Reported by 1983 1984 1986 Total Morocco France watchstraps - Importer 14229 14229 Exporter South Africa United Kingdom skins T Importer 1 1 Exporter Switzerland Belgium belts T Importer 20 20 Exporter Spain watchstraps - Importer Importer 500 500

Varanus salvator SRG 54

Table 4. Direct exports of Varanus salvator from Singapore to EU-27, 1975-2008.

Importer Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1982 1994 1998 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 Total Denmark skins - - - Importer 2 2 Exporter Germany bodies - S W Importer Exporter 2 2 specimens flasks S W Importer Exporter 8 8 16 g S W Importer Exporter 10 10 ml S W Importer Exporter 8 8 - S W Importer 8 8 Exporter 4 12 16 trophies - S W Importer Exporter 3 3 Netherlands live - Z U Importer Exporter 1 1

Table 5. Indirect exports of Varanus salvator originating in Singapore to EU-27, 1975-2008. All units were numbers of specimens.

Exporter Term Purpose Source Reported by 1982-1989 1990 1991 2006 Total Canada skins T W Importer Exporter 3 3 watchstraps T W Importer Exporter 21 21 Japan belts - - Importer Exporter 25 25 skins T - Importer 4987 4987 Exporter watchstraps - - Importer 11544 11544 Exporter South Africa skins T - Importer

Varanus salvator SRG 54

Exporter Term Purpose Source Reported by 1982-1989 1990 1991 2006 Total Exporter 9 9 - - Importer 3362 3362 Exporter Switzerland belts - - Importer Exporter 354 354 garments - - Importer Exporter 2 2 handbags - - Importer Exporter 10 10 skin pieces T - Importer 130 130 Exporter skin/leather items T - Importer 6 6 Exporter - - Importer 520 520 Exporter skins T - Importer 1967 1967 Exporter - - Importer 1967 1967 Exporter 6154 6154 wallets - - Importer Exporter 1042 1042 watchstraps - W Importer 1 1 Exporter - Importer Exporter 3035 1 3036 United States of America skin/leather items T - Importer 1000 1000 Exporter skins T - Importer Exporter 200 200 small leather products T W Importer 2 2 Exporter

Varanus salvator SRG 54

Table 6. Direct exports of Varanus salvator from Singapore to countries other than EU-27, 1975-2008. All units were numbers of specimens.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1982 1984 1990 1996 2001 2008 Total live Z - Importer 2 2 Exporter 4 4 small leather products T W Importer 1 1 Exporter skin/leather items T W Importer 9 9 Exporter - Importer 25 25 Exporter skins T W Importer 1100 1100 Exporter

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Varanus salvator was reported to occur in a variety of habitats with fresh or brackish water present, particularly mangroves, lowland swamps, gallery forest and other riparian habitats (Luxmoore and Groombridge, 1990; Gaulke and Horn, 2004), from Sri Lanka, north-eastern India and Bangladesh, south and east through Myanmar, southern China, Viet Nam, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and the Philippines (Luxmoore and Groombridge, 1990; Böhme, 2003; Gaulke and Horn, 2004). Böhme (2003) recognized eight subspecies, including V. s. salvator, the form occurring in the Indian subcontinent and throughout mainland South-East Asia, and V. s. andamanensis, which occurs only in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Luxmoore et al. (1988) noted that the species was generally described as “common or very common” in the early twentieth century, and that, although it had reportedly been depleted or extirpated locally, it appeared to “remain relatively common over much of its range”. Similarly, WCMC et al. (1993) indicated that, despite evidence that overexploitation (in combination with habitat loss) had led to declines in parts of its range (e.g. in Indonesia and the Philippines), the species remained “locally abundant” and, overall, was “not threatened with extinction”. Bennett (1995) also observed that the species was “still very common in many areas”, despite heavy collecting. In the context of this (at least local) abundance and its wide distribution, V. salvator has been categorised as Least Concern (Bennett et al., 2009). Luxmoore et al. (1988) reported that the species was “widely exploited for skins, meat and fat” (the latter for medicinal purposes and cooking), and that the eggs (and hatchlings; see Chandi, 2006) were also consumed. Luxmoore and Groombridge (1990) indicated that V. salvator was the “most heavily exploited of the Asian monitors”, and Bennett (1995) also noted that it was “of greater economic importance than any other varanid”, with “millions killed each year for their meat and skins”, and the species was “among the most easily available varanids in the pet trade”. China: Known from southern China, where it has been reported from southern Yunnan, Guangxi, Hainan, Guangdong and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Pope, 1935; Zhao and Adler, 1993; Zhao, 1998). However, Luxmoore et al. (1988) suggested that the species probably no longer occurred in Hong Kong SAR, and Bennett et al. (2009) reported that recent work had suggested that the species was “absent from Yunnan, and all but the immediate coastal strip of south China adjacent to Hainan”. According to Zhao (1998), the species inhabits estuaries and tropical and subtropical mountain streams. Bennett (1995) suggested that “large populations” of the species occurred in southern China, but Luxmoore et al. (1988) noted that historical reports suggested it had been rare, and Luxmoore and Groombridge (1990) indicated that suitable habitat had “almost certainly diminished”. Zhao (1998) observed that the species had been collected in China (for food and leather) for a long period, and that its population was “sharply reduced”, and hence it was categorised as nationally Critically Endangered (“almost Extinct in the Wild”).

Varanus salvator SRG 54

V. salvator has apparently been accorded “special State protection” (Category I) under the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife (Zhao, 1998), in which the hunting, capture, killing, sale or purchase of wildlife under special State protection is prohibited (People‟s Republic of China, 1988). However, the species was found during surveys of wildlife markets and shops in southern Guangxi 1993–1996 (Li and Li, 1998), and was reported to be “commonly available in the majority of markets” during surveys in south-eastern Yunnan during 1997 (Li and Wang, 1999). According to Li and Li (1998), the Guangxi Forestry Bureau reportedly confiscated over 2300 kg of live V. salvator from illegal traders during 1993. Nevertheless, the species was still available in 9–37% of “middle and high quality restaurants” visited by Li and Li (1998) over the period 1993–1996, with Li and Wang (1999) reporting that a serving of V. salvator soup costed the equivalent of US$97 near the Yunnan–Vietnam border in 1997. India: Known from the Andaman Islands (including Great Andaman, Little Andaman and Narcondam), the Nicobar Islands (Great Nicobar and Katchal), and north-eastern mainland India, where it has been documented for Orissa (including Bhitarkanika, in the Baitarani-Brahmani-Mahanadi delta), West Bengal (south of Kolkata, and the Sundarbans), Meghalaya (West and East Garo Hills and East Khasi Hills), Assam (Dibru-Saikhowa), Mizoram (Lushai Hills) and Nagaland (Smith, 1935; Das, 1989; Luxmoore and Groombridge, 1990; Ghosh, 1994; Choudhury, 1998). The endemic subspecies V. s. andamanensis was reported to inhabit evergreen rain forests, dried flat wetlands and littoral forests, and mangrove swamps (Horn and Gaulke, 2004). In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, where the species was formerly widespread and common, V. s. andamanensis was reported to have become “extremely rare” and “under threat” by Andrews (2001), mainly as a result of habitat loss and hunting. In Orissa, the species was reported to be “uncommon” (and restricted to the wildlife sanctuary) at Bhitarkanika by Luxmoore et al. (1988). In West Bengal, Luxmoore and Groombridge (1990) reported that the species had been “reduced to a remnant of its former abundance” in the Sundarbans. In Assam, the species was described by Choudhury (1998) as “common” during surveys of Dibru-Saikhowa Wildlife Sanctuary in 1992–1994. Overall, however, Ghosh (1994) suggested that the species was “drastically depleted” in India, as a consequence of extensive exploitation (for skins, food and traditional medicines) and habitat loss, and was hence categorised as nationally Endangered. Similarly, Bennett (1995) noted that numbers had “dwindled severely”, and suggested that the disappearance of the species was “due to a combination of overcollecting and habitat destruction, especially the clearing of mangrove forests”. Since 1986, all Varanus species (except V. flavescens) have been listed in Schedule II of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Luxmoore and Groombridge, 1990), although, according to Chandi (2006), the indigenous islanders of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are exempt from the schedules of the Act, and allowed to use wildlife for sustenance (but not as articles for sale). In 1989, India also banned the export for commercial purposes of all wild-taken specimens of animal species included in CITES Appendices I, II and III (CITES Secretariat., 1999). Nevertheless, despite attempts to implement legislation, Das (2001) suggested that “large numbers” of reptile products were still exported from the country. Singapore: Luxmoore and Groombridge (1990) reported that a “small population” of the species occurred, but that – although no further information on its status was available – it was not known to be exploited, and that there was reportedly “very little domestic use of Varanus skins within Singapore”. The species was also reported to occur in Singapore by Das (2010). The Singapore Wild Animals and Birds Act of 1965 apparently prohibits the killing, taking or keeping of any wild animal, other than those specified in the Schedule (which does not include any reptile species), without a licence (Luxmoore and Groombridge, 1990).

Varanus salvator SRG 54

REFERENCES: Andrews, H. V. 2001. Threatened herpetofauna of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. In Bambaradeniya, C. N. B. and Samarasekara, V. N. (eds.) An overview of the threatened herpetofauna of South Asia, pp. 39–47. IUCN Sri Lanka and Asia Regional Biodiversity Programme, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Bennett, D. 1995. A little book of monitor lizards. Viper Press, Aberdeen, UK. Bennett, D., Gaulke, M., Pianka, E.R., Somaweera, R. and Sweet, S.S. 2009. Varanus salvator. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 26 October 2010). Böhme, W. 2003. Checklist of the living monitor lizards of the world (family Varanidae). Zoologische Verhandelingen (Leiden), 341: 4–43. Chandi, M. 2006. The use and knowledge of herpetofauna on Little Nicobar Island, India. Conservation and Society, 4(1): 155–165. Choudhury, A. 1998. Mammals, birds and reptiles of Dibru-Saikhowa Sanctuary, Assam, India. Oryx, 32(3): 192–200. CITES Secretariat. 1999. Notification to the Parties No. 1999/39. Electronic document released by the CITES Secretariat for the CITES Parties. URL: www.cites.org (Accessed 26 October 2010) Das, I. 1989. New evidence of the occurrence of Water Monitor (Varanus salvator) in Meghalaya. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 86(2): 253–255. Das, I. 2001. Threatened herpetofauna of India. Pp. 63–70 in Bambaradeniya, C. N. B. and Samarasekara, V. N. (eds.) An overview of the threatened herpetofauna of South Asia. IUCN Sri Lanka and Asia Regional Biodiversity Programme, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Das, I. 2010. A field guide to the reptiles of South-East Asia. New Holland Publishers (UK) Ltd, London, UK. Gaulke, M. and Horn H.-G. 2004. Varanus salvator (nominate form). Pp. 244–257 in Pianka, E. R., King, D. R. and King, R. A. (eds.) Varanoid lizards of the world. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. Ghosh, A. K. (ed.) 1994. The Red Data Book on Indian animals. Part 1: Vertebrata (Mammalia, Aves, Reptilia and Amphibia). Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta, India. Horn H.-G. and Gaulke, M. 2004. Varanus salvator (subspecies). In: Pianka, E. R., King, D. R. and King, R. A. (eds.) Varanoid lizards of the world, pp. 258–271. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. Li, Y. and Li, D. 1998. The dynamics of trade in live wildlife across the Guangxi border between China and Vietnam during 1993–1996 and its control strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7(7): 895– 914. Li, W. and Wang, H. 1999. Wildlife Trade in Yunnan Province, China, at the Border with Vietnam. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 18(1): 21–30. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. and Broad, S. (eds.) 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of selected species in CITES Appendix II. Volume 2: reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN and CITES Secretariat, Gland and Lausanne, Switzerland. Luxmoore, R. and Groombridge, B. 1990. Asian monitor lizards: a review of distribution, status, exploitation and trade in four selected species. CITES Secretariat, Lausanne, Switzerland. People‟s Republic of China. 1988. Law of the People‟s Republic of China on the protection of wildlife 1988. In: Foreign-Related Laws & Regulations of the P.R.C., Bureau of Legislature Affairs of the People‟s Republic of China. Pope, C. H. 1935. The reptiles of China. Natural History of Central Asia. Vol. X. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. Smith, M. A. 1935. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. II. – Sauria. Taylor and Francis, London, UK. WCMC, IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group and TRAFFIC International. 1993. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of select animal species in CITES Appendix II. Unpublished report to the CITES Animals Committee. Zhao, E. 1998. China Red Data Book of endangered animals: Amphibia and Reptilia. Science Press, Beijing, China. Zhao, E.-M. and Adler, K. 1993. Herpetology of China. Contributions to Herpetology, Number 10. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Oxford, Ohio, USA.

Python molurus SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

REPTILIA PYTHONIDAE

SPECIES: Python molurus

SYNONYMS: Boa albicans, Boa castanea, Boa cinerea, Boa orbiculata, Boa ordinata, Coluber boaeformis, Coluber molurus, Python bora, Python jamesonii, Python ordinatus, Python tigris

COMMON NAMES: tijgerpython (Dutch), Asiatic Rock Python (English), Burmese Python (English), Tiger Python (English), Python molure (French), Python tigre (French), tigerpyton (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: China

IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/near threatened

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild-sourced specimens from China first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild-sourced specimens from Lao PDR and Viet Nam first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 24/09/2000 and 29/10/2001, respectively. TRADE PATTERNS: Viet Nam, Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Python molurus 1975-2008. Global direct exports of P. molurus from all countries 1999-2008 consisted of a variety of terms including skins, live individuals and various manufactured leather items, mainly from captive-bred sources. According to exporter-reported figures, over the period 1999-2008, the EU- 27 imported 18% of live captive-bred individuals and 27% of captive-bred skins. No quotas have ever been published for P. molurus by China or any other country. China: Direct trade into the EU-27 of P. molurus originating in China over the period 1975-2008 consisted mainly of skins of the subspecies P. molurus bivittatus, although no skins have been imported since 1998 (Table 1). Of the 34 wild-sourced small leather products reported by China to have been exported to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2008, only one was reported by the importer (Denmark reported importing one wild-sourced small leather product in 2006). The only reported indirect trade into the EU-27 of P. molurus originating in China was the re-export by Japan of one wild-sourced small leather product to the United Kingdom in 2004. 56

Python molurus SRG 54

Direct exports from China to countries other than EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 consisted mainly of skins, carvings and various manufactured leather items of the subspecies P. molurus bivittatus, with Japan being the main importer (Table 2). The majority of trade was from wild-sourced specimens, traded for commercial or personal purposes.

Python molurus SRG 54

Table 1. Direct exports of Python molurus bivittatus from China to EU-27, 1975-2008. All units were numbers of specimens.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 1981 1995 1998 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Austria large leather products P U Importer 1 1 Exporter small leather products P U Importer Exporter 1 1 2 Denmark small leather products P W Importer 1 1 Exporter Finland small leather products P W Importer Exporter 1 1 France skins Z - Importer Exporter 280 280 small leather products P W Importer Exporter 1 2 3 T W Importer Exporter 3 3 Germany large leather products P U Importer 1 1 2 Exporter W Importer 1 1 Exporter skin pieces P U Importer 1 1 Exporter skin/leather items P W Importer Exporter 2 2 skins P W Importer 1 1 Exporter small leather products P U Importer Exporter 1 1 3 5 W Importer Exporter 11 2 13

Python molurus SRG 54

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 1981 1995 1998 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total T W Importer Exporter 2 2 Hungary small leather products P W Importer Exporter 1 1 2 Italy small leather products P W Importer Exporter 1 1 Netherlands small leather products P U Importer Exporter 1 1 W Importer Exporter 1 1

Portugal small leather products P W Importer

Exporter 1 1 Sweden small leather products P W Importer Exporter 1 1 United Kingdom small leather products P U Importer Exporter 1 1 2 W Importer Exporter 2 2 2 6 Subtotals skins W & source Importer 1 1

(main trade only) unspecified Exporter 280 280

Python molurus SRG 54

Table 2. Direct exports of Python molurus (including P. m. bivittatus) from China to countries other than EU-27, 1975-2008.

Term Units Source Reported by 1981-1989 1990-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total bodies - W Importer Exporter 24 24 - Importer Exporter 1 1 carvings - O Importer Exporter 1 1 W Importer 2867 2867 Exporter derivatives - - Importer 6 6 Exporter large leather products - U Importer 106 505 611 Exporter W Importer 51 2337 7 2395 Exporter live - C Importer Exporter 3 3 W Importer Exporter 103 1 34 2 140 - Importer 1 1 Exporter skin pieces - U Importer 2 2 Exporter W Importer 1 1 1 3 Exporter skin/leather items - C Importer Exporter 3 3 W Importer 95 95 Exporter 8307 8307 - Importer 4 4 Exporter skins m O Importer 1000 1000

Python molurus SRG 54

Term Units Source Reported by 1981-1989 1990-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Exporter - Importer Exporter 3904 3904 - W Importer 1814 1814 Exporter 3 3 - Importer 1163 1163 Exporter 2139 2139 small leather products pairs W Importer 490 490

Exporter - C Importer 450 48 2 500 Exporter 1 93 2 96 I Importer 1 1 Exporter U Importer 3 4 484 708 1199 Exporter 288 724 980 1992

W Importer 959 2812 301 2528 8132 7615 267 11 6 22631

Exporter 1478 1396 2114 4421 8662 8725 2557 6 7 29366 - Importer 1 1 Exporter 1 1 unspecified - - Importer Exporter 6 6

Subtotals skins W & source Importer 1163 1814 2977 (main terms/sources unspecified Exporter 2139 3 2142 only) small leather W & source Importer 959 2813 301 2528 8132 7615 267 11 6 22632 products unspecified Exporter 1478 1396 2115 4421 8662 8725 2557 6 7 29367

Python molurus SRG 54

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Python molurus was reported to occur in a wide variety of habitats, often associated with water (Mehrtens, 1987), in eastern Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, southern Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, southern China, Vietnam, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Cambodia, Thailand and on Java, Sumbawa and Sulawesi in Indonesia (Stimson, 1969; McDiarmid et al., 1999; Barker and Barker, 2008). The species is also listed for Malaysia by some authors (e.g. Stimson, 1969; McDiarmid et al., 1999), although others have questioned its occurrence in the country (e.g. Luxmoore et al., 1988; Barker and Barker, 2008). Two subspecies are typically recognised: P. m. molurus, which is centred on the Indian sub-continent, and listed in CITES Appendix I; and P. m. bivitattus, which mainly occurs from Bangladesh eastward, and is listed in CITES Appendix II (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1991). Groombridge and Luxmoore (1991) reported that there was no detailed published information on overall numbers, densities or trends, but that there was good evidence that populations in India and Bangladesh had “declined significantly”, “reasonable evidence for some degree of decline in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal”, and undocumented reports indicating local declines in Myanmar, Lao PDR and Thailand. WCMC et al. (1993) also noted that P. m. bivitattus was “reported to have declined in many countries, as a result of utilisation and habitat modification”. P. molurus was classified as “Lower Risk/near threatened” when it was last assessed for the IUCN Red List in 1996 (Baillie and Groombridge, 1996), although it was considered that this assessment now needs updating (IUCN, 2010). The species was reported to be widely used for food and medicinal purposes (e.g. Smith, 1943; Luxmoore et al., 1988; Klemens and Thorbjarnarson, 1995; Zhao, 1998), and to be also a popular pet (Mehrtens, 1987; Auliya, 2003). However, the primary threat was considered to be exploitation for the skin trade, which apparently existed, “often at an unsustainable level, almost throughout the range of the species” (Luxmoore et al., 1988). China: Known from southern China, where it was recorded from western and southern Yunnan and southern Guizhou, east through Guangxi, Hainan, Guangdong, Macao Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and extreme southern Jiangxi, to southern and eastern Fujian (Pope, 1935; Zhao and Adler, 1993; Zhao, 1998; Barker and Barker, 2010). The species was also reported from eastern Sichuan (e.g. Zhao and Adler, 1993), although Barker and Barker (2010) considered these two localities as “anomalous records”, which referred to escaped individuals, rather than forming part of the natural distribution. Zhao (1998) indicated that the species inhabits tropical and subtropical forest. The localities reviewed by Barker and Barker (2010) were all at elevations of 1100 m a.s.l. or lower. Pope (1935) reported that the skin of P. molurus was used in the manufacture of musical instruments and that its flesh was “an esteemed table delicacy” in China. Pope (1961) described the species as “rare, except, perhaps, on the island of Hainan”, and noted that the meat of large pythons reportedly sold for a higher price than beef in the “Canton” (now Guangzhou) snake market. Li and Li (1998) found the species during surveys of wildlife markets and shops in southern Guangxi during 1994 and 1995, as did Li and Wang (1999) during market surveys in south-eastern Yunnan during 1997. Zhao (1998) observed that the species had been “collected in an uncontrolled way by local people for a long period”, and that, more recently, its habitat had also been sharply reduced (due to construction and felling of trees), and hence it was categorised as nationally Critically Endangered. The species is apparently accorded “special State protection” (Class I) under the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife, which came into effect in 1989 (Zhao, 1998). The hunting, capture, killing, sale or purchase of wildlife under special State protection is prohibited (People‟s Republic of China, 1988).

REFERENCES: Auliya, M. 2003. Hot trade in cool creatures: a review of the live reptile trade in the European Union in the 1990s with a focus on Germany. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium. Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of threatened animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Barker, D. G. and Barker, T. M. 2008. The distribution of the Burmese python, Python molurus bivittatus. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society, 43(3): 33–38.

Python molurus SRG 54

Barker, D. G. and Barker, T. M. 2010. The distribution of the Burmese python, Python bivittatus, in China. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society, 45(5): 86–88. Groombridge, B. and Luxmoore, R. 1991. Pythons in South-East Asia: a review of distribution, status and trade in three selected species. CITES Secretariat, Lausanne, Switzerland. IUCN. 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 20 October 2010. Klemens, M. W. and Thorbjarnarson, J. B. 1995. Reptiles as a food resource. Biodiversity and Conservation, 4(3): 281–298. Li, Y. and Li, D. 1998. The dynamics of trade in live wildlife across the Guangxi border between China and Vietnam during 1993–1996 and its control strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7(7): 895– 914. Li, W. and Wang, H. 1999. Wildlife Trade in Yunnan Province, China, at the Border with Vietnam. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 18(1): 21–30. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. and Broad, S. (eds.) 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of selected species in CITES Appendix II. Volume 2: reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN and CITES Secretariat, Gland and Lausanne, Switzerland. McDiarmid, R. W., Campbell, J. A. and Touré, T. A. 1999. Snake species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Volume 1. The Herpetologists' League, Washington DC, USA. Mehrtens, J. M. 1987. Living snakes of the world in color. Sterling Publishing Co., New York, USA. People‟s Republic of China. 1988. Law of the People’s Republic of China on the protection of wildlife 1988. In: Foreign-Related Laws & Regulations of the P.R.C., Bureau of Legislature Affairs of the People‟s Republic of China. Pope, C. H. 1935. The reptiles of China. Natural History of Central Asia. Vol. X. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. Pope, C. H. 1961. The Giant Snakes. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, UK. Smith, M. A. 1943. The fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma, including the whole of the Indo-Chinese sub- region. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. III. – Serpentes. Taylor and Francis, London, UK. Stimson, A. F. 1969. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien: Boidae (Subfam. Boinae, Bolyeriinae, Loxoceminae et Pythoninae). Das Tierreich, 89: 1–49. WCMC, IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group and TRAFFIC International. 1993. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of select animal species in CITES Appendix II. Unpublished report to the CITES Animals Committee. Zhao, E. 1998. China Red Data Book of endangered animals: Amphibia and Reptilia. Science Press, Beijing, China. Zhao, E.-M. and Adler, K. 1993. Herpetology of China. Contributions to Herpetology, Number 10. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Oxford, Ohio, USA.

Python reticulatus SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

REPTILIA PYTHONIDAE

SPECIES: Python reticulatus

SYNONYMS: Boa phrygia, Boa reticulata, Boa rhombeata, Coluber javanicus, Morelia reticulatus, Python schneideri

COMMON NAMES: netpython (Dutch), Java Rock Python (English), Regal Python (English), Reticulated Python (English), Python réticulé (French), Pitón reticulada (Spanish), nätpyton (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: India, Singapore

IUCN RED LIST: Not Evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild-sourced specimens from India and Singapore first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild-sourced specimens from Bangladesh and Cambodia first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 24/09/2000. Current positive opinion for specimens from Indonesia first formed on 07/11/2000 and last confirmed on 29/02/2008. Previous negative opinion for specimens from Indonesia formed on 22/02/2000. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild-sourced specimens from Peninsular Malaysia first formed on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Peninsular Malaysia formed on 05/09/2002.

Python reticulatus SRG 54

TRADE PATTERNS: Malaysia and Indonesia were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Python reticulatus 1975- 2008. According to exporter-reported figures, the majority of global direct exports of P. reticulatus from all countries 1999-2008 consisted of skins (totalling 3 579 225 skins, of which 88% were wild- sourced), none of which were reported as exports from India or Singapore. The EU-27 imported roughly 22% of P. reticulatus skins, according to figures reported by the exporters. Indonesia and Malaysia are the only countries to have published CITES export quotas for P. reticulatus. No export quotas have ever been published for the species from India or Singapore. India: There has never been any reported direct trade of P. reticulatus from India to the EU-27. However, the Netherlands reported the confiscation/seizure of two skins from India in 1987. Indirect trade into the EU-27 of P. reticulatus originating in India consisted mainly of skins (Table 1); the only reported indirect trade since 1985 was one wild-sourced small leather product imported by Spain in 2006. Direct exports from India to countries other than EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 consisted mainly of skins imported by the United States, none of which were reported by India (Table 2). There has been no reported direct trade from India to countries other than EU-27 since 1997. Singapore: According to Singapore and its trading partners, exports of P. reticulatus to the EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 consisted mainly of scientific specimens exported to Germany (Table 3), some of which were wild-sourced. Indirect trade into the EU-27 of P. reticulatus originating in Singapore consisted mainly of skins of unspecified source (Table 4), the main importers being Spain and Italy. Direct exports of P. reticulatus from Singapore to countries other than EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 consisted mainly of skins (91% of which were wild-sourced); the majority of this trade was only reported by the importers (Table 5).

Python reticulatus SRG 54

Table 1. Indirect exports of Python reticulatus originating in India to EU-27, 1975-2008.

Exporter Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 2006 Total Singapore skins m T - Importer 1500 1500 Exporter - - Importer 1000 1000 Exporter m 2 - - Importer 1000 1000 Exporter - T - Importer 646 646 Exporter - - Importer 2705 2705 Exporter Switzerland skins - - - Importer 68 68 Exporter small leather products - T W Importer 1 1 Exporter United States of skins - T - Importer America Exporter 14 14

Table 2. Direct exports of Python reticulatus from India to countries other than EU-27, 1975-2008. All trade was to the United States of America. All units were numbers of specimens.

Term Source Purpose Reported by 1979 1980 1997 Total handbags - P Importer 1 1

Exporter

T Importer 1 1

Exporter skins W T Importer 510 510

Exporter wallets - P Importer 6 6

Exporter

Python reticulatus SRG 54

Table 3. Direct exports of Python reticulatus from Singapore to EU-27, 1975-2008.

Importer Term Units Source Purpose Reported by 1983 1985 2000 2001 2005 2007 2008 Total Germany specimens flasks F S Importer

Exporter 5 5

W S Importer

Exporter 61 61

- F S Importer 3 3

Exporter

I S Importer 30 11 41

Exporter 45 5 50

U S Importer 29 29

Exporter

W S Importer 56 56

Exporter

United Kingdom handbags - - T Importer 1 1

Exporter

shoes - - - Importer 1 1

Exporter

Python reticulatus SRG 54

Table 4. Indirect exports of Python reticulatus originating in Singapore to EU-27, 1975-2008.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1978-1989 1990 1991 2000 2002 2008 Total belts - P - Importer Exporter 2 2 T - Importer 2 2 Exporter - - Importer Exporter 456 456 garments - T W Importer 19 19 Exporter 2 2 - Importer 23 23 Exporter - - Importer Exporter 143 143 leather m - - Importer Exporter 84 84 live - T - Importer 3 3 Exporter 4 4 shoes - T W Importer Exporter 8 8 - - Importer Exporter 368 368 skin pieces m T - Importer Exporter 5 5 skin scraps kg - - Importer Exporter 1550 1550 skin/leather items m T - Importer Exporter 1 1 pairs - W Importer Exporter 48 48 - T - Importer 3 3 Exporter - W Importer

Python reticulatus SRG 54

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1978-1989 1990 1991 2000 2002 2008 Total Exporter 54 54 - Importer Exporter 2822 81 2903 skins m T - Importer 12168 12168 Exporter 963 963 - - Importer 10000 10000 Exporter - T - Importer 8469 8469 Exporter 19980 19980 - - Importer 4707 4707 Exporter 7264 7264 small leather products - T O Importer 3277 3277 Exporter W Importer 1 1 Exporter 9 9 wallets - P - Importer Exporter 1 1 - - Importer Exporter 4 4 watchstraps - - W Importer Exporter 57 57 - Importer Exporter 4721 92 4813

Python reticulatus SRG 54

Table 5. Direct exports of Python reticulatus from Singapore to countries other than EU-27, 1975-2008.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1980-1997 1999 2000 2001 2007 2008 Total garments - T - Importer 1 1 Exporter leather m T - Importer 9500 9500 Exporter live - Q - Importer Exporter 5 5 S W Importer Exporter 12 12 T O Importer 114 114 Exporter W Importer 941 941 Exporter - Importer 6 6 Exporter Z U Importer Exporter 2 2 W Importer Exporter 2 2 - Importer 1 1 Exporter 8 8 - - Importer 12 12 Exporter shoes - P - Importer 1 1 Exporter skin pieces - T - Importer 55 55 Exporter skin/leather items sets T - Importer 54 54 Exporter - P - Importer 1 1 Exporter skins - T C Importer 300 300

Python reticulatus SRG 54

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1980-1997 1999 2000 2001 2007 2008 Total Exporter W Importer 872 2106 2978 Exporter small leather products - P W Importer 2 2 Exporter T C Importer 2 2 Exporter

Subtotals live O Importer 114 114

(main terms/sources only) Exporter W & unspecified Importer 7 12 941 960 source Exporter 15 12 27 skins C Importer 300 300 Exporter W Importer 872 2106 2978 Exporter

Python reticulatus SRG 54

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Python reticulatus was reported to occur in forest, woodland, secondary growth, plantations and human settlements, often in the vicinity of water (Mehrtens, 1987; Luxmoore et al., 1988), from Bangladesh, south and east through Myanmar, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Thailand, Nicobar Islands (India), Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Indonesia (Stimson, 1969; Luxmoore et al., 1988; McDiarmid et al., 1999; Das, 2010). Luxmoore et al. (1988) observed that the species was “still reportedly common in parts of [its] range (Malaysia, Thailand, Viet Nam)”, but Groombridge and Luxmoore (1991) subsequently indicated that there was “reasonable evidence for significant decline in Bangladesh”, and noted that the species was “reported to be depleted locally over much of the remainder of the range, including Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar and the Philippines”. WCMC et al. (1993) also reported that the species was thought to be declining in many parts of its range, noting that many populations had been “adversely affected by a combination of habitat loss and collection for international trade”. P. reticulatus was reported to be widely used for food and medicinal purposes, and heavily exploited for trade in live animals and skins (Luxmoore et al., 1988), with the species reportedly providing the great majority of Asian python skins in international trade (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1991). India: Known from the Nicobar Islands (Car Nicobar, Teressa, Trinkat, Nancowry, Little Nicobar and Great Nicobar; Smith, 1943; Daniel, 1983; Luxmoore et al., 1988). Also reported from the north-eastern Indian mainland, in Arunachal Pradesh (formerly part of Assam; Daniel, 1983; Tikader, 1983; Das, 2002), although Luxmoore et al. (1988) suggested that these reports were unconfirmed. Ghosh (1994) noted that precise data on the population density of the species were not available, but that it had been “drastically depleted in recent years”, was “the most threatened species amongst Indian serpents”, and hence was categorised as nationally Endangered. According to Chandi (2006), Menchal Island, off the north-eastern coast of Little Nicobar, was reported by the local Nicobarese to have a “healthy population” of the species, although the author did not encounter the species during their visit. All Python species are totally protected under Schedule I of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (Luxmoore et al., 1988; Ghosh, 1994). Since 1989, India has banned the export for commercial purposes of all wild-taken specimens of animal species included in CITES Appendices I, II and III (CITES Secretariat, 1999). Singapore: Reportedly “still far from rare” in 1922, when several specimens were captured within the municipal limits (Sworder, 1922 in: Luxmoore et al., 1988). Five specimens of P. reticulatus were included in a collection of snakes made over the period 1960–1961, mostly in and around “Nee Soon” (now Yishun) Garrison (Harman, 1961). According to Luxmoore et al. (1988), the species was reportedly still relatively common in the mid-1980s, although no further details on distribution or abundance were available. Also reported to occur in Singapore by Cox et al. (1998) and Das (2010). The Singapore Wild Animals and Birds Act of 1965 apparently prohibits the killing, taking or keeping of any wild animal, other than those specified in the Schedule (which does not include any reptile species), without a licence (Luxmoore and Groombridge, 1990).

REFERENCES: Chandi, M. 2006. The use and knowledge of herpetofauna on Little Nicobar Island, India. Conservation and Society, 4(1): 155–165. CITES Secretariat. 1999. Notification to the Parties No. 1999/39. Document prepared by the CITES Secretariat for the CITES Parties. Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J. and Thirakhupt, K. 1998. A photographic guide to snakes and other reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland Publishers, London, UK. Daniel, J. C. 1983. The book of Indian reptiles. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, India and Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Python reticulatus SRG 54

Das, I. 2002. A photographic guide to snakes and other reptiles of India. New Holland Publishers (UK) Ltd, London, UK. Das, I. 2010. A field guide to the reptiles of South-East Asia. New Holland Publishers (UK) Ltd, London, UK. Ghosh, A. K. (ed.) 1994. The Red Data Book on Indian animals. Part 1: Vertebrata (Mammalia, Aves, Reptilia and Amphibia). Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta, India. Groombridge, B. and Luxmoore, R. 1991. Pythons in South-East Asia: a review of distribution, status and trade in three selected species. CITES Secretariat, Lausanne, Switzerland. Harman, A. J. E. 1961. A collection of snakes from Singapore. Malayan Nature Journal, 15: 181–183. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. and Broad, S. (eds.) 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of selected species in CITES Appendix II. Volume 2: reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN and CITES Secretariat, Gland and Lausanne, Switzerland. Luxmoore, R. and Groombridge, B. 1990. Asian monitor lizards: a review of distribution, status, exploitation and trade in four selected species. CITES Secretariat, Lausanne, Switzerland. McDiarmid, R. W., Campbell, J. A. and Touré, T. A. 1999. Snake species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Volume 1. The Herpetologists' League, Washington DC, USA. Mehrtens, J. M. 1987. Living snakes of the world in color. Sterling Publishing Co., New York, USA. Smith, M. A. 1943. The fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma, including the whole of the Indo-Chinese sub- region. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. III. – Serpentes. Taylor and Francis, London, UK. Stimson, A. F. 1969. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien: Boidae (Subfam. Boinae, Bolyeriinae, Loxoceminae et Pythoninae). Das Tierreich, 89: 1–49. Sworder, G. H. 1922. A list of the snakes of Singapore Island. Singapore Naturalist, 1(2): 55–73. Tikader, B. K. 1983. Threatened animals of India. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta, India. WCMC, IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group and TRAFFIC International. 1993. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of select animal species in CITES Appendix II. Unpublished report to the CITES Animals Committee.

Geochelone elegans SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

REPTILIA TESTUDINIDAE

SPECIES: Geochelone elegans

SYNONYMS: Chelonoidis elegans, Testudo actinoides, Testudo elegans, Testudo megalopus, Testudo stellata

COMMON NAMES: Gesterde schildpad (Dutch), Indian Star Tortoise (English), Star Tortoise (English), Tortue étoilée de l'Inde (French), Tortuga estrellada de la India (Spanish), Indisk stjärnsköldpadda (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: India, Myanmar (?), Pakistan, Sri Lanka

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Pakistan

IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/least concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild-sourced specimens from Pakistan first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild-sourced specimens from Bangladesh first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 10/05/2006. Previous Article 4.6(c) import suspension for live wild- sourced specimens from all range states first applied on 19/09/1999 and removed on 10/05/2006.

TRADE PATTERNS: Afghanistan was the main global direct exporter of wild-sourced Geochelone elegans 1975-2008, accounting for 85% of direct global exports during that period (5394 out of 6367 live wild-sourced individuals, according to importer-reported figures). The majority of global direct exports of G. elegans from all countries 1999-2008 consisted of live, captive-bred and captive-born individuals (totalling 18 972 and 22 262 live, source C and F individuals, according to importer and exporter-reported figures, respectively), none of which were exported from Pakistan. According to exporter-reported figures, 14% of these live, source C and F individuals were imported by EU-27 Member States, the majority of which originated in Ukraine. No quotas have ever been published for G. elegans by any country. Pakistan: Over the period 1975-2008, the only reported direct trade in G. elegans from Pakistan to the EU-27 was the import in 1998 of 450 live, wild-sourced individuals to the Czech Republic, for commercial purposes. 74

Geochelone elegans SRG 54

The only reported indirect trade into the EU-27 of G. elegans originating in Pakistan was the import of one captive-bred specimen by France in 1998. The only direct trade to countries other than the EU-27 reported by Pakistan 1975-2008 was the export of one live captive-bred individual to the United States in 1998, for personal purposes. According to importer-reported figures, the only trade from Pakistan 1975-2008 to countries other than the EU-27 was one live wild-sourced specimen imported by the United States in 1998 and one live wild-sourced specimen imported by the United States in 2003. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Geochelone elegans was reported to occur in xeric environments, including desert, grassland, scrubland, thorn scrub, dry deciduous forest and agricultural fields, from sea level up to around 450 m altitude (Das, 1991; Choudhury et al., 2000), in two disjunct areas of the Indian subcontinent: south-eastern Pakistan and north-western India; and south-eastern and southern India and Sri Lanka (Shepherd et al., 2004; Bonin et al., 2006; Fritz and Havaš, 2006). Although the species was listed for Myanmar by Zug et al. (2003), they noted that “reports may represent misidentified Geochelone platynota”. Bonin et al. (2006) suggested that records from humid localities such as Bangladesh (see Moll, 1989) were also “probably in error”. The species was classified as “Lower Risk/least concern” when it was last assessed for the IUCN Red List in 2000 (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). Although it was described as “common in its range” by Choudhury et al. (2000), they noted that the species was widely consumed within India (see also Moll, 1989 and Das, 1991), and threatened by the pet trade, and indicated that populations were declining. Similarly, Bonin et al. (2006) reported that collection for local consumption and international trade, and loss of habitat (to agriculture and urbanization), had precipitated rapid declines in certain populations. Habitat alteration and destruction was also identified as the main threat to the species in Gujarat, north-western India (Vyas, 2006). According to Auliya (2003), G. elegans was the eighth most expensive CITES-listed species observed at reptile fairs in Europe during 1998, and the twelfth most expensive in illegal. The species also remains commercially popular in Asia, with numerous individuals found during recent surveys of pet shops and markets within Malaysia (Shepherd et al., 2004), Thailand (Nijman and Shepherd, 2007; Shepherd and Nijman, 2008) and southern China (Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006; Gong et al., 2009). Schlaepfer et al. (2005) included the species on a list of those “expected to be particularly vulnerable to commercial take on the basis of their life-history characteristics, geographic distribution, and levels of US trade”. Bonin et al. (2006) suggested that “more rigorous protection measures” for the species were needed, and that “exports must cease altogether”. Pakistan: Three specimens of G. elegans were obtained near the village of Nagar Parkar, south-eastern Sindh, by Anderson and Minton (1963), who noted that it was apparently not found in the present valley of the Indus. Anderson and Minton (1963) also collected the species in Karachi, where it reportedly occurred in the suburbs “in semi-domestication in residential compounds” (Minton, 1966). No subsequent records were reported by Moll (1989). A historical record from the Hab River valley (Minton, 1966), west of the Indus, was described as “probably erroneous” by Das (1991). The species was listed for the country by Khan (2004). According to Shepherd et al. (2004), G. elegans is protected in Sindh by provincial legislation (Sind Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1972). Nevertheless, Bhupathy et al. (2000) reported that the species was collected in Pakistan for the European and Asian pet markets. It was not included in a list of the nationally threatened herpetofauna of Pakistan by Baig (2001). REFERENCES: Anderson, J. A. and Minton, S. A., Jr. 1963. Two noteworthy herpetological records from the Thar Parkar Desert, West Pakistan. Herpetologica, 19(2): 152. Asian Turtle Trade Working Group 2000. Geochelone elegans. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 20 October 2010). Auliya, M. 2003. Hot trade in cool creatures: a review of the live reptile trade in the European Union in the 1990s with a focus on Germany. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium. 75

Geochelone elegans SRG 54

Baig, K. J. 2001. Threatened herpetofauna of Pakistan. Pp. 82–90 in Bambaradeniya, C. N. B. and Samarasekara, V. N. (eds.) An overview of the threatened herpetofauna of South Asia. IUCN Sri Lanka and Asia Regional Biodiversity Programme, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Bhupathy, S., Choudhury, B. C., Hanfee, F., Kalyar, Khan, S. M. M. H., Platt, S. G. and Rashid, S. M. A. 2000. Turtle trade in South Asia: regional summary (Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar). Pp. 101–105 in van Dijk, P. P., Stuart, B. L. and Rhodin, A. G. J. (eds.) Asian turtle trade: Proceedings of a workshop on conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs, Number 2. Chelonian Research Foundation, Lunenburg, Massachusetts, USA. Bonin, F., Devaux, B. and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. A & C Black, London, UK. Cheung, S. M. and Dudgeon, D. 2006. Quantifying the Asian turtle crisis: market surveys in southern China, 2000–2003. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16: 751–770. Choudhury, B. C., Bhupathy, S. and Hanfee, F. 2000. Status information on the tortoises and freshwater turtles of India. Pp. 86–94 in van Dijk, P. P., Stuart, B. L. and Rhodin, A. G. J. (eds.) Asian turtle trade: Proceedings of a workshop on conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs, Number 2. Chelonian Research Foundation, Lunenburg, Massachusetts, USA. Das, I. 1991. Colour guide to the turtles and tortoises of the Indian subcontinent. R & A Publishing, Portishead, UK. Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2006. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Report for the CITES Nomenclature Committee and the German Agency for Nature Conservation. Gong, S.-P., Chow, A. T., Fong, J. J. and Shi, H.-T. 2009. The chelonian trade in the largest pet market in China: scale, scope and impact on turtle conservation. Oryx, 43(2): 213–216. Khan, M. S. 2004. Annotated checklist of amphibians and reptiles of Pakistan. Asiatic Herpetological Research, 10: 191–201. Minton, S. A., Jr. 1966. A contribution to the herpetology of West Pakistan. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 134(2): 27–184. Moll, E. O. 1989. Geochelone elegans Indian star tortoise. Pp. 113–114 in Swingland I. R. and Klemens M. W. (eds.) The conservation biology of tortoises. Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 5. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Nijman, V. and Shepherd, C. R. 2007. Trade in non-native, CITES-listed, wildlife in Asia, as exemplified by the trade in freshwater turtles and tortoises (Chelonidae) in Thailand. Contributions to Zoology, 76(3): 207–212. Schlaepfer, M. A., Hoover, C. and Dodd, C. K., Jr. 2005. Challenges in evaluating the impact of the trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience, 55(3): 256–264. Shepherd, C. R. and Nijman, V. 2008. Pet freshwater turtle and tortoise trade in Chatuchak Market, Bangkok, Thailand. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Shepherd, C. R., Burgess, E. A. and Loo, M. 2004. Demand driven: the trade of Indian Star Tortoises Geochelone elegans in Peninsular Malaysia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Vyas, R. 2006. The Indian Star Tortoise Geochelone elegans – status in the protected areas of Gujarat and in Indian zoos. Zoos' Print Journal, 21(4): 2220–2222. Zug, G. R., Leviton, A. E., Vindum, J. V., Wogan, G. O. U. and Koo, M. S. 2003. Checklist of the Myanmar herpetofauna from the Myanmar Herpetological Survey Project. URL: http://researcharchive. calacademy.org/research/herpetology/myanmar/checklist.html (Accessed 13 October 2010).

Geochelone platynota SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

REPTILIA TESTUDINIDAE

SPECIES: Geochelone platynota

SYNONYMS: Testudo platynota

COMMON NAMES: burmese sterlandschildpad (Dutch), Burmese Starred Tortoise (English), Flatback Tortoise (English), Tortue étoilée de Birmanie (French), Tortuga estrellada de Burma (Spanish), burmesisk stjärnsköldpadda (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Myanmar

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Myanmar

IUCN RED LIST: Critically Endangered

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild-sourced specimens from Myanmar first applied on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009.

TRADE PATTERNS: As the only confirmed range State of the species, Myanmar was the main global direct exporter of wild-sourced Geochelone platynota 1975-2008. The majority of global direct exports of G. platynota from all countries 1999-2008 consisted of live captive-bred individuals, totalling 1494 and 504 individuals, according to importer and exporter-reported figures, respectively; the main exporter being Myanmar. No export quotas have ever been published for the species from Myanmar or any other country. Myanmar has to date not submitted their 2008 Annual Report. Myanmar: The only direct trade in G. platynota from Myanmar to EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 consisted of three live wild-sourced individuals and 3 live captive-bred individuals exported to the Czech Republic in 2002 and 2005, respectively. This trade was not reported by the Czech Republic. There has never been any reported indirect trade into the EU-27 of G. platynota originating in Myanmar. Direct trade from Myanmar to countries other than EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 amounted to 133 live wild-sourced individuals and 447 live captive-bred individuals, as reported by Myanmar and 1057 live captive-bred individuals and 500 live ranched individuals, as reported by the importers (Table 1). Japan accounted for most of this trade.

Geochelone platynota SRG 54

Table 1. Direct exports of Geochelone platynota from Myanmar to countries other than EU-27, 1975- 2008. All trade was in live specimens, purpose T.

Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

C Importer 20 30 252 210 205 340 1057 Exporter 20 30 102 210 85 447 R Importer 500 500 Exporter W Importer Exporter 3 130 133

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Myanmar: Geochelone platynota was reported to be endemic to Myanmar, where its distribution apparently remains ill defined, but appears to be restricted to the scrubland, semi-open forest and deciduous forest habitats of the central dry zone (Platt et al., 2000; Win Maung and Win Ko Ko, 2002; Zug et al., 2003; Bonin et al., 2006; Fritz and Havaš, 2006). Historically, the species was reportedly “generally distributed over Upper Burma”, and occurred as far south as “Moulmein” (now Mawlamyaing) (Smith, 1931; Moll, 1989). More recently, the species was recorded from Shwesettaw Wildlife Sanctuary (Magway Division), Minzontaung Wildlife Sanctuary and Myaleik Taung - both Mandalay Division (Platt et al., 2000; Platt et al., 2003; Zug et al., 2004) and Sagaing Division (Win Maung and Win Ko Ko, 2002). The species was reportedly common in the Pegu region during the 1860s (Groombridge, 1982), but recent surveys suggested that populations had declined drastically (Platt et al., 2000), and since 1996 the species has been classified as Critically Endangered in the IUCN Red List (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). Following a survey of Shwesettaw Wildlife Sanctuary, Platt et al. (2001) suggested that the species had been driven to near-extinction locally by subsistence and commercial harvesting, but at least 10 and 28 individuals were recorded during subsequent surveys at Minzontaung Wildlife Sanctuary and Myaleik Taung respectively (Platt et al., 2003). Small captive populations were reported from Shwesettaw, Minzontaung and Lawka Nanda Wildlife Park (Zug et al., 2004). Although historical reports suggested that G. platynota has probably always been captured opportunistically for food (Groombridge, 1982; Moll, 1989), exploitation was reported to have accelerated recently as a consequence of commercial demands, with habitat destruction and fragmentation further exacerbating demographic problems (Platt et al., 2000). Significant numbers were reported to be exported illegally to international food, medicinal and pet markets (Platt et al., 2003), particularly in southern China (e.g. Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006), with between 100 and 500 individuals found during visits in 2006–2008 to Yuehe Pet Market in Guangzhou (Guangdong province) (Gong et al. 2009). The species was reported to be protected under the 1994 Myanmar Wildlife Law (Win Maung and Win Ko Ko, 2002), and although all wildlife is supposedly protected in national parks and wildlife sanctuaries (e.g. Shwesettaw), in practice, anti-poaching enforcement was reported to be minimal (Platt et al., 2000). However, Platt et al. (2003) indicated that in some parts of rural Myanmar (notably Myaleik Taung), tortoises were conferred protection by local religious beliefs.

REFERENCES: Asian Turtle Trade Working Group 2000. Geochelone platynota. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 20 October 2010). Bonin, F., Devaux, B. and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. A & C Black, London, UK. Cheung, S. M. and Dudgeon, D. 2006. Quantifying the Asian turtle crisis: market surveys in southern China, 2000–2003. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16: 751–770. 78

Geochelone platynota SRG 54

Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2006. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Report for the CITES Nomenclature Committee and the German Agency for Nature Conservation. Gong, S.-P., Chow, A. T., Fong, J. J. and Shi, H.-T. 2009. The chelonian trade in the largest pet market in China: scale, scope and impact on turtle conservation. Oryx, 43(2): 213–216. Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-Reptilia Red Data Book. Part 1: Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Moll, E. O. 1989. Geochelone platynota Burmese star tortoise. P. 115 in Swingland I. R. and Klemens M. W. (eds.) The conservation biology of tortoises. Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) No. 5. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Platt, S. G., Win Ko Ko, Lay Lay Khaing, Khin Myo Myo, Thanda Swe, Tint Lwin and Rainwater, T. R. 2003. Population status and conservation of the Critically Endangered Burmese star tortoise Geochelone platynota in central Myanmar. Oryx, 37(3): 464–471. Platt, S. G., Saw Tun Khaing, Win Ko Ko and Kalyar. 2001. A tortoise survey of Shwe Settaw Wildlife Sanctuary, Myanmar, with notes on the ecology of Geochelone platynota and Indotestudo elongata. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 4: 172–177. Platt, S. G., Kalyar and Win Ko Ko. 2000. Exploitation and conservation status of tortoises and freshwater turtles in Myanmar. Pp. 95–100 in van Dijk, P. P., Stuart, B. L. and Rhodin, A. G. J. (eds.) Asian turtle trade: Proceedings of a workshop on conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs, Number 2. Chelonian Research Foundation, Lunenburg, Massachusetts, USA. Smith, M. A. 1931. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. I. – Loricata, Testudines. Taylor and Francis, London, UK. Win Maung and Win Ko Ko. 2002. Turtles and tortoises of Myanmar. Wildlife Conservation Society, Yangon, Myanmar. Zug, G. R., Leviton, A. E., Vindum, J. V., Wogan, G. O. U. and Koo, M. S. 2003. Checklist of the Myanmar herpetofauna from the Myanmar Herpetological Survey Project. URL: http://researcharchive. calacademy.org/research/herpetology/myanmar/checklist.html (Accessed 13 October 2010). Zug, G. R., Sai Wunna Kyi and Htun Win. 2004. Turtles in Shwesettaw Wildlife Sanctuary, Myanmar. Turtle and Tortoise Newsletter, 8: 4.

Indotestudo elongata SRG 54

REVIEW OF ASIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

REPTILIA TESTUDINIDAE

SPECIES: Indotestudo elongata

SYNONYMS: Geochelone elongata, Testudo elongata, Testudo parallelus

COMMON NAMES: Geelkoplandschildpad (Dutch), Elongated Tortoise (English), Pineapple Tortoise (English), Red-nosed Tortoise (English), Yellow Tortoise (English), Yellow-headed Tortoise (English), Tortue à tête jaune (French), Nordlig gulhuvad landsköldpadda (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Viet Nam

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Bangladesh, China, India

IUCN RED LIST: Endangered

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Bangladesh and India first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from China first applied on 24/09/2000 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from China formed on 27/01/1999. Previous positive opinion for wild specimens from Malaysia first formed on 14/04/1998, last confirmed on 12/03/2009 and removed on 11/09/2009. TRADE PATTERNS: Malaysia, China and Lao PDR were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Indotestudo elongata 1975-2008. The only country which has ever published CITES export quotas for I. elongata was Malaysia, which has published quotas for live, wild-sourced specimens since 1998. According to exporter-reported figures, the majority of global direct exports of I. elongata from all countries 1999-2008 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals (totalling 3877 individuals, none of which were exported from Bangladesh or India), of which 2170 were imported by EU Member States. Bangladesh: There has never been any reported direct or indirect trade into the EU-27 of I. elongata originating in Bangladesh. Direct exports from Bangladesh to countries other than EU-27 1975-2008 consisted of 1080 tonnes of live specimens as reported by Bangladesh, with China and Hong Kong SAR being the main importers. In all cases the source of the specimens was unspecified (Table 1). 80

Indotestudo elongata SRG 54

China: According to China and its trading partners, respectively, a total of 2434 and 2614 live I. elongata were imported to the EU-27 over the period 1975-2008 (Table 2), of which 1634 and 2385, respectively, were wild-sourced. There has been no reported trade of I. elongata of any source from China to the EU-27 since 1998. There has never been any reported indirect trade into the EU-27 of I. elongata originating in China. Direct exports from China to countries other than EU-27 1975-2008 included 685 and 1497 live specimens as reported by the importers and by China respectively, with Japan being the main importer (Table 3). There have been no reported direct exports from China to countries other than EU-27 since 2004. India: There has never been any reported direct or indirect trade into the EU-27 of I. elongata originating in India, nor has there been any reported direct trade of I. elongata originating in India to countries other than EU-27. However, in 1995, Spain reported the seizure/confiscation of one carving of unknown origin exported from India. Table 1. Direct exports of Indotestudo elongata from Bangladesh to countries other than EU-27, 1975- 2008.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1991 1992 1993 Total live kg T - Importer Exporter 79338 280000 721010 1080348

Table 2. Direct exports of Indotestudo elongata from China to EU-27, 1975-2008. All trade was in live specimens.

Importer Purpose Source Reported by 1996 1997 1998 Total Belgium T C Importer Exporter 500 500 W Importer 500 500 Exporter Denmark T W Importer Exporter 250 250 France T C Importer Exporter 300 300 W Importer 300 400 700 Exporter 344 550 894 - C Importer 30 30 Exporter W Importer 1100 1100 Exporter Netherlands T C Importer 99 99 Exporter W Importer Exporter 20 100 120 Spain T C Importer 100 100 Exporter W Importer 50 35 85 Exporter 150 70 220 United Kingdom T W Importer Exporter 150 150 Subtotals C Importer 130 99 229 Exporter 500 300 800 W Importer 1150 835 400 2385 Exporter 744 240 650 1634

Indotestudo elongata SRG 54

Table 3. Direct exports of Indotestudo elongata from China to countries other than EU-27, 1975-2008. All units were numbers of specimens.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 1986 1995 1996 1997 1999 2001 2004 Total Hong Kong, SAR live T - Importer 79 79 Exporter 200 200 Japan live T C Importer Exporter 38 38 W Importer 200 300 50 550 Exporter 300 350 200 400 1250 Switzerland live T W Importer 50 50 Exporter United States derivatives T W Importer 381 381 Exporter live P W Importer 4 4 Exporter S W Importer Exporter 4 4 Z C Importer Exporter 5 5 - - Importer 2 2 Exporter Subtotals live C Importer (main trade only) Exporter 38 5 43 W & source Importer 81 250 300 50 4 685 unspecified Exporter 200 300 350 200 400 4 1454

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Indotestudo elongata was reported to be widely distributed in deciduous and evergreen forest, in humid and moderately dry areas (Das, 1991; Bonin et al., 2006; Das, 2010), from northern India, east through Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and southern China, and south through Viet Nam, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Cambodia, Thailand to northern peninsular Malaysia (King and Burke, 1989; Iverson, 1992; Fritz and Havaš, 2006). The species was described as “reportedly common in southeast Asia, where it may be the most common land tortoise species” by Das (1991), but was categorised as Vulnerable in the 1996 IUCN Red List (Baillie and Groombridge, 1996), and subsequently uplisted to Endangered (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000), on the basis of population declines. Bonin et al. (2006) noted that the species‟ range contained dense human populations, and that its forest habitats were being cut and burnt, concluding that its populations were probably “in fast decline”. Moll (1989) suggested that the main threats to the species were “loss of habitat and exploitation for food, drugs, and the pet trade”, adding that it was reportedly exported from Thailand to Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for the manufacture of “gui ban”, a popular Chinese medicine. Bonin et al. (2006) noted that it was “consumed by various ethnic groups in China, Burma, Thailand and Cambodia”, and “collected in large numbers” in Viet Nam for resale in China. Schlaepfer et al. (2005) included I. elongata on a list of species “expected to be particularly vulnerable to commercial take on the basis of their life- history characteristics, geographic distribution, and levels of US trade”. Bangladesh: Described by Khan (1982) as “not rare” in forested areas of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, south-eastern Bangladesh, where it was reported from Pablakhali, Nainimukh and Ramu (Das, 1991). The species was also found in Moulvi Bazar, Sylhet Division, north-eastern Bangladesh, where it was reportedly “uncommon” in West Bhanugach Reserve Forest and also present at Patrokhola (Das, 1990).

Indotestudo elongata SRG 54

Rashid and Khan (2000) listed the species as “uncommon” in Bangladesh, and noted that populations had “declined tremendously due to exploitation, habitat loss, and fragmentation of forested areas”. Bhupathy et al. (2000) suggested that the steady decline in numbers observed in markets, and the smaller size classes increasingly appearing in trade, probably indicated that populations were “being subjected to unsustainable levels of harvest”. Khan et al. (2001) indicated that I. elongata was being “severely exploited (over hunted)” by communities in the hill forests, and noted that the species had been listed as Critically Endangered in the Red List of threatened animals of Bangladesh. The species is listed (as “Testudo elongata”) on the Third Schedule of the Bangladesh Wild Life (Preservation) Order, 1973, and thus formally protected from hunting, killing and capture (Government of Bangladesh, 1973). China: Reported from Guangxi (including near Nanning), southern China (Pope, 1935; Moll, 1989; Zhao and Adler, 1993). Pope (1935) suggested that the species could also be expected to occur in southern Yunnan, and Zhao (1998) listed this province as part of its range, but Lau and Shi (2000) suggested that records from Yunnan were “based on market animals that may have originated from neighbouring countries such as Myanmar”. In China, the species reportedly inhabits dry areas of tropical and subtropical mountains and hills (Zhao, 1998). According to Zhao (1998), the species had become “very rare in the wild”, as a consequence of overcollecting and destruction of habitat, and was categorised as nationally Endangered. Lau and Shi (2000) also indicated that the species was “believed to have declined drastically”, and that although the principal cause was over-exploitation for the food trade, deforestation also posed a threat. Cheung and Dudgeon (2006) found I. elongata to be among the five most frequently-occurring turtle species in the food and pet trades in Shenzhen and Guangzhou respectively (Guangdong province) during market surveys in 2000–2003, and Gong et al. (2009) found between 500 and 1000 individuals of the species during visits to Yuehe Pet Market in Guangzhou in 2006–2008. According to Meng et al. (2002), in June 2000, the CITES Management Authority of China implemented a notice prohibiting the export and re-export of all species of (non-farmed) “turtles”, but it is not clear whether this included terrestrial tortoises, such as I. elongata. India: Known from northern and eastern India, where it has been documented for Uttarakhand (formerly part of Uttar Pradesh; Corbett National Park and Rajiji National Park), Jharkhand (formerly part of Bihar; West Singhbhum district), Orissa (including Mayurbhanj and Puri districts), West Bengal (Jalpaiguri district), Meghalaya (Garo Hills) and Mizoram (Ngengpui Wildlife Sanctuary; Biswas et al., 1978; Ross and Crumly, 1982; Das, 1985; Moll, 1989; Das, 1991; Choudhury et al., 2000). The species is reportedly associated with sal Shorea robusta (and teak, Tectona grandis) forest (Biswas et al., 1978; Das, 1985; Moll, 1989), although it was also reported to occur in bamboo forest in Mizoram (Choudhury et al., 2000). Smith (1931) described I. elongata as “rare in the northern part of its range” (i.e. including India), and Biswas et al. (1978) noted that the species was “becoming rare with the restriction of sal forest”. Das (1991) reported that surveys in northern India indicated that the species was rare and “presumably under pressure from humans as a result of habitat degradation and hunting for flesh”. Bhupathy et al. (2000) described the species as “uncommon” in India, whereas Choudhury et al. (2000) noted that it was “reported as rare” in northern and north-eastern India, and suggested that its population was “possibly declining”. Choudhury et al. (2000) considered the species to be threatened by habitat degradation and local consumption (particularly in north-eastern India), and to have undergone a “drastic decline in populations locally”.

All “tortoise” (Testudinidae) species are protected under Schedule IV of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which prohibits hunting of the species without a permit (Das, 1985; Moll, 1989). The species was also reported to occur in various protected areas (Choudhury et al., 2000). Since 1989, India has banned the export for commercial purposes of all wild-taken specimens of animal species included in CITES Appendices I, II and III (CITES Secretariat, 1999).

Indotestudo elongata SRG 54

REFERENCES: Government of Bangladesh. 1973. Bangladesh Wild Life (Preservation) Order, 1973. The Bangladesh Gazette (Extraordinary), 28 March 1973: 3723–3763. URL: http://faolex.fao.org/ (Accessed 20 October 2010). CITES Secretariat. 1999. Notification to the Parties No. 1999/39. Document prepared by the CITES Secretariat for the CITES Parties. Asian Turtle Trade Working Group 2000. Indotestudo elongata. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed 20 October 2010). Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of threatened animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Bhupathy, S., Choudhury, B. C., Hanfee, F., Kalyar, Khan, S. M. M. H., Platt, S. G. and Rashid, S. M. A. 2000. Turtle trade in South Asia: regional summary (Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar). Pp. 101–105. In: van Dijk, P. P., Stuart, B. L. and Rhodin, A. G. J. (eds.) Asian turtle trade: Proceedings of a workshop on conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs, Number 2. Chelonian Research Foundation, Lunenburg, Massachusetts, USA. Biswas, S., Acharjyo, L. N. and Mohapatra, S. 1978. Notes on distribution, sexual dimorphism and growth in captivity of Geochelone elongata (Blyth). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 75(3): 928–930. Bonin, F., Devaux, B. and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. A & C Black, London, UK. Cheung, S. M. and Dudgeon, D. 2006. Quantifying the Asian turtle crisis: market surveys in southern China, 2000–2003. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16: 751–770. Choudhury, B. C., Bhupathy, S. and Hanfee, F. 2000. Status information on the tortoises and freshwater turtles of India. Pp. 86–94 in van Dijk, P. P., Stuart, B. L. and Rhodin, A. G. J. (eds.) Asian turtle trade: Proceedings of a workshop on conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs, Number 2. Chelonian Research Foundation, Lunenburg, Massachusetts, USA. Das, I. 1985. Indian turtles: a field guide. World Wildlife Fund–India (Eastern Region), Calcutta, India. Das, I. 1990. Notes on the land tortoises of Bangladesh. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 87(1): 155–156. Das, I. 1991. Colour guide to the turtles and tortoises of the Indian subcontinent. R & A Publishing, Portishead, UK. Das, I. 2010. A field guide to the reptiles of South-East Asia. New Holland Publishers (UK) Ltd, London, UK. Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2006. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Report for the CITES Nomenclature Committee and the German Agency for Nature Conservation. Gong, S.-P., Chow, A. T., Fong, J. J. and Shi, H.-T. 2009. The chelonian trade in the largest pet market in China: scale, scope and impact on turtle conservation. Oryx, 43(2): 213–216. Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Privately printed, Richmond, Indiana, USA. Khan, M. A. R. 1982. Chelonians of Bangladesh and their conservation. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 79(1): 110–116. Khan, M. A., Khan, M. H. and Chowdhury, M. M. 2001. Threatened herpetofauna of Bangladesh. Pp. 48–58. In: Bambaradeniya, C. N. B. and Samarasekara, V. N. (eds.) An overview of the threatened herpetofauna of South Asia. IUCN Sri Lanka and Asia Regional Biodiversity Programme, Colombo, Sri Lanka. King, F. W. and Burke, R. L. (eds.) 1989. Crocodilian, tuatara, and turtle species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Association of Systematics Collections, Washington DC, USA. Lau, M. and Shi, H. 2000. Conservation and trade of terrestrial and freshwater turtles and tortoises in the People's Republic of China. Pp. 30–38. In: van Dijk, P. P., Stuart, B. L. and Rhodin, A. G. J. (eds.) Asian turtle trade: Proceedings of a workshop on conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs, Number 2. Chelonian Research Foundation, Lunenburg, Massachusetts, USA. Meng, X., Zhou, Z. and Stuart, B. L. 2002. Recent actions by the People's Republic of China to better control international trade of turtles. Turtle and Tortoise Newsletter, 5: 15–16. Moll, E. O. 1989. Indotestudo elongata Elongated tortoise. Pp. 116–117. In: Swingland I. R. and Klemens M. W. (eds.) The conservation biology of tortoises. Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), No. 5. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 84

Indotestudo elongata SRG 54

Pope, C. H. 1935. The reptiles of China. Natural History of Central Asia. Vol. X. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. Rashid, S. M. A. and Khan, S. M. M. H. 2000. Trade and conservation status of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Bangladesh. Pp. 77–85 in van Dijk, P. P., Stuart, B. L. and Rhodin, A. G. J. (eds.) Asian turtle trade: Proceedings of a workshop on conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs, Number 2. Chelonian Research Foundation, Lunenburg, Massachusetts, USA. Ross, C. A. and Crumly, C. R. 1982. A range extension of Geochelone elongata. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 79(2): 429–430. Schlaepfer, M. A., Hoover, C. and Dodd, C. K., Jr. 2005. Challenges in evaluating the impact of the trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience, 55(3): 256–264. Smith, M. A. 1931. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. I. – Loricata, Testudines. Taylor and Francis, London, UK. Zhao, E. 1998. China Red Data Book of endangered animals: Amphibia and Reptilia. Science Press, Beijing, China. Zhao, E.-M. and Adler, K. 1993. Herpetology of China. Contributions to Herpetology, No. 10. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Oxford, Ohio, USA.

ANNEXES SRG 54

ANNEX I. Full version of large trade tables

Table 4. Direct exports of Moschus moschiferus from Russian Federation to EU-27, 1979-2008. (Musk reported in grams was converted to kilograms) Importer Term Units Purpose Source Values 1993-1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 Total Czech Republic trophies - H W Importer 1 1

Exporter

Finland musk kg T W Importer

Exporter 0.04 0.04

France bodies - H W Importer 1 1

Exporter

P W Importer

Exporter 1 1

live - S C Importer 5 5

Exporter 5 5

skulls - P W Importer

Exporter 1 1

trophies - H W Importer 2 2

Exporter 1 1

Germany carvings - - O Importer

Exporter 6 6

derivatives g T C Importer 15 15

Exporter

extract g T C Importer 20 20

Exporter

live - T F Importer

Exporter 3 2 5

- Importer

Exporter 3 3

Z F Importer 3 2 5

Exporter

musk kg E W Importer

Exporter 0.07 0.07

ANNEXES SRG 54

Importer Term Units Purpose Source Values 1993-1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 Total T C Importer 0.02 0.02 Exporter 0.02 0.02

W Importer 10 10

Exporter 68.04 68.04 - Importer 10 10

Exporter

small leather products - Q O Importer Exporter

specimens g S - Importer 8000 8000

Exporter teeth - E O Importer 1 1

Exporter

Q O Importer Exporter 1 1

trophies - H W Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1 2 Italy bodies - P W Importer

Exporter 1 1

skins - Q O Importer Exporter 1 1

trophies - H W Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1 2 N etherlands live - S C Importer

Exporter 3 3

T C Importer Exporter 3 3

- Importer

Exporter 4 4 Z C Importer 4 4

Exporter

Poland live - T C Importer 87

ANNEXES SRG 54

Importer Term Units Purpose Source Values 1993-1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 Total Exporter 3 3 F Importer

Exporter 7 7

Z C Importer 3 3 Exporter

F Importer 1 1

Exporter - C Importer 6 6

Exporter

Spain teeth - - O Importer Exporter 15 15

ANNEXES SRG 54

ANNEX II. Purpose and Source Codes

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

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