Review of Selected Species Subject to Long- Standing Import Suspensions

Home , Gold dust day gecko, Manambondro, Pachypodium rosulatum, Phelsuma dubia, Phelsuma grandis, Uromastyx dispar

UNEP-WCMC technical report

Review of selected species subject to long- standing import suspensions

Part I: Africa

(Version edited for public release)

Review of selected species subject to long-standing import 2 suspensions. Part I: Africa

Prepared for The European Commission, Directorate General Environment, Directorate E - Global & Regional Challenges, LIFE ENV.E.2. – Global Sustainability, Trade & Multilateral Agreements, Brussels, Belgium

Prepared August 2015

Citation UNEP-WCMC. 2015. Review of selected species subject to long-standing import suspensions. Part I: Africa. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment of the United Nations Environment Programme, the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, combining scientific research with policy advice and the development of decision tools.

We are able to provide objective, scientifically rigorous products and services to help decision- makers recognize the value of biodiversity and apply this knowledge to all that they do. To do this, we collate and verify data on biodiversity and ecosystem services that we analyze and interpret in comprehensive assessments, making the results available in appropriate forms for national and international level decision-makers and businesses. To ensure that our work is both sustainable and equitable we seek to build the capacity of partners where needed, so that they can provide the same services at national and regional scales.

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP, contributory organisations or editors. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, the European Commission or contributory organisations, editors or publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of a commercial entity or product in this publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP.

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 219 Huntingdon Road, UNEP promotes Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK environmentally sound Tel: +44 1223 277314 practices globally and in its www.unep-wcmc.org own activities. Printing on paper from environmentally sustainable forests and recycled fibre is encouraged.

Contents

Introduction and summary ...... 4 Cercopithecus mona ...... 5 Perodicticus potto ...... 7 Trigonoceps occipitalis...... 10 Poicephalus gulielmi ...... 13 Poicephalus robustus ...... 17 Psittacus erithacus ...... 22 Psittacus erithacus timneh ...... 29 Uromastyx dispar ...... 33 Trioceros eisentrauti ...... 35 Phelsuma dubia...... 37 Phelsuma laticauda ...... 40 Overview of status and management of Uroplatus spp. in Madagascar ...... 43 Uroplatus ebenaui ...... 47 Uroplatus fimbriatus ...... 50 Uroplatus guentheri ...... 52 Uroplatus henkeli ...... 54 Uroplatus lineatus ...... 56 Uroplatus malama ...... 58 Uroplatus phantasticus ...... 60 Uroplatus pietschmanni ...... 62 Uroplatus sameiti ...... 64 Uroplatus sikorae ...... 66 Python natalensis ...... 71 Python sebae ...... 74 Stigmochelys pardalis ...... 78 Mantella bernhardi ...... 83 Mantella crocea ...... 86 Mantella expectata ...... 89 Mantella milotympanum ...... 92 Mantella viridis ...... 95 Euphorbia guillauminiana ...... 98 Pachypodium inopinatum ...... 100 Pachypodium rosulatum ...... 102 Pachypodium sofiense ...... 105 Appendix ...... 107

4 Introduction and summary

This document provides reviews of 33 species/country combinations of African species, which are currently subject to long-standing Article 4.6(b) import suspensions to inform discussions as to whether these trade restrictions may still be warranted.

This document also includes reviews of a number of Uroplatus species from Madagascar, which have been subject to EU import suspensions formed after 2005, but which were removed from the CITES Review of Significant Trade in 2014:  Uroplatus ebenaui  Uroplatus fimbriatus  Uroplatus guentheri  Uroplatus henkeli  Uroplatus lineatus  Uroplatus malama  Uroplatus phantasticus  Uroplatus pietschmanni  Uroplatus sameiti  Uroplatus sikorae

Trade data were downloaded on 17/07/2015 and the full dataset is available here: https://db.tt/fzf6P7Lb (direct trade) and https://db.tt/d2jGCZIK (indirect trade).

PRIMATES: CERCOPITHECIDAE 5

Cercopithecus mona II/B

COMMON NAMES: Mona Monkey (EN), Cercopithèque mone (FR)

RANGE STATES: Benin, Cameroon, Ghana, Grenada (introduced), Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis (introduced), Sāo Tomé and Príncipe (introduced), Togo

UNDER REVIEW: Togo

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Togo first applied on 08/04/2003 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

IUCN: Least Concern

Trade patterns There was no reported direct or indirect trade in Cercopithecus mona from Togo to the EU-28 or the rest of the world over the period 2004-2013. Togo has yet submitted an annual report for 2006 or 2013. Conservation status Cercopithecus mona was reported to be native to southeast Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, and northwest Cameroon and to have been introduced to Sāo Tomé and Príncipe, as well as the Caribbean islands of Grenada and St. Kitts and Nevis (Mittermeier et al., 2013).

The species was reported to occur in groups of up to 12 animals and inhabit lowland forests and mangroves, and all other except the most degraded habitats (Oates et al., 2008). The habitat of C. mona, however, was reported to be highly fragmented and degraded across its distribution (Mittermeier et al., 2013).

C. mona was categorised as Least Concern by the IUCN in 2008, on the basis that it was widespread, relatively common and adaptable to degraded habitats and was therefore not thought be declining at a rate that would warrant listing as a threatened species (Oates et al., 2008). The population trend was reported to be unknown (Oates et al., 2008).

The species was reported to be abundant close to rivers and gallery forest (Oates et al., 2008) and Mittermeier et al. (2013) reported that it was especially numerous where hunting pressure is light, such as in the northern part of its distribution. C. mona was reported to be common in Lama Forest, Central Benin (Matsuda Goodwin, 2007, in Butynski et al., 2013) as well as on islands where is has been introduced (Butynski et al., 2013). While formerly also common in Ghana, it was more recently noted to have become uncommon due overhunting (Butynski et al., 2013). Some populations were also reported to be locally reduced or eliminated from parts of Nigeria and Cameroon due to hunting (Butynski et al., 2013). However, the species’ adaptability to secondary habitat was thought to allow it to persist as the only forest monkey present in areas with little remaining forest (Mittermeier et al., 2013).

Threats to C. mona were considered to be large-scale habitat loss and hunting for meat (Oates et al., 2008). It was reported to be hunted as an agricultural pest (Mittermeier et al., 2013) and in

Benin, it was commonly sold for medicinal purposes (Djagoun et al., 2013). Humans were reported 6 to be the primary predator throughout the range (Butynski et al., 2013). Togo: C. mona was reported to occur in Fazao-Malfakassa National Park (Mittermeier et al., 2013), Forest Reserve of Togodo, Fontan Forest, Togoville sacred forest (Houngbédji et al., 2012), Amakpavé Forest Reserve (Campbell et al., 2007) and a number of other sites throughout southern Togo (Campbell et al., 2007). C. mona was found occupy a range of habitat types (Campbell et al., 2007).

In a survey of diurnal primates that covered 16 sites in southern Togo between 2003 and 2005, C. mona was reported from 12 sites by hunters and park rangers and was seen and heard at two of these sites (Campbell et al., 2007). On this basis, C. mona was believed to be generally common in Togo but become rarer towards the north (Campbell et al., 2007). In sacred forests in southern Togo, the species was reported to be very common (Kokou et al., 2005).

This species is listed in Annex II of Ordonnance n 4 (Togo, 1968), which includes ‘predatory’ animals – their killing in agricultural residential areas is usually permitted, in line with the customary hunting rights and in defence of crops or livestock, while in other areas their hunting is regulated. References Butynski, T.M., Kingdon, J. and Kalina, J. 2013. Mammals of Africa: Vol. II Primates. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, UK. Campbell, G., Teichroeb, J. and Paterson, J.D. 2007. Distribution of diurnal primate species in Togo and Bénin. Folia Primatologica, 79(1): 15–30. Djagoun, C.A.M.S., Akpona, H.A., Mensah, G.A., Nuttman, C. and Sinsin, B. 2013. Wild mammals trade for zootherapeutic and mythic purposes in Benin (West Africa): capitalizing species involved, provision sources, and implications or conservation. In: Alves, R.R.N. and Rosa, I.L. (Eds.). Animals in Traditional Folk Medicine. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 367– 381. Houngbédji, M.G., Djossa, B.A., Adomou, A.C., Dakpogan, S.C. and Sinsin, B. 2012. Conservation Status of the Red-bellied Guenon (Cercopithecus erythrogaster erythrogaster) in the Western Dahomey Gap in Southwestern Benin and the Adjacent Togodo Forest Reserve, South Togo. African Primates, 7(2): 184–192. Kokou, K., Adjossou, K. and Hamberger, K. 2005. Les forêts sacrées de l’aire Ouatchi au sud-est du Togo et les contraintes actuelles des modes de gestion locale des ressources forestières. Vertigo, 6(3). Matsuda Goodwin, R. 2007. Behavior and ecology of the mona monkey in the seasonally dry Lama Forest, Republic of Benin. University of New York City. Mittermeier, R.A., Rylands, A.B. and Wilson, D.E. 2013. Handbook of the mammals of the world. Vol. 3 Primates. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Oates, J., Gippoliti, S. and Groves, C. 2008. Cercopithecus mona. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 24/04/2015]. Togo 1968. Ordonnance n 4 du 16 janvier 1968 réglementant la protection de la faune et l'exercice de la chasse au Togo.

PRIMATES: LORISIDAE 7

Perodicticus potto II/B

COMMON NAMES: Potto Gibbon (EN), Potto (FR), Poto de Bosman (ES)

RANGE STATES: Angola (distribution uncertain), Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia (distribution uncertain), Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau (distribution uncertain), Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Togo, Uganda

UNDER REVIEW: Togo

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Togo first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed on 08/04/2003.

Current no opinion for wild specimens from Angola formed on 27/01/1999. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Angola first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/11/1998.

Current no opinion for wild specimens from Liberia formed on 27/01/1999. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Angola first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/11/1998.

Current no opinion for wild specimens from Nigeria formed on 27/01/1999. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Angola first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/11/1998.

IUCN: Least Concern

Taxonomic Note Three subspecies, Perodicticus potto potto, P. p. edwardsi, and P. p. ibeanus, were recognised by Grubb et al. (2003), who acknowledged that further study may show several valid species. Based on mtDNA data, these three subspecies were confirmed to warrant recognition as distinct species, (Roos et al., 2004 in Mittermeier et al., 2013). The subspecies P. p. stockleyi was described from only one specimen on Mt. Kenya (Butynski and De Jong, 2007) and may be extinct (Mittermeier et al., 2013). Trade patterns Togo published annual export quotas for live Perodicticus potto every year 2004-2015. Trade appears to have been within quota in all years (Table 1). Togo has not yet submitted CITES annual reports for 2006 and 2013.

Direct exports of P. potto to the EU-28 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes, reported by Togo in 2004 and 2009 (Table 2). Direct exports to countries other than the EU-28 comprised six wild-sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes in 2010. (Table 2).

No indirect trade in P. potto from Togo to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2008 and 2011-2013.

Table 1: CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Perodicticus potto from 8 Togo 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013.

Years 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 Quota (wild-taken) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Reported by Importers n/a n/a Reported by Exporter 4 6 6 n/a n/a Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Table 2: Direct exports of Perodicticus potto from Togo to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) in 2004, 2009 and 2010. All trade was in live, wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes. No data was reported for 2005-2008 and 2011-2013.

Importer Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 Importer Exporter 4 6 RoW Importer Exporter 6 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Perodicticus potto is a nocturnal (Bearder, 1999) and arboreal lorisid (Butynski and De Jong, 2007; Butynski et al., 2013; Mittermeier et al., 2013). It was reported to range from Sierra Leone and south-eastern Guinea to south-western Kenya, at elevations from 600 to 2300 m above sea level (Oates et al., 2008). Mittermeier et al. (2013) reported the species’ occurrence in southeast Senegal, southeast Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, and Ghana; its presence in Gambia and Guinea Bissau was considered not yet confirmed. The occurrence of distinct subspecies were reported by Mittermeier et al. (2013) as follows: P. p. potto: from southeast Ghana through south Togo and south Benin to southwest Nigeria; P. p. edwardsi: south Nigeria east through Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and Republic of Congo, and south of the Congo River through Democratic Republic of the Congo east to Irneti and south to north Angola; and P. p. ibeanus: eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo east to northwest Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, and southwest Kenya. P. p. stockleyi is known from only one specimen from Mt Kenya (Butynski et al., 2013), may be extinct (Mittermeier et al., 2013).

The species inhabits lowland and montane tropical forests, swamp forest, and other lowland forest types (Oates et al., 2008). It was reported from primary forests, but was found to be most common in secondary and colonising forests, and along forest margins (Butynski et al., 2013; Oates et al., 2008).

The species was reported to occur in a number of protected areas throughout its range (Oates et al., 2008) including the national parks of Bia, Kakum, and Kyabobo in Ghana, Tai National Park and Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve in the Côte d’Ivoire, Sapo National Park in Liberia, Okomu National Park in Nigeria, Tiwai Island Wildlife Sanctuary in Sierra Leone, and Niokolo Koba National Park in Senegal (P. p. potto); in protected areas in Cameroon, the Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and Nigeria (P. p. edwardsi); and in protected areas in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda (P. p. ibeanus) (Mittermeier et al., 2013).

Females of P. p. potto were reported to have one, or occasionally two, offspring a year (Mittermeier et al., 2013). The species was reported to survive for 26 years in captivity and at least nine years in the wild (Mittermeier et al., 2013).

P. potto was categorised as Least Concern by the IUCN, as it was considered to be widespread and common (Oates et al., 2008). P. p. edwardsi and P. p. ibeanus were also categorised as Least 9 Concern, as these subspecies too were considered widespread and common, while P. p. stockleyi was listed as Data Deficient (Oates et al., 2008). The species was reported to have a stable population trend globally (Oates et al., 2008) and was considered to be widespread and common (Oates et al., 2008; Mittermeier et al., 2013).

The species was reported at densities ranging from 8-10 individuals/km2 at Makokou in northeast Gabon to 4.7 individuals/km2 in secondary forest and farm bush on Mt. Kupe, Cameroon (Butynski et al., 2013; Oates et al., 2008; Mittermeier et al., 2013).

No major threats to P. potto were reported, but habitat loss from clear-cutting and intensive agriculture, and hunting were reported likely to have resulted in localised declines (Oates et al., 2008). Svensson and Friant (2014) considered bushmeat trade to be the greatest threat to Perodicticus spp. throughout their range.

Togo: P. potto was reported from south Togo (Mittermeier et al., 2013).

No further information on the status or distribution of the species in Togo could be identified. Considering the international trade levels, a lack of information on trade and hunting of Perodicticus spp. in Togo was highlighted by Svensson and Friant (2014).

Capture, hunting and export of animals are subject to license in Togo, as per Ordinance No. 4 from 1968 and its amendments (Ministère de la Justice, 2008), such as Decree No. 80-171 from 1980 and Decree No. 90-178 from 1990. Under Ordonnance n 4 (Togo, 1968), P. potto was categorised as Class B, Group I as a partially protected species, whereby the hunting and capture (including young) requires capture permits within the limits and using the methods described on the permit, or for special permit holders for sport or trophy hunting. References Bearder, S.K. 1999. Physical and social diversity among nocturnal primates: a new view based on long term research. Primates, 40(1): 267–282. Butynski, T. and De Jong, Y. 2007. Distribution of the Potto Perodicticus potto (Primates: Lorisidae) in Eastern Africa, with a description of a new subspecies from Mount Kenya. Journal of East African Natural History, 96: 113–147. Butynski, T.M., Kingdon, J. and Kalina, J. 2013. Mammals of Africa: Vol. II Primates. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, UK. 560 pp. Grubb, P., Butynski, T.M., Oates, J.F., Bearder, S., Disotell, T., Groves, C. and Struhsaker, T. 2003. An Assessment of the Diversity of African Primates. International Journal of Primatology, 24(6): 1301–1357. Mittermeier, R.A., Rylands, A.B. and Wilson, D.E. 2013. Handbook of the mammals of the world. Vol. 3 Primates. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Oates, J.F., Butynski, T.M., Kingdom, J., Bearder, S., Pimley, E. and De Jong, Y. 2008. Perodicticus potto. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 16/04/2015]. Roos, C., Schmitz, J. and Zischler, H. 2004. Primate jumping genes elucidate strepsirrhine phylogeny. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 10650-10654. Svensson, M. and Friant, S. 2014. Threats from trading and hunting of pottos and angwantibos in Africa resemble those faced by slow lorises in Asia. Endangered Species Research, 23(2): 107– 114. Togo 1968. Ordonnance n 4 du 16 janvier 1968 réglementant la protection de la faune et l'exercice de la chasse au Togo.

10 FALCONIFORMES: ACCIPITRIDAE

Trigonoceps occipitalis II/B

SYNONYMS: Aegypius occipitalis, Vultur occipitalis

COMMON NAMES: White-headed Vulture (EN), Vautour à tête blanche (FR), Buitre cabeciblanco (ES)

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

UNDER REVIEW: Côte d'Ivoire

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Côte d'Ivoire first applied on 07/08/2002 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Guinea first applied on 29/10/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for specimens from Guinea formed on 05/02/2001.

IUCN: Vulnerable

Trade patterns Côte d'Ivoire has not published any export quotas for Trioceros occipitalis 2004-2013. Côte d'Ivoire has not yet submitted CITES annual reports for the year 2006 and 2010.

There was no reported direct or indirect trade in T. occipitalis from Côte d'Ivoire to the EU-28 or the rest of the world over the period 2004-2013. Conservation status Trigonoceps occipitalis occurs in sub-Saharan Africa and is found in habitats ranging from tree savannah and thornbush to lightly wooded grassland (Ferguson-Lees and Christie, 2001). Whilst generally not extending into drier steppe or denser forest areas, occasional records from quite dense woodlands as well as sub-desert areas were reported (del Hoyo and Collar, 2014).

Birds were reported to nest solitarily (O’Neal Campbell, 2015). The clutch was reported to comprise of a single egg and up to 61 per cent of the population were reported to not breed per year, which appears to be particularly the case in years of low annual rainfall (Ferguson-Lees and Christie, 2001).

The species was classified as Vulnerable globally by the IUCN as its population was considered to be small and consisting of a single metapopulation, with movement of individuals presumed to take place within its large range. Information from across the species’ range was believed to indicate a population decline due to a variety of threats (BirdLife International, 2012).

Its population was estimated at 7000-12 500 mature birds, based on the extrapolation of regional estimates (BirdLife International, 2012). Densities were considered to be low and values of 0.25-1.2 11 birds/km were reported from road counts from Uganda and Cameroon (Ferguson-Lees and Christie, 2001). T. occipitalis was reported to be a widespread but generally a scarce to uncommon species (Ferguson-Lees and Christie, 2001). Kemp and Kemp (2006) considered the species to be sparsely distributed overall and not common anywhere, with the highest abundance in western Africa. Brown et al. (1982) considered the species to be “[n]ormally frequent to uncommon, rarest of larger vultures in most areas”. Borrow and Demey (2001) considered the species to be an “uncommon resident in Sahel zone”.

T. occipitalis was found to be almost completely restricted to protected areas (Herremans and Herremans-Tonnoeyr, 2000; Thiollay, 2007), occurring less frequently in areas peripheral to protected areas, and never in cultivated areas (Thiollay, 2007). Thiollay (2006) conducted a study of vulture decline in West Africa in which he noted that T. occipitalis has always been the rarest vulture outside protected areas; the study found that even within protected areas, the abundance index of T. occipitalis had declined significantly.

Reductions in populations of medium-sized mammals and wild ungulate prey, and habitat conversion were considered to be the main threats to the species, although exploitation for the international trade in raptors was also considered to pose a threat (BirdLife International, 2012). Trade in vulture parts for traditional medicine was noted to take place throughout western Africa (Vulture Conservation Foundation et al., 2014). Additional threats through poisoned carcasses were noted to have increased significantly over the last years, especially in West Africa (IUCN, 2013), even though many African countries were noted to have laws in place to protect wildlife from poisoning (Ogada, 2014).

Côte d’Ivoire: The species was reported to occur only in the northern parts of the country (Ferguson-Lees and Christie, 2001; Thiollay, 1985). During observations in the Comoé National Park from 1994 to 1999 the species was observed “regularly but not every day” and was therefore considered to be frequent in the National Park (Salewski, 2000). However, Thiollay (1985) found the species to be uncommon in the northern natural savannahs of Côte d’Ivoire and reported the sighting of isolated pairs only.

Market surveys in western Africa found no evidence of T. occipitalis being in trade in local markets within Côte d’Ivoire, but some specimens were found in markets in neighbouring countries (Buij, 2014).

The species does not appear to be protected in Côte d’Ivoire – vultures are explicitly excluded from Annex I of Loi N. 94-442 of 1994 (amending Loi N. 65-255 of 1965), which lists the nationally protected species (Côte d’Ivoire, 1994).

No further information on the conservation status or management of this species in Côte d’Ivoire was identified. References BirdLife International 2012. Trigonoceps occipitalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 23/04/2015]. Borrow, N. and Demey, R. 2001. Birds of western Africa. Princeton University Press, London, UK. Brown, L.H., Urban, E.K. and Newman, K. 1982. The birds of Africa - Volume I. Academic Press, London. Buij, R. 2014. The African vulture crisis : western Africa. Presentation for the international workshop on poisoning and vultures, Ronda, Spain 8-11 April 2014. Available at: http://www.4vultures.org/our-work/anti-poisoning/international-workshop-african- vultures-poisoning/. [Accessed: 22/07/2015].

Côte d’Ivoire 1994. Journal official de la Republique de Côte d’Ivoire, No 42, Jeudi 13 Octobre 1994. Ferguson-Lees, J. and Christie, D.A. 2001. Raptors of the world. Christopher Helm, London. 12 992 pp. Herremans, M. and Herremans-Tonnoeyr, D. 2000. Land use and the conservation status of raptors in Botswana. Biological Conservation, 94: 31–41. Del Hoyo, J. and Collar, N.J. 2014. HBW and BirdLife International illustrated checklist of the birds of the world. Volume 1: Non-passerines. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 903 pp. IUCN 2013. Vultures - the silent victims of Africa’s wildlife poaching. Available at: http://www.iucn.org/?13529/Vultures--silent-victims-of-Africas-wildlife-poaching. [Accessed: 27/04/2015]. Kemp, A. and Kemp, M. 2006. Birds of prey of Africa and its islands. Struik, Cape Town, South Africa. O’Neal Campbell, M. 2015. Vultures: Their evolution, ecology and conservation. CRC Press - Taylor & Francis Group, Florida, USA. Ogada, D.L. 2014. The power of poison: Pesticide poisoning of Africa’s wildlife. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1322(1): 1–20. Salewski, V. 2000. The birds of Comoe National Park, Ivory Coast. Malimbus, 22(2): 55–76. Thiollay, J. 2006. The decline of raptors in West Africa : long-term. Ibis, 148: 240–254. Thiollay, J.M. 1985. Birds of Ivory Coast: status and distribution. Malimbus, 7(1): 1–59. Thiollay, J.-M. 2007. Raptor declines in West Africa: comparisons between protected, buffer and cultivated areas. Oryx, 41(03): 322–329. Vulture Conservation Foundation, Working Dogs for Conservation and Junta de Andalucia 2014. International workshop on poisoning and vultures - what is the situatuion in Africa and how can Europe help? Ronda. 11 pp.

PSITTACIFORMES: PSITTACIDAE 13

Poicephalus gulielmi II/B

SYNONYMS: Pionus gulielmi

COMMON NAMES: Red-fronted Parrot (EN), Perroquet vert à calotte rouge (FR), Papagayo de Gulielm (ES)

RANGE STATES: Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania

UNDER REVIEW: Côte d'Ivoire

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Côte d'Ivoire first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Côte d'Ivoire formed on 04/10/2002.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Cameroon first applied on 01/10/2007 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for Cameroon formed on the 25/10/2005.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from the Congo first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from the Congo formed on 08/01/2004.

Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from the Democratic Republic of the Congo first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 18/02/2005. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Côte d'Ivoire formed on 11/04/2003

Current no opinion for Equatorial Guinea formed on 16/11/1999. Previous import suspension for wild specimens from Equatorial Guinea first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 19/09/1999.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Guinea first applied on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Guinea formed on 15/03/2005.

IUCN: Least Concern

Taxonomic note Three subspecies currently recognised: Poicephalus gulielmi gulielmi, P. g. fantiensis, and P. g. massaicus (Collar, 1997; Dickinson and Remsen Jr, 2013). Trade patterns Côte d'Ivoire published an annual quota for Poicephalus gulielmi of 500 live individuals in 2005; no quotas were published for 2004 or subsequent years 2006-2013. Trade appears to have been within quota in 2005, with importers reporting trade in 30 live birds and Côte d'Ivoire reporting

the export of 130 live birds. Côte d'Ivoire has not yet submitted CITES annual reports for the years 14 2006 and 2010. Direct trade in P. gulielmi to the EU-28 2004-2013 comprised 100 wild-sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes in 2005, as reported by exporters. This trade was not reported by importers (Table 2).

Direct trade in P. gulielmi from Côte d'Ivoire to countries other than the EU-28 consisted of wild- sourced live birds and birds bred in captivity traded for commercial purposes (Table 2).

Indirect trade in P. gulielmi to the EU-28 originating in Côte d'Ivoire 2004-2013 involved 26 live wild-sourced birds re-exported via Senegal in 2004 for commercial purposes and one live wild- sourced bird re-exported via Japan in 2008 as a personal item. All trade was reported by the exporters only. Table 2: Direct exports of Poicephalus gulielmi from Côte d'Ivoire to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2006.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 EU-28 live T W Importer Exporter 100 RoW live T C Importer 206 49 220 Exporter W Importer 50 30 Exporter 30 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Poicephalus gulielmi is a large parrot (Juniper and Parr, 1998) of 26-30cm length (Borrow and Demey, 2001; Collar, 1997), which may occasionally form parapatric1 species-pairs with P. robustus (Collar, 1997). Several disjunct distributions were reported: In West Africa, from Liberia east to Côte d’Ivoire and southern Ghana (P. g. fantiensis) (Collar, 1997; Forshaw, 2010; Juniper and Parr, 1998; Dickinson and Remsen Jr, 2013); and in western-central Africa, from southeast Nigeria and South Cameroon, south to northern Angola and east to southwest Uganda (P. g. gulielmi) (Collar, 1997; Forshaw, 2010). It is also found in the highlands of Kenya and northern Tanzania (P. g. massaicus) (Collar, 1997; Forshaw, 2010; Juniper and Parr, 1998; Dickinson and Remsen Jr, 2013).

A mainly sedentary species with local daily movements, P. gulielmi was reported to inhabit montane Juniperus and Podocarpus forest (1800 to 3250 m above sea level) in Kenya and Tanzania, and lowland forest (below 700 m) in the remainder of its range (Collar, 1997; Juniper and Parr, 1998). The species appears to have a preference for, but is not restricted to, primary forest (Yaokokoré-Béibro, 2010; Yaokokoré-Béibro et al., 2015), with records from secondary forests (in Angola) and shade trees in coffee plantations (in Ghana) (Collar, 1997; Juniper and Parr, 1998). It is usually found in pairs or groups of up to 10 birds, but larger groups gather where food is abundant (Borrow and Demey, 2001; Juniper and Parr, 1998). Pairs nest solitarily in tree holes (Fry et al., 1988), and clutch sizes of two to four eggs were reported (Collar, 1997).

P. gulielmi was evaluated as Least Concern by the IUCN, based on its very large range (BirdLife International, 2012). The population size is unknown, but the species’ abundance was reported to range from rare to fairly common (Collar, 1997). P. gulielmi was reported as locally common to abundant in many localities in the east of its range, apparently declining in others, and scare in the west of its range (Collar, 1997; Juniper and Parr, 1998). The population trend appears to be

1 Relationship between species where their ranges are adjacent and only overlap in a narrow zone.

declining but the decline was not thought to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable (BirdLife International, 2012). 15 Threats to P. gulielmi include habitat destruction and unsustainable levels of exploitation (BirdLife International, 2015; Juniper and Parr, 1998). The species was reported to have been heavily traded (BirdLife International, 2012), and trapping for trade may pose a significant threat (Snyder et al., 2000).

P. gulielmi occurs in several protected areas, including Korup National Park in Cameroon and Bia National Park in Ghana (Collar, 1997; Juniper and Parr, 1998).

Côte d'Ivoire: P. gulielmi was recorded as rare and local in primary forest in Taï, Tiassale, and Oumé (resident and breeding) (Thiollay, 1985). In 1987, three individuals were observed in Yapo Forest (Demey and Fishpool, 1994). Between 1998 and 1990, a probable sighting of a pair at Bettié; a pair, possibly breeding, at Lampto; and a probable sighting at Yapo (protected mature lowland secondary forest) were recorded; the species was previously recorded from only three localities (Demey and Fishpool, 1991). Thirty-five individuals were observed adjacent to Maraoué National Park (Collar, 1997).

P. gulielmi was observed at the Centre National de Recherche Agronomique, a new site for the species, 20 km southeast of Divo, where it was reported to be abundant (Lachenaud et al., 2008). The species was observed as resident in Besso forest, southeast Côte d'Ivoire (Yaokokoré-Béibro, 2010); as resident but rare in the Téné forest, west-central Côte d'Ivoire (Yaokokoré-Béibro et al., 2015); and as a fairly common resident (observed almost every day during two site visits in May/June 2008 and March 2010) in the Marsh-Forest Tanoé Ehy, in southeast Côte d'Ivoire (Ahon et al., 2012).

No further information on the conservation status and management of the species in Côte d'Ivoire could be identified.

Côte d'Ivoire contacted outside the formal Review of Significant Trade process to enquire about the scientific basis of non-detriment findings, but no response appears to have been received (AC14 Summary Record). References Ahon, B., Egnankou, W.M., Kouadio, K.R. and Kouame, O.M.L. 2012. Inventaires préliminaires des oiseaux de la forêt des marais Tanoé-Ehy en Côte d’Ivoire. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci., 6(6): 4031– 4045. BirdLife International 2012. Poicephalus gulielmi. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/04/2015]. BirdLife International 2015. Species factsheet: Poicephalus gulielmi. Available at: http://www.birdlife.org. [Accessed: 13/04/2015]. Borrow, N. and Demey, R. 2001. Birds of western Africa. Princeton University Press, London, UK. Collar, N. 1997. Red-fronted Parrot (Poicephalus gulielmi). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. and de Juana, E. (Eds.). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Demey, R. and Fishpool, L.D.C. 1991. Additions and annotations to the avifauna of Côte d’Ivoire. Malimbus, 12: 61–86. Demey, R. and Fishpool, L.D.C. 1994. The birds of Yapo Forest, Ivory Coast. Malimbus, 16(2): 100– 122. Dickinson, E.C. and Remsen Jr, J. V 2013. The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, 4th. edition. Aves Press, Eastbourne, United Kingdom. Forshaw, J. 2010. Parrots of the World. A & C Black, London. 336 pp. Fry, C.H., Keith, S. and Urban, E.K. (Eds.) 1988. The birds of Africa, Volume 3. Academic Press, London.

Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots: a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Robertsbridge, UK. 16 Lachenaud, O., Oosterhuis, H., Boedts, B. and Gunningham, J. 2008. Nouvelles observations ornithologiques en Côte d’Ivoire. Malimbus, 30(1): 19–29. Snyder, N., Mcgowan, P., Gilardi, J. and Grajal, A. 2000. Parrots. Status survey and conservation action plan 2000-2004. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Thiollay, J.M. 1985. Birds of Ivory Coast: status and distribution. Malimbus, 7(1): 1–59. Yaokokoré-Béibro, H. 2010. Diversité avifaunique de la forêt classée de la Besso, Sud-Est de la Côte d’Ivoire. Sciences & Nature, 7(2): 207–219. Yaokokoré-Béibro, H., Michaël, K.E. and Pierre, K.K. 2015. Diversité et abondance des oiseaux de la forêt classée de la Téné, Centre-Ouest Côte d’Ivoire. Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 24(1): 3733–3743.

PSITTACIFORMES: PSITTACIDAE 17

Poicephalus robustus II/B

SYNONYMS: Poicephalus fuscicollis, Psittacus robustus

COMMON NAMES: Brown-necked Parrot (EN), Perroquet robuste (FR), Lorito robusto (ES)

RANGE STATES: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon (distribution uncertain), Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

UNDER REVIEW: Nigeria, Uganda

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Côte d'Ivoire first applied on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 19/09/1999; replaced by a no opinion on 16/11/1999, followed by a negative opinion formed on 13/06/2005.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda formed on 18/07/2001 and confirmed on 29/10/2001.

Current no opinion for specimens from Ghana and Guinea Bissau formed on 16/11/1999. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Ghana and Guinea Bissau first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 19/09/1999.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Guinea first applied on 29/10/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed on 26/03/2001.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Mali and Togo first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Nigeria and Togo first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Current no opinion i) for wild specimens from Botswana, Gambia, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa and Swaziland formed on 18/05/2010. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Botswana, Gambia, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa and Swaziland first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/05/2009.

IUCN: Least Concern

Taxonomic note The CITES taxonomic reference (Dickinson, 2003) recognises Poicephalus robustus as a single species that comprises three subspecies: P. r. robustus, P. r. fuscicollis, P. r. suahelicus. This is also

followed by Birdlife (2012), Dickinson and Remsen (2013) and Sibley and Monroe (1990), Juniper 18 and Parr (1998) and Collar (1997). However, other authors believe that P. robustus should be split into two separate species: P. robustus (endemic to South Africa) and P. fuscicollis in southern and western Africa (Clancey, 1997; Perrin, 2005; Wirminghaus et al., 2002). Sinclair and Ryan (2010) and White (1965) list three separate species for this taxon: P. robustus, P. fuscicollis, and P. suahelicus.

At the 27th Animals Committee meeting in 2014, South Africa submitted a paper (Coetzer et al. undated) that reviewed the taxonomic status of P. r. robustus, P. r. suahelicus and P. r. fuscicollis; it concluded that P. robustus should be viewed as a separate species and that P. r. suahelicus and P. r. fuscicollis should be grouped under the P. fuscicollis species complex (AC27 Doc. 25.20). South Africa proposed that this nomenclature be adopted by CITES, noting that it would follow the nomenclature used by the International Ornithologists’ Union and Birdlife South Africa.

In response to this proposal, the Animals Committee recommended that South Africa suggest a peer reviewed publication that could be used as a standard reference for this nomenclature. The Animals Committee also recommended that South Africa provide identification guidelines to distinguish the two taxa native to South Africa (currently regarded as P. r. robustus and P. r. suahelicus). (AC27 WG6 Doc. 1; AC27 ExSum. Cons.).

South Africa provided both an identification guide (AC28 Doc. 21.1 Annex 5) and a nomenclature reference Coetzer et al. (in press, 2015) (AC28 Doc. 21.1); the latter was subsequently published as Coetzer et al. (2015). Coetzer et al. (2015) undertook a molecular analysis and their results supported the recognition of P. r. robustus as a species (P. robustus) and the placement of P. r. suahelicus and P. r. fuscicollis into the new species P. fuscicollis on the basis of morphological, ecological, behavioural and molecular differences. These proposals will be discussed at AC28 in August 2015. Trade patterns There was no reported direct or indirect trade in Poicephalus robustus from Nigeria or Uganda to the EU-28 or the rest of the world over the period 2004-2013.

Nigeria is currently subject to a CITES trade suspension, as of 19th of March 2015 (CITES Notification No. 2015/014). Conservation status The three subspecies have discrete ranges (Collar, 2014). P. r. robustus was reported to be endemic to eastern South Africa (Forshaw, 2010), comprising four disjunct populations (Martin et al., 2014). The range of P. r. suahelicus was reported to extend from northern South Africa, Botswana and Namibia northwards to the southern Congo River basin, as far as southwestern Uganda and east to the Mozambique coast (Juniper and Parr, 1998). An isolated population of P. r. suahelicus was also reported in northwest Angola (Martin et al., 2014). In West Africa, isolated populations of the subspecies P. r. fuscicollis were reported from Gambia to Ghana and Togo (Juniper and Parr, 1998) and its range was reported to extend to Nigeria (Collar, 2014).

P. robustus was reported to make seasonal movements linked to food availability, and flocks were reported to move unpredictably and potentially roost away from traditional sites (Juniper and Parr, 1998). P. robustus was reported to occur singly, in pairs or in small groups in woodland and drier forest types in savannah and forest-savannah mosaics, as well as in in mangroves (Borrow and Demey, 2014). It has also adapted to exotic plantations in some areas (Sinclair and Hockey, 1996). The species occurs up to 3,750 m (Juniper and Parr, 1998), although its altitudinal range varies throughout its distribution (Collar, 1997). The clutch size was reported to range between two and four eggs (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

The three subspecies were reported to occupy different habitat types. P. r. robustus was reported to have specialist habitat requirements and inhabits, nests and feeds mainly in Afromontane 19 mixed Afrocarpus/Podocarpus forest (Coetzer et al., 2015). In contrast, P. r. suahelicus was reported to inhabit a wide range of lowland woodland habitats across south-central Africa (Coetzer et al., 2015; Perrin, 2005) such as riparian fringing forest, intervening montane and baobab woodland, undisturbed Baikiaea, and open or dense tall Brachystegia (Collar, 1997). P. r. fuscicollis is found in mature wooded savanna, palm woodland in the forest-savanna mosaic and mangroves (Collar, 1997).

P. robustus was categorised as Least Concern by the IUCN, as the species was noted to have a very large range and the decline in the population was not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the threshold for Vulnerable; the population size, although not quantified, was estimated at <10 000, although with a continuing decline of >10% in ten years or three generations (BirdLife International, 2012).

Martin et al. (2014) summarised population estimates for P. r. robustus in South Africa: the population was thought to be at least 1189 in 2012, an increase on previous estimates of 500 in 1999 (Wirminghaus et al., 1999) and less than 1000 in 2005. However, the authors noted that the higher estimates may be as a result of differences in survey effort rather than actual increases in the wild. Downs et al. (2014) noted that annual censuses of the species over a 15 year period found, with the exception of 2009, less than 1600 Cape Parrots in South Africa in the wild in each year. P. r. robustus [P. robustus] was considered uncommon by Sinclair and Ryan (2010) and it was described as uncommon and endangered in the south (Forshaw, 2010). The distribution of this population was thought to have remained largely unchanged since 1998 (Downs et al., 2014). The distribution of the subspecies P. r. robustus and P. r. suahelicus are reported to overlap in the Limpopo Province of South Africa, but Coetzer et al. (2015) stated that there is strong evidence that the two taxa are ecologically separated by habitat and altitude.

P. r. suahelicus was reported to be sparsely distributed in mixed broadleaf or savannah woodlands (Martin et al., 2014). P. r. suahelicus [P. suahelicus] was considered locally common by Sinclair and Ryan (2010). It was reported to be locally common with a stable population in Zambia (Martin et al., 2014), but sparse in Botswana and very local in Angola (Luft, 2007). Populations in Tanzania (Perrin, 2012, in Martin et al., 2014) and in Malawi were reported to have declined (Dowsett-Lemaire and Dowsett, 2006, in Martin et al., 2014).

P. r. fuscicollis was reported to be scarce and rare in West Africa, except in Ghana (Luft, 2007), where it was reported from much of the southwestern half of the country (Dowsett-Lemaire and Dowsett, 2014). P. r. fuscicollis [P. fuscicollis] was reported as “locally common but thinly distributed” by Sinclair and Ryan (2010) and as uncommon throughout its range by Martin et al. (2014). The population of P. r. fuscicollis in West Africa was reported to be very poorly known and Martin et al. (2014) highlighted that research was needed to determine the distribution, status and degree of isolation of populations of P. r. fuscicollis throughout its range in West Africa. Martin et al. (2014) also highlighted a lack of conservation efforts.

Populations of P. r. fuscicollis were believed likely to be impacted by capture for the pet trade, both in the past and currently (Martin et al., 2014). Commercial logging, wood harvesting and land conversion for agriculture were reported as probable threats (Martin et al., 2014). Downs et al. (2014) believed that factors contributing to declines in P. r. robustus in South Africa varied in their effects and extent, and included: habitat loss or alteration, food and/or nest-site shortages, illegal poaching for the pet trade, disease, predation, and accelerated climate change. In Ghana, P. robustus was reported to be threatened by deforestation, including through the loss of important seed producing trees (Dowsett-Lemaire and Dowsett, 2014).

P. robustus was suggested as a potential candidate for Phase IV of the RST at AC 14 (AC 14 20 Summary Record). At AC15, concerns relating to non-detriment findings for trade from non-range countries, or countries where the species is rare, were raised and the species was categorised as “d(ii) those for which there is insufficient information on which to base a judgement” based on Decision 10.79 (AC15 Proceedings, Annex 6).

At AC16 in 2000, recommendations were formulated for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Mali, and Togo (AC16 Doc. AC.16.7.1). No response to the recommendations was received from DRC, Mali and Togo (AC17 Doc. 7.1; SC45 Doc12). Trade from these three countries was subsequently suspended (SC45 Summary Report; Notification No. 2001/043). At SC 57 the Standing Committee conditionally withdrew its recommendations to suspend trade from the DRC, but no reply was received from the country (SC62 Doc. 27.2 (Rev. 1). In 2014, the suspension of trade from DRC, Mali and Togo was confirmed in CITES Notification to the Parties No. 2014/039.

Nigeria: Elgood et al. (1994) stated that P. r. fuscicollis was rare and localised in savannah woodlands and pointed out that the extended date range of observations of the species indicated that it was not a migrant, but rather an occasional visitor.

The species was considered threatened by commercial logging, wood harvesting and land conversion for agriculture (M Shiiwua in litt. 2012 in Martin et al., 2014).

All parrots are included in the first schedule of the Endangered Species Act of 1985, which means that all take or trade is prohibited (Nigeria, 1985).

No information on the conservation status or management of this species in Nigeria was identified.

Uganda: The species was reported to occur in southwestern Uganda (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Three P. r. suahelicus observed at Kanungu in Kigezi on 5 July 1940 were believed to be the only record for the country (Britton, 1980, in AC15.14.4).

All parrots are included in Schedule I of the Game Act 1959 (amended by the Uganda Wildlife Statue 14/1996) and take requires a licence (Uganda, 1996).

No information on the conservation status or management of this species in Uganda was identified. References BirdLife International 2012. Poicephalus robustus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 22/04/2015]. Borrow, N. and Demey, R. 2014. Birds of Western Africa. Second Edition. Helm Field Guides. Christopher Helm, London. 592 pp. Britton, P.L. 1980. Birds of East Africa. Britton, P.L. (Ed.). East African Natural History Society, Nairobi, Kenya. Clancey, P.A. 1997. The Cape Parrot: an additional valid species. Honeyguide 43: 61–62. Coetzer, W.G., Downs, C.T., Perrin, M.R. and Willows-Munro, S. Undated. Mid-project progress report to the South African National Biodiversity Institute. PhD project: Systematics and Phylogeography of the Cape Parrot (Poicephalus robustus). School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg Coetzer, W.G., Downs, C.T., Perrin, M.R. and Willows-Munro, S. 2015. Molecular systematics of the Cape Parrot (Poicephalus robustus): implications for taxonomy and conservation. PLoS ONE 10(8): Available at: e0133376. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133376 [Accessed: 15/08/2015]

Collar, N. 1997. Brown-necked Parrot (Poicephalus robustus). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. and de Juana, E. (eds.) (2014). Handbook of the Birds of the World. Lynx 21 Edicions, Barcelona. Available at: http://www.hbw.com/node/54604 [Accessed: 29/07/2015]. Collar, N. 2014. Brown-necked Parrot (Poicephalus robustus). In: Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Available at: http://www.hbw.com/node/54604. [Accessed: 23/04/2015]. Dickinson, E.C. 2003. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. 3rd Ed. Christopher Helm Publishers Ltd., London, UK. Dickinson, E.C. and Remsen, J. V. Jnr (eds.) 2013. The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World. 4th Edition. Vol. 1. Non-passerines. Christopher Helm Publishers Ltd., London, UK. Downs, C.T., Pfeiffer, M. and Hart, L. a 2014. Fifteen years of annual Cape Parrot Poicephalus robustus censuses: current population trends and conservation contributions. Ostrich, 85(3): 273–280. Dowsett-Lemaire, F. and Dowsett, R. 2006. The birds of Malawi: an atlas and handbook. Tuaraco Press, Liège. Dowsett-Lemaire, F. and Dowsett, R.J. 2014. The birds of Ghana. An atlas and handbook. 1st Ed. Tuaraco Press, Liege. Elgood, J.H., Heignham, J.B., Moore, A.M., Nason, A.M., Sharland, R.E. and Skinner, N.J. 1994. The birds of Nigeria: An annotated checklist. British Ornithologists’ Union, London, UK. Forshaw, J. 2010. Parrots of the World. A & C Black, London. Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots: a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Robertsbridge, UK. Luft, S. 2007. Parrots of Africa. Herstellung und Verlag: Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany. Martin, R.O., Perrin, M.R., Boyes, R.S., Abebe, Y.D., Annorbah, N.D., Asamoah, A., Bizimana, D., Bobo, K.S., Bunbury, N., Brouwer, J. et al. 2014. Research and conservation of the larger parrots of Africa and Madagascar: a review of knowledge gaps and opportunities. Ostrich, 85(3): 205–233. Nigeria 1985. Endangered species (control of international trade and traffic) Act 1985. Perrin, M.R. 2005. Review of the taxonomic status and biology of the Cape Parrot (Poicephalus robustus) with reference to the Brown-necked Parrot (P. f. fuscicollis) and the Grey- headed Parrot (P. f. suahelicus). Ostrich: Journal of African Ornithology 76: 195–205. Perrin, M. 2012. Parrots of Africa, Madagascar and the Mascarene Islands: Biology, ecology and conservation. Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg, South Africa. Sibley, B.L and Monroe, C.G. 1990 World Checklist of Birds. The Distribution and Taxonomy and its Supplement. Yale University Press. Sinclair, I. and Hockey, P. 1996. The Larger illustrated Guide to Birds of southern Africa. Struik Publishers. Sinclair, I. and Ryan, P. 2010. Birds of Africa south of the Sahara. 2nd Ed. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Uganda 1996. The Game (Preservation and Control) Act 1959. White, C.M.N 1965. A revised Checklist of African non-Passerine Birds. Department of Game and Fisheries, Zambia. Wirminghaus J., Downs C., Symes C. and Perrin, M. 1999. Conservation of the Cape Parrot in southern Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 29: 118–129. Wirminghaus, J.O., Downs, C.T., Perrin, M.R. and Symes, C.T. 2002. Taxonomic relationships of the subspecies of the Cape Parrot Poicephalus robustus (Gmelin) Journal of Natural History, 36 (3): 361-378.

22 PSITTACIFORMES: PSITTACIDAE

Psittacus erithacus II/B

COMMON NAMES: Grey Parrot (EN), Perroquet gris (FR), Loro yaco (ES)

RANGE STATES: Angola, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania

UNDER REVIEW: Liberia

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Liberia first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens applied on 22/12/1997, followed by a negative opinion formed on 20/05/1999.

Current positive opinion for Angola, Central African Republic, São Tomé and Principe, and Tanzania formed on 16/09/1999. Previous Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 19/09/1999.

Current Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Benin first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Current no opinion i) for Burundi, Mali and Togo formed on 18/05/2010. Previous Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Burundi, Mali and Togo first applied on 22/12/1997.

Current positive opinion for Cameroon formed on 13/05/1998 and last confirmed on 12/06/2006. Previous Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens applied on 22/12/1997.

Current positive opinion for Congo formed on 05/09/2002.

Current positive opinion for Côte d’Ivoire formed on 27/01/1999, and confirmed on 22/05/2003. Previous Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 21/11/1998.

Current positive opinion for Democratic Republic of the Congo formed on 01/07/2004 and confirmed on 13/06/2005. Previous positive opinion formed on 13/05/1998, followed by a negative opinion formed on 22/05/2003 and an Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens first applied on 30/04/2004 and removed on 18/02/2005.

Current Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Equatorial Guinea first applied on 21/05/2009 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens applied on 22/12/1997, last confirmed on 19/09/1999. Previous positive opinion formed on 16/09/1999.

Current Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens of the subspecies P. e. timneh from Guinea first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed 28/05/2015 and current negative opinion for wild specimens from Guinea formed on 12/07/2002.

Current Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens of the subspecies P. e. timneh from Guinea Bissau first applied on 01/03/2003 and last confirmed 28/05/2015 and current negative opinion for Guinea Bissau 23 formed on 31/08/2001.

Current Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Nigeria first applied on 18/02/2005 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed on 15/05/2002.

Current positive opinion for Sierra Leone formed on 22/10/1998. Previous Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens first applied on 22/12/1997.

IUCN: Vulnerable

Trade patterns Liberia has published a zero quota for exports of Psittacus erithacus every year since 2008. Liberia has not yet submitted CITES annual reports for 2008 and 2013.

No direct trade in P. erithacus from Liberia to the EU-28 was reported 2004-2013. Direct trade in P. erithacus to the rest of the world primarily comprised live captive-bred and wild-sourced individuals traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). No wild-sourced trade was reported in the period 2005-2013.

No indirect trade in P. erithacus originating in Liberia to the EU-28 was reported in the period 2004-2013. Table 1: Direct exports of Psittacus erithacus from Liberia to the rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 RoW live P U Importer Exporter 11 T C Importer 575 1422 Exporter W Importer 450 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Taxonomic note Two subspecies are currently recognised: Psittacus erithacus erithacus and P. e. timneh (Melo and O’Ryan, 2007). Some authors recognise the subspecies P. e. princeps from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Collar and Kirwan, 2014). A recent genetic analysis using mitochondrial DNA from 50 individuals supported the existence of the two mainland lineages, but revealed that birds on the island of Principe (currently assigned to the subspecies P. e. erithacus) formed two independent lineages: one evolved in situ for up to 1.4 million years after early colonisation of the island by an ancestor of P. e. timneh, the other lineage consisted of P. e. erithacus colonising from the mainland in more recent times. The authors also noted that the large genetic distance between the two currently recognised subspecies may indicate that they qualify as separate species (although this remains to be investigated) (Melo and O’Ryan, 2007). P. e. timneh is recognised as a separate species, P. timneh Fraser, 1844, by some authorities (del Hoyo et al., 1997; BirdLife International, 2014). Conservation status Psittacus erithacus is a medium-sized parrot endemic to Africa (Dändliker, 1992b; del Hoyo et al., 1997; BirdLife International, 2013a). P. erithacus was reported to range across the African tropical

forest belt (Dändliker, 1992b), from Guinea-Bissau to Côte d’Ivoire and east to western Kenya and 24 northwest Tanzania (Dändliker, 1992b; Dickinson, 2003). The subspecies P. e. erithacus was reported to range from western Uganda to south eastern Côte d’Ivoire, while P. e. timneh occurs from Guinea Bissau to southern Côte d’Ivoire (Forshaw, 2010). It typically inhabits lowland moist forest, including edges and clearings, gallery forest, savannah woodland, cultivated areas and sometimes mangroves (Collar and Kirwan, 2014).

The species was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2013a), as “the extent of the annual harvest for international trade, in combination with the rate of ongoing habitat loss, means it is now suspected to be undergoing rapid declines over three generations (47 years).” P. e. timneh was also categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (as P. timneh; BirdLife International, 2013a), as it is subject to heavy trapping pressure across much of its range, and, in combination with the high rate of ongoing habitat loss, the species was suspected to be declining rapidly over three generations (47 years). Birdlife International (2013a) noted that better data on population size and the extent of capture for trade might lead to its further uplisting [indicating increased risk of extinction].

The species was estimated to have a global population of 0.56 to 12.7 million birds, and the West African population of P. erithacus was estimated at 40 000 to 100 000 birds (BirdLife International, 2013a). Estimates for the subspecies P. e. timneh vary between 100 000 and 500 000 individuals (del Hoyo et al., 1997) and 120 000 to 259 000 (Dändliker, 1992a).

Forshaw (2006) reported that the species reached its highest density in the tropical forests of the Congo River basin, and was generally scarce in West Africa due to widespread deforestation and trapping for the live bird trade, and near major towns and cities. Serle et al. (1977) described the species as, “locally abundant, especially in swamp and mangrove forest” in West Africa. Borrow and Demey (2014) described P. e. timneh as locally fairly common to scarce, and P. e. erithacus as locally common to scarce.

The global population was reported to show a decreasing trend (BirdLife International, 2013a). Although once widespread and common in many areas, population declines have been reported throughout much of its range (Martin et al., 2014). Declines were noted in Burundi, Cameroon, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Togo, Uganda and parts of Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for P. e. erithacus (Collar and Kirwan, 2014) and throughout the range for P. e. timneh (del Hoyo et al., 1997).

P. erithacus is one of the most popular parrots in international trade (Mulliken, 1995; May, 2001; IUCN, 2006; Melo and O’Ryan, 2007; BirdLife International, 2013b). The main threats to P. erithacus were considered to be international and domestic trade, habitat loss and deforestation (Juste, 1996; del Hoyo et al., 1997; Forshaw, 2006; Melo and O’Ryan, 2007; BirdLife International, 2013a, 2013b; Borrow and Demey, 2014; Collar and Kirwan, 2014). BirdLife International (2013a) noted that while there has been some domestic demand within range States, international trade appeared to be the main impact, which was thought to be due to the high value of this species. Hunting for food was reported from Guinea, and, in 2003, Clemmons (2003) speculated that it would increase as the market for the international trade tightened. In Cameroon, the birds’ habit of feeding heavily on the fruit of economically important tree species was reported to have led to conflict with farmers, who were reported to chase, trap or kill the birds (Tamungang et al., 2013).

Global take was assessed to amount to 21 per cent of the global population of P. e. timneh each year (BirdLife International, 2015). May (2001) described how trappers capture wild parrots from the Congo Basin using ground nets or glue sticks, for the international pet trade. The author believed that these methods removed between 10% and 50% more parrots from the population

than the numbers eventually exported (May, 2001). May (2001) also considered export quotas, which are based on population counts, to be ineffective, as the level of sustainable harvest cannot 25 be calculated due to a lack of information about population structure or the rate of population replacement.

During the late 1990s, pre-export mortality in birds trapped for international trade was estimated to be around 90 per cent in Cameroon (F. Dowsett-Lemaire in litt. 2012; in BirdLife International, 2013a).

P. erithacus was included in the Review of Significant Trade three times: in Phase I (1991), Post CoP12 (2004) and Post CoP15 (2011). In 1992, recommendations arising from the Phase I Review were made for Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia and Togo (AC26/PC20 Doc. 7, Annex 5). Liberia was requested to provide details of their wildlife trade regulations and undertake a population survey if trade was anticipated to continue. The species was again selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade process at AC20 in 2004 (AC20 WG 1 Doc. 1). Particular concerns were raised for a number of range States including Liberia (AC20 Summary Record). The species was reviewed at AC22 and Liberia was categorized as of ‘urgent concern’ (along with Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Sierra Leone) and recommendations were formulated by the Animals Committee (AC22 Summary Record). Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Equatorial Guinea were categorised as of ‘possible concern’, and Angola, Benin, Burundi, Central African Republic, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, Togo, and Uganda were categorized as ‘least concern’ and were eliminated from further review (AC22 Summary Record).

A recommendation was directed to all countries of ‘urgent concern’ to establish a moratorium on exports of the species from 1 January 2007, and develop a scientifically-based field survey on which to base future export quotas, and develop a national management plan. Liberia did not respond, and the Standing Committee subsequently recommended that the export quota from the country for 2007 should be zero (SC55 Doc 17). Following that meeting, the Standing Committee recommended that the Secretariat should indicate in its lists of export quotas for 2008 that all countries of ‘urgent concern’ should have zero export quotas for wild live specimens (AC23 doc. 8.3,). At its 57th meeting in 2008, the SC recommended that for all countries of ‘urgent concern’ the Secretariat should maintain a zero export quota, until the recommendations of the Animals Committee had been complied with (SC57, Doc.29.1 [Rev.2], AC24 Doc. 7.2).

At AC25 in 2011 it was agreed that the 2006 Review for P. erithacus could be considered complete (AC 25 Doc 9.2), and although it was included in the Review for the third time, this concerned only range States which did not have recommendations still in effect, namely Cameroon, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone (AC25 Summary Record).

A regional management plan for P. e. timneh was outlined in 2003, to include international workshops involving stakeholders, evaluation of law enforcement and protection, monitoring of population trends, and the development of educational and wildlife tourism initiatives (Clemmons, 2003). However, by 2014, it had still yet to be implemented, and international trade was reported to continue in spite of a moratorium since 2007 (Martin et al., 2014).

Illegal and/or poorly documented trade in Psittacus erithacus, including between range States, were reported to have been persistent problems (AC22 Doc. 10.2). This was reported to include exports of birds from non-range States; re-exports of birds imported without CITES documentation; forged documents (CITES CoP10 Doc.10.28); and trade occurring entirely outside of CITES trade controls (AC22 Doc. 10.2).

Although the species is protected, with exports either regulated or banned in “most, if not all” 26 range States, implementation of trade controls was reported to often be insufficient to ensure that national legislation and/or CITES has been complied with (AC22 Doc. 10.2). Trade bans were, in some cases, reported to have resulted in a shift in trade routes and mechanisms rather than cessation (AC22 Doc. 10.2).

Liberia: The species’ occurrence in Liberia (Van Perlo, 2002; Forshaw, 2006), namely P. e. timneh (del Hoyo et al., 1997) was confirmed. The range of the subspecies P. e. erithacus was not reported to extend to Liberia, with distribution maps suggesting the western limit of this subspecies to be in eastern Côte d’Ivoire (Collar and Kirwan, 2014). In 1951, P. e. erithacus was described as occurring commonly throughout most parts of the country (Bannerman, 1951; in Martin et al., 2014). By 1997 it was described as locally common, but rare in the north and north-west and lacking in some coastal areas (Gatter, 1997; in IUCN, 2006 and in Martin et al., 2014). P. e. timneh was suspected to have disappeared completely from around Mt Nimba, as none were found in surveys during 2008 to 2011 in East Nimba Nature Reserve and nearby forest, with no [evidence] that it had been present recently, and it was “surprisingly scarce” in the area already in the 1970s (del Hoyo et al., 1997). Between 1988 and 1990, only feral birds were reported to have been observed outside Sapo National Park, the decline apparently due to the wild bird trade (Collar, 1997; in AC22 Doc. 10.2).

In a rapid survey of three National Forests, the species was reported to be fairly common in North Lorma (northwestern Liberia), common in Grebo (southeast Liberia) and uncommon in Gola, on the border with Sierra Leone (Demey, 2007). Phalan et al. (2013) reported P. e. timneh from the Zwedru Important Bird Area [southeast Liberia], where it was seen or heard almost daily. Gatter (1997; in AC22 Doc. 10.2) estimated there to be two breeding pairs/km2 in logged forest north of Zwedru. Dändliker (1992a) gave a provisional estimate of the population of P. e. timneh in Liberia in the order of 50 000 to 100 000 birds, based on the availability of suitable habitat. However, in AC22 Doc. 10.2 it was suggested that Dändliker had apparently been unaware of declines due to the wild bird trade.

Illegal capture was suspected to be the primary threat to the species in Liberia (Molubah, 2012 in litt., and Garteh, pers. obs.; in Martin et al., 2014). Levels of capture in Liberia were reported to be largely unknown, though local trade was reported to exist (Martin et al., 2014). Phalan (2013) documented reports from locals that a trapper would visit periodically to capture 40 or 50 P. e. timneh at a time, and take them across the border to Côte d’Ivoire. Phalan (2013) also reported seeing one for sale in a street in Monrovia.

International trade in P. erithacus from Liberia was categorised as of ‘urgent concern’ (AC22 Doc. 10.2), noting that: “Psittacus erithacus was included in Phase I of the Significant Trade Review, the Animals Committee subsequently formulating the following recommendations, which were communicated to Liberia’s CITES Management Authority in June 1992: The Management Authority of Liberia should advise the Secretariat of the current status of its draft wildlife conservation regulations (primary rec.); and should carry out a population survey of P. erithacus if trade is to continue (secondary rec.) (AC Doc. 8.10). In 1993, Liberia satisfied these recommendations by stating that it had prepared a proposal for population surveys (Doc. SC30.6.1), however the surveys were not undertaken due to lack of funding. No exports were legally permitted before 1998 (CITES CoP Doc. 11.41.1). In the following three years, export quotas were in place, although they were exceeded in 1999. No information is available on national trade or national protected status. International trade from

Liberia, taking into consideration the conservation status of the species in the country, is therefore of Urgent Concern.” 27 At its 57th meeting in 2008, the Standing Committee, recommended that for all countries of ‘urgent concern’, including Liberia, the Secretariat should maintain a zero export quota for P. erithacus until the recommendations of the Animals Committee had been complied with (SC57, Doc.29.1 (Rev.2); AC24 Doc. 7.2). Zero quotas were published for P. erithacus from Liberia for each year between 2008 and 2015 following recommendations of the Animals and Standing Committees.

The Wildlife and National Parks Act, 1988 of Liberia includes the requirement of a license to hunt and requirement of a valid license to export or re-export any protected animal or CITES-listed species (Government of Liberia, 1988). In addition, it forbids hunting or capture of any animal that is pregnant, immature or a female accompanied by its young. The Act includes a list of protected animals to which further restrictions applied, but P. erithacus was not included in this list. References Bannerman, D.A. 1951. The birds of tropical West Africa. Volume 2. The Crown Agents for the Colonies, London, UK. BirdLife International 2013a. Psittacus erithacus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 15/04/2015]. BirdLife International 2013b. Species factsheet: Psittacus erithacus. Available at: http://www.birdlife.org. [Accessed: 11/05/2013]. BirdLife International 2015. Species factsheet: Psittacus timneh. Available at: http://www.birdlife.org. [Accessed: 7/07/2015]. BirdLife International 2014. The Birdlife checklist of birds of the World: Version 7. Available at: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/file/Species/Taxonomy/BirdLife_Checklist_Versi on_70.zip. [Accessed: 15/07/2015]. Borrow, N. and Demey, R. 2014. Field guide to the birds of western Africa. Christopher Helm, London. Clemmons, J.R. 2003. Status survey of the African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus timneh) and development of a management program in Guinea and Guinea-Bissau. Collar, N. and Kirwan, G.M. 2014. Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E. (eds.) (2014). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Available at: http://www.hbw.com/node/54603. [Accessed: 7/07/2015]. Collar, N.J. 1997. Family Psittacidae (parrots). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. and Haffer, J.H. (Eds.). Handbook of the birds of the world. Volume 4: Sandgrouse to Cuckoos. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. 280–477. Dändliker, G. 1992a. Le perroquet gris (Psittacus erithacus) en Guinée: evaluation des populations, contribution à la biologie, étude de l’exploitation commerciale et recommandations pour la gestion [in French]. CITES Secretariat, Commugny, Switzerland. Dändliker, G. 1992b. The grey parrot in Ghana: A population survey, a contribution to the biology of the species, a study of its commercial exploitation and management recommendations. CITES Secretariat, Commugny, Switzerland. Demey, R. 2007. Rapid survey of the birds of North Lorma, Gola and Grebo National Forests. In: Hoke, P., Demey, R. and Peal, A. (Eds.). A Rapid Biological Assessment of North Lorma, Gola and Grebo National Forests, Liberia. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 44. 34–46. Dickinson, E.C. 2003. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. 3rd Ed. Christopher Helm Publishers Ltd., London, UK. Forshaw, J. 2010. Parrots of the World. A & C Black, London. Forshaw, J.M. 2006. Parrots of the world: an identification guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. Gatter, W. 1997. Birds of Liberia. Pica Press, East Sussex, UK. Del Hoyo, J., Collar, N. and Kirwan, G.M. 1997. Timneh Parrot (Psittacus timneh). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E. (eds.) (2014). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Available at: http://www.hbw.com/node/467496. [Accessed: 7/07/2015].

IUCN 2006. Species selected following CoP12. Annex 1 Psittacus erithacus. Twenty-second meeting of the Animals Committee, Lima, Peru, 7-13 July 2006. 28 Juste, J. 1996. Trade in the gray parrot Psittacus erithacus on the Island of Principe (Sao Tome and Principe, Central Africa): Initial assessment of the activity and its impact. Biological Conservation, 76(2): 101–104. Martin, R.O., Perrin, M.R., Boyes, R.S., Abebe, Y.D., Annorbah, N.D., Asamoah, A., Bizimana, D., Bobo, K.S., Bunbury, N., Brouwer, J. et al. 2014. Research and conservation of the larger parrots of Africa and Madagascar: a review of knowledge gaps and opportunities. Ostrich, 85(3): 205–233. May, D.L. 2001. Grey parrots of the Congo Basin forest. 13(2): 8–10. Melo, M. and O’Ryan, C. 2007. Genetic differentiation between Principe Island and mainland populations of the grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), and implications for conservation. Molecular Ecology, 16(8): 1673–1686. Mulliken, T.A. 1995. South Africa’s trade in African grey parrot. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa. Van Perlo, B. 2002. Birds of western and central Africa (Collins illustrated checklist). Harper Collins, London. 384 pp. Phalan, B., Fishpool, L.D.C., Loqueh, E.M., Grimes, T., Molubah, F.P. and Garbo, M. 2013. Liberian Greenbul expedition 2013: final report. Unpublished report to African Bird Club and RSPB. Cambridge, U.K. Serle, W., Morel, G.J. and Hartwig, W. 1977. A field guide to the birds of West Africa. Collins, London. 352 pp. Tamungang, S., Cheke, R., Kougoum, G.P. and Ntiri, E.S. 2013. Linking population size to conservation needs of the Grey Parrot in Cameroon. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 5(8): 478–485.

PSITTACIFORMES: PSITTACIDAE 29

Psittacus erithacus timneh II/B

COMMON NAMES: Grey Parrot (EN), Perroquet gris (FR), Loro yaco (ES)

UNDER REVIEW: Guinea-Bissau

EU DECISIONS: See Psittacus erithacus review

IUCN: Vulnerable (as Psittacus timneh)

Taxonomic note See Taxonomic note for Psittacus erithacus. Trade patterns Guinea-Bissau has not published any export quotas for Psittacus erithacus or P. e. timneh for the period 2004-2013. Guinea-Bissau has not yet submitted annual reports for 2004 and 2008.

Direct exports from Guinea-Bissau to the EU-28 2004-2013 comprised two live individuals, reported by the exporter only without a source or purpose code in 2009. Direct trade to countries other than the EU-28 consisted of two live birds reported without a source which were traded as personal items in 2007.

No indirect trade in P. erithacus timneh to the EU-28 was reported 2004-2013. Conservation status Psittacus erithacus timneh is a medium-sized parrot endemic to the western parts of the moist Upper Guinea forests and bordering savannas of western Africa (del Hoyo et al., 1997; BirdLife International, 2015). It was reported to occur from Guinea Bissau to southern Côte d’Ivoire (Forshaw, 2010). It typically inhabits dense forest, and was reported to be commonly observed at forest edges, in clearings, gallery forest, mangroves, wooded savannah, cultivated areas and gardens (del Hoyo et al., 1997). The species nests in the hollows of large old trees, which represent a critical habitat requirement for the species (Clemmons, 2003).

It was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (as P. timneh, BirdLife International, 2012), as it is subject to heavy trapping pressure across much of its range, and, in combination with the high rate of ongoing habitat loss, the species was suspected to be declining rapidly over three generations (47 years). Birdlife International (2015) noted that better data on population size and the extent of capture for trade might lead to an uplisting to a higher threat category.

Estimates for P. e. timneh vary between 100 000 and 500 000 individuals (del Hoyo et al., 1997) and 120 000 to 259 000 (Dändliker, 1992a). However, Clemmons (2003) argued that Dändliker's

population estimates were unreliable, as they were based on a count of parrots at a single roost in 30 Guinea. P. e. timneh, together with P. e. erithacus, was reported to be among the most popular avian pets (del Hoyo et al., 1997). While there was reported to be some domestic demand within range States, most impacts to P. e. timneh were thought to stem from international trade, probably owing to its high value (del Hoyo et al., 1997). Hunting for food was reported from Guinea, and Clemmons (2003) speculated that it would increase as the market for the international pet trade tightened.

P. erithacus was included in the Review of Significant Trade three times: in Phase I (1991), Post CoP12 (2004) and Post CoP15 (2011). In 1992, recommendations arising from the Phase I Review were made for Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia and Togo (AC26/PC20 Doc. 7, Annex 5). The species was again selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade process at AC20 in 2004 (AC20 WG 1 Doc. 1). Particular concerns were raised for a number of range States (AC20 Summary Record). The species was reviewed at AC22 and Guinea-Bissau was categorized as of ‘least concern’ (along with Angola, Benin, Burundi, Central African Republic, Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, Togo, and Uganda) and eliminated from further review (AC22 Summary Record). Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone were categorised as of ‘urgent concern’; Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Equatorial Guinea were categorised as of ‘possible concern’ and recommendations were formulated (AC22 Summary Record).

A regional management plan for P. e. timneh was outlined in 2003, to include international workshops involving stakeholders, evaluation of law enforcement and protection, monitoring of population trends, and the development of educational and wildlife tourism initiatives (Clemmons, 2003). However, by 2014, it had yet to be implemented, and international trade was reported to continue in spite of a moratorium since 2007 (Martin et al., 2014).

Although P. e. timneh is protected, with exports either regulated or banned in “most, if not all” range States, implementation of trade controls was reported to often be insufficient to ensure compliance with national legislation and/or CITES (AC22 Doc. 10.2). Trade bans were, in some cases, reported to have resulted in a shift in trade routes and mechanisms rather than cessation (AC22 Doc. 10.2).

The Species Survival Network requested the United States to consider proposing the transfer of P. e. timneh from Appendix II to Appendix I in accordance with Annex I, criteria C(ii) of Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13): a decline in the number of individuals in the wild, which is inferred or projected based on a decrease in the area or quality of habitat and levels of exploitation (Species Survival Network, 2006).

Guinea-Bissau: P. e. timneh was reported to be the only subspecies of P. erithacus that occurs in Guinea-Bissau, which marks the western fringe of the range of the subspecies (Clemmons, 2003). The species was reported from palm fields and most habitats with large trees, including dry and semi-dry deciduous forest remnants surrounding villages and agricultural fields (Clemmons, 2003). The author also noted unverified reports suggesting that they also use mangrove habitat (Clemmons, 2003). The species was reported to breed in groups on the coast (CITES Management Authority Guinea-Bissau in litt., 2004; in AC22 Doc. 10.2).

The species was observed on islands in the Bijagós Archipelago but were believed to be rare or extinct on the mainland (Clemmons, 2003). The Bijagós population was reported to be small and 31 declining (AC22 Doc. 10.2). However, the most important population of the species in Guinea- Bissau was reported from the National Marine Park of João Vieira, in the Bijagòs Archipelago Biosphere Reserve (da Costa Lopes, 2015). P. e. timneh was reported to be have been numerous on João Vieira in 1961, with a population of several dozen birds recorded in 1964 on Meio (Naurois, 1981). A recent survey of 30 islands of the Bijagós Archipelago and two islands near the mainland, on only two island, João Vieira and Meio, classified P. e. timneh as common (da Costa Lopes, 2015). A minimum estimate of the population size on João Vieira based on direct counts in 2014 was 116 individuals; whereas the largest group observed during fieldwork on the other islands during 2013 and 2014 was seven individuals (da Costa Lopes, 2015). Previously, based on the area of suitable habitat and the population density in neighbouring Guinea, the population of Guinea- Bissau was estimated to number between 100 and 1000 birds (Dändliker, 1992).

The population density and number of birds in Guinea-Bissau was reported to be much lower than in countries further east in the range of the subspecies, which was believed to be partly due to dense, lowland forests which the species prefers being uncommon in Guinea-Bissau (Clemmons, 2003). However, Clemmons (2003) considered it unlikely that population densities had always been this low. Although there were no published records with which to compare population sizes, older parrot trappers from Guinea-Bissau were reported to have claimed that flock sizes have decreased by at least an order of magnitude (Clemmons, 2003).

The subspecies was reported to be threatened in the country by a combination of harvesting and habitat loss (Clemmons, 2003). Hunting and trapping of P. erithacus was reported to have been banned since independence in 1975; however illegal exploitation was reported to be common (Clemmons, 2003). Most trapping in the country was reported to be of nestlings, and mortality rates between trapping and trade centres were reported to range between <1 per cent and 50 per cent (Clemmons, 2003).

In 2003, it was reported that there were no measures in place for protecting critical habitat, and that it was poorly understood as to what constitutes critical habitat (Clemmons, 2003). Land management practices in Guinea-Bissau led to concerns that when the old trees favoured for nesting and roosting die, there will be none to replace them; it was also noted that the preferred species of trees for nesting were also species targeted for their timber (Clemmons, 2003).

P. erithacus was included in Phase VI of the Review of Significant Trade at AC20 (AC20 WG 1 Doc. 1). At AC22, P. erithacus from Guinea-Bissau was categorised as of ‘least concern’, however, it was noted that suspected illegal trade merited further attention (AC22 Summary Record). Guinea- Bissau was removed from the Review of Significant Trade at AC26 (AC26 Summary Record).

The CITES Management Authority of Guinea-Bissau (in litt., 2004; in AC22 Doc. 10.2) noted that it is protected nationally and listed as a rare species in the country. The Management Authority reported that the majority of birds trapped illegally were exported to Senegal for sale (in litt., 2004; in AC22 Doc. 10.2). Poaching was reported to continue to be a cause for concern in the Bijagós Archipelago (da Costa Lopes, 2015). References BirdLife International 2012. Psittacus timneh. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 8/08/2013]. BirdLife International 2015. Species factsheet: Psittacus timneh. Available at: http://www.birdlife.org. [Accessed: 7/07/2015]. BirdLife International 2014. The Birdlife checklist of birds of the World: Version 7. Available at: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/file/Species/Taxonomy/BirdLife_Checklist_Versi on_70.zip. [Accessed: 15/07/2015].

Clemmons, J.R. 2003. Status survey of the African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus timneh) and development of a management program in Guinea and Guinea-Bissau. 32 Da Costa Lopes, D. 2015. O Papagaio-Cinzento-de-Timneh, Psittacus timneh no arquipélago dos Bijagós: Contribuições para o estudo do estatuto, ecologia e conservação de uma espécie ameaçada [in Portuguese]. MSc Thesis. Universidade de Lisboa. Dändliker, G. 1992. Le perroquet gris (Psittacus erithacus) en Guinée: evaluation des populations, contribution à la biologie, étude de l’exploitation commerciale et recommandations pour la gestion [in French]. CITES Secretariat, Commugny, Switzerland. Forshaw, J. 2010. Parrots of the World. A & C Black, London. Del Hoyo, J., Collar, N. and Kirwan, G.M. 1997. Timneh Parrot (Psittacus timneh). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E. (eds.) (2014). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Available at: http://www.hbw.com/node/467496. [Accessed: 7/07/2015]. Martin, R.O., Perrin, M.R., Boyes, R.S., Abebe, Y.D., Annorbah, N.D., Asamoah, A., Bizimana, D., Bobo, K.S., Bunbury, N., Brouwer, J. et al. 2014. Research and conservation of the larger parrots of Africa and Madagascar: a review of knowledge gaps and opportunities. Ostrich, 85(3): 205–233. Naurois, R. 1981. La distribution géographique du perroquet gris Psittacus erythacus timneh. Malimbus, 3: 59–61. Species Survival Network 2006. Recommendations of the Species Survival Network for proposals and resolutions to consider at CITES CoP14. Species Survival Network.

SAURIA: AGAMIDAE 33

Uromastyx dispar II/B

SYNONYMS: Uromastyx flavifasciata, Uromastyx maliensis

RANGE STATES: Algeria, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Sudan, Western Sahara

UNDER REVIEW: Algeria

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Algeria, Mali and Sudan first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Chad formed on 18/05/2010, subject to a quota of 2500 specimens. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 01/03/2003.

Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Mauritania and Western Sahara first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 01/03/2003.

IUCN: Not assessed

Trade patterns Algeria has not published any export quotas for Uromastyx dispar for the period 2004-2013. Algeria has not yet submitted a CITES annual report for 2013.

There was no reported direct or indirect trade in U. dispar from Algeria to the EU-28 or the rest of the world over the period 2004-2013. Conservation status Uromastyx dispar occurs along a belt across the southern part of the Sahara, from Western Sahara, Mauritania, Mali, the western and southern parts of Algeria, to the northern parts of Chad and Sudan (Sindaco and Jeremcenko, 2008). The species was reported to inhabit arid areas with rocky slopes in mountain valleys (AC22 Doc 10.2 Annex 6c). While it occurs in harsh habitats with few shrubs or grasses (Walls, 2012), it was also recorded in palm oases and fields (AC22 Doc 10.2 Annex 6c). Its range was found to be fragmented, and it was reported to occur at altitudes from 100 to 2000 m (AC22 Doc 10.2 Annex 6c).

Adults were reported to reach an average size of around 36 cm and Uromastyx species were reported to reach sexual maturity at 2-3 years of age, laying clutches of 8 and 25 eggs, depending on the species (Walls, 2012). However, sometimes entire clutches have been reported to disintegrate entirely, possibly due to not being fertile, due to unknown reasons (Walls, 2012).

The species has not yet been assessed by the IUCN. However, in the Mediterranean Basin it was considered to be Near Threatened (Cox et al., 2006).

Little information was reported to be available on the size of the population, although it was thought to be locally common (IUCN, in prep. in AC22 Doc 10.2 Annex 6c). The population was

thought to potentially number several hundred thousand and possibly even millions, based on 34 estimates for other Uromastyx species (AC22 Doc 10.2 Annex 6c). As their preferred habitat was thought to consist of desert environments with little or no commercial value, habitat loss was generally not seen as a threat to U. dispar (Nemtzov, 2008).

The species was included in the Review of Significant Trade process at AC 20 in 2004, including Algeria. The country was subsequently assessed as least concern, based on AC22 Doc., 10.2 Annex 6c (AC22 Summary Record).

Algeria: U. dispar was reported to predominantly occur in the southern and western parts of Algeria, however little information was available about its specific range, population size and status (Sindaco and Jeremcenko, 2008; AC22 Doc 10.2 Annex 6c).

The species was selected for review in the Review of Significant Trade process at the 20th meeting of the Animals Committee (AC22 Doc. 10.1). However, in 2006, the CITES Animals Committee (AC22 Doc 10.2 Annex 6c) considered exports of the species from Algeria to be of ‘least concern’ and the species was subsequently removed from the review process.

The species is included in the Dècret exècutif No° 12-235 du 3 Rajab 1433 from 2012 and appears to be protected in Algeria

No information on the conservation status or management of this species in Algeria was identified. References Cox, N.A., Chanson, J. and Stuart, S. 2006. The Status and Distribution of Reptiles and Amphibians of the Mediterranean Basin. IUCN. Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Nemtzov, S.C. 2008. Uromastyx lizards in Israel. NDF Workshop Case Studies, WG7 - Reptiles and Amphibians. Case study 5, 1–22. Sindaco, R. and Jeremcenko, V.K. 2008. The Reptiles of the Western Paleartic. 579 pp. Walls, J.G. 2012. Uromastyx Plus Other Common Agamids. i5 Publishing, New York.

SAURIA: CHAMAELEONIDAE 35

Trioceros eisentrauti II/B

SYNONYMS: Chamaeleo eisentrauti

COMMON NAMES: Eisentraut’s chameleon (EN), Caméléon d'Eisentraut (FR)

RANGE STATES: Cameroon

UNDER REVIEW: Cameroon

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Cameroon first imposed 30/04/2004 and last confirmed 28/05/2015. Suspension originally formed for Chamaeleo eisentrauti, which was subject to a taxonomic change at CITES CoP16. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Cameroon formed on 16/06/2003.

IUCN: Not assessed

Taxonomic note Originally included with Chamaeleo, from which Trioceros was split following CITES CoP16. More recently, T. eisentrauti was considered a subspecies of T. quadricornis, T. q. eisentrauti, based on molecular and morphological similarities (Barej et al., 2010). Trade patterns Cameroon has not published any export quotas for Trioceros eisentrauti for the period 2004-2013. Cameroon has not yet submitted CITES annual reports for 2008 and 2010-2013.

Direct trade in T. eisentrauti from Cameroon to the EU-28 2004-2013 comprised of four wild- sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes in 2005 and two bodies for scientific purposes in 2009 (Table 1).

Direct trade in T. eisentrauti from Cameroon to countries other than the EU-28 2004-2013 consisted of wild-sourced and captive-bred live animals traded for commercial purposes (Table 1).

No indirect trade in T. eisentrauti from Cameroon to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013. Table 1: Direct exports of Trioceros eisentrauti from Cameroon to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer 2 Exporter 2 live T W Importer Exporter 4 RoW live T C Importer 20 Exporter W Importer 20 10 Exporter 20 100 30 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Conservation status 36 Trioceros eisentrauti was reported to be endemic to the Rumpi Hills in western Cameroon (Barej et al., 2010; Gonwouo et al., 2006; Tilbury, 2010), where it occupies a restricted range in high elevation areas (1000-1700 m above sea level) (Barej et al., 2010; Gonwouo et al., 2006; Klaver and Böhme, 1992). It was reported to be confined to relatively pristine montane forests (Lawson, 1993; Gartshore, 1986 in Gonwouo et al., 2006), where it inhabits trees and shrubs of sub-montane (Chirio and LeBreton, 2007) and montane forests (Tilbury, 2010; Klaver and Böhme, 1992). Barej et al. (2010) located T. eisentrauti only above 1600 m, suggesting that the species’ range is even more restricted than previously indicated.

This taxon has not yet been assessed by the IUCN. Tilbury (2010) considered T. eisentrauti to be rare, restricted and vulnerable.

Habitat loss from deforestation and serious degradation of habitat was considered as the main threat and T. eisentrauti was thought to be particularly vulnerable due to its restricted distribution (Chirio and LeBreton, 2007; Gonwouo et al., 2006; Tilbury, 2010). In the 1980s, T. eisentrauti was considered probably not threatened by the pet trade (Gartshore, 1986 in Gonwouo et al., 2006) although it was later noted that it was sought after for the international pet trade (Gonwouo et al., 2006).

Due to its restricted range and collection for the pet trade, Gonwouo et al. (2006) advised that T. eisentrauti “be placed at the highest levels of protection”, and recommended study of its life history, focusing on demographic and ecological requirements, to facilitate conservation efforts for the species. He also recommended that a conservation strategy be developed for endemic montane chameleons in Cameroon, including other threatened species (Gonwouo et al., 2006).

T. eisentrauti was reported to occur within the Korup National Park (Tilbury, 2010).

Order No. 0648/MINFOF of 18 December 2006 classifies this species as a ‘class A’ species, which are species threatened with extinction and which are fully protected in Cameroon; the killing of these species is prohibited and capture is only allowed under permit for “management purposes”, for scientific research or to protect persons and property (Djeukam, 2007). References Barej, M.F., Ineich, I., Gvozdik, V., Lhermitte-Vallarino, N., Gonwouo, N.L., Lebreton, M., Bott, U. and Schmitz, A. 2010. Insights into chameleons of the genus Trioceros (Squamata: Chamaeleonidae) in Cameroon, with the resurrection of Chamaeleon serratus Mertens, 1922. Bonn zoological Bulletin, 57(2): 211–229. Chirio, L. and LeBreton, M. 2007. Atlas des reptiles du Cameroun. Puplications Scientifiques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, IRD Éditions, Paris, France. Djeukam, R. 2007. The wildlife law as a tool for protecting threatened species in Cameroon. Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF), Yaoundé, Cameroon. Gartshore, M.E. 1986. The status of the montane herpetofauna of the Cameroon highlands. In: Stuart, S.N. (Ed.). The conservation of the montane forests of western Cameroon. Report of the ICBP Cameroon Montane Forest Survey, November 1983 - April 1984. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, UK. 204–241. Gonwouo, N.L., LeBreton, M., Wild, C., Chirio, L., Ngassam, P. and Tchamba, M.N. 2006. Geographic and ecological distribution of the endemic montane chameleons along the Cameroon mountain range. Salamandra, 42(4): 213–230. Klaver, C. and Böhme, W. 1992. The species of the Chamaeleo cristatus group from Cameroon and adjacent countries, West Africa. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge, 43(3): 433–476. Lawson, D.P. 1993. The reptiles and amphibians of the Korup National Park, Cameroon. Herpetological Natural History, 1(2): 27–90. Tilbury, C.R. 2010. Chameleons of Africa: An Atlas, including the chameleons of Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Chimaira Buchhandelsgesellschaft mBH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE 37

Phelsuma dubia II/B

COMMON NAMES: Zanzibar Day Gecko (EN), Gecko diurne de Zanzibar (FR), Geco diurno de Zanzíbar (ES)

RANGE STATES: Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, United Republic of Tanzania

UNDER REVIEW: Comoros

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Comoros first applied on 18/02/2005 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed on 23/09/2002.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Current no opinion for Mozambique formed on 22/02/2000. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 19/09/1999.

Current positive opinion for wild specimens from the United Republic of Tanzania first formed on 22/02/2000 and last confirmed on 14/09/2010. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 19/09/1999.

IUCN: Least Concern

Trade patterns Comoros has not published annual export quotas for Phelsuma dubia for the period 2004-2013. Comoros has not yet submitted a CITES annual report for 2013.

Direct exports of P. dubia from Comoros to the EU-28 over the period 2004-2013 comprised one wild-sourced body imported for scientific purposes in 2010, reported by the importer (Table 1).

Direct exports of P. dubia to countries other than the EU-28 comprised wild-sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes over the period 2004-2007 (Table 1).

No indirect trade in P. dubia from Comoros to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013. Table 1: Direct exports of Phelsuma dubia from Comoros to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. All trade was in wild- sourced specimens.

Term Reported Importer (unit) Purpose by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S Importer 1 Exporter RoW live T Importer 2950 300 100 300 Exporter 1000 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Conservation status 38 Phelsuma dubia was reported to be widespread and occupying a large distribution range compared to other species of the genus (Meier, 1980). It was reported to inhabit parts of Madagascar, the Comoro Islands, Mozambique Island, coastal Tanzania, Zanzibar Island and Mombassa in Kenya (Spawls and Rotich, 1997; Spawls et al., 2002), and Mayotte (Baars, undated). The populations of P. dubia on the African mainland and Zanzibar, and quite possibly those on the Comoros, were thought to be a result of introductions by humans (Glaw and Vences, 1994; Bakker, 1997; Spawls et al., 2002; Rocha et al., 2007; Hallmann et al., 2008).

The species was found inhabiting banana and palm plantations as well as forest clearings (Carretero et al., 2005), which echoes the findings of Glaw and Vences (2007) and also Spawls et al. (2002) who found the species to inhabit forest edges and anthropogenic habitats such as buildings. Other studies have suggested that the species lacks geographic structure, and that its range likely reflects patterns of anthropogenic movement (Rocha et al., 2007).

According to Osadnik (1984), P. dubia is oviparous and has a potentially high reproductive rate. The species was reported to reach sexual maturity at eight months of age (Glaw and Vences, 2007). After a single mating, a female can reportedly produce up to six clutches of two eggs, with the clutches being laid at intervals of two to four weeks and the eggs hatching after 40-45 days (Osadnik, 1984). The eggs are glued to suitable substrates, which, together with the species’ adaptability to different habitats, was thought to play an important role in its expanding distribution (Hallmann et al., 2008). The species was also reported to be bred in captivity (Raxworthy et al., 2014).

There is little quantitative data on its abundance (Luxmoore et al,. 1988); however, various authors considered the species to be common (Raxworthy et al., 2014) or at least locally abundant in many parts of its distribution range (AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 5a; Carretero et al., 2005; Glaw and Vences, 2007; Raxworthy et al., 2014). The fact that it adapts well to human habitats and its high reproductive rate was believed to suggest it is extremely unlikely to be threatened with extinction (Anon, 2006).

The species was categorised as of Least Concern by the IUCN, with a stable population trend (Raxworthy et al., 2014).

The species was not considered to be subject to any major threats (Raxworthy et al., 2014). However, Harmon et al. (2007) believed that habitat change and destruction may have an effect on the genus. On the island of Nosy Be, off the western Malagasy coast, Andreone et al., (2003) noted that the generalisation that geckonids adapt well to anthropogenically altered habitats may only be the case under specific agricultural practices. In the nearby United Republic of Tanzania P. dubia constitutes 7.4% of total reptile exports, meaning it other parts of its range exporting could be deemed a threat (Robinson et al., 2015). The population in East Africa was deemed to be declining in mature individuals, where it was already fragmented and at risk of local extinction (Raxworthy et al., 2014). One of the main threats is habitat destruction, though the severity of this threat was not considered particularly critical and rather a threat in parts of its range (Luxmoore et al., 1988).

The species was selected for phase II of the Review of Significant Trade, including France (for Mayotte). Mayotte was subsequently considered to be of least concern (AC22 Summary Record) and the review was completed at AC22 (AC22 Doc. 10.2).

Comoros: The presence of P. dubia was confirmed from all four Comoros islands, where it is considered an invasive species (Hawlitschek et al., 2011). The introduction of the species in Comoros was thought to be a relatively recent event (Hawlischek et al., 2013; Rocha et al., 2007).

Hawlischek (2008) noted that on Mayotte, the species was very common on banana plants, together with P. laticauda. 39 No further information on the population status or on the management of this species in the Comoros was identified. References Andreone, F., Glaw, F., Nussbaum, R.A., Raxworthy, C.J., Vences, M. and Randrianirina, J.E. 2003. The amphibians and reptiles of Nosy Be (NW Madagascar) and nearby islands: a case study of diversity and conservation of an insular fauna. Journal of Natural History, 37(17): 2119– 2149. Baars, C. Phelsuma dubia. Available at: http://www.phelsumaweb.nl/eng/mayotte.html [Accessed on 22/04/2015]. Bakker, A. 1997. Phelsuma General Information. Available at: www.angelfire.com/pa/phelsuma/phelgeninfo.html [Accessed on 10/08/2010]. Carretero, M.A., Harris, D. J. and Rocha, S. 2005. Recent observations of reptiles in the Comoro islands (Western Indian Ocean). Herpetological Bulletin, 91(1): 19–29. Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 1994. A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. 2nd edn. Moos Druck / FARBO, Leverkusen & Koln. Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 2007. A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. 3rd Ed. Vences & Glaw Verlag, Cologne. Hallmann, G., Krueger, J. and Trautmann, G. 2008. Faszinierende Taggeckos Die Gattung Phelsuma. 2. überarb. Natur und Tier - Verlag GmbH, München. Harmon, L.J., Harmon, L.L. and Jones, C.G. 2007. Competition and community structure in diurnal arboreal geckos (genus Phelsuma) in the Indian Ocean. Oikos, 116(11): 1863–1878. Hawlischek, O. 2008. Systematics and distribution of the herpetofauna of the Comoro islands. Unpublished Diploma thesis at the University of Munich. Hawlitschek, O., Brückmann, B., Berger, J., Green, K. and Glaw, F. 2011. Integrating field surveys and remote sensing data to study distribution, habitat use and conservation status of the herpetofauna of the Comoro Islands. ZooKeys, 144: 21–79. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. and Broad, S. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: A review of selected species in CITES Appendix II, Vol. 2. Reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 306 pp. Meier, H. 1980. Zur Taxonomie und Oekologie der Gattung Phelsuma auf den Komoren mit Beschreibung einer neuen Art. 323–332. Osadnik, G. 1984. An investigation of egg laying in Phelsuma (Reptilia: Sauria: Gekkonidae). Amphibia-Reptilia, 5: 125–134. Raxworthy, C.J., Spawls, S., Msuya, C.A., Malonza, P. & Hawlitschek, O. 2014. Phelsuma dubia. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed on 22/042015]. Robinson, J.E., Griffiths, R. A, John, F.A.V.S. and Roberts, D.L. 2015. Dynamics of the global trade in live reptiles : Shifting trends in production and consequences for sustainability. Biological Conservation, 184: 42–50. Rocha, S., Posada, D., Carretero, M. and Harris, D.J. 2007. Phylogenetic affinities of Comoroan and East African day geckos (genus Phelsuma): multiple natural colonisations, introductions and island radiations. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 43(2): 685–92. Spawls, S. and Rotich, D. 1997. An annotated checklist of the lizards of Kenya. Journal of East African Natural History, 86: 61–83. Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R. and Ashe, J. 2002. A Field Guide to the Reptiles of East Africa. Academic Press, New York, USA.

40 SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE

Phelsuma laticauda II/B

COMMON NAMES: Flat-tailed Day Gecko (EN), Gecko diurne à large queue (FR), Geco diurno de cola gruesa (ES)

RANGE STATES: Comoros, French Polynesia (introduced), Madagascar, Mayotte, Seychelles, United States of America (introduced)

UNDER REVIEW: Comoros

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Comoros first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed on 23/09/2002.

Current no opinion i) for wild specimens from Madagascar formed on 02/12/2011. Previous positive opinion formed on 26/09/2006.

IUCN: Least Concern

Trade patterns Comoros has not published any CITES export quotas for Phelsuma laticauda for 2004-2013. Comoros has not yet submitted a CITES annual report for 2013.

Direct exports of P. laticauda to the EU-28 in the period 2004-2013 consisted one wild-sourced body imported for scientific purposes in 2010.

Direct exports of P. laticauda to countries other than the EU-28 comprised wild-sourced live animals for commercial purposes (Table 1).

No indirect trade in P. laticauda from Comoros to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004- 2013. Table 1: Direct exports of Phelsuma laticauda from Comoros to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (unit) by EU-28 bodies S W Importer 1 Exporter RoW live T W Importer 4750 2250 750 300 Exporter 4950 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Phelsuma laticauda is native to Madagascar (Glaw and Vences, 2007), though was also found on the Island of Mo’orea, French Polynesia (Ota and Ineida, 2006), Comoros, Mauritius, Mayotte, Réunion and the United States Minor Outlying Island (Gerlach et al., 2011).

The species was commonly found on sun-exposed vegetation such as banana plants and also in anthropogenic habitats such as houses and gardens. In contrast, it is also found in open spots of

primary rainforest, thereby seemingly benefiting from localised deforestation (Glaw and Vences, 2007). 41 There are 42 known species and subspecies within the Phelsuma genus, and despite there being substantial literature on the taxonomy of the genus, there is little information on natural history or population dynamics (Sound et al., 2006; Gehring, et al., 2010). There is a noticeable paucity of population data on P. laticauda, though recent reports indicate that it has expanded from solely the north of Madagascar to parts of the east coast due to captive individuals escaping and forming new populations (Dubos et al., 2014).

P. laticauda individuals reach sexual maturity after 10 – 12 months in captivity, and eggs hatch after 45 days, indicating a potentially high reproductive rate, similar to other species in the genus (Glaw and Vences, 2007). The species reaches sexual maturity at 10-12 months of age and up to eight clutches of two eggs each were reported from captivity (Hallmann et al., 2008).

The species was categorised as of Least Concern by the IUCN, with a stable population trend (Gerlach et al., 2011). It was considered abundant in the humid regions of northern Madagascar, notably the Sambirano region, as well as the coastal north-east (Glaw and Vences, 2007).

There are no known explicit threats to the species, in part because of its adaptive ability to inhabit anthropogenic habitats (Luxmoore et al., 1988).

Comoros: Hawlitschek et al. (2011) described P. laticauda as being an invasive species on the Island of Mayotte. The species was reported to occur throughout Mayotte and was also reported from Anjouan (Hawlischek, 2008). The species was reported to mainly occur in urban open spaces and plantations, but also in other habitat types (Hawlischek, 2008).

Hawlischek (2008) noted that on Mayotte, the species was the most commonly observed species of this genus and that it was common on banana plants. It was also considered abundant in plantation and settlements (Hawlischek, 2008). Luxmoore et al. (1988) report that in the mid- 1980s the Comoros Islands were the largest exporter of P. laticauda. Gerlach et al. (2011) noted that no recent information on the abundance of P. laticauda on islands other than Madagascar appears to be available.

No further information on the population status or on the management of this species in the Comoros was identified. References Dubos, N., Piludu, N., Andriantsimanarilafy, R.R., Randrianantoandro, J.C. and Andreone, F. 2014. New findings of Phelsuma grandis and P. laticauda (Sauria: Gekkonidae) at the southern edge of the range of the endangered Phelsuma serraticauda in eastern Madagascar. Herpetology Notes, 7(1): 21–23. Gehring, P.S., Crottini, A., Glaw, F., Hauswaldt, S. and Ratsoavina, F.M. 2010. Notes on the natural history, distribution and malformations of day geckos (Phelsuma) from Madagascar. Herpetology Notes, 3(1): 321–327. Gerlach, J., Ineich, I. & Vences, M. 2011. Phelsuma laticauda. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed on 22/04/2015]. Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 2007. A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. 3rd Ed. Vences & Glaw Verlag, Cologne. Hallmann, G., Krueger, J. and Trautmann, G. 2008. Faszinierende Taggeckos Die Gattung Phelsuma. 2. überarb. Natur und Tier - Verlag GmbH, München. Hawlischek, O. 2008. Systematics and distribution of the herpetofauna of the Comoro islands. Unpublished Diploma thesis at the University of Munich.

Hawlitschek, O., Brückmann, B., Berger, J., Green, K. and Glaw, F. 2011. Integrating field surveys and remote sensing data to study distribution, habitat use and conservation status of the 42 herpetofauna of the Comoro Islands. ZooKeys, 144: 21–79. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. and Broad, S. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: A review of selected species in CITES Appendix II, Vol. 2. Reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 306 pp. Ota, H. and Ineida, I. 2006. Colonization of the gold dust day gecko, Phelsuma laticauda (Reptilia: Gekkonidae), in Moorea of the Society Archipelago, French Polynesia. Current Herpetology, 25(2): 97–99. Sound, P., Kosuch, J., Vences, M., Seitz, A. and Veith, M. 2006. Preliminary molecular relationships of Comoran day geckos (Phelsuma). Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica, 179: 175–179.

Overview of status and 43 management of Uroplatus spp. in Madagascar

The genus Uroplatus includes 14 recognised species of ‘leaf-tailed’ geckos, all of which are endemic to Madagascar. This section provides information on the status and trends of Uroplatus spp. within Madagascar, the threats affecting them, and management actions taken to ensure sustainability of the trade.

Taxonomy Raxworthy (2003), the CITES standard nomenclatural reference for Uroplatus spp. adopted at CoP16 in 2013, lists ten species within the genus: Uroplatus alluaudi, U. ebenaui, U. fimbriatus, U. guentheri, U. henkeli, U. lineatus, U. malahelo, U. malama, U. phantasticus and U. sikorae. Four additional species are recognized by separate CITES standard nomenclatural references: U. pietschmanni (Böhle and Schönecker, 2003), U. giganteus (separated from U. fimbriatus by Glaw et al., 2006), U. sameiti (treated as a distinct species from U. sikorae by Raxworthy et al., 2008), and U. finiavana (formally separated from U. ebenaui by Ratsoavina et al., 2011e).

In addition to the 14 recognised species listed above, several morphological and genetic studies (e.g. Greenbaum et al., 2007; Raxworthy et al., 2008; Ratsoavina et al., 2012; Ratsoavina et al., 2013) have suggested that a number of additional taxa, particularly within the U. ebenaui and U. phantasticus species complexes, may also warrant species status. Status and trends Uroplatus spp. are endemic to Madagascar, where they are distributed in all regions, with the exception of the most arid southern spiny forest, and the very highest montane regions over 2400 m above sea level (Raxworthy et al., 2008). No single species occurs throughout Madagascar, with each associated with a specific primary vegetation type and altitudinal range (Pearson et al., 2007). Uroplatus spp. are highly specialised, arboreal and nocturnal species, found in both humid and dry forests, albeit with higher diversity in the former (Glaw and Vences, 2007; Raxworthy et al., 2008). They appear to occur at low density in the wild, with it reportedly “rare to find more than one individual per person-hour of searching” in most suitable habitats (CoP13 Inf. 55).

Most of the Uroplatus species were first assessed for the IUCN Red List in 2011, with two of the ten species under review categorised as Endangered (U. guentheri and U. pietschmanni), three as Vulnerable (U. ebenaui, U. henkeli and U. malama) and the remaining five as Least Concern (U. fimbriatus, U. lineatus, U. phantasticus, U. sameiti and U. sikorae; IUCN, 2015). In general, there is little or no quantitative information available on population size or trends, but for seven species the population trend was presumed to be decreasing; for the remaining three it was reported as unknown (IUCN, 2015).

Durkin et al. (2011) noted that the herpetofauna of Madagascar remained understudied, especially outside of protected areas. Although efforts have been made in recent years to improve understanding of Madagascan reptiles (Jenkins et al., 2014), knowledge of species' distribution and abundance, and the condition and extent of remaining habitat remains incomplete (Durkin et al., 2011; Jenkins et al., 2014). Indeed, for nine of the ten species under review, the conservation

actions proposed in their respective IUCN Red List assessments included further research into 44 their taxonomy, distribution and/or population status (IUCN, 2015). Threats Jenkins et al. (2014) identified habitat loss and degradation as the main threat to Madagascar's reptiles. Forest cover in Madagascar decreased almost 40% from the 1950s to 2000 (Harper et al., 2007), and over the period 1990 to 2000, the rate of deforestation was estimated at 0.83% per year, declining to 0.53% per year from 2000-2005, and to 0.4% per year between 2005 and 2010 (MEFT et al., 2009; ONE et al., 2013). As arboreal, forest-dwelling species (CoP13 Prop. 27), Uroplatus spp. were considered vulnerable to both forest loss and fragmentation (IUCN, 2015).

Jenkins et al. (2014) indicated that direct exploitation was only an issue for some taxa such as chelonians, some chameleons and some geckos, noting that illegal trade in species such as Uroplatus spp. was a threat to some species and undermined efforts to maintain a legal and sustainable trade. The risk to geckos was also highlighted by Bauer (2003), who noted that, although the impact of the pet trade was “difficult to assess accurately”, Uroplatus was one of the genera that were “particularly popular with herpetoculturalists”.

In the proposal to list the genus Uroplatus spp. on CITES Appendix II (CoP13 Prop. 27), it was noted that the “impact of […] harvesting from the wild […] is doubtless considerable and might lead to the species rapidly becoming locally extinct unless appropriate measures are taken in time”. Illegal collection within protected areas has also been reported as a problem, with Lokobe Strict Nature Reserve (on Nosy Be) cited as an example where “commercial collecting has already depleted populations”, and a number of other reserves – including Ankarafantsika National Park, Betampona Strict Nature Reserve, Marojejy National Park, Montagne d'Ambre National Park – also reported as “suspected collecting areas” (CoP13 Inf. 55). As collecting naturally concentrates on easily accessible sites, and because of “the low density of the populations”, it was suggested that yields were “unlikely to be sustainable for any Uroplatus populations” (CoP13 Inf. 55).

Harvesting was classified as an ongoing threat in the Red List assessments of five of the species under review (U. ebenaui, U. henkeli, U. lineatus, U. phantasticus and U. pietschmanni), although the severity of the impact was considered unknown (IUCN, 2015). Protection and management CITES Processes Despite being proposed for inclusion in Appendix II at CITES CoP1 in 1976, Uroplatus spp. was only included in CITES Appendix II on 12 January 2005 (CITES Notification No. 2004/073), following the successful proposal by Madagascar at CoP13 in 2004 (CoP13 Prop. 27).

Following CITES CoP14, the genus Uroplatus was selected for Review of Significant Trade at the 23rd meeting of the Animals Committee, on the basis of trade data provided in document AC23 Doc. 8.5. The resulting review (UNEP-WCMC, 2010), covering the 12 species recognised at the time, provisionally categorised U. ebenaui, U. fimbriatus, U. guentheri, U. henkeli, U. lineatus, U. malama, U. phantasticus, U. pietschmanni and U. sikorae as of “possible concern”, and (based primarily on a lack of international trade) U. alluaudi, U. giganteus and U. malahelo as of “possible concern”. These categories were subsequently confirmed by the relevant working group at the 25th meeting of the Animals Committee in July 2011 (AC25 WG1 Doc. 1), and the following recommendations were made for the nine species of possible concern (AC25 summary record):

“Within 90 days a) The Management Authority of Madagascar should provide to the Secretariat detailed information on: i) the distribution and abundance of the Uroplatus spp. under consideration; and

ii) the justification, and the scientific basis, to demonstrate that the 2011 export quotas, if not zero, will not be detrimental to the survival of the species and are in compliance 45 with Article IV, paragraphs 2 (a) and 3; and b) The Management Authority of Madagascar should provide to the Secretariat, for publication on the CITES website, any zero quotas established for Uroplatus spp.

Within 2 years - The Management Authority of Madagascar develop methods and materials to properly identify Uroplatus spp in trade to species level.”

These species remained in the Review until 2014, at which point Madagascar was deemed to have provided full information on the status of these species, with revised quotas and indicated that a revision of the quotas was planned again for 2014 (SC62 Doc. 27.1 (Rev. 1)). These species were removed from the Review process on this basis in 2014 (AC27 Doc. 12.3). Quotas and collection Following their inclusion in CITES Appendix II in January 2005, Madagascar published annual export quotas for the Uroplatus spp. ranging from 100 to 2000 live specimens. These quotas remained consistent during 2005–2009 (Table 1), but were then reduced (except in the case of U. guentheri) in 2010, and amended in 2012 (including the provision of zero quotas for relevant species, as recommended by the CITES Animals Committee) and again in 2014. The quotas published in 2014 and 2015 ranged between 250 and 1500 live specimens for the species categorised as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List (U. fimbriatus, U. lineatus, U. phantasticus, U. sameiti and U. sikorae), but were zero (or missing in 2015) for the Vulnerable and Endangered species, with the exception of U. ebenaui. Table 1: CITES export quotas (live specimens) published by Madagascar 2005–2015 for the Uroplatus species under review in this document

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 U. ebenaui 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 250 250 83 83 150 150 U. fimbriatus 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 312 312 497 497 1000 1000 U. guentheri 100 100 100 100 100 125 125 0 0 0 - U. henkeli 200 200 200 200 200 125 125 35 35 0 - U. lineatus 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 63 63 227 227 250 250 U. malama 100 100 100 100 100 - - 0 0 0 - U. phantasticus 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 - - 70 70 500 500 U. pietschmanni 500 500 500 500 500 - - 0 0 0 - U. sameiti* ------0 0 500 500 U. sikorae* 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 867 867 1500 1500 * U. sameiti was only officially recognised as a full species, separate from U. sikorae, following the adoption of Raxworthy et al. (2008) as the standard reference at CITES CoP16 in 2013. Quotas for ‘U. sikorae’ before this presumably also included individuals of (the then subspecies) sameiti.

Ratsoavina et al. (2011a) suggested that there had been a deliberate policy decision not to separate export quotas for U. sameiti and U. sikorae, for fear that this would lead to overexploitation of U. sameiti, the more accessible lowland species. In the context of quotas, Raxworthy et al. (2011b) also noted that the taxonomic confusion surrounding the U. ebenaui species complex (for example) made the identity of exported specimens difficult to verify. Regulatory background in Madagascar Following a period of political instability in 2002, the CITES Management Authority of Madagascar introduced a six-month moratorium on all international trade in native species of

fauna and flora (Rabesihanaka et al., 2008). In accordance with the recommendations of the 46 CITES Animals and Plants Committees, a Review of Significant Trade was conducted at the country level in Madagascar, which resulted in the creation of a CITES Action Plan for the reform of Madagascar’s wildlife export and the establishment of an operational Scientific Authority (Rabesihanaka et al., 2008). At the same time, Madagascar adopted several pieces of legislation relating to wildlife trade (Ministère de l’Environnement, des Eaux et Forêts et du Tourisme, 2006):

 Act No. 2005-018 of 17 October 2005 on international trade of species of wild fauna and flora;  Decree No. 2006-097 of 31 January 2006 setting the procedures for the implementation of Act No. 2005-018 of 17 October 2005;  Decree No. 2006-098 of 23 February 2006 concerning the publication of the revised Appendices to CITES;  Decree No. 2006-400 of 13 June 2006 on the classification of species of wildlife. Under Decree No. 2006-400, species were classified into three categories: protected (Category I), harmful (Category II) and game (Category III). In the case of the Uroplatus spp., U. alluaudi was listed in Category I, Class I, which entails complete protection (all hunting, collection, consumption and trade strictly prohibited) throughout Madagascar. U. ebenaui, U. fimbriatus, U. guentheri, U. henkeli, U. lineatus, U. malahelo, U. malama, U. phantasticus, U. pietschmanni and U. sikorae were all listed in Category I, Class II, which encompasses species that can be hunted or collected if authorisation is obtained, in compliance with quotas set annually by the CITES Management Authority, based on proposals from the Scientific Authority (Rakotoarivelo et al., 2011). U. finiavana, U. giganteus and U. sameiti were not listed in any category (based on Ministère de l’Environnement, des Eaux et Forêts et du Tourisme, 2006), presumably because they were not recognised as separate species (i.e. still treated as part of U. ebenaui, U. fimbriatus and U. sikorae, respectively) at that time.

A review of Malagasy wildlife trade policy found that procedures and agency staff changed frequently, communication between agencies and participants in trade was weak, there were numerous gaps in the understanding of CITES, and there was a lack of funding (UNEP and UNCTAD, 2008). As a result, implementation of national wildlife laws was considered poor (UNEP and UNCTAD, 2008). The review also noted “exports exceeding quotas, questionable data employed in the setting of quotas and widespread illegal trafficking” (UNEP and UNCTAD, 2008; Todd, 2011). Protected areas Jenkins et al. (2014) estimated that 40% of the geographic range of Malagasy reptiles was within the national network of Protected Areas, including the most threatened endemic reptiles in Madagascar. In 2003, Madagascar’s President Ravalomanana pledged to triple the coverage of protected areas in the country to six million hectares within five years (Durban Vision), which corresponds to around 10% of the total land area (IUCN, 2008; USAID, 2008), to be undertaken through the establishment of the Système d’Aires Protégées de Madagascar. By 2008, parks covered 9.4% of the land surface, representing 5 554 095 hectares (Allnutt et al., 2009). In 2013, WWF (2013) reported that a Protected Area network covering more than six million hectares was in place in Madagascar.

Nevertheless, habitat loss and direct exploitation of reptiles were still reported to occur within the boundaries of protected areas (Jenkins et al., 2014). D’Cruze et al. (2009) reported that herpetological conservation efforts had focussed more on Madagascar’s evergreen rainforest than on dry deciduous forests, spiny forest and savannah areas.

SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE 47

Uroplatus ebenaui II/B

SYNONYMS: Uroplatus boettgeri

COMMON NAMES: Nosy Bé Flat-tailed Gecko (EN), Geckos à queue plate d'Ebenau (FR)

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for Madagascar formed on 20/12/2005 and last confirmed on 12/06/2006.

IUCN: Vulnerable

Taxonomic Note A form of Uroplatus ebenaui from Montagne d'Ambre, recognised as morphologically and genetically distinct by several authors (e.g. Glaw and Vences, 2007; Greenbaum et al., 2007), was separated as a new species, U. finiavana, by Ratsoavina et al. (2011e). Genetic studies (e.g. Greenbaum et al., 2007; Raxworthy et al., 2008; Ratsoavina et al., 2013) suggested that the current taxon U. ebenaui probably still represents a complex of several species, with Ratsoavina et al. (2013) proposing as many as eight new species (including the genetically distinct subpopulations from Marojejy and Tsaratanana noted by Glaw and Vences (2007) and Greenbaum et al. (2007). Trade patterns Madagascar published annual export quotas for Uroplatus ebenaui every year 2005-2015. The quota appears to have been exceeded in 2010 and 2012, both according to data reported by importers and Madagascar (Table 1). A permit analysis revealed that in both 2010 and 2012 importers reported trade on permits which appear to have been issued in the previous year, however this does not account for all of the apparent excess. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in U. ebenaui to the EU-28 and to countries other than the EU-28 2004-2013 primarily comprised of wild-sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). Indirect trade in U. ebenaui to the EU-28 originating in Madagascar 2004-2013 comprised four live, captive-bred individuals re-exported via the United States for commercial purposes in 2004.

Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Uroplatus ebenaui from 48 Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quotas (live) - 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 250 250 83 83 150 150 Reported by Importers 201 1102 802 916 951 898 619 237 121 43 Reported by Exporter 840 861 1553 1281 1518 1454 1510 206 119 75 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Table 2: Direct exports of Uroplatus ebenaui from Madagascar to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. Small amounts of trade in scientific specimens have been excluded.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer 1 15 4 Exporter 1 live T W Importer 101 120 22 Exporter 125 289 12 99 20 - - Importer 25 Exporter tails (kg) S W Importer Exporter <0.01 RoW bodies T I Importer 4 Exporter live T I Importer 6 28 Exporter W Importer 100 982 802 916 929 898 619 237 121 43 Exporter 715 572 1553 1269 1419 1434 1510 206 119 75 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Uroplatus ebenaui is endemic to Madagascar, where it occurs in humid and transitional forest in the north of the island, from Ampombofofo and Forêt d'Ambre Special Reserve south through Diana, Sava, Sofia and Analanjirofo regions to (at least) Ankarafantsika National Park (Boeny region) and Marotandrano (Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Additional records from sites further south were considered doubtful, or attributed to additional species within the U. ebenaui complex, by some authors (e.g. Raxworthy et al., 2011b; Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Overall, U. ebenaui (sensu lato) has been recorded from sea level up to 2040 m, although some of the populations at higher altitudes – e.g. those at Marojejy (c. 1600 m above sea level), Tsaratanana (2040 m) and the cluster of localities around Bemanevika (approximately 1150–1500 m) – have been proposed to represent separate species (Greenbaum et al., 2007; Raxworthy et al., 2008; Ratsoavina et al., 2013).

U. ebenaui was reportedly “not very frequent in the areas where it is found”, with no more than six specimens found in seven days of intensive searching taken to suggest “a low population density in the wild” (CoP13 Prop. 27). Raxworthy et al. (2011b) suggested that, as the species is dependent on intact forest, “which is fragmentary and under pressure throughout its range”, its population was believed to be severely fragmented and declining. Raxworthy et al. (2011b) suggested an extent of occurrence of less than 8000 km².

The species was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Raxworthy et al., 2011b), on the basis of its severely fragmented and apparently restricted range, the continuing decline in extent and quality of suitable habitat, and potentially also in the number of mature individuals.

The main threats to U. ebenaui were reported to be habitat loss and degradation (Raxworthy et al., 2011b). Although they indicated that commercial export of live animals is “limited and

probably does not represent a major threat”, Raxworthy et al. (2011b) suggested that more information was needed on population trends at collection sites to avoid localised risk to 49 subpopulations. Given the taxonomic confusion surrounding the U. ebenaui species complex, the risk to more distinct subpopulations was thought to deserve further study (Raxworthy et al., 2011b). Occasional illegal collection of U. ebenaui has been reported from Lokobe Strict Nature Reserve on Nosy Be (Andreone et al., 2003).

50 SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE

Uroplatus fimbriatus II/B

SYNONYMS: Ptyodactylus fimbriatus, Stellio fimbriatus

COMMON NAMES: Common Flat-tailed Gecko (EN), Geckos à queue plate commun (FR)

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN: Least Concern

Taxonomic Note Uroplatus fimbriatus (sensu lato) was formerly included U. giganteus, but the latter has since been recognised as a separate species, based on molecular, morphological and chromatic differences (Glaw et al., 2006). Trade patterns Madagascar published annual export quotas for Uroplatus fimbriatus every year 2005-2015. The quota appears to have been exceeded in 2010, both according to data reported by importers and Madagascar (Table 1). A permit analysis revealed that 233 live wild-sourced individuals reported by importers were exported on permits which appeared to have been issued in the previous year; however this did not account for all of the apparent quota excess. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in U. fimbriatus to the EU-28 principally consisted of live, wild-sourced animals for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct exports to countries other than the EU-28 2004-2013 also primarily comprised wild-sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). No indirect trade in U. fimbriatus from Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported for the period 2004- 2013. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Uroplatus fimbriatus from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quotas (live) - 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 312 312 497 497 1000 1000 Reported by Importers 241 1292 833 822 942 756 604 307 198 208 Reported by Exporter 976 1133 1681 1267 1437 1433 1628 229 419 433 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Table 2: Direct exports of Uroplatus fimbriatus from Madagascar to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. Small amounts of 51 trade in scientific specimens have been excluded.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer 2 3 Exporter 2 live T W Importer 138 130 30 Exporter 160 422 12 38 12 4 9 - - Importer 20 Exporter RoW bodies S W Importer Exporter 10 live S W Importer 10 Exporter T I Importer 5 52 Exporter W Importer 103 1152 833 822 912 756 604 307 198 208 Exporter 816 711 1681 1255 1399 1421 1628 225 419 424 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Uroplatus fimbriatus is endemic to Madagascar, where it occurs in low-altitude rainforest and littoral forest, from sea level to approximately 800 m, in the east of the island, from Makira and Nosy Mangabe in the north, south through Analanjirofo, Alaotra-Mangoro, Atsinanana and Vatovavy-Fitovinany regions to Vondrozo, near Farafagana (Glaw and Vences, 2007; Raxworthy et al., 2011c; Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Reports from even further south, at Eminiminy (outside Andohahela National Park), are reportedly based on unverified historical records (Raxworthy et al., 2011c), which were considered “doubtful” by Ratsoavina et al. (2013). Its extent of occurrence was estimated at 88 391 km2 (Raxworthy et al., 2011c), however, the extent of remaining forest habitat within this areas was estimated to be only 7500 km2 (Raxworthy et al., 2011c).

U. fimbriatus was noted to occur at “a very high population density” on Nosy Mangabe (Glaw and Vences 2007), whereas elsewhere it was considered “not very frequent in the areas where it is found”, with no more than six specimens found in seven days of intensive searching taken to suggest “a low population density in the wild” (CoP13 Prop. 27). Raxworthy et al. (2011c) suggested that the population was likely to be both severely fragmented and declining, as the species is dependent on lowland forest.

The species was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List, as any declines were thought unlikely to be rapid enough to warrant its listing as threatened (Raxworthy et al., 2011c).

Despite noting that it is may tolerate light or moderate disturbance, Raxworthy et al. (2011c) indicated that the main threats to U. fimbriatus are logging and deforestation, which was considered pronounced at low elevations in eastern Madagascar. Although they indicated that actual levels of exploitation were unknown, Raxworthy et al. (2011c) suggested that “commercial export is likely to be sustainable and probably does not represent a threat to this species”.

52 SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE

Uroplatus guentheri II/B

COMMON NAMES: Günther's Flat-tailed Gecko (EN), Geckos à queue plate de Günther (FR)

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN: Endangered

Trade patterns Madagascar published export quotas for live Uroplatus guentheri every year 2005-2013. The quota appears to have been exceeded in 2005, 2010 and 2011 according to data reported by Madagascar (Table 1). Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in U. guentheri to the EU-28 primarily comprised live, wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes. Direct trade in U. guentheri to countries other than the EU-28 2004-2013 also principally consisted of wild-sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes (Table 2).

No indirect trade in U. guentheri originating in Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Uroplatus guentheri from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quotas (live) - 100 100 100 100 100 125 125 0* 0* 0* - Reported by Importers 24 70 9 21 14 8 8 24 4 0 Reported by Exporter 40 111 65 41 76 35 147 128 4 0 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. *Quota published in these years did not specify a term.

Table 2: Direct exports of Uroplatus guentheri from Madagascar to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. Small amounts of trade 53 in scientific specimens have been excluded.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (units) EU-28 live T W Importer 24 Exporter 40 tails (kg) S W Importer Exporter <0.01 RoW live T I Importer 4 Exporter W Importer 70 9 21 14 8 8 24 4 Exporter 40 71 65 41 76 35 147 128 4 tails (kg) S W Importer Exporter <0.01 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Uroplatus guentheri is endemic to Madagascar, where it is known from deciduous dry forest at a limited number of widely separated sites, between 30 m and 290 m above sea level, in the west of the island (Glaw and Vences, 2007; Raxworthy et al., 2011a; Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Reported localities include Andranomanintsy, Tsaramandroso, Ankarafantsika National Park, Kilefily, Tsingy de Bemaraha National Park, Ankilogoa, Ambalimby–Masoarivo, Kirindy Mitea National Park and Morondava (Glaw and Vences, 2007; Ratsoavina et al., 2013), which together are estimated to make up an occupied range of less than 4000 km² (Raxworthy et al., 2011a).

The species was categorised as Endangered in the IUCN Red List, on the basis of its restricted and severely fragmented range, and a continuing decline in the extent and quality of its forest habitat (Raxworthy et al., 2011a). No quantitative population information was identified for U. guentheri, but one expert (pers. comm. to UNEP-WCMC, 2010) estimated that the population may exceed 10 000 individuals, and Raxworthy et al. (2011a) indicated that the species “occurs at low densities at known sites”, and suggested that, as a forest-dependent species, it “is likely to be declining”.

As it depends on intact forest for its survival, the main threats to U. guentheri are believed to be fires, cattle grazing, selective logging, charcoal production and forest clearance for agriculture (Raxworthy et al., 2011a). Although collection for the pet trade could also be a concern, one expert (pers. comm. to UNEP-WCMC, 2010) considered that wild harvesting may be inefficient as the species is arboreal, and may not have a high impact on local populations.

54 SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE

Uroplatus henkeli II/B

COMMON NAMES: Henkel's Flat-tailed Gecko (EN), Geckos à queue plate de Henkel (FR)

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN: Vulnerable

Taxonomic Note Based on genetic and morphological data, Ratsoavina et al. (2013) suggested that the northernmost populations (i.e. those in northern Diana and Sava regions) merit treatment as a separate species. Trade patterns Madagascar published export quotas for live Uroplatus henkeli every year 2005-2014. Trade appears to have exceeded the quota in 2010 as reported by Madagascar and 2012 as reported by both Madagascar and trading partners (Table 1). A permit analysis revealed that eight live, wild- sourced specimens reported by importers were exported on permits which appear to have been issued in the previous year; however this does not account for all of the apparent excess. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in U. henkeli to the EU-28 2004-2013 primarily comprised live, wild-sourced animals traded for commercial purposes in 2004, 2005 and 2008 (Table 2).

Direct trade in U. henkeli to countries other than the EU-28 also principally consisted of live, wild-sourced animals for commercial purposes.

No indirect trade in U. henkeli from Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004- 2013. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Uroplatus henkeli from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quotas (live) - 200 200 200 200 200 125 125 35 35 0* - Reported by Importers 173 118 81 79 88 55 71 93 44 24 Reported by Exporter 52 164 178 107 176 107 264 83 50 34 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. *Quota published in this year did not specify a term.

Table 2: Direct exports of Uroplatus henkeli from Madagascar to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. Small amounts of trade 55 in scientific specimens have been excluded.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer 4 5 4 Exporter live T W Importer 113 6 10 Exporter 6 55 10 RoW live T I Importer 4 Exporter W Importer 60 112 81 79 78 55 71 93 44 24 Exporter 46 109 178 107 166 107 264 83 50 34 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Uroplatus henkeli is endemic to Madagascar, where it has a disjunct distribution in low-altitude rainforest, deciduous dry forest and (occasionally) bamboo forest, from sea level up to 440 m, in the northwest and north of the island (Boeny, Sofia, Diana and Sava regions), with an apparently isolated population further south, in Tsingy de Bemaraha National Park (Glaw and Vences, 2007; Raxworthy and Vences, 2010; Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Its extent of occurrence was estimated at approximately 12 000 km2 (Raxworthy and Vences, 2010).

U. henkeli was categorised as “common” during surveys at Forêt D'Ambre Special Reserve (D'Cruze et al., 2008) and in two dry deciduous forest fragments at Tsarakibany, northern Diana region (Durkin et al., 2011).

The species was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List, based on its severely fragmented and restricted occupied range, and a continuing decline in the extent and quality of the primary forest habitat on which it depends (Raxworthy and Vences, 2010). Furthermore, Raxworthy and Vences (2010) noted that future taxonomic revisions (such as the recognition of the northernmost populations as a separate species) could result in an effective reduction of the geographic range of the taxa in question, which might necessitate their uplisting to a higher threat category in due course.

The main threat to U. henkeli was believed to be the degradation and loss of its forest habitat (Raxworthy and Vences, 2010). The species is also subject to collection for the pet trade, including illegal collection within protected areas (e.g. Lokobe Strict Nature Reserve on Nosy Be; Andreone et al., 2003), although there was no information on the number of individuals harvested (Raxworthy and Vences, 2010).

56 SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE

Uroplatus lineatus II/B

SYNONYMS: Ptyodactylus lineatus

COMMON NAMES: Lined Flat-tailed Gecko (EN), Geckos à queue plate ligné (FR)

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN: Least Concern

Trade patterns Madagascar published annual export quotas for live Uroplatus lineatus every year 2005-2013. The quota appears to have been exceeded in 2010 as reported by both the importers and Madagascar and in 2011 as reported by importers (Table 1). Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in U. lineatus to the EU-28 primarily comprised live, wild-sourced animals traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). EU Member States reported the import of 12 wild-sourced live individuals for commercial purposes in 2008; the trade suspension came into force in September 2008 and therefore this trade may have taken place prior to the ban and not be in contravention of the suspension. Direct trade to countries other than the EU-28 also principally consisted of wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes.

Indirect trade in U. lineatus originating in Madagascar to the EU-28 solely consisted of two wild- sourced live individuals re-exported via Canada for commercial purposes in 2006. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Uroplatus lineatus from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quotas (live) - 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 63 63 227 227 250 250 Reported by Importers 84 971 518 342 542 311 318 79 70 100 Reported by Exporter 752 632 762 546 738 698 696 41 193 187 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Table 2: Direct exports of Uroplatus lineatus from Madagascar to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. 57

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 live T W Importer 4 101 12 Exporter 116 254 6 12 6 - - Importer 15 Exporter RoW live T I Importer 5 22 Exporter W Importer 80 870 518 342 530 311 318 79 70 100 Exporter 636 378 762 540 726 698 696 41 193 181 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Uroplatus lineatus is endemic to Madagascar, where it occurs in lowland and mid-altitude humid forest (including bamboo forest), from sea level to approximately 600 m, in the northeast and east of the island, from Bezavona (near Vohemar) in the north, through Sava and Analanjirofo regions to Sahafina (near Brickaville) in the south (Glaw and Vences, 2007; Raxworthy et al., 2011d; Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Its extent of occurrence was estimated at 40 431 km2 (Raxworthy et al., 2011d).

U. lineatus was described as “very rare” by Henkel and Schmidt (2000) on the grounds that “only individual specimens [had] been found on the island of Nosy Boraha and in eastern Madagascar”, whereas Raxworthy et al. (2011d) reported that 15 individuals were recorded in a one-hectare area during a 13-day survey at Betampona Strict Nature Reserve. No further quantitative population is information available, although one expert (pers. comm. to UNEP-WCMC, 2010) estimated that the population may exceed 10 000 individuals.

The species was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List; as a forest-dependent species, U. lineatus was believed “likely to be declining”, nevertheless, any such declines were adjudged unlikely to be rapid enough to warrant its listing as threatened (Raxworthy et al., 2011d).

Despite the presence of large blocks of relatively intact forest within its range, (e.g. in the Antongil Bay area), the main threat to U. lineatus was believed to be the degradation and loss of its forest habitat (Raxworthy et al., 2011d). Illegal collecting for the pet trade may occur in parts of its range (including Betampona), and could also represent a threat, at least locally (CoP13 Prop. 27; Raxworthy et al., 2011d).

58 SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE

Uroplatus malama II/B

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN: Vulnerable

Trade patterns Madagascar published annual export quotas for live Uroplatus malama every year 2005-2009 and zero quotas for 2012-2014. Trade appears to have been within quota in all years (Table 1). Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in U. malama to the EU-28 2004-2013 involved 18 live, wild-sourced individuals traded for commercial purposes in 2005. Direct trade to countries other than the EU-28 2004-2013 primarily comprised low levels of wild-sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes (Table 2).

No indirect trade originating Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Uroplatus malama from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quotas (live) - 100 100 100 100 100 - 0* 0* 0* - Reported by Importers 11 39 18 25 33 Reported by Exporter 20 45 41 68 61 57 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. *Quota published in these years did not specify a term.

Table 2: Direct exports of Uroplatus malama from Madagascar to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2005-2013. Small amounts of trade in scientific specimens have been excluded.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 live T W Importer Exporter 18 RoW live T I Importer 4 Exporter W Importer 11 39 18 25 33 Exporter 2 45 41 68 61 57 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Conservation status Uroplatus malama is endemic to Madagascar, where it has been recorded from a small number of 59 sites, between 100 m and 1700 m above sea level, in the southeast of the island (Glaw et al., 2011). Reported localities include Andohahela National Park, Ampamakiesiny, Kalambatritra Special Reserve, Ranomafana-Sud, Ivorona, Farafara, Befotaka–Midongy du Sud and Pic d'Ivohibe Special Reserve (Glaw and Vences, 2007; Glaw et al., 2011; Ratsoavina et al., 2013), with its overall extent of occurrence estimated as less than 13 000 km² (Glaw et al., 2011).

U. malama was only described as a species in 1995 (Nussbaum and Raxworthy, 1995) and remains relatively poorly known. There appears to be no quantitative population information available, but the species was described as “rare” in CoP13 Prop. 27 and Glaw et al. (2011) indicated that it “does not appear to be abundant”, and that the population was “likely to be decreasing”, with specimens reportedly “harder to find now than in the past”.

U. malama was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List, on the basis of its restricted and severely fragmented range, and a continuing decline in the extent and quality of its mid-altitude and montane humid forest habitat (Glaw et al., 2011).

As it is thought to require relatively intact forest for its survival, the main threat to U. malama was believed to be forest clearance for rice cultivation, especially at lower altitudes (Glaw et al., 2011). Although the species was considered likely to be attractive to collectors, Glaw et al. (2011) indicated that it appeared “not to be collected from the wild”, and that there were “no records of its occurrence in the European pet trade”.

60 SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE

Uroplatus phantasticus II/B

SYNONYMS: Uroplatus schneideri

COMMON NAMES: Geckos à queue plate de la côte est (FR)

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN: Least Concern

Taxonomic Note Based primarily on genetic differences, Ratsoavina et al. (2013) suggested that individuals from Ambohitantely and Zahamena could merit treatment as separate species. The author found that a specimen obtained from Ambohitantely (at 1550 m above sea level) was “morphologically intermediate between U. ebenaui and U. phantasticus”; similarly, some (but not all) specimens of ‘Uroplatus phantasticus’ from Zahamena were found to be genetically divergent (Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Trade patterns Madagascar published annual export quotas for live Uroplatus phantasticus every year 2005-2009 and from 2012 onwards. Trade appears to have been within quota all years (Table 1). Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in U. phantasticus to the EU-28 primarily comprised live, wild-sourced trade for commercial purposes (Table 2). EU Member States reported the import of 60 wild-sourced live individuals for commercial purposes in 2008; the trade suspension came into force in September 2008 and therefore this trade may have taken place prior to the ban and not be in transgression of the suspension.

Direct trade to countries other than the EU-28 2004-2013 also principally consisted of wild- sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes (Table 2).

No indirect trade in U. phantasticus from Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013.

Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Uroplatus phantasticus from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the 61 countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quotas (live) - 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 - - 70 70 500 500 Reported by Importers 286 1544 1015 958 1087 965 685 44 32 29 Reported by Exporter 1100 1258 1596 1229 1536 1346 1326 0 58 56 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Table 2: Direct exports of Uroplatus phantasticus from Madagascar to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer 5 Exporter live T W Importer 141 154 60 Exporter 164 488 24 32 60 - I Importer 10 Exporter - Importer 27 Exporter RoW bodies T I Importer 2 Exporter live T I Importer 5 101 Exporter W Importer 145 1390 1015 958 1027 965 685 44 32 29 Exporter 936 770 1572 1197 1476 1346 1326 58 56 specimens S W Importer 2 6 5 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Uroplatus phantasticus is endemic to Madagascar, where it is widely distributed in humid forests, from 200 m to 1400 m above sea level, in the central-east of the island, with genetically confirmed specimens obtained from various localities, ranging from Zahamena National Park in the north to Andringitra National Park in the south (Ratsoavina et al., 2011d; Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Its extent of occurrence was estimated at 41 507 km2 (Ratsoavina et al., 2011d).

U. phantasticus was described as “locally abundant” by Ratsoavina et al. (2011d), and was categorised as “quite common” (six to ten records during approximately 48 hours of survey work) or “common” (11–20 records) at four sites within the Anjozorobe–Angavo corridor by Raselimanana and Andriamampionona (2007). Ratsoavina et al. (2011d) suggested that, as a forest- dependent species that “can tolerate only very light levels of disturbance, and is unlikely to persist in forests subject to heavy logging”, its population was likely to be declining.

The species was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List, as declines were adjudged unlikely to be rapid enough to warrant its listing as threatened (Ratsoavina et al., 2011d). However, it was noted that any future taxonomic revisions that affected the geographic range of the taxa in question (e.g. the recognition of one or both of the genetically divergent populations as separate species) would necessitate a reassessment of their Red List category (Ratsoavina et al., 2011d).

As it is relatively intolerant of disturbance, the main threat to U. phantasticus was believed to be the loss and degradation of its humid forest habitat (Ratsoavina et al., 2011d). Although more information was considered to be needed on the impact of collection for the pet trade, Ratsoavina et al. (2011d) indicated that local levels of exploitation may be high enough to represent a threat.

62 SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE

Uroplatus pietschmanni II/B

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN: Endangered

Trade patterns Madagascar published annual export quotas for live Uroplatus pietschmanni every year 2005-2009 and 2012-2014. Trade appears to have remained within quota (Table 1). Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in U. pietschmanni to the EU-28 2004-2013 comprised live, wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes (Table 2).

Direct trade to countries other than the EU-28 primarily comprised wild-sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes (Table 2).

No indirect trade in U. pietschmanni from Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Uroplatus pietschmanni from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quotas (live) - 500 500 500 500 500 - 0 0 0 - Reported by Importers 0 20 119 254 298 146 168 Reported by Exporter 30 262 492 262 354 289 339 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Table 2: Direct exports of Uroplatus pietschmanni from Madagascar to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 live T W Importer 12 13 Exporter 10 129 20 21 RoW live T I Importer 37 Exporter W Importer 8 119 254 285 146 168 Exporter 20 133 472 262 333 289 339 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Conservation status Uroplatus pietschmanni is endemic to Madagascar, where it known from just three sites, between 63 900 m and 1200 m above sea level, in the central east of the island (Ratsoavina et al., 2011c; Ratsoavina et al., 2013). The reported localities are Fierenana, Ambatovy and Analamay (in the new Zahamena–Ankeniheny corridor protected area), together constituting an overall extent of occurrence of around 1300 km² at most, with the species believed likely to be highly localised within this range (Ratsoavina et al., 2011c).

Few field records exist for the species – which was considered to be relatively difficult to find, occurring only in intact forest, where the canopy can be as much as 20 m above the ground (Böhle and Schönecker, 2003; Ratsoavina et al., 2013).– U. pietschmanni was believed to be very rare, with low population densities (Ratsoavina et al., 2011c). At Ambatovy, for example, just five individuals were found during 2007–2010, despite removal of large trees allowing access to the species’ favoured canopy habitat (Ratsoavina et al., 2011c).

U. pietschmanni was provisionally categorised as Endangered in the IUCN Red List, on the basis of its very restricted and probably severely fragmented range, and a continuing decline in the extent and quality of its primary rainforest habitat (Ratsoavina et al., 2011c). A reassessment as Critically Endangered was thought to be appropriate, if its distribution were found to be more restricted than currently believed (Ratsoavina et al., 2011c).

The main threat to U. pietschmanni was believed to be habitat loss (Ratsoavina et al., 2011c). Although collection was thought to be an additional threat and the species was reportedly “extremely highly prized by collectors”, Ratsoavina et al. (2011c) acknowledged that, as the species was considered difficult to find in the wild, the impact of collecting was unknown. Nevertheless, they recommended the enforcement of export bans to better protect this species (Ratsoavina et al., 2011c).

64 SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE

Uroplatus sameiti II/B

SYNONYMS: Uroplatus sikorae sameiti

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN: Least Concern

Taxonomic Note Uroplatus sameiti was formerly considered to be a subspecies of Uroplatus sikorae, but was elevated to species status by Pearson et al. (2007), and also treated as a separate species by Raxworthy et al. (2008), which was subsequently adopted as the CITES standard reference for the taxon. Trade patterns Madagascar published annual export quotas for live Uroplatus sameiti every year 2005-2015 (Table 1). Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in U. sameiti to the EU-28 comprised one wild-sourced body for scientific purposes, exported in 2013. No direct trade to countries other than the EU-28, or indirect trade to the EU-28 originating in Madagascar was reported 2004-2013. U. sameiti was considered a subspecies of U. sikorae until CoP16, therefore trade would not have been recorded separately for these species until that point. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Uroplatus sameiti from Madagascar 2005-2015. No trade in live specimens was reported 2004- 2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quotas (live) 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 867 0 0 500 500

Conservation status Uroplatus sameiti is endemic to Madagascar, where it occurs in low-altitude humid forest, from sea level to nearly 850 m, in the east and northeast of the island (Ratsoavina et al., 2011a; Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Specimens have been obtained from various localities, ranging from Analalava in northern Sava, south through Analanjirofo (including Nosy Mangabe) and Alaotra- Mangoro regions to Marolambo and Ambodisavoka in southern Atsinanana (Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Possible records from further south, in Andohahela National Park (Ratsoavina et al., 2011a), reportedly “lack confirmation from genetic data and might be in error” (Ratsoavina et al., 2013). Its extent of occurrence was estimated at just below 53 000 km2 (Ratsoavina et al., 2011a).

Owing at least partly to the difficulty distinguishing it from U. sikorae, there is no population information available for U. sameiti, but it is believed to be the least sensitive Uroplatus species to 65 habitat degradation (Ratsoavina et al., 2011a).

The species was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List, albeit noting that its distribution and population status needed further study (Ratsoavina et al., 2011a).

The main threats to U. sameiti are those affecting much of Madagascar's eastern forests – slash- and-burn agriculture, bush fires, mining and selective logging for charcoal, construction and hardwood for export – although, given the species' relative tolerance of habitat degradation, the impact of these may be comparatively lower (Ratsoavina et al., 2011a). Levels of exploitation are unclear (owing to confusion with U. sikorae), but Ratsoavina et al. (2011a) recommended monitoring of trade “to ensure that the current levels of harvest and export are sustainable”.

66 SAURIA: GEKKONIDAE

Uroplatus sikorae II/B

SYNONYMS: Uroplatus fimbriatus sikorae

COMMON NAMES: Southern Flat-tailed Gecko (EN), Geckos à queue plate à bouche noire (FR)

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN: Least Concern

Taxonomic Note Taxon formerly included Uroplatus sikorae sameiti, but elevated to full species status by Pearson et al. (2007) and Raxworthy et al. (2008). Trade patterns Madagascar has published annual export quotas for live Uroplatus sikorae every year 2005-2015. The quota appears to have been exceeded in 2010 (as reported by Madagascar) and in 2012 (as reported by both trading partners and Madagascar) (Table 1). A permit analysis revealed 104 live individuals reported by importers in 2012 were reported with export permits which appear to have been issued in the previous year, therefore potentially bringing trade under quota. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in U. sikorae to the EU-28 and to countries other than the EU-28 principally comprised wild-sourced live animals for commercial purposes (Table 2).

Indirect trade in U. sikorae in Madagascar to the EU-28 comprised 12 wild-sourced live animals for commercial purposes, re-exported via Canada in 2006. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Uroplatus sikorae from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quotas (live) - 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 867 867 1500 1500 Reported by Importers 167 1195 973 866 1164 826 647 1403 936 420 Reported by Exporter 764 1120 1568 1102 1614 1302 2800 1638 1002 760 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Table 2: Direct exports of Uroplatus sikorae from Madagascar to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. Small amounts of trade 67 in scientific specimens have been excluded.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer 3 4 2 Exporter 3 live T W Importer 117 124 48 Exporter 134 361 20 12 71 19 - - Importer 20 Exporter RoW bodies T I Importer 9 Exporter live T I Importer 5 47 50 18 Exporter W Importer 50 1071 973 866 1116 826 647 1403 936 420 Exporter 630 759 1548 1090 1543 1302 2800 1619 1002 760 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Uroplatus sikorae is endemic to Madagascar, where it is widely distributed in mid-altitude humid forest, from 700 m to at least 1200 m above sea level, in the east and northeast of the island, including an apparently isolated population in and around Montagne d'Ambre National Park (Ratsoavina et al., 2011b). A record of ‘Uroplatus sikorae’ from a forest fragment circa 380–440 m above sea level, near Tsarakibany (south of Montagne d'Ambre; Durkin et al., 2011), falls outside the presumed distribution of the lower-altitude U. sameiti (see e.g. Raxworthy et al., 2008), and may also relate to U. sikorae (Ratsoavina et al., 2011b). Its extent of occurrence was estimated at 77,103 km² (Ratsoavina et al., 2011b).

U. sikorae was described as “common” at Montagne d'Ambre (Glaw and Vences, 2007) and in the Zahamena–Ankeniheny corridor (Ratsoavina et al., 2011b), and was categorised as “common” during surveys at Forêt D'Ambre Special Reserve (D'Cruze et al., 2008) and as “quite common” (six to ten records during approximately 48 hours of survey work) or “common” (11–20 records) at six sites within the Anjozorobe–Angavo corridor (Raselimanana and Andriamampionona, 2007). Ratsoavina et al. (2011b) suggested that “as a forest-dependent species, the population is likely to be declining”.

The species was provisionally categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List, as its relative tolerance of habitat degradation was thought to indicate that U. sikorae was unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify as threatened, although that its distribution and population status needed to be monitored (Ratsoavina et al., 2011b).

The main threats to U. sikorae are those affecting much of Madagascar's eastern forests, namely habitat loss and degradation (Ratsoavina et al., 2011b). The species was reportedly “tolerant of some degree of habitat degradation, but cannot survive in deforested areas and may be absent from heavily degraded forest” (Ratsoavina et al., 2011b). Owing to confusion with U. sameiti, Ratsoavina et al. (2011b) suggested that levels of exploitation were “unclear”, but noted that the levels of captive breeding were too low to be sustainable.

68 References

Allnutt, T.F., Cameron, A., Kremen, C., Rajaonson, R., Rakotomanjaka, A.J.M. and Razafimpahanana, A. 2009. Madagascar digital conservation atlas report. Andreone, F., Glaw, F., Nussbaum, R.A., Raxworthy, C.J., Vences, M. and Randrianirina, J.E. 2003. The amphibians and reptiles of Nosy Be (NW Madagascar) and nearby islands: a case study of diversity and conservation of an insular fauna. Journal of Natural History, 37(17): 2119– 2149. Bauer, A.M. 2003. Gekkonidae, Geckos. In: Goodman, S.M and Benstead, J.P. (eds.). The natural history of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pp. 973–977. Böhle, A. and Schönecker, P. 2003. Eine neue Art der Gattung Uroplatus Duméril, 1805 aus Ost- Madagaskar (Reptilia: Squamata: Gekkonidae). Salamandra, 39(3/4): 129–138. D’Cruze, N., Henson, D., Olsson, A. and Emmett, D. 2009. The importance of herpetological survey work in conserving Malagasy biodiversity: are we doing enough? Herpetological Review, 40(1): 19–25. D'Cruze, N., Köhler, J., Franzen, M. and Glaw, F. 2008. A conservation assessment of the amphibians and reptiles of the Forêt d'Ambre Special Reserve, north Madagascar. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 3(1): 44–54. Durkin, L., Steer, M.D. and Belle, E.M.S. 2011. Herpetological surveys of forest fragments between Montagne d'Ambre National Park and Ankarana Special Reserve, northern Madagascar. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 6(1): 114–126. Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 2007. A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. Third edition. Vences & Glaw Verlag, Cologne. Glaw, F., Kosuch, J., Henkel, F.-W., Sound, P. and Böhme, W. 2006. Genetic and morphological variation of the leaf-tailed gecko Uroplatus fimbriatus from Madagascar, with description of a new giant species. Salamandra, 42(2/3): 129–144. Glaw, F., Ratsoavina, F. and Ramanamanjato, J.-B. 2011. Uroplatus malama. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/07/2015]. Greenbaum, E., Bauer, A.M., Jackman, T.R., Vences, M. and Glaw, F. 2007. A phylogeny of the enigmatic Madagascan geckos of the genus Uroplatus (Squamata: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa, 1493: 41–51. Harper, G.J., Steininger, M.K., Tucker, C.J., Juhn, D. and Hawkins, F. 2007. Fifty years of deforestation and forest fragmentation in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation, 34(4): 325–333. Henkel, F.-W. and Schmidt, W. 2000. Amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar and the Mascarene, Seychelles and Comoro Islands. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge. IUCN 2008. Implementing the CBD POWPA. Parks, 17(1). IUCN 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 09/07/2015]. Jenkins, R.K.B., Tognelli, M.F., Bowles, P., Cox, N., Brown, J.L., Chan, L., Andreone, F., Andriamazava, A., Andriantsimanarilafy, R.R., Anjeriniaina, M. et al. 2014. Extinction risks and the conservation of Madagascar’s reptiles. PLoS ONE, 9(8): e100173. Nussbaum, R.A. and Raxworthy, C.J. 1995. New Uroplatus Duméril (Reptilia: Squamata: Gekkonidae) of the ebenaui-Group from the Anosy Mountains of Southern Madagascar. Copeia, 1995(1): 118–124. MEFT, USAID and CI 2009. Evolution de la couverture de forêts naturelles à Madagascar 1990- 2000-2005. Ministère de l’Environnement, des Eaux et Forêts et du Tourisme 2006. Manuel de procédures pour la gestion de la faune et de la flore sauvages de Madagascar. ONE, DGF, FTM, MNP and CI 2013. Evolution de la Couverture de forêts naturelles à Madagascar 2005–2010. Antananarivo.

Pearson, R.G., Raxworthy, C.J., Nakamura, M. and Peterson, A.T. 2007. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in 69 Madagascar. Journal of Biogeography, 34: 102–117. Rabesihanaka, S.S., Rakouth, B., Ravavaripalala, A., Rarivoson, T.I., Rabouth, H., Ravaomanalina, H., Rabotondrazaby, A. and Rabesoa, R. 2008. Evaluation de la politique nationale du commerce des especes sauvages - Madagascar. UNEP-UNCTAD CBTF, CITES & IUED. Rakotoarivelo, A.R., Razafimanahaka, J.H., Rabesihanaka, S., Jones, J.P.G. and Jenkins, R.K.B. 2011. Lois et règlements sur la faune sauvage à Madagascar: progrès accomplis et besoins du futur. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 6(1): 37–44. Raselimanana, A.P. and Andriamampionona, R. 2007. La faune herpétologique du «Couloir d'Anjozorobe – Angavo»: Diversité, caractéristiques et aspect biogéographique. In: Goodman, S.G., Raselimanana, A.P. and Wilmé, L. (eds.) Inventaires de la faune et de la flore du couloir forestier d’Anjozorobe – Angavo. Recherche pour le Développement. Série Sciences Biologiques, No. 24. Antananarivo. Pp. 111–139. Ratsoavina, F., Glaw, F., Rabibisoa, N. and Rakotondrazafy, N.A. 2011a. Uroplatus sameiti. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/07/2015]. Ratsoavina, F., Glaw, F., Rabibisoa, N. and Rakotondrazafy, N.A. 2011b. Uroplatus sikorae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/07/2015]. Ratsoavina, F., Glaw, F., Rafanomezantsoa, J., Rabibisoa, N., Rakotondrazafy, N.A. and Jenkins, R.K.B. 2011c. Uroplatus pietschmanni. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/07/2015]. Ratsoavina, F., Glaw, F., Ramanamanjato, J.-B., Rabibisoa, N. and Rakotondrazafy, N.A. 2011d. Uroplatus phantasticus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/07/2015]. Ratsoavina, F.M., Louis, E.E., Crottini, A., Randrianiaina, R.-D., Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 2011e. A new leaf tailed gecko species from northern Madagascar with a preliminary assessment of molecular and morphological variability in the Uroplatus ebenaui group. Zootaxa, 3022: 39– 57. Ratsoavina, F.M., Vences, M. and Louis, E.E. 2012. Phylogeny and phylogeography of the Malagasy leaf-tailed geckos in the Uroplatus ebenaui group. African Journal of Herpetology, 61(2): 143– 158. Ratsoavina, F.M., Raminosoa, N.R., Louis, E.E., Raselimanana, A.P., Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 2013. An overview of Madagascar’s leaf tailed geckos (genus Uroplatus): species boundaries, candidate species and review of geographical distribution based on molecular data. Salamandra, 49(3): 115–148. Raxworthy, C.J. 2003. Introduction to the Reptiles. In: Goodman, S.M and Benstead, J.P. (eds.). The natural history of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pp. 934–949. Raxworthy, C.J. and Vences, M. 2010. Uroplatus henkeli. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/07/2015]. Raxworthy, C.J., Pearson, R.G., Zimkus, B.M., Reddy, S., Deo, A.J., Nussbaum, R.A. and Ingram, C.M. 2008. Continental speciation in the tropics: contrasting biogeographic patterns of divergence in the Uroplatus leaf-tailed gecko radiation of Madagascar. Journal of Zoology, 275: 423–440. Raxworthy, C.J., Rabibisoa, N. and Bora, P. 2011a. Uroplatus guentheri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/07/2015]. Raxworthy, C.J., Ratsoavina, F., Glaw, F. and Rabibisoa, N. 2011b. Uroplatus ebenaui. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/07/2015]. Raxworthy, C.J., Ratsoavina, F., Glaw, F. and Rabibisoa, N. 2011c. Uroplatus fimbriatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/07/2015]. Raxworthy, C.J., Ratsoavina, F., Glaw, F., Rabibisoa, N. and Bora, P. 2011d. Uroplatus lineatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/07/2015].

Todd, M. 2011. Trade in Malagasy Reptiles and Amphibians in Thailand. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 70 UNEP and UNCTAD 2008. National Wildlife Trade Policy Review: Madagascar. United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland. UNEP-WCMC 2010. Review of Significant Trade: Species selected by the CITES Animals Committee following CoP14. Report prepared for the CITES Secretariat. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. USAID 2008. Madagascar environmental threats and opportunities assessment. An update. Available at: www.usaid.gov/mg/so6_docs/etoa/etoa_2008.pdf. WWF 2013. Madagascar’s protected area surface tripled. Available at: http://wwf.panda.org/?208945/Madagascars-protected-area-surface-tripled. [Accessed: 21/07/2015].

SERPENTES: PYTHONIDAE 71

Python natalensis II/B

COMMON NAMES: Southern African Python

SYNONYMS: Python sebae natalensis, Python natalensis, Heleionomus variegatus, Python sebae var. natalensis, Python saxuloides, Helionomus natalensis

RANGE STATES: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

UNDER REVIEW: Mozambique

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for ranched specimens from Mozambique first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 04/09/2015 (suspension originally formed for Python sebae, from which P. natalensis was split following CITES CoP15). Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Mozambique first applied on 19/09/1999 and removed on 05/11/2010 (suspension originally formed for P. sebae).

Positive opinion for the United Republic of Tanzania formed on 13/06/2005 (opinion originally formed for P. sebae).

Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from South Africa first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 02/02/1999 (suspension originally formed for P. sebae).

IUCN: Not assessed

Taxonomic note Python natalensis was split from Python sebae and elevated to full species status following CITES CoP15 (CoP15 Doc. 35 (Rev. 3)). It was noted that correct reference to these species in older literature records may be uncertain and the extent of the overlap of these species’ ranges was only partially known (Reed and Rodda, 2009). Trade patterns There was no reported direct or indirect trade in Python natalensis from Mozambique to the EU- 28 or the rest of the world over the period 2004-2013. Conservation status Python natalensis was reported to have a wide distribution, found throughout most of southern Africa (Alexander and Marais, 2007). It was recorded in Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe (Broadley, 1984; Broadley and Cotterill, 2004; Wallach et al., 2014). P. natalensis was reported to occur mostly to the south of the range of P. sebae, but with extensive overlap from Angola to Tanzania, with some uncertainty whether P. natalensis or P. sebae was recorded in Tanzania (Rage and Bailon, 2011). P. natalensis was reported to inhabit a variety of different habitats, including bushveld, savannah and forest (Alexander and Marais, 2007).

P. natalensis is the largest snake species in southern Africa, reaching a maximum of 5 m in length 72 and a weight of 60 kg (Alexander and Marais, 2007). Females may take more than 10 years to reach maturity in the wild (but can develop faster in captivity), and breed between June and September every two or three years (Alexander and Marais, 2007). Females were observed to coil around their nest for the gestation period to protect and warm the eggs, which are laid between October and December with average clutch sizes of 30 – 50 eggs and a maximum of 100 eggs reported (Alexander and Marais, 2007; O’Shea, 2011).

P. natalensis has not yet been assessed by the IUCN, but was classified as ‘Vulnerable’ in the South African and Swaziland Red Data Books (Alexander and Marais, 2007; Monadjem et al., 2003) due to exploitation for human consumption (Alexander and Marais, 2007). Although the population trend was considered to be declining in some areas, with reports of local populations in Durban and the Eastern Cape extirpated, the species was considered common in many regions (Alexander and Marais, 2007), particularly “in thinly populated areas where there is good cover and an adequate food supply” (G. Broadley, in litt. to WCMC, 1983).

P. sebae [and likely P. natalensis as previously named subspecies] was reported to be exploited for the international leather industry and pet trade (Luiselli et al., 2012; Luxmoore et al., 1988) and P. sebae natalensis [P. natalensis] was reported to be harvested for its meat as food or for medicinal purposes (Branch, 1988). Other threats include habitat destruction, killing to protect livestock, traffic on roads, and possibly electrified fencing around game farms (Alexander and Marais, 2007; Luiselli et al., 2012).

Trade in African python species is primarily for the live pet trade; most adult females of African python species therefore survive after egg-laying, which makes the African python trade much more sustainable than that in Asian pythons, where large reproductive snakes are highly targeted for the skin trade (Luiselli et al., 2012).

It was noted that P. sebae [and therefore likely P. natalensis as well] is not suitable for private husbandry based on its size and unpredictable temperament (Bartlett et al., 2001).

Mozambique: P. s. natalensis [P. natalensis] was recorded in scattered locations across Mozambique, including the north coast, the southern tip, and along the Save (Sabi) River corridor (Broadley, 1984). Alexander and Marais (2007) considered P. natalensis potentially present throughout all of southern Mozambique. P. natalensis was recorded in Alves de Lima, Moçambique Island, Monzo, Setache Po, Vamizi Island and Zinave (Broadley, 1984); Cabo Delgado, Gaza, Inhambane, Manica, Maputo, Nampula, Zamberzia, Ukerewe and Vamizi Island (Wallach et al., 2014); the San Sebastian Peninsula, Vilankulo (Jacobsen et al., 2010); the Bazaruto archipelago (Broadley, 1990); and in the surrounding lowlands (<800m elevation) of the Niassa Game Reserve and Mt Mulanje, northern Mozambique (Branch et al., 2005; Portik et al., 2013).

It was noted that this taxon is poorly documented and the conservation status is largely unknown in Mozambique, but that P. natalensis may be vulnerable/endangered; easily exterminated due to its large size (Hatton and Rassul, 1997).

Threats to P. natalensis were reported to include collection for food, skin, medicinal purposes, and for the pet trade, habitat destruction (Hatton and Rassul, 1997), and snakes were reported to be killed as a perceived threat to livestock (Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs, 2009).

No information on the conservation status or management of this species in Mozambique was identified.

References Alexander, G. and Marais, J. 2007. A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape 73 Town. 408 pp. Bartlett, P.P., Griswold, B. and Bartlett, P.P.B.B. 2001. Reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates: An identification and care guide. Barron’s Educational Series, Hauppauge, NY. Branch, W.R., Rödel, M.-O. and Marais, J. 2005. Herpetological survey of the Niassa Game Reserve, northern Mozambique - Part I: Reptiles. Salamandra, 41(4): 195–214. Broadley, D.G. 1984. A review of geographical variation in the African python, Python sebae (Gmelin). British Journal of Herpetology, 6: 359–367. Broadley, D.G. 1990. FitzSimon’s snakes of southern Africa. Delta Books, Johannesburg, South Africa. 376 pp. Broadley, D.G. and Cotterill, F.P.D. 2004. The reptiles of Southeast Katanga, an overlooked ‘hot spot’. African Journal of Herpetology, 53(1): 35–61. Hatton, J. and Rassul, M.J. 1997. Strategy and areas for action for the conservation of biological diversity in Mozambique. Maputo. 83 pp. Jacobsen, N.H.G., Pietersen, E.W. and Pietersen, D.W. 2010. A preliminary herpetological survey of the Vilanculos Coastal Wildlife Sanctuary on the San Sebastian Peninsula, Vilankulo, Mozambique. 181–193. Luiselli, L., Bonnet, X., Rocco, M. and Amori, G. 2012. Conservation implications of rapid shifts in the trade of wild African and Asian pythons. 569–573. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. and Broad, S. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: A review of selected species in CITES Appendix II, Vol. 2. Reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 306 pp. Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs 2009. The National Report on Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Mozambique. Maputo. Monadjem, A., Boycott, R.C., Parker, V. and Culverwall, J. 2003. Threatened vertebrates of Swaziland; Swaziland red data book: fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Communications, Swaziland. 256 pp. O’Shea, M. 2011. Boas and pythons of the world. New Holland, London, UK. 160 pp. Portik, D.M., Mulungu, E.A., Sequeira, D. and McEntee, J.P. 2013. Herpetological Surveys of the Serra Jeci and Namuli Massifs , Mozambique , and an Annotated Checklist of the Southern Afromontane Archipelago. Herpetological Review, 44(3): 394–406. Rage, J.C. and Bailon, S. 2011. Amphibia and Squamata. In: Paleontology and Geology of Laetoli: Human Evolution in Context. Volume 2: Fossil Hominins and the Associated Fauna. Springer Netherlands. 467–478. Reed, R.N. and Rodda, G.H. 2009. Giant constrictors: Biological and management profiles and an establishment risk assessment for nine large species of pythons, anacondas, and the boa constrictor. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2009-1202. 302 pp. Wallach, V., Williams, K.L. and Boundy, J. 2014. Snakes of the world : a catalogue of living and extinct species. CRC press. 1237 pp.

74 SERPENTES: PYTHONIDAE

Python sebae II/B

SYNONYMS: Boa hieroglyphica, Boa liberiensis, Coluber sebae, Coluber speciosus, Heleionomus variegatus, Hortulia natalensis, Hortulia sebae, Python houttuyni, Python jubalis, Python liberiensis, Python saxuloides, Python sebae, Python sebae sebae

COMMON NAMES: African Python (EN), Python de Seba (FR), Pitón de Seba

RANGE STATES: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Namibia, Niger (extinct?), Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania

UNDER REVIEW: Mauritania

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Mauritania first imposed on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Current no opinion ii) for wild specimens from Benin formed on 04/12/2010. Previous no opinion for wild specimens from Benin formed on 20/12/2005 and confirmed on 15/09/2008. Current positive opinion for ranched specimens from Benin formed on 22/02/2000 and last confirmed on 03/12/2010, replacing import restriction first imposed on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 19/09/1999.

Current positive opinion for Cameroon formed on 25/10/2005.

Current positive opinion for Chad formed on 05/09/2002.

Current positive opinion for ranched and wild specimens from Ghana formed on 15/09/2008 and confirmed on 02/12/2008. Previous positive opinion for Ghana formed on 10/09/1998.

Current positive opinion for Mali formed on 26/03/2001.

Current no opinion iii) for wild specimens from Mozambique formed on 16/02/2010.

Current no opinion for ranched specimens from Niger formed on 12/06/2006. Current no opinion iii) for [wild specimens from] Niger formed on 13/06/2005 and confirmed on 25/10/2005.

Current no opinion for South Africa formed on 22/02/2000.

Current no opinion for ranched and wild specimens from Togo formed on 20/12/2005 and confirmed on 15/09/2008.

Current positive opinion for the United Republic of Tanzania formed on 13/06/2005.

IUCN: Not assessed

Taxonomic note Python natalensis was considered split from Python sebae and elevated to full species status 75 following CITES CoP15 (CoP15 Doc. 35 (Rev. 3)). It was noted that correct reference to the species in older literature records may be uncertain and that the extent of the overlap of these species ranges is only partially known (Reed and Rodda, 2009). Trade patterns There was no reported direct or indirect trade in Python sebae from Mauritania to the EU-28 or the rest of the world for the period 2004-2013.

There is a current trade restriction for all commercial trade in CITES-listed species with Mauritania since 2004, on the basis of non-submission of a CITES Legislation Plan, or draft, or enacted legislation from the country (CITES Notification No. 2004/055). Conservation status P. sebae is a large African snake (Alden et al., 1996; O’Shea, 2011), reported to reach a maximum length of around 7 m (Reed and Rodda, 2009). P. sebae was considered widespread in sub-saharan Africa from Senegal to Eritrea, southwards to Namibia and Tanzania (Largen, 1997; Rage and Bailon, 2011; Wallach et al., 2014). Rage and Bailon (2011) reported extensive overlap of P. sebae and P. natalensis from Angola to Tanzania, with some uncertainty whether P. sebae or P. natalensis was recorded in Tanzania. Some uncertainty about the range of P. sebae in the northeast of its range, in Angola, and in areas of overlap with P. natalensis towards the south was also reported (Reed and Rodda, 2009). Individuals of P. sebae have also been observed Miami, Florida, which were assumed to be from escaped or released pets, but observations of a reproducing population have not been confirmed (Reed, 2005; Reed et al., 2010).

The species inhabits a wide range of habitats, including savannah, forest regions and disturbed or agricultural land (Gorzula et al., 1997; Luxmoore et al., 1988); it is particularly associated with areas of permanent water (Bartlett and Wagner, 1997).

The species was reported to reach maturity at a length of approximately 2.5 m (Branch, 1988), or at 10-15 years of age (Broadley, 1990; G. Alexander, pers. comm., 2008 in Reed and Rodda, 2009). Females were thought to only reproduce every two to three years (Branch, 1988; Alexander and Marais, 2007) and lay clutches of 30-50 eggs, occasionally up to 100 (Branch, 1998; Alexander and Marais, 2007; Spawls and Branch, 1995) in (Reed and Rodda, 2009).

P. sebae was reported to be relatively common in many regions across Africa (Branch and Hacke, 1980), although most sources do agree that very large specimens are now rarely seen (Branch, 1998). It was noted that information about the status of this species was insufficient, and additional monitoring was needed (Lawson and Klemens, 2001). Luiselli (2012) reported that in Nigeria, mean population densities of this species were approximately 0.2– 0.4 individuals/km2, with mangrove swamps being the most suitable habitat, as reported by Luiselli & Akani (2002) and Luiselli et al. (2007). Densities of 0.1 individuals/km2 were reported in Cameroon (Van der Hoeven et al. 2004 in Luiselli, 2012), Ghana (Gorzula et al. 1997, in Luiselli, 2012), and Togo (Harris 1999, in Luiselli, 2012).

The species has not yet been assessed by the IUCN.

A major threat to the species was considered to be rapid urbanisation and intensive deforestation (Luiselli et al., 2001). P. sebae was also reported to be intensively traded for their skin and the pet trade (Luiselli et al., 2012; Luxmoore et al., 1988), and harvested for its meat as food or for medicinal purposes (Branch, 1988). Other threats included killing out of fear or as a perceived threat to livestock (Auliya et al., 2012; Alexander and Marais, 2007; O’Shea, 2011).

It was reported that in Africa, pythons are mainly exported for the pet trade but that trade levels 76 over the period 1999-2008 did not appear to present a major threat to the species (Luiselli et al., 2012). Eltringham (1984) thought large commercially exploited but vulnerable species were in need of “special conservation attention in areas under heavy anthropic pressure” and Luiselli et al. (2001) considered P. sebae to fall within this category.

It was noted that P. sebae is not suitable for private husbandry based on its size and unpredictable temperament (Bartlett et al., 2001).

The species was included in phase II of the Review of Significant Trade process in 1991. Mozambique, amongst other range states, was categorised as possible concern at AC9 in 1993, however no recommendations were issued.

Mauritania: P. sebae was reported at multiple sites in southern Mauritania (Padial, 2006; Wallach et al., 2014); and confined to isolated wetlands in the Sahel (Reed and Rodda, 2009). The presence of P. sebae was also reported in the lower delta of the Senegal River and in flood plains adjoining the coastal dune (République Islamique de Mauritanie, 2014).

It was noted that no comprehensive studies on reptiles in Mauritania in general have been made (République Islamique de Mauritanie, 2014). No information on the population status or management of this species in Mauritania was identified.

Primary threats to endangered species in Mauritania were reported to include heavy exploitation of resources through over-hunting and increased fragmentation of natural habitat (USAID, 2007).

P. sebae was not included in the list of protected species in Law No. 97-006 on hunting and conservation. References Alden, P.C., Estes, R.D., Schlitter, D. and McBride, B. 1996. Collins guide to African wildlife. HarperCollins Publishers, London. Alexander, G. and Marais, J. 2007. A guide to the reptiles of southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town. 408 pp. Auliya, M., Wagner, P. and Böhme, W. 2012. The herpetofauna of the Bijagós archipelago, Guinea- Bissau (West Africa) and a first country-wide checklist. Bonn zoological Bulletin, 61(2): 255– 281. Bartlett, P.P., Griswold, B. and Bartlett, P.P.B.B. 2001. Reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates: An identification and care guide. Barron’s Educational Series, Hauppauge, NY. Bartlett, P.P. and Wagner, E. 1997. Pythons. Barron’s Educational Series, New York. Branch, B. 1998. Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa. Struik Publishers Ltd, Cape Town. Branch, W.R. 1988. South Africa red data book–Reptiles and amphibians. Pretoria, South Africa. 241 pp. Branch, W.R. and Hacke, W.D. 1980. A fatal attack on a young boy by an African rock python Python sebae. Journal of Herpetology, 14(3): 305–307. Broadley, D.G. 1990. FitzSimon’s snakes of southern Africa. Delta Books, Johannesburg, South Africa. 376 pp. Gorzula, S., Nsiah, W.O. and Oduro, W. 1997. Survey of the status and management of the royal python (Python regius) in Ghana. Report to UNEP-CITES. 55 pp. Harris, M. 1999. Assessment of the status of seven reptile species in Togo. Report to the Commission of the European Union, Ref EC 98/0072, Bruxelles. Largen, M.J. 1997. An annotated checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of Eritrea, with keys for their identification. Tropical Zoology, 10(1): 63–115. Lawson, D.P. and Klemens, M.W. 2001. Herpetofauna of the African rain forest: Overview and recommendations for conservation. In: Weber, W., White, L.T.J., Vedder, A. and Naughton-

Treves, L. (Eds.). African rain forest ecology and conservation. Yale University Press, New Haven. 291–307. 77 Luiselli, L., Angelici, F.M. and Akani, G.C. 2001. Food habits of Python sebae in suburban and natural habitats. African Journal of Ecology, 39: 116–118. Luiselli, L., and G. C. Akani. 2002. An investigation into the composition, complexity and functioning of snake communities in the mangroves of south-eastern Nigeria. Afr. J. Ecol. 40: 220–227. Luiselli, L., and G. C. Akani, E. A. Eniang, and E. Politano. 2007. Comparative ecology and ecological modeling of sympatric pythons, Python regius and P. sebae. In R. W. Henderson, and R. Powell (Eds.). Biology of the boas and pythons, pp. 88–100. CPG/Biological Science Press, New York. Luiselli, L., Bonnet, X., Rocco, M. and Amori, G. 2012. Conservation implications of rapid shifts in the trade of wild African and Asian pythons. 569–573 pp. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. and Broad, S. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: A review of selected species in CITES Appendix II, Vol. 2. Reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 306 pp. O’Shea, M. 2011. Boas and pythons of the world. New Holland, London, UK. 160 pp. Padial, J.M. 2006. Commented distributional list of reptiles of Mauritania (West Africa). Graellsia, 62(2): 159–178. Rage, J.C. and Bailon, S. 2011. Amphibia and Squamata. In: Paleontology and geology of Laetoli: human evolution in context. Volume 2: fossil hominins and the associated fauna. Springer Netherlands. 467–478. Reed, R.N. 2005. An ecological risk assessment of non-native boas and pythons as potentially invasive species in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25(3): 753–766. Reed, R.N., Krysko, K.L., Snow, R.W. and Rodda, G.H. 2010. Is the Northern African Python (Python sebae) established in southern Florida? IRCF Reptiles & Amphibians, 17(1): 52–54. Reed, R.N. and Rodda, G.H. 2009. Giant constrictors: Biological and management profiles and an establishment risk assessment for nine large species of pythons, anacondas, and the boa constrictor. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2009-1202. 302 pp. République Islamique de Mauritanie 2014. Mauritania’s Fifth National report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 96 pp. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/mr/mr-nr-05-fr.pdf. Spawls, S. and Branch, B. 1995. The dangerous snakes of Africa: natural history, species directory, venoms and snakebite. Ralph Curtis-Books, Sanibel Island. 192 pp. USAID 2007. Biodiversity and tropical forest assessment for Mauritania. Washington D. C., USA. 42 pp. Van der Hoeven, C. A., W. F. De Boer, and H. H. T. Prins. 2004. Pooling local expert opinions for estimating mammal densities in tropical rainforests. J. Nat. Conserv. 12: 193–204. Wallach, V., Williams, K.L. and Boundy, J. 2014. Snakes of the world: a catalogue of living and extinct species. CRC press. 1237 pp.

78 TESTUDINES: TESTUDINIDAE

Stigmochelys pardalis II/B

SYNONYMS: Geochelone pardalis, Testudo pardalis

COMMON NAMES: Leopard Tortoise (EN), Tortue-léopard (FR), Tortuga leopardo (ES)

RANGE STATES: Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

UNDER REVIEW: Mozambique

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Mozambique first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Current no opinion i) for ranched specimens formed on 28/05/2014. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for ranched specimens first applied on 22/12/1997, replaced by a negative opinion on 05/02/2002, suspension reapplied on 18/02/2005 and last confirmed on 11/07/2013.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from the Democratic Republic of Congo first applied on 03/02/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Current no opinion for wild specimens from Namibia and Swaziland formed on 12/12/1999. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 10/12/1999.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Uganda first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens formed on 30/01/2003.

Current no opinion i) for wild specimens from Tanzania first formed on 12/03/2009 and confirmed on 14/09/2010. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 14/09/2010. Current positive opinion for source F specimens < 8 cm formed on 18/07/2001 and confirmed on 29/10/2001.

Current no opinion iii) for captive-born and ranched specimens from Zambia formed on 28/05/2014. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for captive-born and ranched specimens first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 11/07/2013. Previous negative opinion for captive-born and ranched specimens formed on 22/05/2003. Current no opinion iii) for wild specimens first formed on 15/01/2004 and confirmed on 25/06/2004. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens formed on 22/05/1999 and replaced by an Article 4.6(b) import suspension on 24/09/2000 and confirmed on 03/02/2001. IUCN: Not evaluated

Taxonomic note Stigmochelys pardalis was previously included in the genus Testudo and more recently, in the 79 genus Geochelone (Iverson, 1992; Fritz and Havaš, 2007). Based on an analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, Le et al. (2006) included it in the genus Psammobates. However, based on morphological differences, Fritz and Bininda-Emonds (2007) placed it in the genus Stigmochelys, which is accepted by the current CITES Standard Nomenclature reference for Testudines (Fritz and Havaš, 2007). Fritz and Havaš (2007) also distinguished two subspecies: S. p. pardalis and S. p. babcocki. However, in a more recent study focusing on mitochondrial phylogeography, Fritz et al. (2010) found no evidence to support this. Trade patterns Mozambique has published export quotas for live, captive-bred Stigmochelys pardalis every year 2004-2008 and for live, ranched specimens for 2009 and 2010 (Table 1). Trade appears to have exceed the quota in 2005, based on exporter reported data. Mozambique has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in S. pardalis to the EU-28 2004-2013 primarily comprised live captive-bred specimens traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). In addition, trade in ranched specimens for commercial purposes and wild-sourced non-commercial trade was also reported. Direct trade in S. pardalis to the rest of the world principally comprised live wild-sourced and captive bred specimens, traded for commercial purposes (Table 2).

No indirect trade in S. pardalis from Mozambique to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013. Table 1: CITES export quotas for Stigmochelys pardalis from Mozambique and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2010. No quotas were published 2011-2015.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Quota* 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Reported by Importers 108 140 300 100 Reported by Exporter 500 1145 230 200 990 100 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. *Quota applied to captive-bred specimens 2004-2008 and ranched specimens in 2009 and 2010. Table 2: Direct exports of Stigmochelys pardalis from Mozambique to the EU-28 and rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 live P W Importer Exporter 1 1 6 T C Importer 8 140 300 100 21 99 20 12 53 Exporter 500 730 100 150 990 140 20 530 R Importer Exporter 200 100 300 W Importer Exporter 200 100 20 5 - W Importer Exporter 50 RoW live P W Importer Exporter 3 T C Importer 100 110 Exporter 415 130 50 60 710 W Importer 30 Exporter 65 100 300 100 40 165 - W Importer Exporter 50 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Conservation status 80 Stigmochelys pardalis, the largest of southern Africa’s tortoises (McMaster and Downs, 2013), was reported to be widely distributed in sub-Saharan Africa, where it occurs in semi-desert, grassland, savannah, shrub land, thicket and woodland (but not forest) (Broadley, 1989; Spawls et al., 2002; Vetter, 2005). It was reported to inhabit areas from sea-level to around 1500m above sea level (Broadley, 1989), although locally also at altitudes of up to 2900m (Vetter, 2005). The species was reported to range from southern Sudan and Ethiopia south through eastern Africa to South Africa, and west to southern Angola and Namibia (Broadley, 1989; Fritz and Havaš, 2007).

S. pardalis is oviparous (Broadley, 1989), with females reaching sexual maturity at the age of 12-15 years in the wild (Razzetti and Msuya, 2002; Baker and Grubb, 2011) and 6-8 years in captivity (Highfield and Martin, 2014). Males may reach sexual maturity at five years (Baker and Grubb, 2011). The reproductive potential of S. pardalis was considered to be high, due to its ability to lay three or more clutches of 5-15 eggs per season (Highfield and Martin, 2014). The clutch size was found to increase with the size of the female and the species was thought to live for up to 100 years in the wild (Baker and Grubb, 2011).

Although widely distributed, its population density was reported to be generally low (Vetter, 2005). S. pardalis was found to prefer dry and hot biomes in rocky landscapes (Vetter, 2005), and lower population densities were generally expected in xeric [extremely dry] areas, compared to mesic [well-balanced moisture supply] areas, likely as a result of lower recruitment rates and limited availability of food (McMaster and Downs, 2006).

Although no quantitative data on overall population size appear to be available, Broadley (1989) indicated that the species seemed to be “in no danger”, and was “protected in numerous national parks and other reserves throughout its range”. Spawls et al. (2002) observed that the species occurred “over a large, often arid range and within a number of conservation areas”, and also bred well in captivity, and hence was “not under any present threat”. However, protected areas of less than 3000 hectares have been reported as insufficient to contain viable populations, which is estimated to be around 500 individuals for S. pardalis, except in cases where the conditions are particularly favourable (Vetter, 2005). Bonin et al. (2006) described its populations as “still numerous”. As both the tortoises and its eggs are used for food throughout its range, S. pardalis was considered rare in densely populated areas (Broadley, 1989).

The species has not yet been assessed by the IUCN. The species’ status was assessed as ‘Least Concern’ in southern Africa in a preliminary regional assessment in 2010 (van Dijk et al., 2012).

The main threat to S. pardalis was considered to be habitat fragmentation, leading to smaller, non-viable populations with reduced gene pools (Vetter, 2005). Other threats include bushfires and floods, as well as hunting (Vetter, 2005; Broadley, 1989). WCMC et al. (1999) indicated that parts of the species were reportedly used for traditional medicines in parts of its range. The shells were often used as containers for a variety of purposes, such as for musical instruments (Vetter, 2005). Hunting for food by indigenous populations, however, was thought to not be a frequent occurrence and was not thought to significantly affect population abundance (Baker and Grubb, 2011).

It was highlighted that for decades the species has been prominent in the pet trade industry (Vetter, 2005). Local population declines as a result of collection for pet trade were reported (Ernst et al., 2006) and Spawls et al., (2002) noted that the species was often kept as a pet in East Africa. For this reason, CITES introduced export quotas for a range of countries in the 1990’s, complemented by regulations on size and regulations that specimens must be captive bred, in some countries (Vetter, 2005). Nijman and Shepherd, (2007) found 119 S. pardalis for sale at Chatuchak market in Bangkok, Thailand during three visits in 2006–2007, and Gong et al., (2009)

came across tens of individuals at Yuehe Pet Market in Guangzhou, which is considered the largest pet market in China, during seven visits in 2006–2008. 81 The species was included in phase II of the Review of Significant Trade process in 1991 at AC5, with Mozambique, amongst others, considered of possible concern at AC9 in 1993, but no recommendations were made. The species was again included in the CITES Review of Significant Trade process in 1999 at AC15, which found that “although there remains little information on population status, the species appears to occur in sizeable numbers and is found within several protected areas” (WCMC et al., 1999). It was however noted that further information on the population status was needed (WCMC et al., 1999). Recommendations were made for Mozambique, with a focus information on the ranching of the species in the country (AC16 Doc. 16.7.1). The species appears to later have been removed from the process.

S. pardalis was considered well-suited for captive production (Highfield and Martin, 2014). Mozambique The range maps by Iverson (1992) and Broadley (1989) indicate occurrence of the species in the southern half and possibly also the northern tip of the country. The range map by Vetter (2005) also indicates that the species occurs in the southern, western and northern parts of the country.

Pietersen et al. (2013) recorded one individual in the Parque Nacional de Banhine in the Gaza Province in southern Mozambique. However, the species was not recorded in herpetological surveys in the Niassa Game Reserve in northern Mozambique (Branch et al., 2005), nor on the San Sebastian Peninsula in southern coastal Mozambique (Jacobsen et al., 2010), nor in the Mount Namuli area in south central Mozambique (Portik et al., 2013).

In 2001, the Management Authority of Mozambique stated that exports were only taking place from one ranching/captive breeding operation (SC45 Doc. 12).

The species was not included in the list of protected species of the ‘Regulamento da lei de florestas e fauna bravia’ (Boletim da Republica Mozambique, 2002). No further information on the management of the species was identified. References Baker, H. and Grubb, J. 2011. Psammobates pardalis, in Animal Diversity Web. Boletim da Republica Mozambique 2002. Regulamento da Lei de Florestas e Fauna Bravia 2. suplemento. Quinta-feira, 6 de Junho de 2002, I SERIE. Bonin, F., Devaux, B. and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. A&C Black, London (UK). Branch, W.R., Rödel, M.-O. and Marais, J. 2005. Herpetological survey of the Niassa Game Reserve, northern Mozambique - Part I: Reptiles. Salamandra, 41(4): 195–214. Broadley, D. 1989. Geochelone pardalis - Leopard turtle. In: Swingland, I.R. and Klemens, M.W. (Eds.). The conservation biology of tortoises. Van Dijk, P.P., Iverson, J.B., Shaffer, H.B., Bour, R. and Rhodin, A.G.J. 2012. Turtles of the World , 2012 update: annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status Rhodin, A.G.J., Pritchard, P.C.H., van Dijk, P.P., Saumure, R.A., Buhlmann, K.A., Iverson, J.B. and Mittermeier, R.A. (Eds.). Chelonian Research Monographs, 5: 243–328. Ernst, C.H., Altenburg, R.G.M. and Barbour, R.W. 2006. Turtles of the World. Available at: http://wbd.etibioinformatics.nl/bis/turtles.php. [Accessed: 21/07/2015]. Fritz, U. and Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P. 2007. When genes meet nomenclature: tortoise phylogeny and the shifting generic concepts of Testudo and Geochelone. Zoology (Jena, Germany), 110(4): 298–307. Fritz, U., Daniels, S.R., Hofmeyr, M.D., González, J., Barrio-Amorós, C.L., Široký, P., Hundsdörfer, A.K. and Stuckas, H. 2010. Mitochondrial phylogeography and subspecies of the wide- ranging sub-Saharan leopard tortoise Stigmochelys pardalis (Testudines: Testudinidae) - a

case study for the pitfalls of pseudogenes and GenBank sequences. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 48(4): 348–359. 82 Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Vertebrate Zoology, 57(2): 148– 368. 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. The International Journal of Conservation, 43(02): 1–2. Highfield, A.C. and Martin, J. 2014. Care and maintenance of the Leopard Tortoise, Geochelone pardalis. Available at: www.tortoisetrust.org. [Accessed: 24/04/2014]. Iverson, J.B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Earlham College, Richmond, USA. Jacobsen, N.H.G., Pietersen, E.W. and Pietersen, D.W. 2010. A preliminary herpetological survey of the Vilanculos Coastal Wildlife Sanctuary on the San Sebastian Peninsula, Vilankulo, Mozambique. 181–193. Le, M., Raxworthy, C.J., McCord, W.P. and Mertz, L. 2006. A molecular phylogeny of tortoises (Testudines: Testudinidae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes. 517–531. McMaster, M.K. and Downs, C.T. 2006. Population Structure and Density of Leopard Tortoises (Geochelone pardalis) on Farmland in the Nama-Karoo. Journal of Herpetology, 40(4): 495– 502. McMaster, M.K. and Downs, C.T. 2013. Seasonal and Daily Activity Patterns of Leopard Tortoises (Stigmochelys pardalis Bell, 1828) on Farmland in the Nama-Karoo, South Africa. African Zoology, 48(1): 72–83. 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. Pietersen, D., Pietersen, E. and Haacke, W. 2013. First herpetological appraisal of the Parque Nacional de Banhine, Gaza Province, southern Mozambique. Annals of the Ditsong National Museum of Natural History, 3: 153–163. Portik, D.M., Mulungu, E.A., Sequeira, D. and McEntee, J.P. 2013. Herpetological Surveys of the Serra Jeci and Namuli Massifs , Mozambique , and an Annotated Checklist of the Southern Afromontane Archipelago. Herpetological Review, 44(3): 394–406. Razzetti, E. and Msuya, C.A. 2002. Field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Arusha National Park (Tanzania). Pubblinova Edizioni Negri and Istituto OIKOS, Varese, Italy. Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R. and Ashe, J. 2002. A field guide to the reptiles of East Africa. Academic Press, New York, USA. Vetter, H. 2005. Leopard Tortoise and African Spurred Tortoise: Stigmochelys pardalis and Centrochelys sulcata. Chelonian library. Edition Chimaira. WCMC, IUCN/SSC and TRAFFIC 1999. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II: Detailed reviews of 37 species. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN Species Survival Commission and TRAFFIC Network, Cambridge, UK.

ANURA: MANTELLIDAE 83

Mantella bernhardi II/B

COMMON NAMES: Bernhard’s Mantella, Black Mantella, Tolongoina Golden Frog

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 03/02/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous no opinion ii) formed on 18/11/1998 and replaced with no opinion iii) formed on 22/02/2000. IUCN: Endangered

Trade patterns Madagascar has published annual export quotas for live Mantella bernhardi in the years 2005- 2006, and 2009-2014. The quota appears to have been exceeded in 2005, both according to data reported by importers and Madagascar, and in 2010 according to data reported by Madagascar (Table 1). Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in M. bernhardi to the EU-28 2004-2013 mainly comprised small numbers of wild- sourced scientific specimens and bodies traded for scientific purposes (Table 2). Direct trade in M. bernhardi from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 mainly comprised wild-sourced live individuals traded for commercial purposes.

No indirect trade in M. bernhardi from Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Mantella bernhardi from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quota (live) - 0 0 - - 650 150 150 150 150 0 - Reported by Importers 25 60 88 39 14 82 Reported by Exporter 10 50 226 564 36 110 126 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Table 2: Direct exports of M. bernhardi from Madagascar to the EU-28 84 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. No trade was reported 2006-2008.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer Exporter 113 live T W Importer Exporter 6 specimens S W Importer 100 50 Exporter 50 RoW bodies S W Importer Exporter 9 live T R Importer 80 Exporter 80 W Importer 25 60 88 39 14 82 Exporter 10 50 226 558 36 110 126 specimens (l) S W Importer Exporter <0.01 specimens W W Importer 9 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Mantella bernhardi was reported to occur in southeastern Madagascar between 60 and 629 m above sea level (Rabemananjara et al., 2005). Vieites et al. (2006) reported the species from eight sites in southeastern Madagascar, ranging from Parc National de Ranomafana (at Mangevo) south to near Manambondro. Its area of occupancy was estimated to be less than 500 km2 (Andreone et al., 2005). M. bernhardi was reported to be found only in degraded rainforest, probably due to severe habitat degradation within its range (Raxworthy and Cadle, 2008).

M. bernhardi was categorised as Endangered on the IUCN Red List because of its limited area of occupancy, severely fragmented distribution, declines in the extent of its forest habitat, and possible declines in the number of mature individuals through over-exploitation (Raxworthy and Cadle, 2008). It was reported to be locally abundant, but with limited suitable habitat within its range and with a decreasing population trend (Raxworthy and Cadle, 2008).

Rapid population assessments using mark and recapture techniques carried out at four sites in 2003 and 2004 showed that the species could be locally abundant, with population density estimates of between 600 and 4480 individuals per hectare (Rabemananjara et al., 2008). However, the surveyors noted that these were based on small areas and that they should not be extrapolated to larger areas (Rabemananjara et al., 2008). Vieites et al. (2006) reported that their unpublished data indicated local population densities of 170-820 individuals per hectare.

M. bernhardi was reported to be threatened by collection for the pet trade (Vieites et al., 2006; Raxworthy and Cadle, 2008). Carpenter et al. (2014) reported that 1817 individuals were reported in international trade prior to 2007. As a forest species, M. bernhardi was reported to be threatened by habitat alteration (Andreone et al., 2006). The area in which the species was reported to occur was reported to be subject to rapid degradation (Raxworthy and Cadle, 2008).

Populations from northern and southern parts of the distributional range were reported to show a high degree of divergence, suggesting the presence of barriers to gene flow (Vieites et al., 2006). These genetic studies conducted by Vieites et al. (2006) indicated the existence of at least two different management units for the conservation of M. bernhardi, corresponding to the north and south of its distribution range. Given the genetic distinctiveness of M. bernhardi populations in Vevembé, they recommended the inclusion of this region in Madagascar’s network of protected areas (Vieites et al., 2006).

The species was reported to occur within two protected areas: Ranomafana National Park and Manombo Special Reserve (Raxworthy and Cadle, 2008). 85 Mantella spp. were selected for the Review of Significant Trade flowing CoP13 (AC21 Summary Record). At the 23rd Meeting of the Animals Committee in 2008, trade in M. bernhardi was considered to be of least concern and it was eliminated from Review of Significant Trade with the provision that should a quota be re-established, the Animals Committee could reconsider the species (AC23 Summary Record).

Following publication of an annual export quota of 650 live specimens in 2009, the Animals Committee sought details from Madagascar on the calculation of the quota for M. bernhardi (AC24 Summary Record). The response of the Madagascar Management Authority reported at the 25th meeting of the Animals Committee stated that:

 No quotas were set for this species before 2005;  A zero quota had been in place since 2005;  According to Rabemananjara et al. (2008) density ranged from 600 to 4480 individuals per ha;  Despite the high number of localities surveyed by Rabemananjara et al. (2005), Vieites et al. (2006) discovered that the Manombo population was a separate species. Thus, the number of harvest sites must be limited to the north of Manombo and a cautious quota of 650 specimens should be set (AC25 Doc. 9.3 Annex).

At the 25th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2011, M. bernhardi was deemed to be a species of priority concern and was included in the Review of Significant Trade (AC25 Summary Record). Information on the methodology for calculation of the quota was later supplied by Madagascar (AC26 Inf. 13), although the quota figure of 650 explained in this document was subsequently reported to be error, with the actual quota being 150 (AC Summary Record). The species was recommended for removal from the Review of Significant Trade (AC26 Summary Record). At the 27th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2014, Madagascar was deemed to have complied with recommendations and M. bernhardi was removed from the Review of Significant Trade (AC27 Doc 12.3). References Andreone, F., Cadle, J.E., Cox, N., Glaw, F., Nussbaum, R.A., Raxworthy, C.J., Stuart, S.N., Vallan, D. and Vences, M. 2005. Species review of amphibian extinction risks in Madagascar: conclusions from the global amphibian assessment. Conservation Biology, 19(6): 1790–1802. Andreone, F., Mercurio, V. and Mattioli, F. 2006. Between environmental degradation and international pet trade: conservation strategies for the threatened amphibians of Madagascar. Natura, 95: 81–96. Carpenter, A., Andreone, F., Moore, R.D. and Griffiths, R. 2014. A review of the international trade in amphibians: the types, levels and dynamics of trade in CITES-listed species. Oryx, 48: 1– 10. Rabemananjara, F., Bora, P., Cadle, J., Andreone, F., Rajeriarison, E., Talata, P., Glaw, F., Vences, M. and Vieites, D.R. 2005. New records, distribution and conservation of Mantella bernhardi, an Endangered frog species from south-eastern Madagascar. Oryx, 39: 339–342. Rabemananjara, F., Bora, P., Razafindrabe, T., Randriamitso, E., Ravoahangimalala Ramilijaona, O. Rasoamanpionona Raminosoa, N. Rakotondravony, D., Vieites, D.R. and Vences, M. 2008. Rapid assessments of population sizes in ten species of Malagasy poison frogs, genus Mantella. Monografie del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, 45: 253–264. Raxworthy, C. and Cadle, J. 2008. Mantella bernhardi. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. Vieites, D.R., Chiari, Y., Vences, M., Andreone, F., Rabemananjara, F., Bora, P., Nieto-Román, S. and Meyer, A. 2006. Mitochondrial evidence for distinct phylogeographic units in the endangered Malagasy poison frog Mantella bernhardi. Molecular Ecology, 15(6): 1617–1625.

86 ANURA: MANTELLIDAE

Mantella crocea II/B

COMMON NAMES: Yellow Mantella, Eastern Golden Frog

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 03/02/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous no opinion ii) formed on 18/11/1998.

IUCN: Endangered

Taxonomic note The status of Mantella crocea and M. milotympanum as separate species was considered to require clarification (Bina Perl et al., 2014; Vieites et al., 2009), as they were not clearly distinguishable based on molecular data (Vieites et al., 2009). M. milotympanum was considered to be a form of Mantella aurantiaca prior to 1996 and it was reported that some past trade in the latter may have included M. milotympanum (AC23 Doc 8.4 Annex 2; Rabemananjara et al., 2008b). Trade patterns Madagascar has published annual export quotas for live Mantella crocea every year 2005-2009, and zero-quotas for the years 2011-2014 (Table 1). Trade appears to have exceed the quota in 2005 as reported by both Madagascar and trading partners; however a permit analysis showed that 1640 live individuals reported by importers in 2005 were reported with permit numbers which appear to have been issued in 2004, when no quota was in place. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct exports of M. crocea to the EU-28 2003-2012 comprised low levels of wild-sourced and captive-bred specimens traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). Direct trade in M. crocea from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 in 2004-2010 primarily comprised high levels of wild-sourced live animals and bodies traded for commercial purposes (Table 2.)

No indirect trade in M. crocea from Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004- 2013. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Mantella crocea from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quota (live) - 1000 1000 1000 1000 500 - 0* 0* 0* 0* - Reported by Importers 1020 2295 346 425 410 436 Reported by Exporter 2229 1154 857 550 721 318 12 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. *Quota published in these years did not specify a term.

Table 2: Direct exports of Mantella crocea from Madagascar to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. Small amounts of 87 trade in scientific specimens have been excluded.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer 10 Exporter live T C Importer 3 Exporter 75 25 W Importer Exporter 60 RoW bodies S W Importer Exporter 4 bodies T I Importer 4 Exporter live T C Importer 5 25 6 Exporter 5 live T I Importer 2 1 Exporter live T W Importer 1020 2295 346 425 410 436 Exporter 2229 1094 857 550 721 318 12 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status M. crocea was reported to occur in a small area in east-central Madagascar (Vences and Raxworthy, 2008) within an altitudinal range of 890-1572 m above sea level (Edmonds, 2009). M. crocea was reported to have a patchy distribution (Vences and Raxworthy, 2008). Bora et al. (2008) identified nine known localities for M. crocea, although Edmonds (2009) subsequently reported occurrences that extended the known distribution by 90 km to the north. Edmonds (2009) noted that there were undoubtedly other sites in the eastern rainforest belt where this species occurred that remained undocumented.

M. crocea was categorised as Endangered on the IUCN Red List because its extent of occurrence was estimated to be less than 5000 km2; its area of occupancy was believed to be probably less than 500 km2; it was then only known from a single locality; the extent of its forest habitat in east- central Madagascar was reported to be declining; and the number of mature individuals was thought to be declining through over-exploitation (Vences and Raxworthy, 2008).

M. crocea was reported to be locally common but with a decreasing population trend (Vences and Raxworthy, 2008). A rapid population assessment using a mark and recapture technique in 2004 produced a population density estimate of 2000 animals/ha (Rabemananjara et al., 2008). As the survey was carried out over a very small area the surveyors emphasised that the results should not be extrapolated to larger areas (Rabemananjara et al., 2008). Vences et al. (2004) found high genetic diversity in this species, which was considered consistent with a large population size.

Vences and Raxworthy (2008) stated that over-collecting was possibly a threat but that it had not been demonstrated and that carefully regulated trade was the best management option for this species. Carpenter et al. (2014) found that up to 2007, 6789 individuals were reported in trade. The forest habitat of the species was reported to be receding (Vences and Raxworthy, 2008) and Bora et al. (2008) reported that populations of M. crocea were likely to be fragmented by logging and slash-and-burn agriculture.

M. crocea was reported from two protected areas: Ambohitantely special reserve (Bora et al., 2008) and Zahamena National Park (Edmonds, 2009), and Vences and Raxworthy (2008) stated that M. crocea was “believed likely to occur in Mantadia National Park”. It also was reported to occur in the forest bordering Torotorofotsy marsh (Edmonds, 2009), a Ramsar site which covers 10 000 ha (Ramsar, 2014).

Mantella spp. were selected for the Review of Significant Trade flowing CoP13 (AC21 Summary 88 Record). At the 23rd Meeting of the Animals Committee in 2008, the following recommendation was adopted: “Trade in this species is considered of possible concern. Retain in Review of Significant Trade. Madagascar is asked to provide additional data on the population estimates and on the non-detriment finding in order for the AC to reconsider its status at AC24.” (AC23 Summary Record).

At the 25th Meeting of the Animals Committee in 2011, the working group recommended this species to be retained in the process and proposed the following additional recommendations for M. crocea, M. expectata and M. viridis:

“a) a zero quota be established immediately; b) Madagascar should find the resources for a long term standardised monitoring programme for the three species to be able to monitor the population trends in protected and unprotected areas and the effect of trade, should it be resumed. For reference to such standardised monitoring programme, may be found in document AC24 Doc. 9.1 – p.25, Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity – Standard methods for Amphibians; c) on the basis of the information received and the results stemming from these programmes, such as population estimates and NDFs, precautionary quotas may be set in the future; d) adaptive management strategies should be implemented.” (AC25 Doc. 9.3). Madagascar confirmed that a zero quota had been established, however, it reported that it was unable to find resources to launch long-term standardised monitoring programme for M. crocea (SC62 Doc. 27.1). The 27th Meeting of the Animals Committee in 2014 confirmed that for the Review of Significant Trade actions by Madagascar were ongoing (AC27 Doc. 12.3). References Bina Perl, R., Nagy, Z.T., Sonet, G., Glaw, F., Wollenberg, K.C., Vences, M. and Žydelis, R. 2014. DNA barcoding Madagascar’s amphibian fauna. Amphibia-Reptilia, 35(2): 197–206. Bora, P., Dolch, R., Jenkins, R., Jovanovic, O., Rabemananjara, F.C.E., Randrianirina, J.E., Rafanomezantsoa, J., Raharivololoniaina, L., Ramilijaona, O., et al. 2008. Geographical distribution of three species of Malagasy poison frogs of high conservation priority: Mantella aurantiaca, M. crocea and M. milotympanum. Herpetology Notes, 1: 39–48. Carpenter, A., Andreone, F., Moore, R.D. and Griffiths, R. 2014. A review of the international trade in amphibians: the types, levels and dynamics of trade in CITES-listed species. Oryx, 48: 1–10. Edmonds, D. 2009. Extended distribution of two frogs from Madagascar: Mantella crocea and Mantella manery (Anura: Mantellidae). Herpetology Notes, 2: 53–57. Rabemananjara, F., Bora, P., Razafindrabe, T., Randriamitso, E., Ravoahangimalala Ramilijaona, O. Rasoamanpionona Raminosoa, N. Rakotondravony, D., Vieites, D.R. and Vences, M. 2008. Rapid assessments of population sizes in ten species of Malagasy poison frogs, genus Mantella. Monografie del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, 45: 253– 264. Ramsar 2014. Ramsar Sites Information Service. Available at: http://www.ramsar.org/wetland/madagascar. [Accessed: 22/04/2015]. Vences, M., Chiari, Y., Raharivololoniaina, L. and Meyer, A. 2004. High mitochondrial diversity within and among populations of Malagasy poison frogs. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 30(2): 295–307. Vences, M. and Raxworthy, C. 2008. Mantella crocea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 22/07/2015]. Vieites, D.R., Wollenberg, K.C., Andreone, F., Kohler, F., Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 2009. Vast underestimation of Madagascar’s biodiversity evidenced by an integrative amphibian inventory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106: 8267–8272.

ANURA: MANTELLIDAE 89

Mantella expectata II/B

COMMON NAMES: Tulear Golden Frog, Blue-legged Mantella

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 03/02/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

No opinion iii) formed on 22/02/2000. Previous no opinion ii) formed on 18/11/1998.

IUCN: Endangered

Taxonomic note Records of Mantella expectata or M. betsileo from west and southwest Madagascar, other than the Isalo population (Andreone et al., 2008), were reported to be likely to refer to a separate, undescribed species (Glaw and Vences, 2007). Trade patterns Madagascar has published annual export quotas for live Mantella expectata every year 2005-2014. Importers reported exports which appear to exceed the quota in 2005 and trade appears to have exceeded the quota in 2009, according to Madagascar (Table 1). A permit analysis revealed that 2335 individuals reported by importers in 2005 were exported with permit numbers which appear to have been issued in the previous year, when there was no quota in place. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct exports of M. expectata to the EU-28 2003-2012 comprised very low levels of wild-sourced live animals and bodies, traded for commercial and scientific purposes (Table 2). Direct trade in M. expectata from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 2004-2010 primarily comprised relatively high levels of wild-sourced live individuals traded for commercial purposes.

Indirect exports to the EU-28 originating in Madagascar consisted of two wild-sourced scientific specimens imported in 2011 via the United States. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Mantella expectata from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quota (live) - 1000 1000 1000 1000 250 5000* 0* 250 250 0 - Reported by Importers 1200 2475 272 278 145 219 45 147 Reported by Exporter 4191 991 971 629 678 329 12 114 168 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. * Quotas published in these years did not specify a term.

Table 2: Direct exports of M. expectata from Madagascar to the EU-28 90 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. Small amounts of trade in scientific specimens have been excluded.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer 2 Exporter 19 92 live T W Importer Exporter 60 20 RoW bodies S W Importer Exporter 3 live T I Importer 38 Exporter R Importer 80 Exporter 80 W Importer 1200 2475 272 278 145 219 45 147 Exporter 4191 931 971 609 678 329 12 114 168 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status M. expectata was reported to be endemic to a small region in south-western Madagascar centred on the Isalo Massif (Andreone et al., 2008). It was reported to be widespread in the Isalo Massif, both within and outside Isalo National Park (Crottini et al., 2008). Its extent of occurrence was estimated to be less than 5000 km2 (Andreone et al., 2008).

M. expectata was categorised as Endangered because of its limited extent of occurrence, small number of known locations, declines in extent and quality of its habitat, and possible over- collecting for the pet trade (Andreone et al., 2008). It was described as sometimes locally abundant in suitable habitat where it could occur in high densities, but with an overall decreasing population trend (Andreone et al., 2008). Guarino et al. (2010) reported that the maximum longevity of M. expectata was 3 years.

The main threat to M. expectata was reported to be habitat loss (Andreone et al., 2008). It was reported to be sought after for the pet trade, with up to several thousand specimens collected during the rainy season (Andreone et al., 2008). Carpenter et al. (2014) reported that 8550 individuals were reported in international trade up to 2007, although the species was formally described in 1992. Andreone et al. (2008) recommended that trade in this species should be carefully regulated.

M. expectata was reported to occur within one protected area, Parc National de l’Isalo, with a high proportion of the genetic diversity of its populations reported to occur outside this protected area (Crottini et al., 2008).

Mantella spp. were selected for the Review of Significant Trade following CoP13 in 2004 (AC21 Summary Record). At the 23rd Meeting of the Animals Committee in 2008, the following recommendation was adopted: “Trade in this species is considered of possible concern. Retain in Review of Significant Trade. Madagascar is asked to provide additional data on the population estimates and on the non-detriment finding in order for the AC to reconsider its status at AC24.” (AC23 Summary Record).

At the 25th Meeting of the Animals Committee in 2011, the working group recommended the following be implemented by 15 January 2012 for M. crocea, M. expectata and M. viridis:

“a) a zero quota be established immediately;

b) Madagascar should find the resources for a long-term standardized monitoring programme for the three species to be able to monitor the population trends in protected and unprotected

areas and the effect of trade, should it be resumed. For reference to such standardized monitoring programme may be found in document AC24 Doc. 9.1 – p.25, Measuring and 91 Monitoring Biological Diversity – Standard methods for Amphibians;

c) on the basis of the information received and the results stemming from these programmes, such as population estimates and NDFs, precautionary quotas may be set in the future;

d) adaptive management strategies should be implemented.” (AC25 Doc 9.3).

In response, Madagascar reported that it had established a zero quota (SC62 Doc. 27.1 (Rev. 1) Annex). Madagascar also reported that it had complied with the recommendation to undertake a long-term standardised monitoring programme and that there was an ongoing long-term research project on M. expectata throughout its confirmed range, including sites both inside and outside Isalo National Park (SC62 Doc. 27.1 (Rev. 1) Annex).

Madagascar reported that an annual export quota of 250 live M. expectata was non-detrimental, which was endorsed by the co-chair of the Madagascar Section of the IUCN/SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, who was reported to be the world’s authority on this species (SC62 Doc. 27.1 (Rev. 1) Annex). The species was reported to be abundant in almost all of the sites where it had been found (SC62 Doc. 27.1 (Rev. 1) Annex) and population viability analysis modelling was reported to show that the species could sustain modest-to-high offtake, as long as collection efforts were distributed among separate subpopulations; a quota of 250 was therefore thought to be achievable from 2-3 sub-populations (SC62 Doc. 27.1 (Rev. 1) Annex). The quota was reported to be divided between commercial operators and each was permitted to harvest and export a relatively small number of frogs from localities prescribed by the Scientific Authority (SC62 Doc. 27.1 (Rev. 1) Annex). Collection was reported to be permitted only outside of Isalo National Park (SC62 Doc. 27.1 (Rev. 1) Annex). At the 27th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2014, Madagascar was deemed to have complied with the recommendations and M. expectata was removed from the Review of Significant Trade (AC27 Doc. 12.3). References Andreone, F., Raxworthy, C.J. and Glaw, F. 2008. Mantella expectata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 13/04/2015]. Carpenter, A., Andreone, F., Moore, R.D. and Griffiths, R. 2014. A review of the international trade in amphibians: the types, levels and dynamics of trade in CITES-listed species. Oryx, 48: 1– 10. Crottini, A., Chiari, Y., Mercurio, V., Meyer, A., Vences, M. and Andreone, F. 2008. Into the canyons : The phylogeography of the Malagasy frogs Mantella expectata and Scaphiophryne gottlebei in the arid Isalo Massif, and its significance for conservation (Amphibia: Mantellidae and Microhylidae). Organisms Diversity and Evolution, 8: 368–377. Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 2007. A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. 3rd Ed. Vences & Glaw Verlag, Cologne. Guarino, F., Tessa, G., Mercurio, V. and Andreone, F. 2010. Rapid sexual maturity and short life span in the blue-legged frog and the rainbow frog from the arid Isalo Massif, southern- central Madagascar. Zoology, 113(6): 378–384.

92 ANURA: MANTELLIDAE

Mantella milotympanum II/B

SYNONYMS: Mantella aurantiaca milotympanum

COMMON NAMES: Black-eared Golden Mantella, Black-eared Mantella

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 03/02/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Previous no opinion iii) formed on 22/02/2000.

IUCN: Critically Endangered

Taxonomic note The status of Mantella crocea and M. milotympanum as separate species was considered to require clarification (Bina Perl et al., 2014; Vieites et al., 2009), as they were not clearly distinguishable based on molecular data (Vieites et al., 2009). M. milotympanum was considered to be a form of Mantella aurantiaca prior to 1996 and it was reported that some past trade in the latter may have included M. milotympanum (AC23 Doc 8.4 Annex 2; Rabemananjara et al., 2008b). Trade patterns Madagascar has published annual export quotas for live Mantella milotympanum every year 2005- 2009. Trade appears to have been within quota for all years with the exception of 2005, as reported by importers (Table 1). A permit analysis revealed that 1425 of the 1575 live wild-sourced individuals reported by importers in 2005 were exported on permits that appear to have been issued in 2004, when there was no quota in place, as such the 2005 quota would appear to not have been exceeded. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct exports of M. milotympanum to the EU-28 2004-2013 primarily comprised live animals and scientific specimens traded for commercial and scientific purposes, respectively (Table 2). Direct trade in M. milotympanum from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 2004-2009 primarily comprised wild-sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes.

No indirect trade in M. milotympanum originating in Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Mantella milotympanum from Madagascar and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2009. No quotas were published 2010-2015. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Quota (live) - 1000 1000 1000 1000 0 Reported by Importers 850 1575 304 400 267 157 Reported by Exporter 2225 830 681 706 654 322 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Table 2: Direct exports of Mantella milotympanum from Madagascar to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW), 2004-2009. Small 93 amounts of trade in scientific specimens have been excluded.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer Exporter 5 live T W Importer Exporter 75 10 specimens S W Importer Exporter 100 RoW bodies S W Importer Exporter 10 T I Importer 11 Exporter live T I Importer 97 Exporter W Importer 850 1575 304 400 267 157 Exporter 2225 755 681 696 654 322 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status M. milotympanum was reported from several localities in east-central Madagascar covering a small area south of Fierenana (Vences and Nussbaum, 2008). Bora et al. (2008) identified four localities for M. milotympanum and a further five localities for specimens which they assigned to the taxon M. cf. milotympanum. Razafimahatratra et al. (2009) reported the species from 20 new locations between 887 and 1079 m above sea level and estimated the area of occupancy to be 56 km2. The species was reported to occur at 16 sites in a new protected area: the Ankenkiheny- Zahamena Corridor (Razafimahatratra et al., 2009).

M. milotympanum was categorised as Critically Endangered, because of its small area of occupancy (estimated at <10 km2), fragmented distribution, and decline in extent of its forest habitat (Vences and Nussbaum, 2008). M. milotympanum was described as a locally common species, observed at high densities, with a decreasing population trend (Vences and Nussbaum, 2008). Population assessments carried out in 2003 and 2004 reported densities between 1120 and 3616 individuals per hectare although the surveyors noted the small sample areas and focus on breeding sites (Rabemananjara et al., 2008a). A separate estimate, based on a larger survey area (6000 m2) produced a lower estimate of 470 animals per hectare (Vieites et al., 2005). Vences et al. (2004) reported high genetic (mitochondrial) diversity in sampled populations of M. milotympanum consistent with a large population size.

As a forest species, a major threat was reported to be loss of forest habitat (Vences and Nussbaum, 2008). Vences and Nussbaum (2008) reported that M. milotympanum had been collected in large numbers by commercial collectors, and that trade might pose a major threat. Vences and Nussbaum (2008) recommended that any trade should be carefully regulated and that the population should be monitored. Vieites et al. (2005) speculated that because of high densities and high reproductive output and rate of recruitment, even heavy collecting did not necessarily lead to threats to M. milotympanum.

At the 23rd meeting of the Animals Committee in 2008, Andreone and Vences were reported to have considered the annual export quota of 1000 specimens, in place since 2005, to be sustainable (AC23 Doc. 8.4 Annex 2).

At the 23rd Meeting of the Animals Committee, trade in this species was considered of possible concern (AC23 Summary Record). Madagascar was asked to provide additional data on the population estimates and on the non-detriment finding in order for the AC to reconsider its status (AC23 Summary Record). At the 24th Meeting of the Animals Committee in 2009,

M. milotympanum was removed from the Review of Significant Trade process because a zero 94 quota had been set (AC24 Summary Record). References Bina Perl, R., Nagy, Z.T., Sonet, G., Glaw, F., Wollenberg, K.C., Vences, M. and Žydelis, R. 2014. DNA barcoding Madagascar’s amphibian fauna. Amphibia-Reptilia, 35(2): 197–206. Bora, P., Dolch, R., Jenkins, R., Jovanovic, O., Rabemananjara, F.C.E., Randrianirina, J.E., Rafanomezantsoa, J., Raharivololoniaina, L., Ramilijaona, O., Raminosoa, N. et al. 2008. Geographical distribution of three species of Malagasy poison frogs of high conservation priority: Mantella aurantiaca, M. crocea and M. milotympanum. Herpetology Notes, 1: 39–48. Carpenter, A., Andreone, F., Moore, R.D. and Griffiths, R. 2014. A review of the international trade in amphibians: the types, levels and dynamics of trade in CITES-listed species. Oryx, 48: 1– 10. Rabemananjara, F., Bora, P., Razafindrabe, T., Randriamitso, E., Ravoahangimalala Ramilijaona, O. Rasoamanpionona Raminosoa, N. Rakotondravony, D., Vieites, D.R. and Vences, M. 2008a. Rapid assessments of population sizes in ten species of Malagasy poison frogs, genus Mantella. Monografie del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, 45: 253–264. Rabemananjara, F., Rasoamanpionona Raminosoa, N., Ravohangimalala Ramilijaona, O., Rakotondravony, D., Andreone, F., Bora, P., Carpenter, A.I., Glaw, F., Razafindrabe, T., Vallan, D. et al. 2008b. Malagasy poison frogs in the pet trade: a survey of levels of exploitation of species in the genus Mantella. Monographie del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, XLV: 277–300. Razafimahatratra, B., Fatroandrianjafinonjasolomiovazo, N., Andriantsimanarilafy, R. and Jenkins, R. 2009. The status of Mantella milotympanum in the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor, eastern Madagascar. Herpetology Notes, 2(1): 207–213. Vences, M., Chiari, Y., Raharivololoniaina, L. and Meyer, A. 2004. High mitochondrial diversity within and among populations of Malagasy poison frogs. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 30(2): 295–307. Vences, M. and Nussbaum, R.A. 2008. Mantella milotympanum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. Vieites, C.M., Rabemananjara, F., Bora, P., Razafimahatratra, B., Ramilijaona Ravoahangimalala, O. and Vences, M. 2005. Distribution and population density of the black-eared Malagasy poison frog, Mantella milotympanum Staniszewski, 1996 (Amphibia: Mantellidae). In: Huber, B.A., Sinclair, B. and Lampe, K.H. (Eds.). African Biodiversity: Molecules, Organisms, Ecosystems. Springer Verlag, Museum Koenig, Bonn. 197–204. Vieites, D.R., Wollenberg, K.C., Andreone, F., Kohler, F., Glaw, F. and Vences, M. 2009. Vast underestimation of Madagascar’s biodiversity evidenced by an integrative amphibian inventory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106: 8267–8272.

ANURA: MANTELLIDAE 95

Mantella viridis II/B

COMMON NAMES: Green Golden Frog, Green Mantella, Lime Mantella

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 03/02/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Previous no opinion ii) formed on 18/11/1998.

IUCN: Endangered

Taxonomic note Crottini et al. (2012) reported that there was low genetic differentiation between Mantella viridis, M. ebenaui and two other intermediate taxa: M. cf. viridis and M. cf. ebenaui, but that further evidence would be required before resolving taxonomic limits. They concluded that although the boundaries between the taxa were unclear, there were slight genetic differences between some colour morphs which should be considered as separate management units for conservation efforts (Crottini et al., 2012). Trade patterns Madagascar has published annual export quotas for live Mantella viridis every year 2005-2010 and a zero quota for the years 2011-2014. Trade appears to have exceeded the quota in 2005 according to importer reported data, however a permit analysis suggests that 985 live individuals were exported on permits issued in 2004, when no quota had been published (Table 1). Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct exports of M. viridis to the EU-28 2004-2013 comprised wild live individuals traded for commercial purposes and bodies and scientific specimens for scientific purposes (Table 2). Direct trade in M. viridis from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 2004-2013 primarily comprised wild-sourced live animals traded for commercial purposes.

Indirect trade in M. viridis to the EU-28 originating in Madagascar comprised 12 wild-sourced live individuals, imported via Canada in 2005. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Mantella viridis from Madagascar 2004-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2004-2013. Trade data for 2014 is incomplete and 2015 is not yet available.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Quota (live) - 1000 1000 1000 1000 250 2500* 0* 0* 0* 0* - Reported by Importers 905 1260 295 269 224 299 Reported by Exporter 2006 878 711 525 677 253 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. * Quotas published in these years did not specify a term code.

Table 2: Direct exports of Mantella viridis from Madagascar to the EU- 96 28 and the rest of the world (RoW), 2004-2013.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 bodies S W Importer 3 5 8 Exporter 3 46 live T W Importer Exporter 50 specimens S W Importer 5 Exporter 5 50 RoW bodies S W Importer Exporter 10 5 T I Importer 1 Exporter live T R Importer 50 Exporter 50 W Importer 905 1260 295 269 224 299 Exporter 2006 828 711 525 677 253 specimens (l) I W Importer Exporter <0.01 - W Importer 15 Exporter 5 50 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status M. viridis was reported to occur in the extreme north of Madagascar between 50 and 959 m above sea level, although most records were from below 300 m above sea level (Andreone et al., 2008). Mercurio and Andreone (2008) reported M. viridis from the north of the Antsiranana region. The species was also reported from Nosy Hara, a small island 6 km off the [northern] coast (Crottini et al., 2012). M. viridis was reported from a range of habitats, including natural and degraded forest, shrub communities and rocky streams, indicating an adaptability to secondary, degraded and human perturbed habitats (Mercurio and Andreone, 2008).

M. viridis was categorised as Endangered with a decreasing population trend in the IUCN Red List, as its extent of occurrence was estimated to be less than 5000 km2, its severely fragmented distribution, and a continued decline in extent and quality of its habitat (Andreone et al., 2008).

The species was reported to be locally abundant in some areas; in the north of the Antsiranana region, M. viridis was recorded in 32 of 42 sites surveyed (Mercurio and Andreone, 2008). Population assessments using a mark and recapture method carried out in 2013 estimated the mean density to be 7766 individuals per hectare, with a maximum density of 60 400 individuals per hectare in one area (CITES, 2013). CITES (2013) reported the highest average population density from shrub communities dominated by mango trees (27 174 individuals/ha), with lower population densities reported from degraded forest (8485 ± 3605 individuals/ha) and natural forest (100 ± 100 individuals/ha).

Andreone et al. (2008) reported that the main threat to M. viridis was habitat loss. M. viridis was also reported to be affected by permanent drying out of small streams following forest loss (Andreone et al., 2008). Carpenter et al. (2014) reported that M. viridis was the ninth most traded amphibian species globally, accounting for 11 675 individuals or 2 per cent of the trade reported as imports between 1976 and 2007 (Carpenter et al., 2014), even though the species was only formally described in 1988.

An assessment of M. viridis populations was undertaken in 2013 to determine if international trade could be reopened (CITES, 2013). This assessment was conducted within the EU-funded project Strengthening CITES implementation capacity of developing countries to ensure sustainable wildlife management and non-detrimental trade (CITES, 2013). The assessment concluded that given the taxonomic uncertainty between M. viridis, M. ebenaui and two related taxa, M. cf. viridis

and M. cf. ebenaui, a non-detriment finding could not be made and any quota would be detrimental (CITES, 2013). Most of the populations of M. viridis reported by CITES (2013) were 97 outside protected areas. Furthermore, potential collection sites were noted to be in the periphery of protected areas, which was thought to potentially impact on the species’ conservation (CITES, 2013). The species was reported to occur within protected areas at Montagne d’Ambre National Park and Fôret d’Ambre Special Reserve (Mercurio and Andreone, 2008).

“a) a zero quota be established immediately;

b) Madagascar should find the resources for a long term standardized monitoring programme for the three species to be able to monitor the population trends in protected and unprotected areas and the effect of trade, should it be resumed. For reference to such standardized monitoring programme, may be found in document AC24 Doc. 9.1 – p.25, Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity – Standard methods for Amphibians;

c) on the basis of the information received and the results stemming from these programmes, such as population estimates and NDFs, precautionary quotas may be set in the future;

d) adaptive management strategies should be implemented.” (AC25 Doc. 9.3).

At the 62nd meeting of the CITES Standing Committee, progress toward implementation of the recommendations was noted: a zero export quota had been established for M. viridis, however the response of the Madagascar Management Authority indicated it had not initiated a monitoring programme for M. viridis (SC62 Doc 27.1). At the 27th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2014 it was noted that ongoing actions by Madagascar were required for compliance with the recommendations (AC27 Doc 12.3). References Andreone, F., Raxworthy, C. and Vences, M. 2008. Mantella viridis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 14/04/2015]. Carpenter, A., Andreone, F., Moore, R.D. and Griffiths, R. 2014. A review of the international trade in amphibians: the types, levels and dynamics of trade in CITES-listed species. Oryx, 48: 1– 10. CITES 2013. Studies on the Mantella viridis amphibian for the purpose of reopening international trade in the species CITES Secretariat. Reporte preparted by Madagasikara Voakajy, Geneva, Switzerland. Crottini, A., Brown, J.L., Mercurio, V., Glaw, F., Vences, M. and Andreone, F. 2012. Phylogeography of the poison frog Mantella viridis (Amphibia: Mantellidae) reveals chromatic and genetic differentiation across ecotones in northern Madagascar. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 50(4): 305–314. Mercurio, V. and Andreone, F. 2008. New distribution data of the green mantella, Mantella viridis, from northern Madagascar (Anura: Mantellidae). Herpetology Notes, 1: 3–7.

98 EUPHORBIALES: EUPHORBIACEAE

Euphorbia guillauminiana II/B

RANGE STATES : Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 18/02/2005 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for Madagascar formed on 17/01/2002.

IUCN: Endangered

Trade patterns Madagascar has not published any export quotas for Euphorbia guillauminiana for 2004-2013. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in E. guillauminiana to the EU-28 2004-2013 comprised very low levels of wild- sourced and artificially propagated live plants traded as personal items or for commercial purposes (Table 1).

Direct trade in E. guillauminiana from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 primarily comprised wild-sourced live individuals traded for unspecified purposes (Table 1).

No indirect trade in E. guillauminiana from Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013. Table 1: Direct exports of Euphorbia guillauminiana from Madagascar to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW), 2004-2013.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 live P A Importer Exporter 1 live T W Importer Exporter 10 RoW live P I Importer Exporter 10 W Importer 3 Exporter 3 extract T W Importer 2 Exporter live T A Importer 2 Exporter 4 W Importer 1 Exporter 1 2 106 live - W Importer 737 52 65 165 105 180 Exporter 184 118 218 120 45 170 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Conservation status Euphorbia guillauminiana is a Madagascan spiny succulent (Ursch and Leandri, 1954) with densely 99 branched shrublet that grows up to 60 cm in diameter (Eggli, 2002; Dortort, 2011), and which inhabits rocky areas (Haevermans, 2004). E. guillauminiana is endemic to Madagascar (Haevermans, 2004), where it was reported to occur in the Analalava district (Haevermans, 2004; Evans et al., 2014; Dorsey et al., 2013) and in the Mahajanga province [now a district] (Oldfield, 1997). Its habitat was considered to be highly fragmented (Haevermans, 2004) and the species was reported to be confined to “a few arid lava beds” (Dortort, 2011).

The species was classified as Endangered by the IUCN, due to its small area of occupancy (96.1 km2) and occurrence outside of any protected area (Haevermans, 2004). The species was considered to be distinctively rare (Dortort, 2011; Oldfield, 1997) and Dortort (2011) expressed concern over the species’ survival in the wild, given the condition of its habitat.

The threats to E. guillauminiana were reported as habitat degradation, fire, and illegal collection for the horticultural trade (Haevermans, 2004). Cultivated plants were reported to attain the characteristic and sought-after perfectly hemispherical shape very slowly, with wild specimens showing this form already therefore commanding high prices (Dortort, 2011).

As part of a country-based Review of Significant Trade from Madagascar (PC 11 Doc 11.2.1), E. guillauminiana was assessed as ‘Endangered’ (PC13 Inf. 8), and identified as one of 39 species prioritised for urgent field study, which was reported to have taken place in 2006 for this species (PC 17 Doc. 8.2).

E. guillauminiana was selected for the Review of Significant Trade following CoP14 and was subsequently removed, based on information provided by Madagascar stating an export ban was in place and that only artificially propagated plants were being exported (CoP 15 Doc 7.3.1. (Rev.1)). Madagascar established a zero quota for E. guillauminiana in December 2012, pending results of the studies commissioned by the Secretariat (SC63 Doc. 14; PC 21 Doc. 21.1).

Under the Periodic review for Euphorbia spp. initiated under Decision 14.131 (PC19 Doc. 12.3), it was recommended that E. guillauminiana be retained on Appendix II due to the potential risk posed by international trade (PC20 Doc 16.4 Annex 2). References Dorsey, B.L., Haevermans, T., Aubriot, X., Morawetz, J.J., Riina, R., Steinmann, V.W. and Berry, P.E. 2013. Phylogenetics, morphological evolution, and classification of Euphorbia subgenus Euphorbia. Taxon, 62(2): 291–315. Dortort, F. 2011. The Timber Press guide to succulent plants of the world: a comprehensive reference to more than 2000 species. The Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. 344 pp. Eggli, U. (Ed.) 2002. Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants: Dicotyledons. First Ed. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 545 pp. Evans, M., Aubriot, X., Hearn, D., Lanciaux, M., Lavergne, S., Cruaud, C., Lawry II, P. and Haevermans, T. 2014. Insights on the evolution of plant succulence from a remarkable radiation in Madagascar (Euphorbia). Systematic biology, 63(5): 697–711. Haevermans, T. 2004. Euphorbia guillauminiana. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 8/04/2015]. Oldfield, S. 1997. Status survey and conservation action plan: Cactus and succulent plants. IUCN/SSC Cactus and Succulent Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 226 pp. Ursch, E. and Leandri, J. 1954. Les euphorbes malgaches épineuses et charnues du Jardin botanique de Tsimbazaza. Mémoires de l’Institut scientifique de Madagascar. Série B, Biologie végétale., 5: 109–186.

100 GENTIANALES: APOCYNACEAE

Pachypodium inopinatum II/B

SYNONYMS: Pachypodium rosulatum var. inopinatum

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 01/03/2003 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed on 27/11/2001.

IUCN: Not assessed

Trade patterns Madagascar has not published any export quotas for Pachypodium inopinatum for 2004-2013. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in P. inopinatum to the EU-28 2004-2013 comprised ten wild sourced live plants traded for commercial purposes in 2011 (Table 1).

Direct trade from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 consisted of wild-sourced and artificially propagated live plants traded for commercial purposes (Table 1).

No indirect trade in P. inopinatum from Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004- 2013. Table 1: Direct exports of Pachypodium inopinatum from Madagascar to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW), 2011-2013. No trade was reported 2004-2010.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 live T W Importer Exporter 10 RoW live T A Importer 80 Exporter 95 W Importer 71 120 100 Exporter 120 106 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Conservation status Pachypodium inopinatum is a succulent shrub of 15-40 height (Rapanarivo et al., 1999), which is 101 endemic to arid areas on the slopes of the Vohombohitra Mountains near Manakanain Madagascar (Lüthy, 2008). Its range was reported to extend 50 km south (Lüthy, 2004) and about 50 km north of Anjozorombe (Lüthy, 2008). Rapanarivo et al. (1999) considered the species to be restricted to areas in the vicinity of Tsaratanana. It was reported from fissures in granite outcrops at altitudes of between 1000 and 1900 m (Rapanarivo et al., 1999). It was not described until 1996 although it was reported to have been in trade in the late 1980s (Lüthy, 2008).

Population data were reported to be unavailable (Lüthy, 2008) and the species has not yet been assessed by the IUCN.

Pachypodium species were considered particularly sought-after plants, due to their unusual growth forms and attractive flowers (Burge, 2013). The rarity of some species was reported to have fuelled demand which has led to the overexploitation of wild populations (Burge, 2013). Some Pachypodium species were reported to be difficult to identify (Burge, 2013).

Pressure from collection and habitat destruction were noted to affect Pachypodium spp. (Burge, 2013) and fire was also reported as a threat to the genus (Oldfield, 1997). Lüthy (2008) raised concerns about the conservation status of this species, as wild collected specimens were reported to be offered for sale by the hundreds through various plant traders in Madagascar. However, it was also reported that most exporters no longer collect plants in the wild because they already have parent plants from which they collect seeds (UNEP and UNCTAD, 2008).

Export quotas for this species were set at zero in December 2012, and two EU-funded projects were instigated to gather reliable NDF information for this and a number of other species to allow Madagascar to set appropriate quotas (PC21 Doc. 21.1). However, no export quotas were published by Madagascar for this species to date (at the time of writing).

No further information on the status of the species in Madagascar or its management was identified.

The species does not appear to be protected in Madagascar, although trade in CITES-listed species is governed through a number of regulations (Ministère de l’Environnement des Eaux et Forets, 2006). References Burge, D. 2013. Diversification of Pachypodium. Cactus and Succulent Journal, 85: 250–258. Lüthy, J. 2004. Another look at the pachypodiums of Madagascar. Bradleya, 22: 85–130. Lüthy, J. 2008. Notes on Madagascar’s white-flowering, non-arborescent pachypodiums and description of a new subspecies. Cactus and Succulent Journal, 80(4): 187–191. Ministère de l’Environnement des Eaux et Forets 2006. Manuel de procédures pour la gestion de la faune et de la flore sauvages de Madagascar. Rapanarivo, S., Lavranos, J.J., Leeuwenberg, A. and Röösli, W. 1999. Pachypodium (Apocynaceae): Taxonomy, Habitats and Cultivation. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. UNEP and UNCTAD 2008. National Wildlife Trade Policy Review: Madagascar. United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland.

102 GENTIANALES: APOCYNACEAE

Pachypodium rosulatum II/B

SYNONYMS: Pachypodium bicolor, Pachypodium cactipes, Pachypodium drakei, Pachypodium mayakense, Pachypodium meridionale, Pachypodium rosulatum forma bicolor, Pachypodium rosulatum var. delphinense, Pachypodium rosulatum var. drakei, Pachypodium rosulatum var. gracilius, Pachypodium rosulatum var. meridionale, Pachypodium rosulatum var. stenanthum

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

Trade patterns Madagascar has not published any export quotas for Pachypodium rosulatum for 2004-2013. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in P. rosulatum to the EU-28 2004-2013 primarily comprised live artificially propagated plants traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). EU Member States reported the import of 50 wild-sourced plants for commercial purposes in 2005; the trade suspension came into force in February 2005, and therefore this trade may not represent a transgression of the suspension.

Direct trade in P. rosulatum from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 primarily comprised wild-sourced live plants traded for commercial purposes (Table 1).

No indirect trade in P. rosulatum from Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013.

Table 1: Direct exports of Pachypodium rosulatum from Madagascar to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2013. 103

Term Reported Importer (unit) Purpose Source by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EU-28 live B W Importer 10 Exporter G W Importer 2 Exporter P A Importer Exporter 4 2 W Importer Exporter 77 2 T A Importer 12000 6900 1300 450 Exporter 3 6900 1001 W Importer 50 Exporter 1263 102 450 5 seeds S W Importer Exporter <0.01 RoW live G W Importer 4 Exporter P A Importer 15 Exporter 4 W Importer Exporter 34 15 5 T A Importer 2 5 30 Exporter 325 W Importer 764 164 246 680 165 100 20 204 80 100 Exporter 326 185 612 225 140 38 179 101 - W Importer 11 221 Exporter seeds T W Importer Exporter 0.1 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015. Conservation status Pachypodium rosulatum is a succulent shrub of up to 1-2.5 m height, which is endemic to Madagascar (Rapanarivo et al., 1999). It was reported to occur in open deciduous forests and scrubland on loose sand, gneiss or granite and basalt at altitudes between 100 and 600 m above sea level (Rapanarivo et al., 1999).

Six subspecies were reported to have been described and their respective distributions were mapped by Lüthy and Lavranos (2005). P. r. rosulatum was reported to occur in northern and northwestern Madagascar; the subspecies bemarahense, bicolor, makayense, gracilius occur as isolated populations along the western dry deciduous forest and succulent woodland zones in western Madagascar; while P. r. cactipes was reported from the vicinity of Fort-Dauphin in southeast Madagascar (Burge, 2013). P. r. var. drakei was reported to occur in the Reserve naturelle integrale de 1’Ankarafantsika (Oldfield, 1997) and P. r. var. gracilius was reported to occur in Isalo National Park (Świerkosz, 2007).

P. rosulatum has not yet been assessed by the IUCN. In the late 1990s, P. rosulatum Baker var. rosulatum was considered to be near threatened (Oldfield, 1997).

Pressure from collection and habitat destruction were noted to affect Pachypodium spp. (Burge, 2013). Fire and illegal collecting were also reported to be threats (Leeuwenberg and Rapanarivo,

1999). However, Rapanarivo et al. (1999) reported that in some P. rosulatum habitats, it was 104 protected from bushfire due to a lack of grasses on the sand substrate. This species was found to be sold on roadside tourist routes (Oldfield, 1997). Invasive plants were cited as the main threat to plants in the Isalo region (Świerkosz, 2007).

Most exporters were reported to no longer collect plants in the wild because they already have parent plants from which they collect seeds (UNEP and UNCTAD, 2008) and this species was reported to be well-known in cultivation (Rapanarivo et al., 1999).

No further information on the status of the species in Madagascar or its management was identified.

The species does not appear to be protected in Madagascar, although trade in CITES-listed species is governed through a number of regulations (Ministère de l’Environnement des Eaux et Forets, 2006). References Burge, D. 2013. Diversification of Pachypodium. Cactus and Succulent Journal, 85: 250–258. Leeuwenberg, A.J.M. and Rapanarivo, S.H.J. V 1999. Proposal to Conserve the Name Pachypodium rosulatum (Apocynaceae) with a Conserved Type. Taxon, 48(1): 111–112. Lüthy, J. and Lavranos, J. 2005. Pachypodium rosulatum ssp. bemarahense a new subspecies from Madagascar. Cactus and Succulent Journal, 77(1): 38–42. Oldfield, S. 1997. Status survey and conservation action plan: Cactus and succulent plants. IUCN/SSC Cactus and Succulent Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Rapanarivo, S., Lavranos, J.J., Leeuwenberg, A. and Röösli, W. 1999. Pachypodium (Apocynaceae): Taxonomy, Habitats and Cultivation. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Świerkosz, K. 2007. Vegetation of the southern part of the Isalo Sandstone Massif (Central Madagascar, Africa) – differentiation and threats. In: Sandstone landscapes: diversity, ecology and conservation: proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Sandstone Landscapes, Kudowa-Zdrój, 25-28 April 2012. Wroclow. 158–160. UNEP and UNCTAD 2008. National Wildlife Trade Policy Review: Madagascar. United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland.

GENTIANALES: APOCYNACEAE 105

Pachypodium sofiense II/B

SYNONYMS: Pachypodium rutenbergianum var. sofiense, Pachypodium ruthenbergianum var. perrieri

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN: Not assessed

Trade patterns Madagascar has not published any export quotas for Pachypodium sofiense for 2004-2013. Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.

Direct trade in P. sofiense to the EU-28 2004-2013 comprised 10 live wild-sourced plants imported for commercial purposes reported in 2004 by importers and in 2005 by exporters (Table 1).

Direct trade in P. sofiense from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 primarily comprised low levels of wild-sourced live plants traded for commercial purposes reported in 2005 and 2006 (Table 1).

No indirect trade in P. rosulatum from Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2004-2013. Table 1: Direct exports of Pachypodium sofiense from Madagascar to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2004-2006. No trade was reported 2007-2013.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 EU-28 live T W Importer 10 Exporter 10 RoW live P A Importer 1 Exporter W Importer Exporter 1 T W Importer 10 160 Exporter 10 160 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/07/2015.

Conservation status 106 Pachypodium sofiense is a small bottle-shaped tree, of 2–8 m height (Rapanarivo et al., 1999). It was reported to occur in eastern Madagascar in low open deciduous forest or scrub on mesozoic calcareous rocks and out crops of gneiss between 20 and 600 m above sea level (Rapanarivo et al., 1999), although Lüthy (2004) noted that P. sofiense occurred at altitudes between 400 and 1200 m above sea level. The distribution range of P. sofiense mapped by Burge (2013) extends through part of the dry deciduous forest ecoregion in the northwest and west of Madagascar. The species has been noted to occur in the Reserve naturelle integrale de l’Ankarafantsika (Oldfield, 1997).

The species has not been assessed by the IUCN, but in the late 1990s it was listed as near threatened by Oldfield, (1997).

Pachypodium species were considered particularly sought-after plants, due to their unusual growth forms and attractive flowers (Burge, 2013). The bark of this species was reported to be used as a textile fibre (Rapanarivo et al., 1999). The rarity of some species was reported to have fuelled demand which has led to the overexploitation of wild populations (Burge, 2013). Some Pachypodium species were reported to be difficult to identify (Burge, 2013) and this species was noted to be easily confused with P. lamerei (Rapanarivo et al., 1999).

Pressure from collection and habitat destruction were noted to affect Pachypodium spp. (Burge, 2013) and fire was also reported as a threat to the genus (Oldfield, 1997).

Most exporters were reported to no longer collect plants in the wild because they already have parent plants from which they collect seeds (UNEP and UNCTAD, 2008) and Pachypodium spp. were reported to be easy to cultivate ex situ (UNEP and UNCTAD, 2008).

No further information on the status of the species in Madagascar or its management was identified.

Appendix 107 Table 1: 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

Table 2: 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