UNEP-WCMC technical report

Review of selected species subject to long- standing import suspensions

Part II: Asia and Oceania

(Version edited for public release)

Review of selected species subject to long-standing import suspensions. Part II: Asia and Oceania 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 February 2016

Copyright European Commission 2016

Citation UNEP-WCMC. 2016. Review of selected species subject to long-standing import suspensions. Part II: Asia and Oceania. 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, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK UNEP promotes Tel: +44 1223 277314 environmentally sound www.unep-wcmc.org practices globally and in its own activities. Printing on paper from environmentally sustainable forests and recycled fibre is encouraged. Contents

Introduction and summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………....1 Psittrichas fulgidus II/B ...... 3 Varanus beccarii II/B ...... 7 Morelia boeleni II/B ...... 10 Batagur borneoensis II/B ...... 13 Cuora amboinensis II/B ...... 17 Indotestudo forstenii II/B...... 21 Hippopus hippopus II/B ...... 24 Tridacna crocea II/B ...... 28 Tridacna derasa II/B ...... 33 Tridacna maxima II/B ...... 42 Tridacna squamosa II/B ...... 48 Cypripedium japonicum II/B ...... 55 Cypripedium macranthos II/B ...... 59 Cypripedium margaritaceum II/B ...... 62 Cypripedium micranthum II/B ...... 63 Appendix……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……………………………………………………………………64

Introduction and summary

This document provides reviews of 25 species/country combinations of species from Asia and Oceania currently subject to long-standing Article 4.6(b) import suspensions. The document is provided to inform discussions by the Scientific Review Group (SRG) as to whether these trade restrictions may still be warranted.

Trade data were downloaded from the CITES Trade Database on 03/02/2016 and the full dataset is available here: https://db.tt/3DWSozYS (direct trade) and https://db.tt/qiXLz0UM (indirect trade).

1 .

2 PSITTACIFORMES: PSITTACIDAE Psittrichas fulgidus II/B

SYNONYMS: Banksianus fulgidus

COMMON NAMES: Vulturine Parrot (EN), Psittrichas de Pesquet (FR), Loro aguileño (ES)

Indonesia, Papua New Guinea RANGE STATES: Indonesia, Papua New Guinea UNDER REVIEW: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Indonesia and EU DECISIONS: Papua New Guinea first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

IUCN: Vulnerable

Trade patterns Psittrichas fulgidus was listed in Appendix III by Ghana on 26/02/1976 and was included in Appendix II on 06/06/1981 under the order listing for Psittaciformes. It was included in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997, also as part of the order listing.

Indonesia

Indonesia have not published annual export quotas for P. fulgidus for the period 2005-2016, and have submitted annual reports for all years 2005-2014; the 2014 data was not received in time for inclusion in this report.

Direct exports of P. fulgidus from Indonesia to the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised very low levels of live, captive-bred individuals for captive breeding or commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade in P. fulgidus from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised live, captive-bred individuals for the purpose of commercial trade (Table 1). No indirect trade in P. fulgidus originating in Indonesia to the EU-28 was reported 2005-2014. Table 1: Direct exports of Psittrichas fulgidus from Indonesia to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW), 2005-2014. All trade was in live, captive- bred individuals.

Importer Purpose Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 EU28 B Importer 6 8 6 Exporter T Importer 3 Exporter 6 6 7 8 8 6 4 RoW T Importer 6 34 Exporter 6 6 34 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016

Papua New Guinea

3 Papua New Guinea has not published any export quotas for P. fulgidus 2005-2016 and have not yet submitted an annual report for 2014.

No direct or indirect trade in P. fulgidus from Papua New Guinea to the EU-28 or the rest of the world was reported over the period 2005-2014. Conservation status Psittrichas fulgidus is a large species of parrot (Low, 1990) endemic to the island of New Guinea (Mack and Wright, 1998). It was reported to be patchily distributed (Mack and Wright, 1998) within primary and tall secondary forest in foothills and lower mountains, with the majority of records within an altitude of 500 to 1800 m (Mack and Wright, 1998), although it was occasionally found at lower altitudes (Collar and Kirwan 2013; Mack and Wright, 1998). It is a specialised frugivore, feeding on a few species of fig in the wild, although it can survive on other fruits in captivity (Pryor et al., 2001). It relies on large cavities in trees for nest sites (Mack and Wright, 1998; Igag, 2003) and both parents feed the young (Kagl et al., 2015). Based on captive birds, the life span is around 20-40 years (Mack and Wright, 1998) and the usual brood size was reported to be two (Collar and Kirwan, 2013) although hunters in Papua New Guinea reported that only one egg is laid in the wild (Kagl et al., 2015).

P. fulgidus was categorised as Vulnerable by the IUCN in 2012, as the species was suspected to be undergoing a rapid population decline over three generations (BirdLife International, 2012). P. fulgidus was found to be generally rare within its range (BirdLife International, 2012) and there is evidence that this species has been extirpated from some areas of forest (Snyder et al., 2000) particularly from areas of forest near human habitation (Collar and Kirwan, 2013). The highest densities of P. fulgidus were recorded in tracts of relatively undisturbed forest (Juniper and Parr, 1998), although it was noted that there have been very few studies into population size (Snyder et al., 2000). The only population estimate for P. fulgidus of 21 000 pairs was considered to be a crude estimate based on two pairs inhabiting an area of 14 km2 at Crater Mountain in Papua New Guinea, which was extrapolated based on the available suitable habitat within the correct altitudinal range (Mack and Wright, 1998). The authors reported that this may be an overestimation, which is supported by another study at Crater Mountain in 2002 that estimated the population density of P. fulgidus to be one bird per km2 (Marsden and Symes, 2006). Conversely, it was noted that the estimate may be an underestimate as it does not account for populations at lower altitudes (BirdLife International, 2015).

The main threat facing this species was considered to be hunting for feathers, which are highly prized for their use in ceremonial headdresses worn in New Guinea (Mack and Wright, 1998; Woxvold et al., 2015). However, it has been reported that hunting levels have decreased since the introduction of a law that prevents killing of birds with non-traditional means (BirdLife International, 2015). Plumes were reported to also occasionally be sold to tourists, despite it being illegal to take them out of the country (BirdLife International, 2015). Hunting for meat was also considered to be a threat and the species was reported to have been extirpated from many areas due to hunting (Snyder et al., 2000). Deforestation was not considered a major threat to this species, as fig trees, on which this species relies, are not targeted (BirdLife International, 2015). However, the targeted felling of trees or damage to cavities to obtain P. fulgidus chicks was reported to potentially have a detrimental effect on breeding by limiting the availability of suitable nesting sites (Mack and Wright, 1998). The species has been reported to be harvested for the pet trade, but this was considered to pose less of a threat than hunting (Collar & Kirwan 2013).

Indonesia: Psittrichas fulgidus was reported to be patchily distributed in West Papua and Papua in primary and tall secondary forest (BirdLife International, 2012). It was reported to range from the Tamrau Mountains, Vogelkop, western Papua and east through the Snow Mountains (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

4 The species was reported to be generally rare within Indonesia (BirdLife International, 2012). No surveys of population size have been reported in Indonesia and therefore the population size within Indonesia is unknown.

P. fulgidus is listed as a protected species in the 1999 Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7, which covers the protection of wild plants and animals (Republic of Indonesia, 1999). According to the Indonesian Republic Act No 5/1990, catching, killing, trade and possession of protected wildlife is prohibited (Republic of Indonesia, 1990). However, TRAFFIC reported that penalties for possession or trade of protected species was very lenient (Nash, 1992).

Papua New Guinea: P. fulgidus was reported to be patchily distributed in Papua New Guinea within primary and tall secondary forest (BirdLife International, 2012). It was reported to occur in the mountain ranges from the Central Ranges (including the upper Fly River, Lake Kutubu and Karimui districts) to the Owen Stanley Range and Huon Peninsula in eastern Papua New Guinea (Juniper and Parr, 1998) and in the Western Hindenburg range (Richards and Whitmore, 2015; Woxvold et al., 2015) It was noted to have been historically and recently extirpated from large areas within Papua New Guinea (Coates 1985, Beehler et al. 1986, K. D. Bishop in litt. 1994, Mack and Wright 1998 in BirdLife International, 2015).

Three surveys have recorded the presence of P. fulgidus in Papua New Guinea:  Mack and Wright (1998) conducted field work at Crater Mountain Biological Research Station (10 km east of Haia in Chimbu Province) between October 1989 and June 1993. The authors reported that two or three pairs were resident within the study area of 14 km2, but reported that this was likely to be unrepresentative of other areas in Papua New Guinea due to the relatively higher density of food plants within the study area.  Marsden and Symes (2006) estimated the population density to be one ind/km2 within the Crater Mountain Wildlife Management Area in 2002.  P. fulgidus was observed during rapid biodiversity assessments of the Hindenburg range in February 2013, with one individual found at the OK Menga dam in Tabubil (Woxvold et al., 2015). Local community members reported the species as one of the most important for hunters and as “abundant” in the area (Kagl et al., 2015).

No population estimates solely for Papua New Guinea have been reported, although the global population estimate for this species was noted to be based on population estimates from Papua New Guinea (Mack and Wright, 1998).

In 1998, Mack and Wright (1998) reported that they believed that demand for feathers of P. fulgidus was growing within Papua New Guinea based on the popularity of traditional dress and the rate of human population increase. However, in the Hindenburg range these threats were reported to be smaller due to a decreasing human population, but increasing threats to habitats from fires and mining activity were noted (Richards and Whitmore, 2015).

The species is listed as protected under the Papua New Guinea Fauna (Protection & Control) Act 1966 (Woxvold et al., 2015). No additional information on the conservation status or management of this species in Papua New Guinea was identified. References BirdLife International 2015. Pesquet’s Parrot (Psittrichas fulgidus) - BirdLife species factsheet. Available at: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=1447. [Accessed: 26/08/2015]. BirdLife International 2012. Psittrichas fulgidus. The IUCN Red List of Threateded Species version 2015.2. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22685025/0. [Accessed: 26/08/2015]. Collar, N. and Kirwan, G.M. 2013. Pesquet’s Parrot (Psittrichas fulgidus). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E. (2013). (Ed.). Available at:

5 http://www.hbw.com/node/54481 on 25 August 2015. [Accessed: 25/08/2015]. Igag, P. 2003. Breeding biology and reproductive success of three large Rainforest parrots; Palm cockatoo Probosciger aterrimus, Vulturine’s parrot Psittrichas fulgidus and Eclectus parrot Eclectus roratus, in New Guinea. Australian National University. Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots: a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Robertsbridge, UK. Kagl, J.P., Whitmore, N. and Aplin, K. 2015. Traditional and local ecological knowledge. In: Richards, S. and Whitmore, N. (Eds.). A rapid biodiversity assessment of Papua New Guinea’s Hindenburg Wall region. Wildlife Conservation Society, Papua New Guinea. 3–13. Low, R. 1990. Breeding Pesquet’s parrot: Psittrichas fulgidus at Loro Parque, Tenerife. International Zoo Yearbook, 29(1): 102–108. Mack, A.L. and Wright, D.D. 1998. The Vulturine Parrot, Psittrichas fulgidus, a threatened New Guinea endemic: notes on its biology and conservation. Bird Conservation International, 8(2): 185–194. Marsden, S.J. and Symes, C.T. 2006. Abundance and habitat associations of parrots from a hillforest, Papua New Guinea. Pacific Conservation Biology, 12: 15–21. Nash, S. 1992. Parrot trade records for Irian Jaya, Indonesia, 1985-1990. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 13(1): 42–45. Pryor, G.S., Levey, D.J. and Dierenfeld, E.S. 2001. Protein Requirements of a Specialized Frugivore , Pesquet’s Parrot (Psittrichas fulgidus). The Auk, 118(4): 1080–1088. Republic of Indonesia 1999. Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7 concerning the preservation of wild plants and animals. Indonesia. Republic of Indonesia 1990. The Indonesian Republic Act No 5/1990 on the conservation of bio natural resources and its ecosystem. Richards, S. and Whitmore, N. 2015. A rapid biodiversity assessment of Papua New Guinea’ s Hindenburg Wall region A Rapid Biodiversity Assessment of Papua New Guinea’ s Hindenburg Wall Region. Wildife Conservation Society, Papua New Guinea 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. Woxvold, I., Ken, B. and Aplin, K.P. 2015. Birds. In: Richards, S. and Whitmore, N. (Eds.). A rapid biodiversity assessment of Papua New Guinea’s Hindenburg Wall region. Wildlife Conservation Society, Papua New Guinea. 103–130.

6 SAURIA: VARANIDAE Varanus beccarii II/B

SYNONYMS: Monitor beccarii, , Monitor kordensis beccarii, Varanus prasinus beccarii

COMMON NAMES: Black Tree Monitor (EN), Varan arboricole noir (FR), Varano arborícola negro (ES)

RANGE STATES: Indonesia

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

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

IUCN: Not assessed

Taxonomic Note Varanus beccarii was originally considered to be a subspecies of Varanus prasinus, but was later elevated to species level (Fischer, 2012). The CITES standard reference to this effect was adopted at CoP15 (Koch et al., 2010) Trade patterns Varanus beccarii was listed in Appendix II on 01/07/1975 as part of the genus listing for Varanus and was included in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997, also as part of a genus listing.

Indonesia has not published annual export quotas for V. beccarii for the period 2005-2016 and have submitted annual reports for all years 2005-2014; however, Indonesia’s data for 2014 was not received in time to be included in this report.

Direct exports of V. beccarii from Indonesia to the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised primarily of moderate levels of live, captive-produced individuals for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade in V. beccarii from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised primarily of live, captive produced individuals for the purpose of commercial trade, with a very small number of live, wild sourced individuals traded for commercial purposes (reported by importers only; Table 1).

Indirect trade in V. beccarii to the EU-28 originating in Indonesia 2005-2014 involved very low levels of live, captive produced individuals, all re-exported via the United States for commercial purposes in 2009 (one according to both exports and importers) and 2011 (six according to exporters and four according to importers).

Table 1: Direct exports of Varanus beccarii from Indonesia to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2005-2014. All trade was in live individuals.

Importer Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 EU28 B C Importer 2

7 Exporter P F Importer 2 Exporter S F Importer 2 Exporter T C Importer 44 18 4 22 29 15 Exporter 96 11 54 37 F Importer 10 78 26 50 122 61 24 41 57 Exporter 108 12 21 55 27 6 13 RoW T C Importer 14 7 26 15 54 34 17 Exporter 222 52 467 119 F Importer 6 78 98 14 33 56 112 100 73 14 Exporter 171 168 116 133 327 4 347 I Importer 5 2 Exporter W Importer 2 2 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016. Conservation status Indonesia: Varanus beccarii is a species of tree monitor endemic to the Aru Islands, Indonesia (Marshall and Beehler, 2007), a group of 95 islands 150 km south west of West Papua (Fischer, 2012). It is arboreal, occurs in humid forests (Sprackland, 1991) and feeds on a range of insects (Fischer, 2012) as well as crabs, reptiles and amphibians (De Lisle, 1996; Bennett, 1998 in Arbuckle, 2009). The species has been successfully bred in captivity (Mendyk, 2012) with captive females laying clutches of two to four eggs (Greene 1986, Garrett and Peterson 1991, Horn and Visser 1991, Dedlmar 1994, Eidenmüller 1998, Bennett 1998, Bosch 1999, Kok 2000 in Green, 2004). Captive individuals reached sexual maturity at around two years (Green, 2004). Fischer (2012) reported that little was known about the ecology of V. beccarii, but that it was assumed to be similar to V. prasinus, which are generally arboreal but possibly descending to the ground to seek out prey.

V. beccarii has not been assessed for the IUCN Red List, but Pernetta (2009) reported that the species was “naturally rare” due to its limited distribution (Fischer, 2012). Koch et al. (2013) reported “arboreal species, endemic to small islands and associated with pristine rain forest” such as V. beccarii are the most likely species within the genus to go extinct. Koch et al. (2013) also added that conservation of V. beccarii was of “severe concern” due to its restricted distribution and collection from the wild.

Auliya (in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2015) reported that there was no information on the population size of the species, and Koch et al. (2013) reported that data was lacking on the population and conservation status of V. beccarii.

Auliya (in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2015) also noted that there was no information available on the management of V. beccarii or an assessment of the impact of harvest on the species. V. beccarii is not legally protected in Indonesia and since 2005, no annual export quota has been set (Koch et al., 2013). Live individuals are harvested for the pet trade (Ziegler et al., 2007; Koch et al., 2013), which was considered to pose a threat to the species (Koch et al., 2010). Pernetta (2009) suggested that V. beccarii may be significantly impacted by low levels of harvesting due to its limited distribution. Auliya (in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2015) added that laundering of wild specimens as captive bred or farmed was “strongly suspected” and that the slow reproductive rate of the species meant it was not considered suitable for breeding regularly on a commercial scale. Deforestation also poses a potential threat to the species (Hamburger, 2010; Koch et al., 2013). References Arbuckle, K. 2009. Ecological Function of Venom in Varanus, with a Compilation of Dietary Records from the Literature. Biawak, 3(2): 46–56. Auliya, M. 2015. Mark Auliya (IUCN Monitor Lizard Specialist Group) in litt. to UNEP-WCMC 2015. Bennett, D. 1998. Monitor lizards: natural history, biology and husbandry. Chimaira, Frankfurt am

8 Main. Bennett, D. 1998. Monitor lizards: Natural history, biology and husbandry. Frankfurt am Main: Edition Chimaira. Bosch, H. 1999. Successul breeding of the emerald monitor (Varanus p. prasinus) in the Löbbecke

Museum + Aquazoo, Düsseldorf (Germany). Mertensiella, 11:225-226. Dedlmar, A. 1994. Haltung und Nachzucht de Smaragdwarans (Varanus (Ordatria) prasinus). Salamandra, 30: 234-240. Eidenmüller, B. 1998. Bemerkungen zur Haltung und Nachtzung von Varanus p. prasinus (Schlegel, 1839) und V. p. beccarii (Doria, 1874). Herpetofauna, 20:8-13. Fischer, D. 2012. Notes on the husbandry and breeding of the black tree monitor Varanus (Euprepiosaurus) beccarii (Doria, 1874). Biawak, 6(2): 79–87. Green, H.W. 2004. Varanus prasinus. In: Pianka, E., King, D. and King, R. (Eds.). Varanoid lizards of the world. Indiana University Press, Bloomington & Indianapolis. 225–229. Garrett, C.M. and Peterson, M.C. 1991. Varanus prasinus beccarii (NCN) behaviour. Herpetol. Rev., 22:99-100. Horn, H.G. and Visser, G.J. 1991. Basic data on the biology of monitors. Mertensiella, 2:176-187. Hamburger, J. 2010. Petition to list 15 bat species under the endangered species act. (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.). In: U.S. Secretary of Interior Acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. WildEarth Guardians, Denver, USA. Koch, A., Auliya, M. and Ziegler, T. 2010. Updated checklist of the living monitor lizards of the world (Squamata: Varanidae). Bonn Zoological Bulletin, 57(2): 127–136. Koch, A., Ziegler, T., Bohme, W., Arida, E. and Auliya, M. 2013. Pressing problems: distribution, threats and conservation status of the monitor lizards (Varanidae: Varanus Spp.) of Southeast Asia and the Indo-Australian Archipelago. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 8(3): 1–62. Kok R. 2000. Ervaringen en geslaagde kweek met de smaragdvaraan, Varanus prasinus (Schlegel, 1839). Lacerta, 58:109-112. De Lisle, H.F. 1996. The Natural History of Monitor Lizards. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. Marshall, A.J. and Beehler, B.M. 2007. The Ecology of Papua: Part One. Periplus Editions, Singapore. 784 pp. Mendyk, R.W. 2012. Reproduction of Varanid Lizards (Reptilia: Squamata: Varanidae) at the Bronx Zoo. Zoo Biology, 31: 374–389. Pernetta, A.P. 2009. Monitoring the trade: using the CITES database to examine the global trade in live monitor lizards (Varanus spp.). Biawak, 3(2): 37–45. Sprackland, R.G. 1991. Taxonomic review of the Varanus prasinus group with descriptions of two new species. 561–576 pp. Ziegler, T., Schmitz, A., Koch, A. and Böhme, W. 2007. A review of the subgenus Euprepiosaurus of Varanus (Squamata: Varanidae): morphological and molecular phylogeny, distribution and zoogeography, with an identification key for the members of the V. indicus and the V. prasinus species group. Zootaxa, 2007(1472): 1–28.

9 SERPENTES: PYTHONIDAE Morelia boeleni II/B

SYNONYMS: Liasis boeleni, Liasis taronga, Python boeleni, Simalia boeleni

COMMON NAMES: Boelen's Python (EN), Python de Boelen (FR), Pitón de Boelen (ES)

RANGE STATES: Indonesia, Papua New Guinea

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Indonesia first EU DECISIONS: applied on 24/09/2000 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed on 26/11/1998.

IUCN: Not assessed

Trade patterns Morelia boeleni was listed in Appendix II on 01/07/1975 and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997 as part of the family listing for Pythonidae. Indonesia has not published annual export quotas for M. boeleni for the period 2005-2016. Indonesia’s annual report for 2014 was not received in time to be included in this report.

Direct exports of M. boeleni from Indonesia to the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised low levels of live, captive-sourced individuals for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade in M. boeleni from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 also primarily comprised moderate levels of live, captive-sourced individuals for the purposes of commercial trade (Table 1).

Indirect trade in M. boeleni from Indonesia to the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised of 2 live, captive-sourced individuals exported via Switzerland for commercial purposes in 2014 (reported by the importer only). Table 1: Direct exports of Morelia boeleni from Indonesia to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2005-2014. All trade was in live individuals. Importer Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 EU28 T C Importer 13 23 19 Exporter 28 8 F Importer 22 23 12 41 27 81 8 29 32 10 Exporter 22 33 2 63 43 20 6 32 RoW B C Importer 10 Exporter P C Importer 2 Exporter T C Importer 4 7 23 16 2 12 Exporter 79 27 F Importer 8 58 36 41 45 13 52 18 25 Exporter 50 50 92 68 116 63 40 97 W Importer 4 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016 Conservation status

10 Morelia boeleni is endemic to New Guinea (Austin et al., 2010). M. boeleni is found in highlands above 1000 m and below the tree line (Austin et al., 2010; O’Shea, 1996), with a preference for montane rainforests between 2000-27 000 m (Baldogo and Spataro, 2006 in Lettoof, 2015). The species’ recorded distribution is patchy and ranges from Wissel Lakes in West Papua, to the highlands of Papua New Guinea and high mountains above Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea (O’Shea, 2011). Isolated populations have also been recorded on Huon Peninsula and Goodenough Island, Papua New Guinea (Austin et al., 2010).

The population is considered evenly spread between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (Lettoof, 2015). M. boeleni is oviparous with an average clutch size of 14 eggs (O’Shea, 2011) and a maximum clutch size of 25 (Reed, 2005). The reported breeding success in captivity from private collections and zoological institutions is very low (O’Shea, 2011; Lettoof, 2015).

M. boeleni has not yet been assessed by the IUCN Red List, but Austin et al. (2010) stated that wild populations did not seem to be threatened. Similarly, O’Shea (2011) reported that “the species is probably neither rare nor endangered, just rarely encountered” due to its remote habitat. However, the species is one of the least studied pythons (O’Shea, 2011), and there are no data available on the population size and very little accurate distributional data (Austin et al., 2010). Little information about threats to the species was found. However, as an attractive python, there is a market for harvesting M. boeleni for the pet trade (O’Shea, 2011), and it is also occasionally hunted for meat (O’Shea, 2009). Lettoof (2015) reported that the low genetic variability of the species implied low resilience to use, but that the distribution, habitat specificity and reproductive output of M. boeleni implied medium resilience to use.

Indonesia: M. boeleni has only been recorded in scattered areas of West Papua, most notably around Wissel Lakes (O’Shea, 1996).

Austin et al. (2010) noted that no population surveys had been carried out in Indonesia and that the population size or trends within the country were unknown.

M. boeleni was reportedly not protected in Indonesia (Lettoof, 2015; Iskandar and Erdelen, 2006), and Lettoof (2015) reported there was no management plan for this species. Lettoof (2015) noted that no quota for wild-sourced specimens had been published by Indonesia since 2001 and that exports reported as farmed or captive-bred since 2001 were likely to be wild caught, owing to the difficulty in successfully breeding this species in captivity. A proposal to legally protect M. boeleni in Indonesia was reported which would prohibit trade of wild specimens for skins or the pet trade (Mumpuni and Hamdiy, n.d.), although no acceptance of this proposal was found. Wild harvesting is reported to be carried out by local people locating females brooding eggs, artificially incubating the eggs and then removing the neonates for the pet trade (Lettoof, 2015). Eleven of fifteen traders surveyed in Indonesia reported some species, including M. boeleni, had become scarce due to over-collection and habitat loss (Natusch and Lyons, 2012). Lettoof (2015) reported that although the impact of collection for the pet trade had not been studied, given the type and extent of wild harvesting, current trade levels were unlikely to pose a threat to the species. References Austin, C.C., Spataro, M., Peterson, S., Jordan, J. and McVay, J.D. 2010. Conservation genetics of Boelen’s python (Morelia boeleni) from New Guinea: reduced genetic diversity and divergence of captive and wild animals. Conservation Genetics, (11): 889–896. Baldogo and Spataro 2006. The Boelen’s Python Group. Available at: http://www.boelenspythons.com/home.html. [Accessed: 26/08/2015]. Iskandar, D.T. and Erdelen, W.R. 2006. Conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Indonesia: issues and problems. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 4(1): 60–87. Lettoof, D. 2015. Snake trade and conservation management (Serpentes.spp.) An assessment of the

11 impact of the pet trade on five CITES-Appendix II case studies Morelia boeleni. Convention of International trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Available at: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/ac/28/Inf/E-AC28-Inf-05.pdf. Marshall, A.J. and Beehler, B.M. 2007. The Ecology of Papua: Part One. Periplus Editions, Singapore. 784 pp. Mumpuni and Hamdiy, A. n.d. Usulan Sanca Bulan Simalia boeleni (Brongersma, 1953) untuk masuk dalam daftar satwa liar yang dilindungi undang-undang Republik Indonesia. Available at: https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/20809606/1039705886/name/Simalia+boeleni.pdf. [Accessed: 26/08/2015]. Natusch, D.J.D. and Lyons, J.A. 2012. Exploited for pets: the harvest and trade of amphibians and reptiles from Indonesian New Guinea. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21: 2899–2911. O’Shea, M. 1996. A guide to the snakes of Papua New Guinea. Independent Publishing, Independent Group Pty Ltd. O’Shea, M. 2011. Boas and pythons of the world. New Holland, London, UK. 160 pp. O’Shea, M. 2009. Threats to the Boelen’s python. In: Flagle, A.R. and Stoops, E.D. (Eds.). Black Python Morelia boeleni. 80–91. Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_OShea/publication/267150405_Threats_to_the_Boelen’ s_python/links/54462d640cf22b3c14de1133.pdf. [Accessed: 26/08/2015]. 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.

12 TESTUDINES: GEOEMYDIDAE Batagur borneoensis II/B

SYNONYMS: Batagur picta, Callagur borneoensis, Callagur picta, Emys borneoensis, Kachuga brookei, Kachuga major

COMMON NAMES: Painted Batagur (EN), Émyde peinte de Bornéo (FR), Galápago pintado (ES)

RANGE STATES: Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand

UNDER REVIEW: Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand first applied on 24/09/2000 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinions for the four countries formed on 23/06/1999. IUCN: Critically Endangered (needs updating)

Taxonomic note Batagur borneoensis was previously described and is occasionally referred to in the literature as Callagur borneoensis, but reassigned to the genus Batagur by Praschag et al. (2007). Trade patterns Batagur borneoensis was listed in Appendix II on 18/09/1997 under its synonym Callagur borneoensis and was maintained in Appendix II on 12/06/2013 with the addition of the annotation ‘Zero quota for wild specimens of commercial purposes.’ It was listed in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations in 2010. Annual reports have not yet been received from Brunei Darussalam for 2013 and 2014, while Indonesia’s 2014 annual report was not received in time to be included in this report.

All range States of this species have been subject to a zero quota for wild specimens for commercial purposes since 2013, based on the Appendix II listing annotation. In addition, Malaysia has published annual export quotas of zero for B. borneoensis every year for the period 2007-2016; there has been no reported trade during the period 2007-2014.

No direct trade in B. borneoensis from Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand to the EU-28 or the rest of the world, or indirect trade to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2005-2014. Conservation status Batagur borneoensis is a large species of terrapin (Hawkins, 2010) that has been recorded in Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). Its distribution has been reported to include southern Thailand, north eastern Sumatra and Kalimantan in Indonesia, Sarawak and Peninsula Malaysia, and Brunei Darussalam (Jenkins, 1995; Bonin et al., 2006). B. borneoensis was reported to occur in freshwater rivers (Guntoro, 2012) and mangroves (Jenkins, 1995). Females have been reported to travel up to 3 km from rivers to sea beaches to lay their eggs, which then incubate for 70-90 days and hatchlings swim back to the estuarine habitat (Bonin et al., 2006; Hawkins, 2010). Females were reported to breed up to three times a season (Bonin et al., 2006) with an average clutch size of around 10-16 eggs (Das, 2010). The species has been reported to not survive well in captivity (Bonin et al., 2006), although there have been cases of successful breeding (Barber, 2007 in Hawkins, 2010).

13 B. borneoensis was classified as Critically Endangered by the IUCN (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000) and populations were reported to be declining (Turtle Conservation Coalition et al., 2011). The species was listed in the top 25 most endangered tortoises and freshwater turtles at extremely high risk of extinction in 2011 (Turtle Conservation Coalition et al., 2011)

No reports of global population size were available but populations were reported to be in serious decline (Turtle Conservation Coalition et al., 2011). Within Malaysia, which was reported to be a stronghold for this species (Ac22 Doc 10.2), individual nesting populations were reported as small; only one or two rivers held more than 100 nesting females (Jenkins, 1995).

B. borneoensis is subject to a zero quota for wild specimens for commercial purposes which was first accepted in June 2013 (CoP16 Prop. 32). The species was reported to be threatened by over-exploitation for consumption of its meat and eggs (CoP10 Prop 10.58) as hunters exploit the predictability of feeding and nesting patterns to collect eggs (Turtle Conservation Fund, 2003). Harvesting for the pet trade was also considered a threat to the species as well as habitat destruction of freshwater rivers and mangroves and nesting sites (Moll, 1990; Bonin et al., 2006).

Brunei Darussalam: The status or distribution of B. borneoensis within Brunei Darussalam was reported to be unknown (Ac22 Doc 10.2) although in 1996, it was reported that the species was “occasionally encountered in mangrove and estuarine habitat” within the country (CoP10 Prop 10.58).

B. borneoensis was not listed as protected in Brunei Darussalam (Ac22 Doc 10.2). Destruction and pollution of mangroves was considered a possible threat by limiting habitat availability (CoP10 Prop 10.58).

Indonesia: B. borneoensis has been recorded from Kalimantan and Sumatra (Moll, 1990).

The species was reported as common and widespread by Yuwono (1994 in CoP10 Prop 10.58) but as rare by other sources (Wirjoatmodjo 1996 in CoP10 Prop 10.58). In 1996, the species was reportedly declining within Indonesia but the decline was not considered rapid (CoP10 Prop 10.58).

Between November 1989 and March 1990, surveys of 58 major rivers in South Sumatra and Lampung recorded one B. borneoensis individual at Sangai Somor (Moll, 1990). Reports potentially referring to B. borneoensis were provided from 10 rivers in the central and southern portions of the study area, but due to the large number of common names used, the identity of the species could not be confirmed (Moll, 1990).

TRAFFIC reported six individuals at markets in Jakarta between August and November 2004 (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007), but none were found in 2010 (Stengel et al., 2011). TRAFFIC reported that the species was included in wider legislation, which required licences from the forest protection and nature conservation (PHKA) to be acquired for the capture and distribution of wild animals within Indonesia (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007; Stengel et al., 2011). B. borneoensis was not included in the 1999 list of protected species in Indonesia (Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7, 1999) but a report in 2012 stated that it was being considered for protection (Guntoro, 2012)

Prior to expansion of logging, there was no local demand for meat as the local Muslim population do not eat turtle meat, but workers from elsewhere for the logging industry created a demand and there was also reported to be a demand for the eggs of the species (Moll, 1990). Habitat destruction was also considered a threat (Moll, 1990).

Malaysia: B. borneoensis was reported to be distributed from the northern state of Perlis to the southern state of Johor as well as in Sarawak (AC22 DOC 10.2). The status of B. borneoensis in Sabah is unclear; it was considered present in 1996 (Sharma 1996a in CoP10 Prop 58) but in 2006 van Dijk (in litt., 2006 in AC22 Doc. 10.2) reported the species had never been recorded in Sabah. Malaysia was reported

14 to be the “last stronghold” for B. borneoensis; a population estimate was provided from van Dijk of no more than a few thousand individuals within peninsular Malaysia but Chan (in litt. 2006 in AC22 Doc 10.2) suggested this figure was a “gross over-estimate” (AC22 Doc 10.2).

A population of 200 individuals was estimated on the Setiu River in Terengganu, from a sampling programme between 2003 and 2005, while 600-700 individuals had been estimated in 2002 also on the Setiu River (AC22 Doc 10.2).

Social surveys of fishers, egg collectors and other knowledgeable people to determine the distribution of B. borneoensis (referred to as Callagur borneoensis) and Batagur baska were carried out in 1989 and 1990 along rivers in the southern half of Malaysia, from Kula Selangor around the peninsular to Pahang river as well a survey in northern Terengganu and the Kelantan river (Moll, 1990). The author reported that B. borneoensis was widely distributed in peninsular Malaysia but the species was not found to be common on any of the rivers. They also reported a few B. borneoensis nests on the mouth of the river Kelantan (Moll, 1990).

Jenkins (2005) reported that individual nesting populations within Malaysia were very small with only the Setiu and Paka rivers reported to hold more than 100 nesting females each. No estimate of population size was made (Moll, 1990).

B. borneoensis were reported to have declined in Malaysia as a result of unsustainable harvesting and a paucity of co-ordinated conservation efforts (Turtle Conservation Coalition et al., 2011).

It was reported that, within Sarawak, B. borneoensis was listed as a “totally protected species” (AC22 DOC 10.2). Furthermore, Customs Orders of 1988 banned the export and import of all turtle eggs from Sarawak (AC22 Doc 10.2). C. borneoensis was listed on the first schedule of the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010, which lists protected wildlife (Malaysia Wildlife Conservation Act, 2010). According to this act, a licence is required to hunt or keep the species, take or keep any part or derivative of the species, or to trade any part or derivative of the species (Malaysia Wildlife Conservation Act, 2010).

Within Malaysia, egg harvesting was only permitted by licensed collectors under the condition that a percentage of their collection was sold to the Malaysian Fisheries Department to be incubated at hatcheries (CoP10 Prop 10.58). However, it was reported that collectors could receive a better price on the open market so there was no incentive to sell to the state (CoP10 Prop 10.58).

Jenkins (1995) reported that over harvesting for eggs was one of the main reasons for the decline of B. borneoensis in Malaysia, but that there was only small scale export of adults for the pet trade. Hatcheries were reported to have been opened to help conserve the species (Bonin et al., 2006), but the number of clutches protected by conservation efforts in Terengganu was reported to have declined from several hundred to less than 100 in 2010 (Turtle Conservation Coalition et al., 2011).

Thailand: In the 1990s, B. borneoensis was virtually extinct in Thailand (Jenkins, 1995) with only one confirmed population. Moll (1990) recorded a population of 47 B. borneoensis individuals held at the Freshwater Wildlife Preservation Station in Klong La-ngu River in Satun Province while surveying several provinces in southern Thailand. By 1993, this population was reported to be 80-100 individuals with a few hundred hatchlings per year (van Dijk 1996 in CoP10 Prop 10.58). No more recent information on the population in Thailand could be located.

In Thailand, B. borneoensis was protected from exploitation by the Wild Animal reservation and protection Act B.E. 2535, which prohibited the use and killing of the species for domestic or export purposes, with the exception of capture for purposes such as scientific research (AC22 DOC 10.2).

15 Historical population declines of the species in Thailand were reported to be due to the widespread destruction of mangrove habitats as well as over-exploitation of eggs and adults for consumption (Jenkins, 1995; CoP10 Prop 10.58). References Asian Turtle Trade Working Group 2000. Batagur borneoensis. Available at: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. [Accessed: 01/09/2015]. Barber, D. 2007. Painted terrapin (Callagur borneoensis). North American Regional Studbook, Fort Worth Zoo Bonin, F., Devaux, B. and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. A&C Black, London (UK). 416 pp. Chan, E.H. 2006 Chan E.H. (IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group) in litt. to IUCN/SSC 2006 in: AC22 Doc 10.2. Das, I. 2010. A field guide to the reptiles of South-East Asia. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. van Dijk, P. 1996 in litt. to the CITES Scientific Authority of the Federal Republic of Germany in:CoP10 Prop 10.58. van Dijk, P.P. 2006. van Dijk, P.P IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle SG in litt. to IUCN/SSC 2006 in: AC22 Doc 10.2. Guntoro, J. 2012. The Body Size and Some Field Notes of Painted Terrapin (Batagur borneoensis) in District of Aceh Tamiang, Indonesia. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology, 1(2): 74–77. Hawkins, M.E. 2010. Genetic analysis of the captive breeding program for the critically endangered painted terrapin, Batagur borneoensis. MSc Thesis. Texas Christian University. Jenkins, M. 1995. Tortoises and freshwater turtles: the trade in South East Asia. TRAFFIC International. Malaysia Wildlife Conservation Act 2010. Wildlife Conservation Act 716 (of 2010). Moll, E.O. 1990. Status and management of the river terrapin (Batagur baska) in tropical asia. Final report produced under WWF project no. 3901. Praschag, P., Hundsdörfer, A.K. and Fritz, U. 2007. Phylogeny and taxonomy of endangered South and South-east Asian freshwater turtles elucidated by mtDNA sequence variation (Testudines: Geoemydidae: Batagur, Callagur, Hardella, Kachuga, Pangshura). Zoologica Scripta, 36(5): 429– 442. Sharma, D.S.K. 1996 in litt. to the CITES Scientific Authority of the Federal Republic of Germany in:CoP10 Prop 10.58. Shepherd, C.R. and Nijman, V. 2007. An overview of the regulation of the freshwater turtle and tortoise pet trade in Jakarta, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 1-25 pp. Stengel, C., Shepherd, C. and Caillabet, O. 2011. The trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles in Jakarta revisited. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 24 pp. Turtle Conservation Coalition, Rhodin, A.G.J., Walde, A.D., Horne, B.D., van Dijk, P.P., Blanck, T. and Hudson, R. 2011. Turtles in Trouble: The World’s 25+ Most Endangered Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles 2011. Lunenburg, MA. 54 pp. Turtle Conservation Fund 2003. The world’s top 25 most endangered turtles. Available at: http://www.turtleconservationfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/top25turtlesprofiles.pdf. [Accessed: 30/11/2015]. Wirjoatmodjo, S. 1996) in litt. to the CITES Scientific Authority of the Federal Republic of Germany in: CoP10 Prop 10.58. Yuwono, F. 1994 in litt. to the CITES Scientific Authority of the Federal Republic of Germany in:CoP10 Prop 10.58.

16 TESTUDINES: GEOEMYDIDAE Cuora amboinensis II/B

Emys cuoro, Terrapene bicolor, Testudo amboinensis, SYNONYMS: Testudo melanocephala COMMON NAMES: South Asian Box Turtle (EN), Tortue-boîte d'Asie orientale (FR), Tortuga de caja malaya (ES)

RANGE STATES: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China (uncertain), India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam UNDER REVIEW: Malaysia

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Malaysia formed 01/03/2003 and last confirmed 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed 27/0/2001.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Indonesia formed 03/09/2008 and last confirmed 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed 08/02/2007.

No opinion i) for wild specimens from Viet Nam formed 07/02/2013. IUCN: Vulnerable (needs updating)

Trade patterns Cuora amboinensis was listed in Appendix II on 19/07/2000 as part of the genus listing for Cuora, and was listed in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 18/12/2000 as part of the genus listing. Malaysia has submitted annual reports for all years 2005-2014.

An annual zero export quota for Cuora amboinensis from Peninsular Malaysia has been published every year for the period 2007-2016; this quota has not been exceeded for the period 2007-2014.

No direct or indirect trade in C. amboinensis from Malaysia to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2005-2014. Direct trade in C. amboinensis from Malaysia to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 consisted of 390 kg of wild-sourced carapace (reported by both importers and exporters) and 33,969 live wild-sourced individuals (reported by importers only) in 2005, all of which was for commercial purposes. Conservation status C. amboinensis is a small species of semi-aquatic turtle widely distributed across Southeast Asia, occurring in freshwater habitats from sea level to an altitude of 500 m (Schoppe and Das, 2011).

The species was reported to occur in a range of habitats including swamps, marshes and permanent or temporary wetlands, as well as man-made habitats such as oil palm plantations and ponds (Schoppe, 2009; Schoppe and Das, 2011) that experience little or no current (Ernst et al., 2000). Adults were reported to often spend the night on land (Bonin et al., 2006).

Females can reportedly lay three to four clutches of two to three eggs between early April and the end of June, with an incubation period of around one month (Bonin et al., 2006) although average fecundity is reportedly estimated at four to six eggs per mature female per year (AC18 Doc. 7.1). In captivity, a

17 hatching success of 50 per cent has been reported (Schoppe, 2008b) and sexual maturity has been observed at 5-6 years old for females and 8-9 years old in males (Praedicow, 1985 in Schoppe, 2009). A life expectancy of 25-30 years has been reported (Bowler 1977 in Schoppe and Das, 2011). Schoppe (2008a) considered that the slow reproductive rate of the species made the species more vulnerable to over-exploitation.

C. amboinensis was assessed as Vulnerable by the IUCN in 2000 and the species was reported as Endangered in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam, and as Vulnerable in India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). Schoppe and Das (2011) considered that the Vulnerable assessment was due to “heavy exploitation” for trade. Schoppe (2009) reported that the species was considered “the most common freshwater turtle” in countries in which the species occurs and Schoppe and Das (2011) reported that C. amboinensis was considered common in most of its range. However, the species was reported to have experienced a rapid decline, demonstrated by its IUCN Red List assessments over time: unlisted in 1994, Lower risk/Near Threatened in 1996 to Vulnerable in 2000 (Schoppe and Das, 2011). van Dijk and Rhodin (unpublished data in Schoppe and Das, 2011) were reported to have carried out a preliminary assessment in 2011, which indicated that the species still warranted a Vulnerable status. Schoppe (2008a) reported that no estimates of the global population size of the species were available and that only two population estimates of the species had been carried out, both of which were carried out by TRAFFIC- one in Indonesia and one in Malaysia.

Schoppe (2009) reported that C. amboinensis was threatened by over-exploitation, with collection for consumption and traditional Chinese medicine identified as the greatest threats to the species (van Dijk et al., 2000 in Schoppe and Das, 2011). Collection for the pet trade was also reported as a threat (Holloway, 2003 in Schoppe and Das, 2011). The species was reported to have “the highest exploitation rate of any hard shelled freshwater turtle species in Asia” (Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006) and Bonin et al. (2006) reported that collection pressure was likely to lead to population collapse in the next few decades. Schoppe (2008; 2009) reported that the species was collected across its entire range, including within protected areas, although to a lesser extent, as a result of poor law enforcement.

Commercial breeding was only reported to occur on a small scale, outside of the countries of origin of the species (Struijk and Woldring, 2005).

Malaysia: C. amboinensis was reported to occur in Peninsular Malaysia as well as the states of Sarawak and Sabah (Jenkins, 1995), including the protected areas of Penang National Park (Ibrahim et al., 2008 in Schoppe and Das, 2011), Loagan Bunut National Park (Das and Jensen, 2006 in Schoppe and Das, 2011) and Gunung Mulu National Park in Sarawak (Das et al., 2008 in Schoppe and Das, 2011).

C. amboinensis was assessed as Vulnerable in Malaysia by the IUCN in 2011 (Schoppe and Das, 2011).

Schoppe (2008a) reported that the population in Malaysia had reduced and was declining. In 2006 Schoppe (2008a) estimated a density of 0.82 ind/ha in an oil palm plantation in Peninsular Malaysia, which was considered likely to be too low to sustain reproduction and recruitment (Schoppe, 2008a).

In Malaysia, people were reported to often capture C. amboinensis in order to release them into ponds at Buddhist temples, believing this to bring good fortune, however, the poor conditions in such ponds were reported to likely prohibit reproduction (Bonin et al., 2006; Sharma, 1999). The meat of C. amboinensis was reported to be consumed in Malaysia, predominately by indigenous groups (Schoppe, 2008a). Schoppe (2009) reported that the species had become more vulnerable to collection as it had adapted to use more accessible man-made habitat such as oil palm plantations as a result of the clearance and drainage of natural habitats.

18 The species was reported to be one of the three most commonly traded species in Malaysia (Jenkins, 1995; Lim and Das, 1999) and Sharma (1999) reported it to be the most commonly sold species in Peninsular Malaysia in a survey of 26 pet shops in 1994.

There was reported to be no legal protection or management of C. amboinensis in Peninsular Malaysia, whereas in Sarawak and Sabah, state laws prohibit the exportation of the species and licences are required to permit collection for local use (Schoppe, 2008a). In 2008, Schoppe (2008a) reported that proof of illegal trade of C. amboinensis was found in every state in Malaysia, with turtles passing through Thailand, Myanmar and Lao PDR before reaching a final destination of China and Hong Kong SAR (70-80 per cent of exports) and Singapore. Schoppe (2008a) reported local prices of US$2.92 and US$3.82 per individual in markets and pet shops, respectively, as opposed to up to US$2.73 per kg when sold for export. Schoppe (2008a) reported that international pet trade of C. amboinensis originating in Malaysia could be continued sustainably, providing illegal international trade for consumption and traditional Chinese medicine ended.

Cuora amboinensis was reviewed as part of the Review of Significant Trade process at AC18 in 2002 (AC18. Doc. 7.1) and categorised as of ‘urgent concern’. Malaysia reported that the species was widespread and generally abundant in the country, but noted that an assessment of the wild population had been initiated in 2005 and that zero quotas would be established until a clear methodology for making NDFs was developed (SC54 Doc. 42). The country also noted additional measures such as promotion of captive breeding and efforts to combat illegal trade (SC54 Doc. 42). On the basis of this information, Malaysia was removed from the Review of Significant Trade process in 2006 (SC54 Doc. 42).

No breeding for commercial purposes was reported to be known from Malaysia due to the prohibitive cost and time involved (Schoppe, 2008a). However it was reported that the Malaysian CITES Management Authority had encouraged traders to set up breeding operations to end dependence on wild populations following the suspension of trade in wild C. amboinensis (CoP13 Doc.33). References Asian Turtle Trade Working Group 2000. Cuora amboinensis (South Asian Box Turtle, Southeast Asian Box Turtle). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/5958/0. [Accessed: 1/12/2015]. Bonin, F., Devaux, B. and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. A&C Black, London (UK). Bowler, J.K. 1977. Longevity of Reptiles and Amphibians in North American Collections. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Miscellaneous Publication, Herpetological Circular 6:1-32. Cheung, S.M. and Dudgeon, D. 2006. Quantifying the Asian turtle crisis: market surveys in southern China, 2000-2003. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystens, 16: 751–770. Das, I. and Jensen, K.A. 2006. The herpetofauna of Loagan Bunut. In: Tuen, A.A., Sayok, A.K., Toh, N. and Noweg, G.T. (Eds.). Scientific Journey through Borneo: Loagan Bunut. A scientific expedition on the physical, chemical, biological and sociological aspects. Kota Samarahan: peat Swamp Forest Project, Sarawak Forest Department and Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental C. 131–154. Das, I., Nyawa, S.B. and Charles, J.K. 2008. A guide to the amphibians and reptiles of tasek merimbun heritage park, Brunei Darussalam. Brunei Museums Department Bandar Seri Begawan. van Dijk, P.P., Iskandar, D.T., Palasuwan, T., Rhodin, A.G.J., Samedi, Sharma, D.S.K., Shepherd, C.R., Tisen, O.B. and Genorupa, V.R. 2000. Turtle trade in Southeast Asia: regional summary (Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and Thailand). In: Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs 2: 145-147. van Dijk and Rhodin (unpublished data) in: Schoppe, S. and Das, I. 2011. Cuora amboinensis (Riche in Daudin 1801) Southeast Asian Box Turtle. Chelonian Research Monographs, 5: 053.1-053.13. Ernst, C.H., Altenburg, R.G.M. and Barbour, R.W. 2000. Turtles of the World. Available at: http://wbd.etibioinformatics.nl/bis/turtles.php? [Accessed: 2/12/2015]. Holloway, R.H.P. 2003. Domestic trade of tortoises and freshwater turtles in Cambodia. Linnaean Fund Research Report. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 4: 733–734.

19 Ibrahim, J., Sah, S.A.M., Ahmad, N., Chan, K.O. and Akil, M.A.M. 2008. The common amphibians and reptiles of Penang Island. Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Pulau Pinang, Georgetown. Jenkins, M. 1995. Tortoises and freshwater turtles: the trade in South East Asia. TRAFFIC International. Lim, B.L. and Das, I. 1999. Turtles of Borneo and peninsular Malaysia. Available at: http://www.chelonian.org/ttn/archives/ttn4/pp25.shtml. [Accessed: 2/12/2015]. Praedicow, G. 1985. Herpetofauna Langjaehrige Erfahrung bei der Pflege von Cuora amboinensis (Daudin). Herpetofauna, 7(37): 6–14. Schoppe, S. 2008a. Science in CITES: The biology and ecology of the Southeast Asian Box Turtle and its uses and trade in Malaysia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia., Schoppe, S. 2008b. The Southeast Asian Box Turtle Cuora amboinensis (Daudin, 1802) in Indonesia. Available at: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/ndf_material/WG7-CS2.pdf. [Accessed: 1/12/2015]. Schoppe, S. 2009. Status, trade dynamics and management of the Southeast Asian Box Turtle in Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Schoppe, S. and Das, I. 2011. Cuora amboinensis (Riche in Daudin 1801) Southeast Asian Box Turtle. Chelonian Research Monographs, 5: 053.1-053.13. Sharma, D.S.K. 1999. Tortoise and freshwater turtle trade and utilisation in Peninsular Malaysia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia Field Report No 15. Unpublished. Struijk, R.P.J.H. and Woldring, L.A. 2005. Cuora Studbooks, an overview. Radiata, 14(2): 64–73.

20 TESTUDINES: TESTUDINIDAE Indotestudo forstenii II/B

SYNONYMS: Geochelone forstenii, Testudo forstenii

COMMON NAMES: Forsten's Tortoise (EN), Celebes Tortoise (EN), Tortue des Célèbes (FR)

RANGE STATES: Indonesia UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Indonesia first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed 28/05/2015. IUCN: Endangered (needs updating)

Trade patterns Indotestudo forstenii was listed in Appendix II on 01/07/1975 and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997 as part of the family listing for Testudinidae. Indonesia have submitted annual reports for all years 2005-2014; however the 2014 report was not received in time to be included in this report.

Indonesia has published annual export quotas for live I. forstenii for every year in the period 2005-2016 (Table 1). Quotas for I. forstenii may have been exceeded in 2005 according to data reported by Indonesia, although not according to data reported by importers (Table 1). Table 1: CITES export quotas for wild live Indotestudo forstenii from Indonesia, 2005-2016, and global exports as reported by the countries of important and Indonesia 2005-2014. Trade data for 2015-2016 are not yet available.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Quota 475 475 475 270 270 270* 270* 270 270 150 150 150 Importer 320 235 208 89 22 16 187 60 - - Exporter 477 377 465 270 148 15 108 225 - - * live individuals with a maximum carapace size of 15 cm

Direct exports of I. forstenii from Indonesia to the EU-28 2005-2014 primarily consisted moderate levels of live, captive sourced, individuals for commercial purposes. A small number of live wild sourced individuals for commercial purposes were reported 2005-2008 (Table 2). Direct trade in I. forstenii from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised moderate levels of captive produced live individuals and of live, wild sourced individuals, primarily for commercial purposes (Table 2).

No indirect trade in I. forstenii from Indonesia to the EU-28 was reported 2005-2014. Table 2: Direct exports of Indotestudo forstenii from Indonesia to the EU- 28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2005-2014. All trade was in live individuals. Importer Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 EU28 T F Importer 232 64 32 11 13 100 5 13

21 Exporter 195 36 23 27 67 W Importer 5 Exporter 15 10 8 RoW B F Importer 15 Exporter T F Importer 10 4 193 11 6 Exporter 148 200 77 50 21 73 58 W Importer 320 230 208 89 22 16 187 60 Exporter 477 362 455 262 148 15 108 225 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016 Conservation status Indotestudo forstenii is endemic to Indonesia (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). It has been reported to occur in Central Sulawesi in Lore Lindu National Park Area (Ives et al., 2008; Wanger et al., 2011) around Sipayo, and on hills in the Palu Valley (Riyanto et al., 2009), and in Northern Sulawesi in Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park and Panua Nature Reserve (Platt, 2006). The only report of this species occurring outside of Sulawesi was a suggestion by Iverson (1992, in Riyanto et al., 2009) that the species potentially also occurred on the island of Halmahera.

Very little is known of the life history or ecology of the species but shells have been found amongst second-growth forests on steep hillsides (Platt et al.,2001 in Platt, 2006) and in xerophytic scrub vegetation (Ives pers. comm. in Platt, 2006). Limited observations suggest that females may produce clutches of three eggs, three times a year (Innis pers. comm. in Ives, 2006; Highfield 1996 in Platt, 2006; Ives, 2006). The population size and dynamics of the species are unknown; it was recommended that surveys of Sulawesi be carried out to determine species distribution (Platt, 2006).

The species was categorised as Endangered by the IUCN due to a decline in habitat, and unsustainable levels of exploitation (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000).

The species was believed to be threatened by collection in large numbers for the international pet market (Platt, 2006; Compton, 2000 in Ives, 2006; Sy, 2015) and Chinese food markets (Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006; Riyanto et al., 2009). The habitat of I. forstenii has been reported as threatened by commercial logging, small-scale shifting cultivation, and forest fires (Platt et al., 2001 in Ives, 2006). A 2005-2006 survey of collection found small numbers of I. forstenii collected in northern Sulawesi but higher levels harvested in Central Sulawesi to supply urban Chinese restaurants and medicinal markets (Ives et al., 2008). A 2007 study of trade routes for I. forstenii reported that trappers in Central Sulawesi supplied the majority of individuals to the trade, with middlemen in Palu providing tortoises to the local market and exporting to a supplier in Makassar in South Sulawesi, who in turn sold to local consumers and exported to Jakarta (Riyanto et al., 2009). Riyanto et al.,(2009) reported that 65 individuals were found during visits to two of the three companies in Sulawesi registered to export the species, and three individuals were found in the possession of an unlicensed trapper supplying the middlemen in Palu. Wild individuals of I. forstenii have also been reportedly observed being held in ‘captive breeding’ facilities in Palu, in preparation for export (Light, in litt. to UNEP-WCMC 2015).

The species is not listed as protected under the 1999 Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7, which covers the protection of wild plants and animals (Republic of Indonesia, 1999). Annual harvest quotas are set for the species under Indonesian law (PHKA 2003 in Shepherd and Nijman, 2007), but it has been observed that the number of individuals in domestic trade exceeded the quota (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007). References Asian Turtle Trade Working Group 2000. Indotestudo forstenii. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2000.RLTS.T10825A3219524.en. [Accessed: 20/10/2015]. Cheung, S.M. and Dudgeon, D. 2006. Quantifying the Asian turtle crisis: market surveys in southern China, 2000-2003. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16: 751–770.

22 Compton, J. 2000. An overview of Asian Turtle Trade. Pp. 24-29 in Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade in Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. van Dijk, Stuart and Rhodin, Eds. Chelonian Research Monographs, Number 2. Iverson 1992 cited in: Platt, S.G. 2006. A Survey to Determine the Conservation Status of Endemic Chelonians in Northern Sulawesi, Indonesia. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. Ives, I.E. 2006. Conservation of Sulawesi’s Two Endemic Chelonians, Leucocephalon yuwonoi and Indotestudo forstenii; An Investigation into In-Situ and Ex-Situ Conservation Concerns. MSc thesis. Antioch University, New England, USA. 101pp. Ives, I.E., Platt, S.G., Tasirin, J.S., Hunowu, I., Siwu, S. and Rainwater, T.R. 2008. Field Surveys, Natural History Observations, and Comments on the Exploitation and Conservation of Indotestudo forstenii, Leucocephalon yuwonoi, and Cuora amboinensis in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 7(2): 240–248. Light, C. 2015. Christine Light (Turtle Conservancy Behler Chelonian Center) in litt. to UNEP-WCMC 18/11/2015. PHKA (The Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation cited in: Shepherd, C.R. and Nijman, V. 2007. An overview of the regulation of the freshwater turtle and tortoise pet trade in Jakarta, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Platt, S.G. 2001. A training course on the conservation and captive breeding of turtles and tortoises in Myanmar. Shwe Settaw Wildlife Sanctuary, Myanmar. Report to Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York. 7 pp. Platt, S.G. 2006. A Survey to Determine the Conservation Status of Endemic Chelonians in Northern Sulawesi, Indonesia. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. Republic of Indonesia 1999. Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7 concerning the preservation of wild plants and animals. Indonesia Riyanto, A., Farajallah, A. and Arisona, J. 2009. The Endangered Sulawesi Tortoise (Indotestudo forstenii): behavior, habitat, population in the wild and the harvest level. Final report to the Turtle Conservation Fund and Conservation International. Shepherd, C.R. and Nijman, V. 2007. An overview of the regulation of the freshwater turtle and tortoise pet trade in Jakarta, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Sy, E.Y. 2015. Checklist of exotic species in the Philippine pet trade, II. Reptiles. Journal of Nature Studies, 14(1): 66–93. Wanger, T.C., Motzke, I., Saleh, S. and Iskandar, D.T. 2011. The amphibians and reptiles of the Lore Lindu National Park area, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Salamandra, 47(1): 17–29.

23 VENEROIDA: TRIDACNIDAE Hippopus hippopus II/B

COMMON NAMES: Horse's Hoof Clam, Strawberry Clam, Bear Paw Clam (EN)

RANGE STATES: American Samoa (extinct, reintroduced), Australia, Cook Islands (introduced), Fiji (extinct, reintroduced), Guam (extinct), India (uncertain), Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of) (extinct, reintroduced), Myanmar, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands (extinct, reintroduced), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa (extinct, reintroduced), Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand (uncertain), Tonga (extinct, reintroduced), Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam UNDER REVIEW: New Caledonia

EU DECISIONS: Current no opinion i) for wild specimens from American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Guam, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Myanmar, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Taiwan, Province of China and Tuvalu formed on 02/12/2011. Previous positive opinion formed on 22/07/1997.

Current no opinion i) for wild specimens for Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Thailand formed on 11/09/2012. Previous positive opinion formed on 22/07/1997.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Tonga, Vanuatu and Viet Nam formed 10/05/2006 and last confirmed 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed 22/05/2003 and last confirmed 09/03/2006 for Viet Nam. Previous positive opinion for Tonga and Viet Nam formed 22/07/1997. Previous no opinion for Vanuatu formed 15/05/2002, replacing Article 4.6(b) import restriction formed 21/11/1998 and last confirmed 15/05/2002. Previous negative opinion formed 22/07/1997.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from New Caledonia formed 01/03/2003 and last confirmed 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion formed 18/07/2001. No opinion iii) for aquaculture specimens formed 25/06/2004.

Current no opinion i) for specimens born in captivity from Micronesia (Federated States of) formed 30/11/2009. Previous no opinion formed 15/05/2002, preceded by Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens, formed 21/11/1998 and last confirmed 29/10/2001. Previous negative opinion formed 22/07/1997. IUCN: Lower risk/conservation dependent (needs updating)

Trade patterns Hippopus hippopus was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/08/1985 as part of the family listing Tridacnidae, and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997, also as part of the family listing. New Caledonia has published annual export quotas of zero for Hippopus hippopus every year for the period 2009-2016 and there has not been any trade reported.

24 New Caledonia is a dependent territory of France and New Caledonia’s trade is included in France's annual reports to CITES. In reports received from France from 2009 onwards, this trade is not distinguished from trade involving mainland France or other dependent territories. However, H. hippopus is not known to occur in any of France’s dependent territories other than New Caledonia. Therefore wild-sourced trade reported in France’s annual reports since 2009 is likely to have originated in New Caledonia. Table 1 below includes all trade from 2005 onwards where the exporting country was specified as New Caledonia, as well as trade from 2009 onwards where France was specified as the exporting country (figures for the latter are displayed in brackets).

Direct exports of H. hippopus from New Caledonia to the EU-28 2005-2014 primarily comprised moderate levels of wild-sourced shells traded as personal items 2005-2008 (reported by New Caledonia only) and low levels of live, wild-sourced individuals, reported by number and weight, for scientific purposes 2007-2009 (Table 1). Direct trade in H. hippopus from New Caledonia to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised very low levels of wild-sourced shells traded as personal items over the period 2005-2008 (Table 1).

No indirect trade in H. hippopus originating from New Caledonia to the EU-28 was reported 2005-2014. Table 1: Direct exports of Hippopus hippopus from New Caledonia to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2005-2009. All trade was wild- sourced. No trade was reported 2010-2014.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 EU28 carvings P Importer Exporter 1 live S Importer 40 Exporter 40 45 60 live (kg) S Importer Exporter (20) shells P Importer Exporter 137 165 202 131 S Importer 2 Exporter 4 1 21 specimens S Importer 1 Exporter RoW shells P Importer Exporter 6 7 2 7 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016. Conservation status Hippopus hippopus has been reported as widely distributed in the western Pacific region, from Myanmar to the Marshall Islands in the east and New Caledonia in the south, although populations were reported to be greatly reduced in abundance (Wells, 1997).

The species lives on sandy substrates at 6-7 m depth in coral reef waters (Wu, 1999) and has been reported to prefer still, shallow, clear waters due to symbiosis with the algae Symbiodinium microadriaticum (Wells, 1997). A maximum size of 30-40 cm has been reported for the species (Wells, 1997; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010).

Hippopus hippopus is a hermaphroditic broadcast spawner (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Spawning success for all Tridacnidae species is reported to be positively correlated with the density of adult individuals (Kinch, 2009; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010).

H. hippopus and other Tridacnidae spp. were reported to be successfully cultured around the Indo- Pacific region (Lucas, 2003; Gomez and Mingoa-Licuanan, 2006; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008), with over 10 private and 15 government-linked operations in 2010 (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010).

25 The species was categorised as Lower Risk/conservation dependent in the IUCN Red List assessment in 1996 (Wells, 1996) but the assessment is in need of updating. H. hippopus was considered to be vulnerable to stock depletion due to the need for a minimum density for spawning success (Kinch, 2009; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010).

New Caledonia: During surveys in 2010, Dumas and Andréfouët (2010) found H. hippopus in the Northern Province, in Reserve Merlet, Corne Sud, Pouebo, and Kone, and at very low densities in Hienghene and Lagon Sud-Ouest; no individuals were found in the Province des Iles. Densities differed significantly between habitat types, with H. hippopus occurring at highest densities in lagoon reefs, and at lower densities in oceanic reefs and on the internal and external walls of barrier reefs. No individuals were recorded in any surveys of fringing or shoal reefs (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010).

A meta-analysis of 12 surveys of clams in New Caledonia between 2004 and 2009 found low mean densities in the Northern Province of between zero ind/ha in 2007 (Vieux, 2007 in Gilbert et al., 2009) and 15.05 ind/ha in 2004 (Virly, 2004 in Gilbert et al., 2009), although the sampling methods used varied and so may not be directly comparable. Although mean densities were low, a maximum density of 160 individuals was found during one survey of the northern lagoon (Gilbert et al., 2009). In a survey of Grande-Terre lagoon only empty H. hippopus shells were recorded (Vieux, 2009).

Collection of clams for the aquarium trade was not found to be a threat to H. hippopus in New Caledonia (Portes et al., 2010). Subsistence and commercial fishing for the species has been reported, and the species was said to be the rarest and most fished of all clam species (Gilbert et al., 2009) due to the ease of accessing its habitats and the fact that it does not attach to substrate (Portes et al., 2010). Dumas and Andréfouët (2010) reported that collection was shifting towards other species due to the scarcity of H. hippopus. Individuals of H. hippopus were observed to be significantly below the maximum size reported in the literature, especially at sites most harvested (Dumas et al., 2011).

Fishing for giant clams in New Caledonia was reported to be regulated in the Southern Province and the Northern Province, while regulations for the Loyalty Islands Province are being developed (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). In the Southern Province, recreational vessels are subject to a quota of two clams/vessel/trip, while coastal fishing vessels are subject to a quota of five clams clams/vessel/trip (Code de l’Environnement de la Province Sud Art. 341-371) (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). In the Northern Province, recreational vessels are also subject to a quota of two clams/vessel/trip, while professional fishing vessels are subject to a quota of five clams/vessel/trip (Code de l’Environnement de la Province Nord Art. 341-54) (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP- WCMC, 2016). Commercial export of shells was reportedly not permitted (Raymakers et al., 2004), but personal exports of a maximum of three specimens (either an intact shell or one valve; 3 kg total authorised mass) per family is permitted (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). 25 per cent of the catch of non-professional fisheries, is reportedly sold (Virly 2000).Mariculture experiments conducted in New Caledonia 1993-1999 were successful for H. hippopus (AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8b). New Caledonia is covered by the French regulations for CITES.

1 According to the regulations applicable in the Southern Province, “coastal fishing” is a type of professional fishing used in inland waters, including those of bays and lagoons and in provincial waters (“commercial)shing” applies where the product is marketed). Despite the use of different terminology in the Environment Codes of the Northern and Southern Provinces, the regulations on fishing of clams is the same in both provinces. “Coastal fishing” can be distinguished from offshore fishing, which requires a license from the Government of New Caledonia. Authorisation for coastal fishing may be issued temporarily for deep sea fishing vessels working in the territorial waters of the Southern Province (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016).

26 References Dumas, P. and Andréfouët, S. 2010. Les bénitiers en Nouvelle-Calédonie: volet status des populations & habitat. Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD) Nouméa, New Caledonia. Dumas, P., Fauvelot, C., Andrefouët, S. and Gilbert, A. 2011. Les benitiers en Nouvelle-Caledonie: Statut des populations, impacts de l’exploitation & connectivité. Programme Zoneco. 87 pp. CITES Management Authority of France. 2016. CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016 Gilbert, A., Dumas, P. and Andrefouet, S. 2009. Statut des populations des espèces de bénitiers de Nouvelle-Calédonie à travers une méta-analyse des études réalisées depuis 2004. Gomez, E.D. and Mingoa-Licuanan, S.S. 2006. Achievements and lessons learned in restocking giant clams in the Philippines. Fisheries Research, 80(1): 46–52. Kinch, J. 2009. The importance of giant clam fisheries management and trade to the Pacific. In: Regional management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building workshop. 4-7 August 2009. CITES, Nadi, Fiji. Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building, 4-7 August 2009, Nadi, Fiji. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa, New Caledonia. Lucas, J. 2003. Giant clam mariculture. Unique bivalves have traditional roles, commercial potential. Global Aquaculture Advocate, 52–54. Portes, C., Marty, C. and Dumas, P. 2010. Les regroupements artificiels de bénitiers sur la côte Est de la Nouvelle-Calédonie: Importance et Impacts Ecologiques. Rapport de Stage de Master 2 - Province Nord-IRD, 51. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N. and Sant, G. 2004. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam. Technical report submitted to the European Commission TRAFFIC Europe, Brussel, Belgium. Teitelbaum, A. and Friedman, K. 2008. Successes and failures in reintroducing giant clams in the Indo- Pacific region. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 14: 19–26. Vieux, C. 2009. Assessment of targeted marine invertebrate species of the northwestern lagoon of Grande-Terre (Poum to Koumac), New Caledonia. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment, 53: 41 - 179. Virly, S. 2000. Analyse de l’enquête sur la pêche vivrière et plaisancière dans les lagons de Nouvelle- Calédonie. Rapport d’activité.

Virly S. 2004. Etude préliminaire relative à la ressource en bénitier en Province Nord : Statut écologique et halieutique Service de l’Environnement de la Province Nord. 102pp Wells, S. 1996. Hippopus hippopus. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.1996.RLTS.T10105A3164917.en. [Accessed: 22/10/2015]. Wells, S.M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Wu, W. 1999. Mollusks in CITES. Academia Sinica and Council of Agriculture, Taiwan, Republic of China. 143 pp.

27 VENEROIDA: TRIDACNIDAE Tridacna crocea II/B

COMMON NAMES: Boring Clam (EN)

RANGE STATES: Australia, Cambodia, Fiji (introduced), Guam, India (uncertain), Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tuvalu (uncertain), United States of America (extinct, introduced), Vanuatu, Viet Nam

UNDER REVIEW: Viet Nam

EU DECISIONS: Positive opinions for wild specimens from all countries formed on 22/07/1997; these were removed on 02/12/2011 for Australia, Guam, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tuvalu and the United States of America and no opinions i) formed.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Cambodia first applied on 11/07/2013 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Cambodia formed on 11/03/2011 and confirmed on 07/02/2013.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji formed on 22/05/2003.

Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Japan formed on 07/12/2012. Previous positive opinion removed on 11/09/2012.

Current no opinion i) for wild specimens from New Caledonia first formed on 11/09/2012 and confirmed on 28/05/2013.

Current no opinion i) for wild specimens from Palau formed on 11/09/2012.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Solomon Islands first formed on 10/09/2012 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Solomon Islands formed on 12/03/2009 and confirmed on 02/12/2011.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Tonga and Vanuatu first formed on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Tonga and Vanuatu formed on 22/05/2003.

Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Viet Nam first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Viet Nam formed on 30/01/2003.

IUCN: Lower Risk/least Concern (needs updating)

28 Trade patterns The family Tridacnidae was listed in Appendix II on 01/08/1985 and listed in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997. Viet Nam has submitted annual reports for all years 2005-2014.

Viet Nam has published annual export quotas for live, wild-sourced Tridacna crocea every year for the period 2009-2012; these quotas appear to have been exceeded in 2009 and 2010, as reported by both Viet Nam and importers (Table 1). Table 1: CITES export quotas for wild live Tridacna crocea from Viet Nam, 2009-2012, and global exports as reported by the countries of import and Viet Nam, 2009-2012.

2009 2010 2011 2012 Quota 11079 11079 11079 5500 Importer 19617 14520 10219 2815 Exporter 12201 16141 8527 1850

Direct trade in T. crocea from Viet Nam to the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised low levels of live, wild- sourced individuals for commercial purposes, reported in 2005, 2006 and 2014 only (Table 2). The vast majority of direct trade in T. crocea from Viet Nam to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised very high levels of live, wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes (Table 2).

In addition, 1350 live wild-sourced Tridacna spp. were directly exported from Viet Nam to the EU-28 in 2005 for commercial purposes (see Table 1, Annex). Since 2005, direct trade reported at the genus level to the rest of the world has been very low.

Indirect trade in T. crocea originating in Viet Nam to the EU-28 2005-2014 primarily comprised low levels of live, wild-sourced individuals re-exported via Malaysia and Singapore for commercial purposes (Table 3).

Table 2: Direct exports of Tridacna crocea from Viet Nam to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2005-2014.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 EU live T W Importer 200 Exporter 200 50 RoW live P I Importer 1 Exporter S W Importer 60 Exporter T C Importer 8892 445 25 Exporter 200 F Importer 200 Exporter I Importer 231 827 238 10 250 Exporter R Importer 125 Exporter W Importer 59423 61325 71413 52181 19617 14670 10219 2815 2985 1455 Exporter 65727 97129 68570 12201 16141 8527 1850 9310 4101 shells T W Importer 500 300 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016

29 Table 3: Indirect exports of Tridacna crocea from Viet Nam to the EU-28 2005-2014. All trade was in live individuals; no trade was reported in 2014.

Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 T C Importer 3 Exporter D Importer Exporter 5 W Importer 8 20 20 Exporter 80 60 53 37 16 5 Importer Exporter 80 17 5 - W Importer Exporter 120 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016 Conservation status

Tridacna crocea was reported to range from Japan in the north to Australia in the south and from Indonesia to Vanuatu (Mollusc Specialist Group, 1996; bin Othman et al., 2010). The species was reported to occur in lagoons that experience runoff of fresh water, where it is typically found deeply burrowed in coral substrate (Hamner and Jones, 1976; Hart et al., 1998; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2008).

T. crocea is the smallest Tridacna species (Rosewater, 1965) and was reported to reach maximum lengths of 15 cm, although not often found to exceed 11 cm (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2008).

It was reported that sufficient numbers of spawning individuals are required for successful fertilisation and low densities of Tridacna can lead to reduced, or zero, recruitment, resulting in population collapse (Neo et al., 2013). A genetic study of this species found a very strong genetic population structure and isolation by distance, indicating restricted gene flow between sites (Kochzius and Nuryanto, 2008).

T. crocea was categorised as Lower Risk/least concern in the IUCN Red List in 1996, although it was noted that the assessment needs updating (Mollusc Specialist Group, 1996). Wells (1997) considered the species to be “reasonably abundant” throughout its range, although many populations in Southeast Asia were thought to be in decline.

Overfishing was considered to be the main threat to T. crocea, although its small size and burrowing habit was thought to make it less prone to overfishing than other Tridacna species (Allen et al., 2003; bin Othman et al., 2010). However, its desirable colouring was reported to have led to a high demand for the aquarium trade (Hean and Cacho, 2003; Wabnitz et al., 2003; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2008).

Viet Nam:

T. crocea was reported to be a common component of the coral-reef population of most islands of the Cön Dao Archipelago (Selin and Latypov, 2011). On a protected coral reef at Noi Island [southern Viet Nam], Latypov and Selin (2012) reported the species as common. Latypov (2014) observed that the macrobenthos of some protected and inaccessible reefs of South Viet Nam were dominated by 20 species, including T. crocea (Latypov, 2014). The following surveys have been carried out for the species in Viet Nam:

 In the 1980s, eight reefs of the Khanh Hoa province (South Viet Nam) were surveyed, and in 2003-2005, comparative observation were made at several reefs near Nha Trang [Khanh Hoa province] (Latypov and Selin, 2013). At a reef near Mju Island, T. crocea was originally observed at densities of 0.5 ind/m2 in the 1980s, but was not recorded during the later survey (Latypov and Selin, 2013). Changes in the reef composition were thought to be due to heavy siltation (Latypov and Selin, 2013).

30  Surveys of the Bay Canh and Cau islands (both in the Cön Dao Archipelago) in 2010 found massive, high density populations at both sites comprised of clams ranging in age from one to 32 years, with shell lengths of 13-131 mm (Selin and Latypov, 2011). Population density and growth rate increased with distance from the shore, with the maximum density observed at a depth of about 3 m and 200–250 m from the coast (23 ind/m2 at Bay Canh Island and 25 ind/m2 at Cau Island); the maximum depth the species was recorded at was 8 m (Selin and Latypov, 2011).  From 2004-2007, surveys of the barrier reefs of Giang Bo, Ly Son Island and the platform reef at Bach Long Vi Island in the South China Sea were undertaken. T. crocea was recorded as abundant on the reefs of Giang Bo (< 2 ind/m2) and its occurrence was reported from the reefs of Ly Son Island and Bach Long Vi Island (Latypov, 2013).

Based on survey data it was concluded that conditions for T. crocea in the coastal area of the Cön Dao Islands were favourable and that it was not necessary to implement measures for artificial breeding or restocking of individuals (Selin and Latypov, 2011). Furthermore, individuals could be a reserve for the artificial restoration of populations of T. crocea in the impoverished coastal regions of Vietnam (Selin and Latypov, 2011).

Threats include overfishing, which was reported to have occurred for this species in Viet Nam (Bin Othman et al.,2010). From 1994-2007, monitoring studies of coral reefs in seven areas in the coastal waters of Viet Nam, including Cu Lao Cham, Van Phong Bay, Nha Trang Bay, Ninh Hai – Ninh Thuan, Ca Na Bay, Con Dao and Phu Quoc, were undertaken (Long and Vo, 2013). Coral reefs in Viet Nam were found to have degraded over time and were considered in poor condition and macroinvertebrates were reported to have been overfished, with a significant decrease in the density of Tridacna spp. over time reported (Long and Vo, 2013).

No information was available on legislation, management activities or population management (AC22 Doc. 10.2). The Cön Dao Archipelago was designated as a National Park in 1993 (Selin and Latypov, 2011). T. crocea was also known from the Hon Mun marine protected area (Khanh Hoa Province, central-south Viet Nam) (Tuan et al., 2002). There is little known about tropical marine aquaculture activities in Viet Nam, but production of second generation Tridacna by commercial farms in Viet Nam was considered unlikely (Raymakers et al., 2004). References Allen, G.R., Kinch, J.P., McKenna, S.A. and Seeto, P. 2003. A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea - Survey II (2000). RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment no. 29. Conservation International, Washington DC, The United States of America. Hamner, W.M. and Jones, M.S. 1976. Distribution, burrowing, and growth rates of the clam Tridacna crocea on interior reef flats. Oecologia, 24: 207–227. Hart, A.M., Bell, J.D. and Foyle, T.P. 1998. Growth and survival of the giant clams, Tridacna derasa, T. maxima and T. crocea, at village farms in the Solomon Islands. Aquaculture, 165: 203–220. Hean, R.L. and Cacho, O.J. 2003. A growth model for giant clams Tridacna crocea and T. derasa. Ecological Modelling, 163(1-2): 87–100. Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2008. Proceedings of the sub-regional workshop on the marine ornamental trade in the Pacific. In: SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community). Kochzius, M. and Nuryanto, A. 2008. Strong genetic population structure in the boring giant clam, Tridacna crocea, across the Indo-Malay Archipelago: Implications related to evolutionary processes and connectivity. Molecular Ecology, 17(17): 3775–3787. Latypov, Y.Y. 2013. Barrier and Platform Reefs of the Vietnamese Coast of the South China Sea. International Journal of Marine Science, 3(4): 23–32. Latypov, Y.Y. 2014. Protected and inaccessible reefs of Vietnam. International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Natural Resources, 1(2): 92–96. Latypov, Y.Y. and Selin, N.I. 2012. The composition and structure of a protected coral reef in Cam Ranh Bay in the South China Sea. Russian Journal of Marine Biology, 38(2): 112–121.

31 Latypov, Y.Y. and Selin, N.I. 2013. Some data on spatio-temporal stability and variability of coral reefs in Khanh Hoa province (Vietnam). Environment, Ecology & Management, 2(1): 1–16. Long, N.V. and Vo, T.S. 2013. Degradation trend of coral reefs in the coastal waters of Vietnam. Galaxea, Journal of Coral Reef Studies (Special Issue), 79–83. Mollusc Specialist Group 1996. Tridacna crocea. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 20/10/2015]. Mollusc Specialist Group 1996. Tridacna crocea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 1996. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 20/10/2015]. Neo, M.L., Erftemeijer, P.L.A., van Beek, J.K.L., van Maren, D.S. and Teo, S.L.M. 2013. Recruitment constraints in Singapore’s fluted giant clam (Tridacna squamosa) population—A dispersal model approach. PLoS One, 8(3): e58819. bin Othman, A.S., Goh, G.H.S. and Todd, P.A. 2010. The distribution and status of giant clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58(1): 103–111. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N. and Sant, G. 2004. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam. Technical report submitted to the European Commission TRAFFIC Europe, Brussel, Belgium. Rosewater, J. 1965. The family Tridacnidae in the Indo-Pacific. Department of Mollusks, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 347–396 pp. Selin, N.I. and Latypov, Y.Y. 2011. The size and age structure of Tridacna crocea Lamarck, 1819 (Bivalvia: Tridacnidae) in the coastal area of islands of the Cön Dao Archipelago in the South China Sea. Russian Journal of Marine Biology, 37(5): 376–383. Tuan, V.S., Long, N.V., Tuyen, H.T., Hoa, N.X., Hoang, P.K. and Vantier, L.D. 2002. Coral reefs of the Hon Mun MPA, species composition, community structure, status and management recommendations. Wabnitz, C., Taylor, M., Green, E. and Razak, T. 2003. From ocean to aquarium: The global trade in marine ornamental species. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Wells, S.M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

32 VENEROIDA: TRIDACNIDAE Tridacna derasa II/B

COMMON NAMES: Derasa Clam (EN)

RANGE STATES: American Samoa (introduced), Australia, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands (introduced), Fiji, Guam (extinct, reintroduced), Indonesia, Malaysia, Marshall Islands (introduced, uncertain), Federated States of Micronesia (introduced), New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands (extinct, reintroduced), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa (introduced), Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu (introduced, uncertain), United States of America (introduced, uncertain), Vanuatu (extinct), Viet Nam

UNDER REVIEW: New Caledonia, Palau, Philippines

EU DECISIONS: Positive opinions for wild specimens from all countries apart from Tonga were formed on 22/07/1997; these were removed on 02/12/2011 for American Samoa, Australia, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Guam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tuvalu and the United States of America and no opinions i) formed.

Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Cook Islands, Marshall Islands and Micronesia was confirmed on 11/09/2012.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji and Vanuatu first formed on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji and Vanuatu formed on 22/05/2003.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from New Caledonia, Palau and Philippines first imposed on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from New Caledonia formed on 22/05/2003. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Palau and Philippines formed on 15/05/2002.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Solomon Islands first imposed on 10/09/2012 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative for wild specimens from Solomon Islands formed on 12/03/2009 and confirmed on 02/12/2011.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Tonga first imposed on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens formed on 22/07/1997.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Viet Nam first imposed on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Viet Nam formed on 22/02/2006 and confirmed on 12/06/2006.

IUCN: Vulnerable (needs updating)

33 Trade patterns Tridacna derasa was listed in Appendix II on 29/07/1983. The family Tridacnidae was listed in Appendix II on 01/08/1985, with a reservation from Palau added on 15/07/2004, and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997.

New Caledonia: New Caledonia is a dependent territory of France and New Caledonia's trade is included in France's annual reports to CITES. In reports received from France from 2009 onwards, this trade is not distinguished from trade involving mainland France or other dependent territories.

New Caledonia has not published any annual export quotas for Tridacna derasa 2005-2016.

Direct exports of T. derasa from New Caledonia to the EU-28 2005-2014 primarily comprised low levels of wild-sourced shells traded as personal items over the period 2005-2008; no direct trade was reported by New Caledonia or France from 2009 onwards (Table 1). No direct trade in T. derasa from New Caledonia to countries other than the EU-28 was reported in the period 2005-2014.

Additionally, New Caledonia reported the direct export of three wild-sourced shells reported as Tridacna spp. to the EU-28 in 2008 for personal use; no direct trade from New Caledonia to countries other than the EU-28 was reported at the genus level for the period 2005-2014.

No indirect trade in T. derasa reported as originating in New Caledonia or France to the EU-28 was reported 2005-2014.

Table 1: Direct exports of Tridacna derasa from New Caledonia to the EU- 28, 2005-2008. All trade was in wild-sourced shells. No direct trade was reported by New Caledonia or France 2009-2014.

Purpose Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 P Importer Exporter 28 26 12 22 S Importer Exporter 1 T Importer Exporter 2 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016.

Palau: Palau has not published any annual export quotas for Tridacna derasa for the period 2005-2016. Palau’s annual report for 2006 has not yet been received and the reports for 2012-2014 were not received in time to be included in this report.

Direct exports of T. derasa from Palau to the EU-28 2005-2014 primarily comprised moderately high levels of live, captive-sourced individuals for commercial purposes, increasing more than four-fold between 2010 and 2013, according to importers (Table 2). Direct trade in T. derasa from Palau to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 principally consisted of moderately high levels of live captive- bred and wild-sourced individuals and captive-sourced shells, primarily for commercial purposes (Table 2).

Direct trade reported at the genus level from Palau to the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised 50 live, captive- bred individuals reported in 2005 for commercial purposes. Direct trade in Tridacna spp. from Palau to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 primarily involved low levels of wild-sourced and ‘Source I’ shells traded as personal items (See Table 2, Annex).

Moderate levels of live, captive-sourced T. derasa originating in Palau were re-exported to the EU-28 for commercial purposes 2010-2014, the majority of which was exported via the Federated States of Micronesia (Table 3).

34 Table 2: Direct exports of Tridacna derasa from Palau to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2005-2014. Small amounts of trade in carvings, meat and shells for non-commercial purposes have been removed from the table. Reported Importer Term Purpose Source by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 EU28 live T C Importer 100 500 70 400 420 Exporter F Importer 450 500 975 250 200 409 1360 1536 2247 395 Exporter 785 2 meat T F Importer Exporter 66 shells T F Importer Exporter 11 2 13 R Importer 390 Exporter RoW carvings T F Importer 10 Exporter live T C Importer 549 158 25 70 56 Exporter F Importer 415 275 10 2560 1462 Exporter 176 7 1320 I Importer 38 106 Exporter W Importer 24 377 2121 50 180 Exporter meat T F Importer 225 Exporter 304 304 175 shells T C Importer 30 286 60 3 Exporter F Importer 509 10 1 Exporter 173 3036 77 W Importer 5 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016

Table 3: Indirect exports of Tridacna derasa originating in Palau to the EU- 28, 2005-2014. Reported by 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Importer 140 293 202 400 Exporter 140 20 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016

Philippines: The Philippines has not published annual export quotas for Tridacna derasa for the period 2005-2016. An annual report from the Philippines for 2008 has not yet been received

No direct trade in T. derasa from the Philippines to the EU-28 was reported for the period 2005-2014 while direct trade in T. derasa from the Philippines to countries other than the EU-28 consisted of seven live, wild-sourced individuals in 2008 for scientific purposes.

No direct trade was reported at the genus level from the Philippines to the EU-28 2005-2014 and direct trade in Tridacna spp. to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 primarily comprised very low levels of shells traded as personal items (See Table 3, Annex).

No indirect trade in T. derasa or Tridacna spp. originating in the Philippines to the EU-28 was reported for the period 2005-2014. Conservation status

35 Tridacna derasa was reported to occur in Australia, Fiji, Indonesia, New Caledonia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Tonga (Wells, 1996). The species was also reported to have been introduced to many areas, including American Samoa, the Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia (Wells, 1996; Kinch, 2009). Three genetically distinct groups, located around the Great Barrier Reef, and in the Eastern and Western Pacific regions were identified (Benzie, 1993).

T. derasa was reported to prefer sand or coral rubble on the outer edge of coral reefs (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010b). The species was reported to reach maturity at 5 years as a male and at 10-11 years as a hermaphrodite (Raymakers et al., 2004). It was reported that sufficient numbers of spawning individuals are required for successful fertilisation, and low densities of Tridacna can lead to reduced or zero, recruitment, resulting in population collapse (Neo et al., 2013). Unlike T. crocea and T. maxima, T. derasa does not burrow into corals, which makes it easier to collect by divers (Raymakers et al., 2004).

T. derasa was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List, although it was noted that the assessment needs updating (Wells, 1996). In the 1970s, the species was considered to be “frequent” (Dance, 1974), while in the 1980s its geographical distribution was described as “peculiarly patchy”, as it was found to not be common in many areas within its range (Adams et al., 1988). Wild stocks were reported to have declined in the 1980s and 1990s, with local extinctions occurring in many areas (IUCN et al., 1996; Wells, 1997). The species was reported to be extinct in Vanuatu (Munro, 1989; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). The population trend of the species was considered to be decreasing (Isamu, 2008).The main cause of decline of T. derasa was considered to be exploitation for subsistence and semi-commercial fishers (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010; bin Othman et al., 2010). The international commercial demand for giant clams was reported to be increasingly met by the growing mariculture industry, although the presence of wild stocks in the market was noted (Sant, 1995). Habitat degradation was also considered to pose a threat (bin Othman et al.,2010).

New Caledonia: T. derasa was reported to be rare in New Caledonia (Tardy, 2013).

In a 2007 rapid assessment of coral reefs in the northwest lagoon (Poum to Koumac) in New Caledonia, only one individual of T. derasa was found and harvesting was considered the reason for this absence (McKenna et al., 2009). During rapid assessments of the Mt Panié area (Pouébo to Hienghène) in 2004 and during later surveys of the Northeastern Lagoon from Touho to Ponérihouen, North Province, T. derasa was observed at very low abundance levels (McKenna et al., 2006; Tardy, 2013). A survey to determine the status of Tridacnidae populations in New Caledonia was undertaken across the Northern, Southern and Loyalty Islands Provinces by Dumas and Andréfouët (2010). T. derasa was found at low average densities (3.5 ind/ha-1, ranging from 0-9.1 ind/ha-1) (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). For larger species like T. derasa, which are preferentially targeted by fisheries, the average sizes were generally well below the highest recorded in literature, particularly at sites considered most exploited (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). Impacts of fishing pressure on the structure of populations were observed with few juveniles recorded (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). The low recorded densities were considered of conservation concern given the impact of the density of breeding adults on reproductive success and recruitment, which could result in population extinctions in the territory (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). Low numbers of T. derasa were reportedly observed at Moindou and Thio in the South Province and at Oundjo in the North Province (Tardy, 2013).

In the early 2000s, it was estimated that fewer than 10 professional fishermen collected clams regularly (Raymakers et al., 2004) and T. derasa was reported to be one of the main species harvested (N. Baillon, D. Coatanea, R. Farman, A. Rubin, New Caledonian provincial authorities, in litt. to TRAFFIC Europe, December 2002 in: Raymakers et al., 2004).

36 Although a survey in 1983 suggested that stocks were not considered to be overexploited at the time (Dawson, 1986), it was reported in 2003 that licensed fisheries and market trends suggested that stocks may have been declining (Raymakers et al., 2004). In 2010, all species of Tridacna in New Caledonia were reported to be under pressure from subsistence fishing, commercial harvest for meat, and shells offered to tourists (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010).

It was reported that fishing for giant clams in New Caledonia is regulated in the Southern Province and the Northern Province, while regulations for the Loyalty Islands Province are being developed (CITES Management Authority of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). In the Southern Province, recreational vessels are subject to a quota of two clams/vessel/trip, while coastal fishing vessels are subject to a quota of five clams clams/vessel/trip (Code de l’Environnement de la Province Sud Art. 341-372) (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). In the Northern Province, recreational vessels are also subject to a quota of two clams/vessel/trip, while professional fishing vessels are subject to a quota of five clams/vessel/trip (Code de l’Environnement de la Province Nord Art. 341-54) (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). It was reported that commercial export of shells is not permitted (Raymakers et al., 2004), but personal exports of a maximum of three specimens (each specimen can be either an intact shell or one valve; 3 kg total authorised mass) per family is permitted (The CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016).25 per cent of the catch of non-professional fisheries, is reportedly sold (Virly 2000).

Artificial breeding of giant clams, including T. derasa, was reported to have been attempted by IFREMER (Institut Français de Recherche pour L’exploitation de la Mer) in New Caledonia from 1993 to 1999, but was not successful for this species (AC22 Doc. 10.2). Harvest and trade of giant clams were reported to be regulated through the national licensing and reporting system (Raymakers et al., 2004). By New Caledonian Law, giant clams may only be collected by free divers and use of artificial air supply is prohibited (Raymakers et al., 2004).

New Caledonia is covered by the French regulations for CITES.

Palau: Palau was reported to be a confirmed centre of abundance for T. derasa by Wells (1997), however, no recent information on the status of this species in Palau was identified.

The species’ occurrence has been recorded on reefs offshore from Ngeremeduu and Eastern Babeldoab and the Rock Islands [Natural World Heritage Site] (Nichols, 1991), in the Aulong channel [west Palau] (Heslinga and Perron, 1984 in Nichols, 1991), on Ngaruangl, Kayangel, Ngerael and Ngebard Northern reefs, at sites from Velasco reef [north Palau] to Anguar island [south Palau] (Birkeland and Richmond, 1992 in Nichols, 1991), and on Helen Reef in the Western Caroline Islands [south Palau] (Hardy and Hardy, 1969; Hirschberger, 1980). From 2010-2012, the species occurrence was reported from the Ileyakl Beluu Conservation Area, on the barrier reef offshore to Ngardmau State (Nestor et al., 2013).

According to Nichols (1991), at that time, no recent surveys of giant clam stocks in Palau had been conducted and their distribution was not accurately known. Previously, in the 1970s and 1980s, surveys of T. derasa recorded population densities in the Aulong Channel (12 ind/ha) (Heslinga and Perron, 1984; Nichols, 1991) and south of Koror (5.45 x 10-3 ind/m2), where T. derasa comprised the largest proportion of the standing crop biomass (Hardy and Hardy, 1969). The species’ standing stock was recorded on the Northern reefs (10.3 x 103) (Hirschberger, 1977) and, in 1972, on Helen Reef (32.8 x 103) (Dawson, 1986). The 1972 survey of Helen Reef recorded large populations of the species, which were considered largely untouched, although a scarcity of juvenile giant clams was noted (Dawson, 1986).

2 According to the regulations applicable in the Southern Province, “coastal fishing” is a type of professional fishing used in inland waters, including those of bays and lagoons and in provincial waters (“commercial fishing” applies where the product is marketed). Despite the use of different terminology in the Environment Codes of the Northern and Southern Provinces, the regulations on fishing of clams are the same in both provinces. “Coastal fishing” can be distinguished from offshore fishing, which requires a license from the Government of New Caledonia. Authorisation for coastal fishing may be issued temporarily for deep sea fishing vessels working in the territorial waters of the Southern Province (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016).

37 Following reports of unauthorised fishing, further surveys of Helen Reef in 1975 and 1976 found standing stock levels of 12.9 x 103 (a decline of 39 per cent) (Dawson, 1986) and 24.2 x 103 respectively, although it was suggested that the 1976 variation in stock estimate could be due to survey methodology (Hirschberger, 1980). The 1975 survey reported systematic harvesting of three species including T. derasa and the reduction in stocks was attributed to illegal poaching by foreign vessels, which was considered likely to have also impacted stocks in similarly vulnerable areas throughout the region (Dawson, 1986).

Harvest of giant clams outside of conservation areas was considered the main threat to the species (Isamu, 2008). Substantial levels of poaching were reported to have led to a declining population trend for giant clams in Palau (Raymakers et al., 2004).

In the 1970s, the Palau Maricultural Demonstration Center Program (MMDC) began hatchery production of cultured clams (Nichols, 1991) with a focus on T. derasa (Tisdell et al., 1994). The output of this species expanded substantially in the 1980s and by the early 1990s, the MMDC had obtained three generations of T. derasa from broodstock from cultured specimens (Tisdell et al., 1994). From 2005, cultured clams (mainly comprised of T. crocea, T. maxima, T. derasa and H. hippopus) from the programme, were disseminated to 40 clam farms (Isamu, 2008). Palau was reported to have established 23 designated conservation areas, where harvesting of clams is prohibited (Isamu, 2008). These conservation areas were reported to be re-stocked with cultured clams (10 per cent of produced clams) to enhance species diversity and sustainability of harvest (Isamu, 2008). The giant clam hatchery in Palau was considered to be the only viable commercial facility of its kind in the South Pacific (Raymakers et al., 2004).

Isamu (2008) reported that no management measures were in place to regulate clam off take outside conservation areas. However, the Palau National Code (Palau, 1985) and the Marine Protection Act (Palau, 1994) and its amendments prohibit the export of clams, unless of cultured origin; it also prohibits the use of underwater breathing apparatus other than snorkel (Isamu, 2008). Exports were therefore considered to only consist of specimens reared in hatcheries (Isamu, 2008).

Philippines: T. derasa was reported to be present in the Philippines but either extirpated, or rare and Vulnerable according to the 1997 Philippine Red Data Book (Calumpong et al., 2000). No recent information on the status of this species in the Philippines was identified but the following surveys have been carried out in the country:

 Field surveys to determine the distribution and abundance of giant clams in the Philippines found T. derasa to be relatively rare (found in four of 17 localities) occurring in deeper waters on reef slopes and edges (Juinio et al., 1989). Only a few individuals of T. derasa were found to be of breeding size (Juinio et al., 1989). Population densities were recorded at Polillo (2.9 ind/ha), Ambil Island (3.6 ind/ha), Apo Reef (1.1 ind/ha) and Ina-Aborian (2.2 ind/ha) (Juinio et al., 1989). Low recorded densities of the species were thought to be due to the high market demand for their shells and the relative ease in harvesting them compared to attached species (Juinio et al., 1989).  Alcala (1986 in bin Othman et al., 2010) reported species’ population densities of 3.81 x 10-5 ind/m2 in the Palawan regions.  Dolorosa et al. (2014) reported that only empty shells of T. derasa were found by Estacion et al. (1993) in Tubbataha Reefs National Park (TRNP) (Marine Protected Area and World Heritage Site) in the Sulu Sea.  Surveys of microbenthic reef invertebrates in TRNP in 2008 did not record T. derasa, although the species was noted in 2009 (Dolorosa unpublished data in Dolorosa and Jontila, 2012).  Dolorosa et al. (2015) also reported that the species had been recorded during surveys of TRNP between 2005 and 2010.

38 It was reported that heavy harvesting of T. derasa for local subsistence and by commercial fishers had resulted in local extinctions in the Philippines including in Central Visayas (Wells, 1997). The remaining stronghold for this species was reported to be in the Sulu Archipelago with one population at Guinan (Samar) (Wells, 1997) – the main collection site for T. derasa in the Philippines (Lizano and Santos, 2014). However, the species was reported to be overexploited in this area (Villanoy et al., 1988 in Juinio et al., 1989). Illegal harvesting activities by external poachers were also reported from the Philippines (Dawson, 1986).

Dawson (1986) reported that the Philippines had been involved in research into giant clam mariculture for a number of years and restocking efforts have been carried out since the late 1980s (Gomez and Mingoa-Licuanan, 2006). Although restocking has focussed on T. gigas, a total of 1954 T. derasa were reported to have been restocked from 1981-2001 (Gomez and Mingoa-Licuanan, 2006). These include the restocking of 26 shallow nearshore areas of the country between 1985 and 1993, after which T. derasa was found to do well in shallow sandy areas with clear water (Calumpong et al., 2000). Further restocking work in 1997 used a community-based approach at six sites (five marine sanctuaries and one seaweed farm): Apo Island, Bolisong, Cangmating and Sagay, all located in Bohol Negros Island, Panganan and Danahon Bank, all in Bohol (Calumpong et al., 2000). A total of 2046 giant clams, consisting of five species, were restocked, however, all the T. derasa died or were lost. With the exception of Apo Island, all mortalities or losses were reported to be due to storms or strong winds (Calumpong et al., 2000).

In the Philippines, the collection, sale and export of wild specimens is prohibited under The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 as amended by Republic Act No. 10654, which categorises all Tridacna species in the Philippines as Endangered (Department of Agricultre, 2015). However, enforcement of legislation was considered a major issue, in part due to varied interpretation (Wells, 1997). References Adams, T.J.H., Lewis, A.D. and Ledua, E. 1988. Natural population dynamics of Tridacna derasa in relation to reef reseeding and mariculture. In: Copland, J.W. and Lucas, J.S. (Eds.). Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. ACIAR Monograph 9. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, Canberra, Australia. 78–81. Alcala, A.C. 1986. Distribution and abundance of giant clams (Family Tridacnidae) in the south-central Philippines. Silliman Journal, 33: 1–9. Benzie, J.A.H. 1993. Review of the population genetics of giant clams. In: Munro, P. (Ed.). Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 39. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Metro Manila, Philippines. 1–6. Birkeland, C. and Richmond, R.H. 1992. Rapid Ecological Assessment - Palau - Invertebrates. Marine Laboratory, University of Guan, Mangilao, Guam. Calumpong, H.P., Apao, A.B., Lucañas, J.R. and Estacion, J.S. 2000. Community-based giant clam restocking - hopes for biodiversity conservation. In: Proceedings 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia 23-27 October 2000, Vol. 2. 783–786. CITES Management Authority of France 2016. CITES Management Authority of France in litt. to UNEP- WCMC, 29/01/2016. Dance, S.P. 1974. The encyclopedia of shells. Blandford Press Ltd., London, United Kingdom. Dawson, B. 1986. Report on a study of the market for giant clam products in Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Honiara, Solomon Islands. Department of Agriculture 2015. Fisheries Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 2015. The implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 8550 as amended by Republic Act No. 10654. Department of Agriculture, Quezon City, Philippines. Dolorosa, R.G., Conales, S.F. and Bundal, N.A. 2014. Shell Dimension–Live Weight Relationships, Growth and Survival of Hippopus Porcellanus in Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park, Philippines. Atoll Research Bulletin, 604. Dolorosa, R.G. and Jontila, J.B.S. 2012. Notes on common macrobenthic reef invertebrates of Tubbataha

39 Reefs Natural Park, Philippines. Science Diliman, 24(2): 1–11. Dolorosa, R.G., Picardal, R.M. and S.F., C.J. 2015. Bivalves and gastropods of Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park, Philippines. Check List, 11(1): 1506. Dumas, P. and Andréfouët, S. 2010. Les bénitiers en Nouvelle-Calédonie: volet status des populations & habitat. Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD). Centre de Nouméa, New Caledonia. Estacion, J., Palaganas, V., Perez, R. and Alava, M. 1993. Benthic characteristics of Islands and Reefs in the Sulu Sea, Philippines. Silliman Journal, 36(2): 15–44. Gomez, E.D. and Mingoa-Licuanan, S.S. 2006. Achievements and lessons learned in restocking giant clams in the Philippines. Fisheries Research, 80(1): 46–52. Hardy, J.T. and Hardy, S.A. 1969. Ecology of Tridacna in Palau. Pacific Science, 23: 467–472. Heslinga, G.A. and Perron, F.E. 1984. Status of giant clam stocks at Aulong Channel, Republic of Palau. DMR. 20 pp. Hirschberger, W. 1977. Tridacna clam population survey of Palau’s Northern reefs. DMR. 22 pp. Hirschberger, W. 1980. Tridacnid clam stocks on Helen Reef, Palau, Western Caroline Islands. Marine Fisheries Review, 42(2): 8–15. Isamu, T. 2008. Palau case study: Tridacnidae. NDF Workshop Case Studies, WG9 - Aquatic Invertebrates, Case Study 2. International expert workshop on CITES non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, November 17-22, 2008. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN, TRAFFIC and WCMC 1996. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II: detailed reviews of 24 species. Final report to the CITES Animals Committee. IUCN Species Survival Commission, TRAFFIC Network, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. Juinio, M.A.R., Meñez, L.A.B., Villanoy, C.L. and Gomez, E.D. 1989. Status of giant clam resources of the Philippines. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 55(4): 431–440. Kinch, J. 2009. The importance of giant clam fisheries management and trade to the Pacific. In: Regional management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building workshop. 4th to 7th August 2009. CITES, Nadi, Fiji. Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building, 4-7 August 2009, Nadi, Fiji. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa, New Caledonia. Lizano, A.M.D. and Santos, M.D. 2014. Updates on the status of giant clams Tridacna spp. and Hippopus hippopus in the Philippines using mitochondrial CO1 and 16S rRNA genes. Philipine Science Letters, 7(1): 187–200. McKenna, S.A., Baillon, N., Blaffart, H. and G., A. 2006. Une évaluation rapide de la biodiversité marine des récifs coralliens du Mont Panié, Province Nord, Nouvelle Calédonie. Conservation International. 129 pp. McKenna, S.A., Baillon, N. and Spaggiari, J. 2009. A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of the coral reefs of the northwest lagoon, between Koumac and Yandé, Province Nord, New Caledonia. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. Munro, J.L. 1989. Fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae: Bivalvia) and prospects for stock enhancement. In: Caddy, J.F. (Ed.). Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA. 541–558. Neo, M.L., Erftemeijer, P.L.A., van Beek, J.K.L., van Maren, D.S. and Teo, S.L.M. 2013. Recruitment constraints in Singapore’s fluted giant clam (Tridacna squamosa) population—A dispersal model approach. Plos One, 8(3): e58819. Nestor, V., Crews, L., Ischal, A.L., Koshiba, S., Idechong, J., Merep, A. and Olsudong, D. 2013. Effectiveness of marine protected areas in Palau: Ileyakl Beluu Conservation Area, Ngardmau State. PICRC Technical Report 13-06, Palau International Coral Reef Center. 33 pp. Nichols, P. V 1991. Republic of Palau marine resources profiles. Fisheries Development Section, Forum Fisheries Agency. bin Othman, A.S., Goh, G.H.S. and Todd, P.A. 2010. The distribution and status of giant clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58(1): 103–111. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N. and Sant, G. 2004. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam. Technical report submitted to the European Commission TRAFFIC Europe, Brussel, Belgium. Sant, G. 1995. Marine invertebrates of the south Pacific: An examination of the trade. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.

40 Tardy, E. 2013. Survey of Selected Benthic Invertebrates. In: A Rapid Marine Biodiversity Assessment of the Northeastern Lagoon from Touho to Ponérihouen, Province Nord, New Caledonia. 169–183. Tisdell, C.A., Shang, Y.C. and Leung, P.S. (Eds.) 1994. Economics of commercial giant clam mariculture. ACIAR Monograph No. 25. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia. Villanoy, C.L., Juinio, A.R. and Menez, L.A. 1988. Fishing Mortality Rates of Giant dams (Family Tridacnidae) from the Sulu Archipelago and Southern Palawan, Philippines. Coral Reefs, 7: 1–5. Virly, S. 2000. Analyse de l’enquête sur la pêche vivrière et plaisancière dans les lagons de Nouvelle- Calédonie. Rapport d’activité.

Wells, S. 1996. Tridacna derasa. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 20/10/2015]. Wells, S.M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

41 VENEROIDA: TRIDACNIDAE Tridacna maxima II/B

COMMON NAMES: Small Giant Clam (EN)

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

UNDER REVIEW: New Caledonia

EU DECISIONS: Positive opinions for wild specimens from all countries were formed on 22/07/1997; these were removed on 02/12/2011 for American Samoa, British Indian Ocean Territory, China, Christmas Island, Cocos, (Keeling) Islands, Comoros, Egypt, Guam, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Myanmar, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tokelau, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America and Wallis and Futuna Islands and on 11/09/2012 for Cook Islands, Japan, Palau and on 23/02/2012 for Kiribati and no opinions i) formed.

Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Australia confirmed on 23/02/2012.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Cambodia first imposed on 11/07/2013 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens for Cambodia formed on 11/03/2011 and confirmed on 07/12/2013.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Tonga, Vanuatu and Viet Nam first imposed on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Tonga, Vanuatu and Viet Nam formed on 22/05/2003 and confirmed on 09/03/2006 for Viet Nam.

Current positive opinion for wild specimens from French Polynesia confirmed on 11/09/2012 and on 08/12/2014.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from New Caledonia first imposed on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from New Caledonia formed on 22/05/2003.

Current no opinion iii) for wild specimens from Seychelles formed on 11/09/2012.

42 Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Solomon Islands first imposed on 10/09/2012 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Solomon Islands formed on 12/03/2009 and confirmed on 02/12/2011.

Current no opinion ii) for wild specimens from Sudan formed on 27/02/2014. Previous no opinion i) for wild specimens from Sudan formed on 02/12/2011.

IUCN: Lower Risk/conservation dependent (needs updating)

Trade patterns The family Tridacnidae was listed in Appendix II on 01/08/1985 and was listed in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997.

An annual zero export quota for Tridacna maxima from New Caledonia has been published every year for the period 2009-2016.

New Caledonia is a dependent territory of France and New Caledonia's trade is included in France's annual reports to CITES. In reports received from France from 2009 onwards, this trade is not distinguished from trade involving mainland France or other dependent territories. Therefore, from 2009 onwards, it is not possible to distinguish exporter-reported trade from New Caledonia from trade originating in other dependent territories of France where the species in known to occur (French Polynesia, Réunion and the Wallis and Futuna Islands). The tables below include all trade from 2005 onwards where the exporting country was specified as New Caledonia, as well as trade from 2009 onwards where France was specified as the exporting country, where appropriate (figures for the latter are displayed in brackets).

Direct exports of T. maxima from New Caledonia to the EU-28 principally consisted of low levels of wild-sourced shells traded for personal use 2005-2008; no direct exports have been reported since 2009. Direct exports of T. maxima from France to the EU-28 and the rest of the world 2005-2014 primarily comprised high levels of wild-sourced live individuals traded for commercial purposes 2010-2014 (Table 1).

Additionally, direct exports of three wild-sourced shells for personal purposes from New Caledonia were reported at the genus level in 2008.

There were no indirect exports of T. maxima to the EU-28 for which the country of origin was reported as New Caledonia. Indirect trade to the EU-28 reported as originating in France comprised 100 wild- sourced, live T. maxima traded for commercial purposes in 2012. Table 1: Direct exports of Tridacna maxima from New Caledonia to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW), 2005-2014. All trade was from wild sources. (Values in brackets represent direct exports of Tridacna maxima from France*).

Reported Importer Term Purpose Source by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 EU28 carvings P W Exporter 2 Importer 6 cultures T W Exporter Importer (100) live T F Exporter (4400) Importer W Exporter (1263) (5870) (8844) (18727) (15870)

43 Reported Importer Term Purpose Source by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Importer (2900) (3124) (7918) (9622) meat (kg) S W Exporter (2) Importer (2) shells P W Exporter 287 261 176 111 Importer (2) S W Exporter 8 Importer 4 specimens S W Exporter (150) (60) Importer RoW live T F Exporter (1200) Importer W Exporter (3318) (8006) (7201) (15357) (19503) Importer (450) (253) meat (kg) T W Exporter (2) Importer shells P W Exporter 2 2 2 5 Importer specimens S W Exporter 15 (153) Importer * These values are included because from 2009 onwards, data reported by France includes exports from mainland France and all dependent territories, including New Caledonia, without distinguishing between these. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP- WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016 Conservation status Tridacna maxima was considered to be the most widely distributed Tridacnidae species (Newman and Gomez, 2000), with a distribution from East Africa to the Red Sea and across eastern Polynesia and Japan (Munro and Heslinga, 1983; Ellis, 1999; bin Othman et al., 2010). Although Borsa et al. (2015) noted that, due to recent taxonomic revisions, a number of recorded densities for T. maxima are likely to include Tridacna noae within its distribution range, which includes New Caledonia.

T. maxima may reach a maximum shell length of 35-40 cm, although usually not exceeding 25 cm (Raymakers et al., 2004; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). The species was reported to reach sexual maturity at 35 mm length as a male and develop into a fully mature hermaphrodite after 2 years of age, at 45 mm length (Raymakers et al., 2004). Sufficient numbers of spawning individuals are required for successful fertilisation and low densities of Tridacna can lead to reduced, or zero, recruitment, resulting in population collapse (Neo et al., 2013).

T. maxima was categorised as Lower Risk/conservation dependent in the IUCN Red List, although it was noted that the assessment needs updating (Wells, 1996). The species was considered to be relatively abundant throughout its range, although its status in the Indian Ocean was noted to be poorly known (Wells, 1997).

Overharvesting and collection for the souvenir trade were considered to be the main causes of T. maxima population decline (Apte et al., 2004). The bright colour of its mantle was reported to make the species particularly attractive for the aquarium trade (Hart et al., 1998; Wabnitz et al., 2003; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2008), with prices considered high compared to other Tridacna species (Lindsay et al., 2004). An experimental study by Waters (2008) found that the species may be particularly sensitive to the impacts of ocean acidification. Furthermore, juvenile T. maxima were considered to be particularly vulnerable to predation (Chambers, 2007). A study by Nuryanto and Kochzius (2009) reported significant genetic differentiation among populations in the Indo-West Pacific and across the Indo- Malay Archipelago, raising concerns that the current network of protected areas may be insufficient.

44 New Caledonia: In 1983, unpublished data from a postal survey found T. maxima to be present in New Caledonia (Dawson, 1986) and in 2010 T. maxima was reported to be one of the most abundant species (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010).

In a 2007 rapid assessment of coral reefs in the northwest lagoon (Poum to Koumac) in New Caledonia, T. maxima was recorded on inshore or inner lagoon reefs, and barrier or outer lagoon reefs at an average size of 13.9 cm, and on intermediate reefs at 12.9 cm (McKenna et al., 2009). The general low sizes of all species was considered to be due to intense harvesting but information on the densities of T. maxima was not available (McKenna et al., 2009). During rapid assessments of the Mt Panié area (Pouébo to Hienghène) in 2004 and during later surveys of the Northeastern Lagoon from Touho to Ponérihouen, Province Nord, T. maxima was found to be the most common species, with 1064 and 112 individuals recorded, respectively (McKenna et al., 2006; Tardy, 2013). It was reported that T. maxima had also been observed at Luengoni [Lifou Island], Thio and Moindou [South Province], and Ouasse and Oundjo [North Province] (Tardy, 2013).

A survey to determine the status of Tridacnidae populations in New Caledonia was undertaken across the Northern, Southern and Loyalty Islands Provinces by Dumas and Andréfouët (2010). T. maxima was found on almost all reefs studied and found to be the dominant species (comprising, on average, 88.2 per cent of the sampled populations across the seven sites) (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). The average density of T. maxima across the seven sites was 166 ind/ha-1 (ranging from 39.8-406.3 ind/ha-1) (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). Few juveniles or large individuals of any species were observed, a finding that was attributed to the impact of fishing pressure (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). Furthermore, T. maxima, was reported to be beginning to show impacts of opportunistic exploitation linked to the scarcity of target species (T. derasa and H. hippopus) (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010).

In the early 2000s it was estimated that fewer than 10 professional fishermen collected clams regularly (Raymakers et al., 2004). T. maxima was reported to be one of the main species harvested (N. Baillon, D. Coatanea, R. Farman, A. Rubin, New Caledonian provincial authorities, in litt. to TRAFFIC Europe, December 2002 in: Raymakers et al., 2004). Wynsberge et al. (2015) found that fishing pressure on T. maxima, at site scale, was highest with high densities of the species, suggesting that catches increased with availability.

Although a survey in 1983 suggested that stocks were not considered to be overexploited at the time (Dawson, 1986), it was reported in 2003 that licensed fisheries and market trends suggested that stocks may have been declining (Raymakers et al., 2004). In 2010, all species of Tridacna in New Caledonia were reported to be under pressure from subsistence fishing, commercial harvest for meat; and shells offered to tourists (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010).

It was reported that fishing for giant clams in New Caledonia is regulated in the Southern Province and the Northern Province, while regulations for the Loyalty Islands Province are being developed (CITES Management Authority of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). In the Southern Province, recreational vessels are subject to a quota of two clams/vessel/trip, while coastal fishing vessels are subject to a quota of five clams clams/vessel/trip (Code de l’Environnement de la Province Sud Art. 341-373) (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). In the Northern Province, recreational vessels are also subject to a quota of two clams/vessel/trip, while professional fishing vessels are subject to a quota of five clams/vessel/trip (Code de l’Environnement de la Province Nord Art. 341-54) (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). It was reported that commercial export of shells is not permitted (Raymakers et al., 2004), but personal exports of a maximum of three specimens (each specimen can be

3 According to the regulations applicable in the Southern Province, “coastal fishing” is a type of professional fishing used in inland waters, including those of bays and lagoons and in provincial waters (“commercial fishing” applies where the product is marketed). Despite the use of different terminology in the Environment Codes of the Northern and Southern Provinces, the regulations on fishing of clams are the same in both provinces. “Coastal fishing” can be distinguished from offshore fishing, which requires a license from the Government of New Caledonia. Authorisation for coastal fishing may be issued temporarily for deep sea fishing vessels working in the territorial waters of the Southern Province (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016).

45 either an intact shell or one valve; 3 kg total authorised mass) per family is permitted (The CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). 25 per cent of the catch of non-professional fisheries, is reportedly sold (Virly 2000).

Artificial breeding of giant clams, including T. maxima, was reported to have been attempted by IFREMER (Institut Français de Recherche pour L’exploitation de la Mer) in New Caledonia from 1993 to 1999, and was successful for this species (AC22 Doc. 10.2). Harvest and trade of giant clams were reported to be regulated through the national licensing and reporting system (Raymakers et al., 2004). By New Caledonian Law, giant clams may only be collected by free divers and the use of artificial air supply is prohibited (Raymakers et al., 2004). New Caledonia is covered by the French regulations for CITES. References Apte, D., Idrees, B.K.K., Karamathulla, S. and Sutirtha, D. 2004. Species conservation action plan - Ecology, population dynamics and conservation of Giant Clam Tridacna maxima (Roding, 1798) in Lakshadweep Archipelago. Bombay Natural History Society, LEAD International, Darwin Initiative. Borsa, P., Fauvelot, C., Tiavouane, J., Grulois, D., Wabnitz, C., Naguit, M.R.A. and Andrefouet, S. 2015. Distribution of Noah’s giant clam, Tridacna noae. Marine Biodiversity, 45: 339–344. Chambers, C.N.L. 2007. Pasua (Tridacna maxima) size and abundance in Tongareva Lagoon, Cook Islands. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 13: 7–12. CITES Management Authority of France 2016. CITES Management Authority of France in litt. to UNEP- WCMC, 29/01/2016. Dawson, B. 1986. Report on a study of the market for giant clam products in Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Honiara, Solomon Islands. Dumas, P. and Andréfouët, S. 2010. Les bénitiers en Nouvelle-Calédonie: volet status des populations & habitat. Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD). Centre de Nouméa, New Caledonia. Ellis, S. 1999. Lagoon farming of giant clams (Bivalvia: Tridacnidae). Aquafarmer Information Sheet. CTSA Publication Number 139. Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture. Hart, A.M., Bell, J.D. and Foyle, T.P. 1998. Growth and survival of the giant clams, Tridacna derasa, T. maxima and T. crocea, at village farms in the Solomon Islands. Aquaculture, 165: 203–220. Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2008. Proceedings of the sub-regional workshop on the marine ornamental trade in the Pacific, 2-5 December 2008, Nouméa, New Caledonia. Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridancidae) and CITES capacity building 4-7 August 2009. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, New Caledonia. Lindsay, S.R., Ledua, E. and Stanley, J. 2004. Regional assessment of the commercial viability for marine ornamental aquaculture within the Pacific Islands (giant clam, hard & soft coral, finfish, live rock & marine shrimp). Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Aquaculture Section, Nouméa, New Caledonia. McKenna, S.A., Baillon, N., Blaffart, H. and G., A. 2006. Une évaluation rapide de la biodiversité marine des récifs coralliens du Mont Panié, Province Nord, Nouvelle Calédonie. McKenna, S.A., Baillon, N. and Spaggiari, J. 2009. A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of the coral reefs of the northwest lagoon, between Koumac and Yandé, Province Nord, New Caledonia. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. Munro, J.L. and Heslinga, G.A. 1983. Prospects for the commercial cultivation of giant clams (Bivalvia: Tridacnidae). In: Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 35. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Marathon, USA. 122–134. Neo, M.L., Erftemeijer, P.L.A., van Beek, J.K.L., van Maren, D.S. and Teo, S.L.M. 2013. Recruitment constraints in Singapore’s fluted giant clam (Tridacna squamosa) population—A dispersal model approach. PLoS One, 8(3): e58819.

46 Newman, W.A. and Gomez, E.D. 2000. On the status of giant clams, relics of Tethys (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Tridacninae). In: Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia 23-27 October 2000, 2. Nuryanto, A. and Kochzius, M. 2009. Highly restricted gene flow and deep evolutionary lineages in the giant clam Tridacna maxima. Coral Reefs, 28: 607–619. bin Othman, A.S., Goh, G.H.S. and Todd, P.A. 2010. The distribution and status of giant clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58(1): 103–111. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N. and Sant, G. 2004. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam. Technical report submitted to the European Commission TRAFFIC Europe, Brussel, Belgium. Tardy, E. 2013. Survey of Selected Benthic Invertebrates. In: A Rapid Marine Biodiversity Assessment of the Northeastern Lagoon from Touho to Ponérihouen, Province Nord, New Caledonia. 169–183. Virly, S. 2000. Analyse de l’enquête sur la pêche vivrière et plaisancière dans les lagons de Nouvelle- Calédonie. Rapport d’activité. Wabnitz, C., Taylor, M., Green, E. and Razak, T. 2003. From ocean to aquarium: The global trade in marine ornamental species. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Waters, C.G. 2008. Biological responses of juvenile Tridacna maxima (Mollusca: Bivalvia) to increased PCO2 and ocean acidification. Thesis, Master in Environmental Studies, The Evergreen State College. Wells, S. 1996. Tridacna maxima. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/. [Accessed: 21/10/2015]. Wells, S.M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Wynsberge, S.V., Andrefouet, S., Gaertner-Mazouni, N., Wabnitz, C.C.C., Gilbert, A., Remoissenet, G., Payri, C. and Fauvelot, C. 2015. Drivers of density for the exploited giant clam Tridacna maxima: a meta-analysis. Fish and Fisheries, DOI: 10.1111/faf.12127.

47 VENEROIDA: TRIDACNIDAE Tridacna squamosa II/B

COMMON NAMES: Scaly Clam (EN)

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

UNDER REVIEW: New Caledonia, Viet Nam

EU DECISIONS: Positive opinions for wild specimens from all countries apart from Tonga were formed on 22/07/1997; these were removed on 02/12/2011 for American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Comoros, Cook Islands, Egypt, Guam, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Micronesia, Myanmar, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tokelau, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America and Wallis and Futuna Islands and on 11/09/2012 for Marshall Islands and Palau and no opinions i) formed.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Cambodia first imposed on 11/07/2013 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Cambodia formed on 11/03/2011 and confirmed on 07/02/2013.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji, Mozambique and Vanuatu first imposed on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji, Mozambique and Vanuatu formed on 22/05/2003.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from New Caledonia and Viet Nam first imposed on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from New Caledonia and Viet Nam formed on 05/09/2002 and 30/01/2003, respectively.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Solomon Islands first imposed on 10/09/2012 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Solomon Islands formed on 12/03/2009 and confirmed on 02/12/2011.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Tonga first imposed on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Tonga formed on 22/07/1997.

IUCN: Lower Risk/conservation dependent (needs updating)

48 Trade patterns The family Tridacnidae was listed in Appendix II on 01/08/1985 and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997.

New Caledonia: New Caledonia is a dependent territory of France and New Caledonia's trade is included in France's annual reports to CITES. In reports received from France from 2009 onwards, this trade is not distinguished from trade involving mainland France or other dependent territories.

An annual zero export quota for live, wild-sourced Tridacna squamosa from New Caledonia has been published every year for the period 2009-2016; trade appears to have been within quota for all years.

Direct export of T. squamosa from New Caledonia to the EU-28 2005-2014 and the rest of the world predominantly comprised low levels of wild-sourced shells traded as personal items 2005-2008 (Table 1). No direct trade in T. maxima from New Caledonia or France to the EU-28 has been reported since 2008.

Direct trade reported as Tridacna spp. from New Caledonia to the EU-28 comprised of three wild- sourced shells traded as personal items in 2008.

No indirect trade in Tridacna squamosa or Tridacna spp. originating in New Caledonia to the EU-28 was reported 2005-2014. Table 1: Direct exports of Tridacna squamosa from New Caledonia to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2005-2008. All trade was wild- sourced; no trade reported 2009-2014.

Importer Term Purpose Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 EU-28 shells P Importer Exporter 89 41 50 40 S Importer 8 Exporter 8 RoW shells P Importer Exporter 6 2 4 S Importer Exporter specimens S Importer Exporter 6 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016.

Viet Nam

An annual export quota for live, wild-sourced Tridacna squamosa from Viet Nam has been published every year for the period 2009-2012; these quota appear to have been exceeded in 2009 (as reported by importers) and 2010 (as reported by Viet Nam)(Table 2). Viet Nam has submitted annual reports for all years 2005-2014. Table 2: CITES export quotas for wild live Tridacna squamosa from Viet Nam, 2009-2012, and global exports as reported by the countries of import and Viet Nam, 2009-2012.

2009 2010 2011 2012 Quotas 1949 1949 1949 1000 Importer 1950 1816 1365 850 Exporter 1831 2220 1842 420

49 No direct export of T. squamosa from Viet Nam to the EU-28 2004-2013 was reported for the period 2005-2014. Direct export of T. squamosa from Viet Nam to countries other than the EU-28 2005-2014 primarily comprised high-levels of live, wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes (Table 3).

Direct trade reported at the genus level comprised live, wild-sourced individuals traded in 2005 for commercial purposes (See Table 1, Annex).

Indirect trade in T. squamosa originating Viet Nam to the EU-28 2005-2014 comprised low levels of live, wild-sourced individuals re-exported via Malaysia, in 2006, 2007 and 2009 (Table 4).

Table 3: Direct exports of Tridacna squamosa from Viet Nam to countries other than the EU, 2005-2014.

Term Unit Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 carvings - T I Importer 31 Exporter live - S W Importer 60 Exporter T C Importer 890 25 Exporter I Importer 70 Exporter W Importer 5732 4565 6176 5522 1950 1816 1365 850 665 405 Exporter 5280 8350 10040 13040 1831 2220 1842 420 2780 735 shells kg T W Importer 12000 Exporter 38000 18000 - P I Importer 8 Exporter T I Importer 177 Exporter W Importer 79 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016 Table 4: Indirect exports of Tridacna squamosa from Viet Nam to the EU- 28 2006-2009. All trade was in live, wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes. There was no indirect trade to the EU-28 reported 2005 or 2010-2014.

Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 Importer 16 10 1 Exporter 57 36 1 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016 Conservation status Tridacna squamosa was reported to occur along the East African coast and the Red Sea, ranging across the Indo-Pacific to the Pitcairn islands (Wells, 1997) and to Japan in the north (bin Othman et al., 2010). The species typically occurs in sheltered areas on sand or attached to corals reefs (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), often amongst branching corals (Raymakers et al., 2004).

T. squamosa grows to shell lengths of up to 40 cm (Wells, 1997; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010; Lukan and Brough, 2011) reaching sexual maturity at 4 years of age as a male and at 6 years as hermaphrodite (Raymakers et al., 2004). It was reported that sufficient numbers of spawning individuals are required

50 for successful fertilisation and low densities of Tridacna can lead to reduced, or zero, recruitment, resulting in population collapse (Neo et al., 2013).

T. squamosa was categorised as Lower Risk/conservation dependent in the IUCN Red List in 1996, although it was noted that the assessment needs updating (Wells, 1996). The species was considered to be common in the 1970s (Dance, 1974) and “reasonably abundant” in the 1990s, although its status in the Indian Ocean was noted to be poorly known (Wells, 1997). Its population was considered to show a decreasing trend (Isamu, 2008).

The main threats to T. squamosa were considered to be overexploitation and habitat degradation (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; bin Othman et al., 2010). Its attractive coloration, appearance and size were noted to have rendered it a favoured species for the shell trade (IUCN et al., 1996), with the species also considered a “popular food item” (AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8). The species was reported to be traded at relatively low prices in the aquarium trade (Mingoa-Licuanan and Gomez, 2002).

New Caledonia: T. squamosa was reported to occur at low densities in New Caledonia (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010).

In a 2007 rapid assessment of coral reefs in the northwest lagoon (Poum to Koumac) in New Caledonia, T. squamosa was recorded on inshore or inner lagoon reefs at an average size of 15.4 cm, on intermediate reefs at 22.7 cm and on barrier or outer lagoon reefs at 25.6 cm (McKenna et al., 2009). A general low size recorded for all species found in this survey was considered to be due to intense harvesting (McKenna et al., 2009). Information on the densities of T. squamosa was not available (McKenna et al., 2009). T. squamosa was also recorded during rapid assessments of the Mt Panié area (Pouébo to Hienghène) in 2004 and during later surveys of the North-eastern Lagoon from Touho to Ponérihouen, North Province, with 111 and 34 individuals recorded, respectively (McKenna et al., 2006; Tardy, 2013). It was reported that low numbers of T. squamosa had also been observed at Luengoni [Lifou Island], at Moindou and Thio [South Province] and at Ouasse and Oundjo [North Province] (Tardy, 2013).

A survey to determine the status of Tridacnidae populations in New Caledonia was undertaken across the Northern, Southern and Loyalty Islands Provinces, and T. squamosa was found at low average densities (4.8 ind/ha-1, ranging from 1.1-9.4 ind/ha-1) (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). For larger species like T. squamosa, which are preferentially targeted by fisheries, the average sizes were generally well below the highest recorded in literature, particularly at sites considered most exploited (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). Impacts of fishing pressure on the structure of populations were observed with few juveniles recorded (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). The low recorded densities were considered of conservation concern given the impact of the density of breeding adults on reproductive success and recruitment, which could result in result in population extinctions in the territory (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010).

In the early 2000s it was estimated that fewer than 10 professional fishermen collected clams regularly (Raymakers et al., 2004). All species of Tridacnidae occurring in New Caledonia were reported to be harvested and found in international trade (Raymakers et al., 2004), although T. squamosa was not reported to be one of the main species harvested (N. Baillon, D. Coatanea, R. Farman, A. Rubin, New Caledonian provincial authorities, in litt. to TRAFFIC Europe, December 2002 in: Raymakers et al., 2004).

Although a survey in 1983 suggested that stocks were not considered to be overexploited at the time (Dawson, 1986), it was reported in 2003 that licensed fisheries and market trends suggested that stocks may have been declining (Raymakers et al., 2004). In 2010 all species of Tridacna in New Caledonia were reported to be under pressure from subsistence fishing, commercial harvest for meat; and shells offered to tourists (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010).

51 It was reported that fishing for giant clams in New Caledonia is regulated in the Southern Province and the Northern Province, while regulations for the Loyalty Islands Province are being developed (CITES Management Authority of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). In the Southern Province, recreational vessels are subject to a quota of two clams/vessel/trip, while coastal fishing vessels are subject to a quota of five clams clams/vessel/trip (Code de l’Environnement de la Province Sud Art. 341-374) (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). In the Northern Province, recreational vessels are also subject to a quota of two clams/vessel/trip, while professional fishing vessels are subject to a quota of five clams/vessel/trip (Code de l’Environnement de la Province Nord Art. 341-54) (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016).It was reported that commercial export of shells is not permitted (Raymakers et al., 2004), but personal exports of a maximum of three specimens (each specimen can be either an intact shell or one valve; 3 kg total authorised mass) per family is permitted (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). . 25 per cent of the catch of non-professional fisheries, is reportedly sold (Virly 2000).

Artificial breeding of giant clams, including T. squamosa, was reported to have been attempted by IFREMER (Institut Français de Recherche pour L’exploitation de la Mer) in New Caledonia from 1993 to 1999, but was not successful for this species (AC22 Doc. 10.2). Harvest and trade of giant clams are regulated through the national licensing and reporting system (Raymakers et al., 2004). By New Caledonian Law, giant clams may only be collected by free divers and use of artificial air supply is prohibited (Raymakers et al., 2004).

New Caledonia is covered by the French regulations for CITES.

Viet Nam: T. squamosa was reported to be common at some sites in Viet Nam by Tuan et al. (2004), UNEP/GEF/SCS (2006); and Latypov (2013), although declines in Tridacna populations were noted (Long and Vo, 2013).

Dolgov (1992 in Eckman, 2014) reported densities of one ind/37 m2 in Viet Nam, and surveys of specific areas have found the following:

 In the 1980s, eight reefs of the Khanh Hoa province (South Viet Nam) were surveyed, and in 2003-2005, comparative observations were made at several reefs near Nha Trang [Khanh Hoa province] (Latypov and Selin, 2013). At a reef near Mju Island, T. squamosa was originally observed at densities of 0.1 ind/m2 in the 1980s, but was not recorded during the later survey (Latypov and Selin, 2013). Changes in the reef composition were thought to be due to heavy siltation (Latypov and Selin, 2013).  From 2004-2007, surveys of the barrier reefs of Giang Bo, Ly Son island and the platform reef at Bach Long Vi Island in the South China Sea were undertaken: T. squamosa was recorded as abundant on the reefs of Giang Bo (< 0.1 ind/m2) and its occurrence was reported from the reefs of Ly Son island and Bach Long Vi Island, where it was recorded as common on reef slopes <12 m depth (Latypov, 2013).  In 2010, surveys of the coral reefs in the Gulf of Siam and Southern Vietnam were undertaken and, in the lagoons of Hon Bay Canh, Hon Cau, and other islands of the Cön Dao Archipelago, T. squamosa sometimes occurred (0.1 ind/m2) on the reef flat (Latypov and Selin, 2011). On the reef slope, T. squamosa was reported to occur “rather often” (0.2-0.5 ind/m2) (Latypov and Selin, 2011).

4 According to the regulations applicable in the Southern Province, “coastal fishing” is a type of professional fishing used in inland waters, including those of bays and lagoons and in provincial waters (“commercial fishing” applies where the product is marketed). Despite the use of different terminology in the Environment Codes of the Northern and Southern Provinces, the regulations on fishing of clams are the same in both provinces. “Coastal fishing” can be distinguished from offshore fishing, which requires a license from the Government of New Caledonia. Authorisation for coastal fishing may be issued temporarily for deep sea fishing vessels working in the territorial waters of the Southern Province (CITES MA of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016).

52 From 1994-2007, monitoring studies of coral reefs in seven areas in the coastal waters of Viet Nam, including Cu Lao Cham, Van Phong Bay, Nha Trang Bay, Ninh Hai – Ninh Thuan, Ca Na Bay, Con Dao and Phu Quoc, were undertaken. Coral reefs in Viet Nam were found to have degraded over time and were considered in poor condition. Furthermore, macroinvertebrates were reported to have been overfished and a significant decrease in the density of Tridacna spp. over time was reported (Long and Vo, 2013).

T. squamosa was known from the Phu Quoc National Park and proposed marine protected area (MPA) (Kien Giant Province, south-west Viet Nam), where it was found to be common; reported at densities of 2-4 ind/400 m2 at Hon Roi and Hon Thom (UNEP/GEF/SCS, 2006), and from the Cu Lao Cham MPA (Quang Nam Province), where the species was reported to be common (Tuan et al., 2004). The species was also reported to be present at Nha Trang, Ninh Thuan, but at very low numbers (UNEP/GEF/SCS, 2006).

No information was available on legislation, management activities or population management (AC22 Doc. 10.2). There is little known about tropical marine aquaculture activities in Viet Nam, but production of second generation Tridacna by commercial farms in Viet Nam was considered unlikely (Raymakers et al., 2004). References CITES MA of France. 2016. CITES Management Authority of France in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016. Dance, S.P. 1974. The encyclopedia of shells. Blandford Press Ltd., London, United Kingdom. Dawson, B. 1986. Report on a study of the market for giant clam products in Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Honiara, Solomon Islands. Dolgov, L.V. 1992. Sexual structure of a Tridacna squamosa population - relative advantages of sequential and simultaneous hermaphroditism. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 58: 21–27. Dumas, P. and Andréfouët, S. 2010. Les bénitiers en Nouvelle-Calédonie: volet status des populations & habitat. Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD)., Centre de Nouméa, New Caledonia. Eckman, W. 2014. The ecological significance and larval ecology of giant clams (Cardiiade: Tridacninae). Thesis submitted for the Degree of Master of Science, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore. Isamu, T. 2008. Palau case study: Tridacnidae. NDF Workshop Case Studies, WG9 - Aquatic Invertebrates, Case Study 2. International expert workshop on CITES non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, November 17-22, 2008. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN, TRAFFIC and WCMC 1996. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II: detailed reviews of 24 species. Final report to the CITES Animals Committee. IUCN Species Survival Commission, TRAFFIC Network, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridancidae) and CITES capacity building 4-7 August 2009. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, New Caledonia. Latypov, Y.Y. 2013. Barrier and Platform Reefs of the Vietnamese Coast of the South China Sea. International Journal of Marine Science, 3(4): 23–32. Latypov, Y.Y. and Selin, N.I. 2011. Current status of coral reefs of islands in the Gulf of Siam and Southern Vietnam. Russian Journal of Marine Biology, 37(4): 255–262. Latypov, Y.Y. and Selin, N.I. 2013. Some data on spatio-temporal stability and variability of coral reefs in Khanh Hoa province (Vietnam). Environment, Ecology & Management, 2(1): 1–16. Long, N.V. and Vo, T.S. 2013. Degradation trend of coral reefs in the coastal waters of Vietnam. Galaxea, Journal of Coral Reef Studies (Special Issue), 79–83. Lukan, E.M. and Brough, C. 2011. Squamosa Clam - Tridacna squamosa. Available at: http://animal- world.com/encyclo/reef/clams/TridacnaSquamosaClam.php. [Accessed: 21/10/2015]. McKenna, S.A., Baillon, N., Blaffart, H. and G., A. 2006. Une évaluation rapide de la biodiversité marine des récifs coralliens du Mont Panié, Province Nord, Nouvelle Calédonie. Conservation International. 129 pp. McKenna, S.A., Baillon, N. and Spaggiari, J. 2009. A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of the coral

53 reefs of the northwest lagoon, between Koumac and Yandé, Province Nord, New Caledonia. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. Mingoa-Licuanan, S. and Gomez, E.D. 2002. Giant clam conservation in Southeast Asia. Tropical Coasts, 9(2): 24–56. Neo, M.L., Erftemeijer, P.L.A., van Beek, J.K.L., van Maren, D.S. and Teo, S.L.M. 2013. Recruitment constraints in Singapore’s fluted giant clam (Tridacna squamosa) population—A dispersal model approach. PLoS One, 8(3): e58819. bin Othman, A.S., Goh, G.H.S. and Todd, P.A. 2010. The distribution and status of giant clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58(1): 103–111. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N. and Sant, G. 2004. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam.Technical report submitted to the European Commision, TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium. Tardy, E. 2013. Survey of Selected Benthic Invertebrates. In: A Rapid Marine Biodiversity Assessment of the Northeastern Lagoon from Touho to Ponérihouen, Province Nord, New Caledonia. 169–183. Teitelbaum, A. and Friedman, K. 2008. Successes and failures in reintroducing giant clams in the Indo- Pacific region. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 14: 19–26. Tuan, V.S., Long, N.V., Tuyen, H.T., Hoang, P.K., Hoa, N.X., Thom, P.V., Tam, P.H., Dilve, H. and Linberg, R. 2004. Marine habitat and resource surveys of Cu Lao Cham marine protected area, Quang Nam Province, Vietnam. UNEP/GEF/SCS 2006. Vietnam’s Phu Quoc Coral Reef Habitat Demonstration Site. UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project. 51 pp. Virly, S. 2000. Analyse de l’enquête sur la pêche vivrière et plaisancière dans les lagons de Nouvelle- Calédonie. Rapport d’activité.

Wells, S. 1996. Tridacna squamosa. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 21/10/2015]. Wells, S.M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

54 ORCHIDALES: ORCHIDACEAE Cypripedium japonicum II/B

SYNONYMS: Cypripedium cathayanum

RANGE STATES: China, Dem. People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, Rep. of Korea

UNDER REVIEW: China, Dem. People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, Rep. of Korea

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restrictions for wild specimens from China, Dem. People’s Republic of Korea, Japan and Republic of Korea first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

Import restrictions for wild specimens from Slovakia and Poland first applied on 19/09/1999 and removed 29/10/2001.

IUCN: Endangered

Trade Patterns Cypripedium japonicum was listed in Appendix II on 01/07/1975 as part of the family listing for Orchidaceae and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997, also as part of the family listing.

China: No export quotas for Cypripedium japonicum from China have been published for the period 2005-2016; China have submitted annual reports for all years 2005-2014.

Direct export of C. japonicum from China to both the EU-28 and the rest of the world 2005-2014 comprised very low levels of artificially propagated, live-sourced individuals traded for commercial purposes 2011-2014 (Table 1). Table 1: Direct exports of Cypripedium japonicum from China to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2011-2014. All trade was in artificially propagated, live-sourced individuals for the purpose of commercial trade. There was no direct trade reported 2005-2010.

Importer Reported by 2011 2012 2013 2014 EU28 Importer 10 20 20 Exporter 30 20 20 RoW Importer Exporter 20 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is not a Party to CITES and is not required to submit annual reports. According to importers, no direct or indirect trade in C. japonicum from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the EU-28 or the rest of the world was reported 2005-2014.

Japan: No export quotas for Cypripedium japonicum from Japan have been published for the period 2005-2016; Japan have submitted annual reports for all years 2005-2014.

55 Direct export of C. japonicum from Japan to both the EU-28 and the rest of the world 2005-2014 included high levels of artificially propagated, live-sourced individuals for the purpose of commercial trade (Table 2). In addition, high levels of trade in artificially-propagated roots for commercial purposes were reported to the EU-28 in 2010 (exporters only) and 2011 (both exporters and importers).

No indirect trade in C. japonicum from Japan to the EU-28 was reported 2005-2014. Table 2: Direct exports of Cypripedium japonicum from Japan to the EU-28 and the rest of the world (RoW) 2005-2014. All trade was artificially propagated for commercial purposes and reported in number.

Importer Term Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 EU28 live Importer 30 60 25 73 350 50 Exporter 25 60 85 10 146 50 200 roots Importer 160 Exporter 600 600 RoW live Importer 18 Exporter 163 125 250 85 25 110 175 100 180 roots Importer Exporter 100 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016

Republic of Korea: No export quotas for Cypripedium japonicum from the Republic of Korea have been published for the period 2005-2016; the Republic of Korea have not yet submitted an annual report for 2014.

No direct or indirect trade in C. japonicum from the Republic of Korea to the EU-28 or the rest of the world was reported for the period 2005-2014. Conservation status Cypripedium japonicum is a lady slipper orchid that grows to 25-39 cm tall and occurs in small groups or as a solitary plant (Rankou, 2014). Flowers appear in April-May (Cash, 1991) and are pollinated by bumblebees (Sun et al., 2009). The species can reproduce both sexually and vegetatively (Sun et al., 2009).

The species been reported to have a restricted distribution, with an extent of occurrence of 3777 000 km2 and estimated area of occupancy of 400 km2 (Rankou, 2014). It occurs between 1000 and 2000 m altitude in a variety of habitats, including bamboo forests and mature deciduous woodland (Rankou, 2014), and the lower slopes of mountains (Cash, 1991). It grows best in well-drained humus rich soils (Rankou, 2014) in dappled shade (Cash, 1991).

C. japonicum was classified by the IUCN in 2014 as Endangered due to its restricted range and because the population was reported to be in decline (Rankou, 2014). The species has been described as ‘rare to extremely rare in some areas’ and population estimates have reported fewer than 2000 mature individuals present in the wild, with fewer than 250 mature individuals within each subpopulation (Rankou, 2014).

Over-exploitation for horticultural and medical purposes, as well as disturbance and destruction of habitats, were reported to threaten the species (Rankou, 2014).

China: C. japonicum has been reported to occur in Anhui, Zhejiang, Hunan, Hubei, Shaanxi, Ganzu, Sichuan, and Guizhou (Rankou, 2014).

The species was reported to have once been common in China, but more recently has become rare and threatened (Rankou, 2014). No population estimates for China were found.

56 C. japonicum has been reported to be at high risk of extinction as a result of loss of habitat and over- exploitation for collection, horticulture and medicinal use (Qian et al., 2014).

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: C. japonicum was reported to be present within the DPR of Korea (Rankou, 2014). No information on distribution, status or population size was found.

Japan: The species has been recorded at Awaji, Kyushu, south Hokkaido, north eastern Honshu, Sado and Shikoku in Japan (Cribb and Green, 1997; Rankou, 2014). In 1991 C. japonicum was described as common throughout the islands of Japan at intermediate and lower elevations, apart from the northern reaches of Hokkaido (Cash, 1991).

The species has been reportedly assessed as Vulnerable in the Red List of Japan (Rankou, 2014). It was reported by the Environment Agency of Japan (in Suetsugu and Fukushima, 2014) that the probability of extinction by the year 2100 was estimated to be almost 100 per cent. Nakamura and Short (2001) reported that C. japonicum was endangered in Chiba City. No estimates of population size for Japan were found.

In Japan, C. japonicum was reported to be threatened by over harvesting and by habitat disturbance and fragmentation (Suetsugu and Fukushima, 2014). The species was reported to be commonly cultivated in Japan (Cribb and Green, 1997).

Republic of Korea: C. japonicum has been recorded at HwaCheon-gun, GangWon-do, GaPyeong-gun, Gyeonggi-do, PoCheon-si, MuJu-gun, Jeollabuk-do, ChangNyeong-gun, Gyeongsangnam-do (Rankou, 2014) as well as within Mt. Tongu National Park (Kim, 2006) and Kwanbeung Experiment Forest of KFRI (Lim et al., 2003).

Within the Republic of Korea, the government is reported to have designated C. japonicum as “threatened to extinct: the first grade (I) for preservation” (Rankou, 2014). C. japonicum was reportedly assessed as Critically Endangered in the 2009 Rare Plants Data Book of Korea (Kim et al., 2014), and Lee and Choe (2006) assessed the species as Critically Endangered in the Korean Peninsula.

It was reported that fewer than 10 subpopulations were known from four isolated areas in Korea and that fewer than 200 individuals were left in the wild (Rankou, 2014).

Within the Republic of Korea, C. japonicum was reported to be threatened by habitat loss, exploitation and considered vulnerable due to its low reproductive success (Kang et al., 2010). References Cash, C. 1991. The Slipper Orchids. Timber Press, London. 228 pp. Cribb, P. and Green, P. 1997. The genus Cypripedium. Timber Press, UK Kang, H.S., Shin, S.Y. and Whang, H.J. 2010. Are the conservation areas sufficient to conserve endangered plant species in Korea? Journal of Ecology and Field Biology, 33(4): 377–389. Kim, J.S., Kim, H.T. and Kim, J.H. 2014. The Largest Plastid Genome of Monocots: a Novel Genome Type Containing AT Residue Repeats in the Slipper Orchid Cypripedium japonicum. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter, 1–11. Kim, Y.S. 2006. Conservation of plant diversity in Korea. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 2: 163– 170. Lee, J.S. and Choe, B.H. 2006. Distributions and Red Data of Wild Orchids in the Korean Peninsula. Korean Journal of Plant Taxonomy, 36(4): 355–360. Lim, J., Shin, J. h., Jin, G.Z., Chun, J.H. and .Oh, J.S. 2003. Forest stand structure, site characteristics and carbon budget of the Kwangneung Natural Forest in Korea. Korean Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 5(2): 101–109. Nakamura, T. and Short, K. 2001. Land-use planning and distribution of threatened wildlife in a city of Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53: 1–15. Qian, X., Li, Q.-J., Liu, F., Gong, M.-J., Wang, C.-X. and Tian, M. 2014. Conservation Genetics of an

57 Endangered Lady’s Slipper Orchid: Cypripedium japonicum in China. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 15(7): 11578–11596. Rankou, H. 2014. Cypripedium japonicum The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/13188414/0. [Accessed: 07/09/2015]. Suetsugu, K. and Fukushima, S. 2014. Pollination biology of the endangered orchid Cypripedium japonicum in a fragmented forest of Japan. Plant Species Biology, 29(3): 294–299. Sun, H.Q., Cheng, J., Zhang, F.M., Luo, Y.B. and Ge, S. 2009. Reproductive success of non-rewarding Cypripedium japonicum benefits from low spatial dispersion pattern and asynchronous flowering. Annals of Botany, 1–11.

58 ORCHIDALES: ORCHIDACEAE Cypripedium macranthos II/B

SYNONYMS: Cypripedium speciosum, Cypripedium taiwanianum, Cypripedium ventricosum, Cypripedium thunbergii, Sacodon macranthum

RANGE STATES: Belarus, China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Japan, Russian Federation, Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Province of China UNDER REVIEW: Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Russian Federation

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Russian Federation first applied on 29/10/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

No opinion i) for wild specimens from Taiwan, Province of China.

Previous positive opinion for wild specimens from Taiwan, Province of China formed on 27/01/1999 and removed 02/12/2011. Previous negative opinion formed on 18/11/1998.

IUCN: Least Concern

Taxonomic note The CITES Standard Reference (Roberts et al., 1995) for this species contains a misspelling, C. macranthon (misspelling confirmed by Roberts in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2016). This spelling is also found in some of the literature. Trade Patterns Cypripedium macranthos was listed in Appendix II on 01/07/1975 as part of the family listing for Orchidaceae, and was listed in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997, also as part of the family level listing.

Russian Federation: The Russian Federation have not published annual export quotas for Cypripedium macranthos for the period 2005-2016. The Russian Federation have not yet submitted an annual report for 2013, and the annual report for 2014 was not received in time to be included in this report.

Direct trade in C. macranthos from the Russian Federation to the EU-28 2005-2014 consisted of one ‘source I’ dried plant in 2008, reported without a purpose by importers or (purpose unknown). No direct trade in C. macranthos from the Russian Federation to countries other than the EU-28 was reported in the period 2005-2014. No indirect trade in C. macranthos from the Russian Federation to the EU-28 was reported in the period 2005-2014.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are a non-Party and are not required to submit an annual report. Importing Parties did not report any direct or indirect trade in C. macranthos from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the EU-28 or the rest of the world for the period 2005-2014. Conservation status Cypripedium macranthos is a lady slipper orchid that grows in well drained, humus rich soils (Rankou, 2014) between sea level and 2400 m altitude in a variety of wooded and open habitats (Rankou, 2014; 59 Zhang et al., 2014). It produces a single flower (Cribb and Green, 1997) between June and July (Rankou, 2014). The species is well established in horticulture and cultivated plants were reported to be hardy once established (Cribb and Green, 1997).

The species has been recorded in Japan, the Korean peninsula, European and Asiatic Russia (Arditti, 2008), Taiwan, and north and northeast China (Rankou, 2014). It has been noted to be absent from southwest China (Zhang et al., 2014).

C. macranthos was classified by the IUCN as Least Concern in 2014 (Rankou, 2014). Due to its wide range, the species was considered to have a low risk of extinction and the existing threats were considered ‘unlikely to cause the population to decline quickly in the near future’ (Rankou, 2014).

The species was reported to be widespread and common in some places but it has declined in parts of its range, including the Korean peninsula and Mongolia (Rankou, 2014). No estimates of population size were found.

The species is reported to be threatened by exploitation for horticulture and medicinal uses, habitat loss and fragmentation, regional and international trade, and climate change (Rankou, 2014).

Democratic People's Republic of Korea: C. macranthos was reported to be present within the DPR of Korea (Rankou, 2014). One botanical survey in 1988 reported finding the species (as C. thunbergii) on Mount Paektu, at a height of 1500 m above sea level (Szerdahelyi and Lókös, 1992). No further information on distribution, status or population size for the country was found.

Russian Federation: C. macranthos has been reported in Amur, Kamchatka and Khabarovsk in the Russian Far East, as well as Kuril Island, Primorye, Sakhalin, Siberia Altay, Buryatiya, Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Tuva, West Siberia and Yakutskiya (eMonocot, 2010). C. macranthon has also been recorded in Alkhanay National Park (Murota and Glazyrina, 2010), Vasuygan wetland landscape system (Semenova, 2014), Kislukhinsky state natural regional reserve, Western Siberia (Silantyeva et al., 2015) and Barguzinsky Nature Reserve (Zheleznaya, 2015). Zheleznaya (2015) reported that isolated populations of the species occurred in pine forests and in mixed forests of pine, birch and aspen.

In Russia, C. macranthos was reported to occur as a solitary plant or in small groups, rarely numbering up to 100 plants (Rankou, 2014). In Siberia, in a study from 2009-2014 Zheleznaya (2015) reported that the species was most abundant in Barguzinsky Nature Reserve with an average density of 0.1-5.6 shoots/m2. In a study of test plots in the middle Urals between 1991 and 2000, Gorchakovskii and Igosheva (2003) reported the population of C. macranthon to be 500-550 individuals at a density of 50- 120/0.25 ha. In the Olekminskii Zapovednik in Yakutiya, a density of 140 ind/100 m2 was reported by Golyakov (1994, in Vakhrameeva et al. 2008). In the Sikhote-Alinskii Zapovednik in Primorye Territory, a survey found 10-25 ind/m2, with a total of 60-100 individuals estimated in the Zapovednik, of which 10- 40% were mature plants and 10-50% were fertile shoots (Tatarenko, 1996 in Vakhrameeva et al. 2008).

No estimates of population size in Russia were found but in 1986 the species was reported to have gone through a significant decline in abundance due to expansion of anthropogenic activities (Polynceva et al., 1986 in Vakhrameeva et al. 2008). C. macranthos was included in the Russian Red Data Book in 2008 and the Red Book of the Altai territory in 2006 (Silantyeva et al., 2015) and is reported to be protected within 28 Zapovedniks and National Parks in Russia (Rankou, 2014). References Arditti, J. 2008. Micropropogation of Orchids 2nd Edition. Vol 1. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK Cribb, P. and Green, P. 1997. The genus Cypripedium. Timber Press, UK. eMonocot 2010. Cypripedium macranthos Sw. Available at: http://emonocot.org/taxon/urn:kew.org:wcs:taxon:54212. [Accessed: 08/09/2015].

60 Gorchakovskii, P. and Igosheva, N.I. 2003. Monitoring of Orchid Populations in a Unique Area of Their Concentration in the Middle Urals. Russian Journal of Ecology, 34(6): 403–409. Murota, T. and Glazyrina, I. 2010. Common-pool resources in East Russia: a case study on the creation of a new national park as a form of community-based natural resource governance. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 11: 37–52. Roberts, J.A., Beale, C.R., Benseler, J.C., McGough, H.N. and Zappi, D.C. 1995. CITES Orchid Checklist. Volume 1. For the genera: Cattleya, Cypripedium, Laelia, Paphiopedilum, Phalaenopsis, Phragmipedium, Pleione and Sophronitis including accounts of: Constantia, Paraphalaenopsis and Sophronitella. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens, Richmond, UK. Semenova, N.M. 2014. Western Siberia in the context of global nature conservation concerns. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 71(5): 595–604. Silantyeva, M.M., Ovcharova, N. V., Andreeva, E.B. and Kuznetsov, A.A. 2015. Rare and unique communities in the South of Western Siberia of the Bolshaya Sogra natural complex (Kislukhinsky state natural regional reserve, the Altaisky Krai, Russia). International Journal of Environmental Studies, 72(3): 501–508. Szerdahelyi, T. and L. Lókös 1992. Botanical collectings by the Hungarian Natural History Museum in Korea. A report on the collectings of the 2nd Expedition. Studia Botanica Hungarica 23. pp 127-133. Vakhrameeva, M.G., Tatarenko, I.V., Varlygina, G.K. and Zagulskii, M.N. 2008. Orchids of Russia and adjacent countries (within the borders of the former USSR). Ganter Verlag, A.R.G. and Ruggell (Eds.). Liechtenstein. Zhang, Y.U., Zhao, S., Liu, D., Zhang, Q. and Cheng, J.I.N. 2014. Flowering phenology and reproductive characteristics of Cypripedium macranthos (Orchidaceae) in China and their implications in conservation. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 46(4): 1303–1308. Zheleznaya, E. 2015. Results of a study of Cypripedium in several regions of Siberia (Russia). European Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5(2): 134–141.

61 ORCHIDALES: ORCHIDACEAE Cypripedium margaritaceum II/B

SYNONYMS: Cypripedium daliense RANGE STATES: China

UNDER REVIEW: China

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from China first applied on 29/10/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. IUCN: Endangered

Trade Patterns Cypripedium margaritaceum was listed in Appendix II on 01/07/1975 and listed in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997, both as part of the family listing for orchidaceae.

China has not published annual export quotas for Cypripedium margaritaceum for the period 2005-2016, and have submitted annual reports for all years 2005-2014. No direct or indirect trade in C. margaritaceum from China to the EU-28 or the rest of the world was reported in the period 2005-2014. Conservation status Cypripedium margaritaceum is a species of lady slipper orchid that grows to around 10 cm in height (la Croix, 2008) and produces a single yellow flower with maroon markings (la Croix, 2008). It was reported to be present in only two locations: northwest Yunnan and southwest Sichuan in China (Rankou, 2014). The species has been reported to occur between 1600 m (Li and Zhou, 2005) to 3600 m on moist, well- drained humus soils in a variety of woodland habitats or on limestone slopes (Cash, 1991; Rankou, 2014). In the wild, C. margaritaceum flowers in June and early July and is reported to occur either as solitary plants or in small groups (Rankou, 2014). The species has been reported to be difficult to cultivate (Rankou, 2014).

C. margaritaceum was classified as Endangered by the IUCN due to its restricted distribution to just two areas in China (Rankou, 2014). The abundance was reported to have declined significantly in recent decades and the population was reported to still be declining (Rankou, 2014). It was described as “very rare and very local” by the IUCN (Rankou, 2014). The estimated extent of occurrence for C. margaritaceum was reported to be 45 000 km2 and the estimated area of occupancy was reported to be 150 km2 (Rankou, 2014). Although no population estimates have been made, the number of mature individuals in the wild was reported as low and continuing to decline (Rankou, 2014)

C. margaritaceum was reported to be threatened by collection, regional and international trade, and destruction and disturbance of habitats (Rankou, 2014). References Cash, C. 1991. The Slipper Orchids. Timber Press, London. 228 pp. la Croix, I. 2008. The new encyclopedia of orchids: 1500 species in cultivation. Timber Press, Inc., Portland and London. Li, K. and Zhou, Z. 2005. Endemic Wild Ornamental Plants from Northwestern Yunnan, China. HortScience, 40(6): 1612–1619. Rankou, H. 2014. Cypripedium margaritaceum The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/46654/0. [Accessed: 09/09/2015]. 62 ORCHIDALES: ORCHIDACEAE Cypripedium micranthum II/B

RANGE STATES: China

UNDER REVIEW: China

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from China first applied on 29/10/2001 and last confirmed on 28/05/2015. IUCN: Endangered Trade Patterns Cypripedium micranthum was listed in Appendix II on 01/07/1975 and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997, both as part of the family listing for Orchidaceae. China has not published annual export quotas for Cypripedium micranthum for the period 2005-2016 and has submitted annual reports for all years 2005-2014. No direct or indirect trade in C. micranthum from China to the EU-28 or the rest of the world was reported in the period 2005-2014. Conservation status Cypripedium micranthum is a species of lady slipper orchid endemic to China (Rankou, 2014). The species is reported to only occur in Jiuzhaigou and Pingwu in north Sichuan and north Chongqing (Rankou, 2014). C. micranthum flowers in May to early June, producing some of the smallest flowers in the genus, which are pollinated by Drosophila spp. (Li et al., 2012). The flower is 6.5 cm in size and yellow to green with purple markings, and the plant reaches around 10 cm in height (Cash, 1991). The species has been reported to occur as solitary plants or in very small groups and is found between 2000 m to 2500 m altitude (Rankou, 2014). It is reported to be very difficult to cultivate; the majority of wild collected plants were reported to die in their first or second year of cultivation, and none were reported to survive in cultivation for longer than five years (Rankou, 2014) C. micranthum was classified by the IUCN as Endangered in 2014 due to its rarity, its restricted distribution, and because the abundance of the species has been significantly reduced in recent decades and was reported to be decreasing further (Rankou, 2014). The estimated extent of occurrence was reported to be 3000 km2 and the estimated area of occupancy was reported to be 250 km2 (Rankou, 2014). The species was reported to be very rare (Rankou, 2014). An overall population estimate of 250 mature individuals was reported with estimates as low as 30 (Rankou, 2014). Li et al. (2012) reported that they found one population of C. micranthum after surveying most orchid areas in northwest Yunnan and northern Sichuan. C. micranthum was reported to be under threat from climate change, habitat degradation and destruction, and exploitation for horticulture, which are reported to have contributed to its decline (Rankou, 2014). One population of the species occurs in a protected area; the Danyun Gorge in the Huanglong Nature Reserve, Sichuan (Rankou, 2014). The species was not reported to be legally protected in China, although Rankou (2014) recommended legal protection of the species. References Cash, C. 1991. The Slipper Orchids. Timber Press, London. 228 pp. Li, P., Pemberton, R., Zheng, G. and Luo, Y. 2012. Fly pollination in Cypripedium: A case study of sympatric C. sichuanense and C. micranthum. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 170: 50–58. Rankou, H. 2014. Cypripedium micranthum The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/43316804/0. [Accessed: 10/09/2015]. 63

Appendix

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

64 Annex

Table 1: Direct exports of Tridacna spp. from Viet Nam to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2005-2014. There was no trade reported 2009-2012. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2013 2014 EU live T W Importer Exporter 1350 RoW carvings T I Importer 2 Exporter live T W Importer Exporter 15040 450 shells P I Importer 1 Exporter T I Importer 7 22 11 Exporter W Importer 36 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016.

Table 2: Direct exports of Tridacna spp. from Palau to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2005-2014. There was no trade reported 2012-2014. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 EU live T F Importer 50 Exporter RoW carvings P I Importer 1 Exporter T I Importer 6 21 Exporter meat P I Importer 1 Exporter shells P I Importer 1 97 2 1 Exporter W Importer 46 Exporter specimens S W Importer 4 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 02/03/2016.

Table 3: Direct exports of Tridacna spp. from Philippines to the rest of the world (RoW), 2005- 2014. There was no trade reported in 2014. Term Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 carvings P I Importer 2 3 Exporter W Importer 10 1 3 Exporter shells P I Importer 6 14 72 53 24 21 23 3 2 Exporter W Importer 23 43 33 Exporter T I Importer 12 Exporter W Importer 3 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 03/02/2016. 65