Review of selected from the Analysis of 2005 EC Annual Report to CITES

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the

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

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

May, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

1. Introduction to the Analysis of the European Community Annual Report to CITES ...... 2 2. Introduction to the species sheets ...... 2 SPECIES: Crocodylus novaeguineae novaeguineae ...... 10 SPECIES: Varanus niloticus ...... 19 SPECIES: Ptyas mucosus ...... 27 SPECIES: Polyodon spathula ...... 30 SPECIES: elwesii ...... 41 SPECIES: Galanthus woronowii ...... 45 3. Introduction to the group: ...... 51 SPECIES: ...... 54 SPECIES: ...... 57 SPECIES: ...... 61 SPECIES: Pericopsis elata ...... 65

1. Introduction to the Analysis of the European Community Annual Report to CITES UNEP-WCMC undertakes an annual Analysis of the European Community Annual Report to CITES. This Analysis examines patterns of trade into the European Community, trade in groups of particular note, possible transgressions of suspensions and negative opinions, exports of EU native species, etc. The Analysis of the 2005 annual reports identified species for which: Imports were considered to be high volume according to thresholds which were determined by taxonomic group and CITES Appendix (Table 1). Imports of wild specimens had increased sharply in 2005, compared with imports between 1996-2005. Species were taken to qualify on the basis of the ‗sharp increase‘ criterion if the volume of importer-reported wild-sourced imports during 2005 exceeded the upper 95% ‗confidence interval‘ (i.e. the mean plus 1.96 standard deviations of the mean) for the average trade volume during 1996–2005. In such cases, the 2004 trade level was taken to show an increase in excess of what might be expected under ‗normal‘ inter-annual fluctuations. Imports of wild specimens generally increased or decreased in 2003-2005, compared with the trade reported over the period 1996-2002. The overall increase criterion took into account more general trends over the period 1996–2005. This criterion compared the average volume of wild-sourced imports during 2003–2005 with that for preceding years, to highlight species that had experienced a significant increase or decrease over the ten-year period. Table 1. Minimum level of trade required for selection on the basis of high trade volume.

Taxonomic group CITES Appendix I II III Mammals 100 10000 50000 Birds 100 10000 50000 Reptiles 100 50000 100000 Amphibians 100 50000 — Fish 100 50000 — Invertebrates 500 50000 100000 (non-timber) 500 50000 100000 Plants (timber) — 1000 m3 5000 m3

All species initially identified by the criteria were subsequently inspected manually in order to exclude any for which the averages were disproportionately influenced by one or two atypical years.

2. Introduction to the species sheets On the basis of this analysis, 72 Appendix II taxa were initially considered as candidates for review (Table 2). Following discussion with the European Commission, and considering previous SRG and CITES discussions, 10 taxa were selected for in-depth review. The in-depth reviews for these species are presented in this report. Species were selected on the basis of particular patterns of trade in 2005. However, data for 2006 were available at the time of writing, and so were included in the species sheets. Trade data in this report were downloaded on 19/12/2007. Additional trade data were received on Galanthus woronowii from , and these data were updated on 29/04/2008. In the trade tables, ―main‖ imports are summarised. These exclude trade terms involving a very small volume of trade (e.g. specimens, teeth). ―Direct‖ exports are those where the origin and exporter are the same country. ―Indirect‖ exports are those where the origin and the exporter

2

are different countries. The table for direct exports to countries other than EU-27, may include trade included in the table for indirect exports to EU-27. Trade between EU-27 members is not included although some trade was reported from candidate countries to the EU during the pre- accession period of some Member States. Nine out of the ten species presented in this review were selected on the basis of the high volume of trade to the European Union in 2005. Polydon spathula also showed a sharp increase in trade in 2005, and trade in Cyclamen coum showed an overall increase, i.e. generally increased 2003-2005, compared with the trade reported over the period 1996-2002. Crocodylus novaeguineae novaeguineae was selected on the basis of an overall increase in trade. Status information focuses on the main trading partners, as highlighted in Table 2.

3

Table 2. Species considered for in-depth review

Taxon EC IUCN Selection criteria Notes Rewiew? Annex Red List1 Acinonyx jubatus A VU High volume All exporting countries were within their No accepted quotas.

Panthera onca A NT Sharp increase Increase due to imports of 20 skins for No exhibition purposes.

Panthera pardus A LC High volume All exporting countries were within their No accepted quotas.

Loxodonta africana A/B VU High volume Trade closely monitored through CITES No process

Crocodylus porosus A/B LC High volume EC imports consisted almost exclusively of No captive-bred specimens.

Crocodylus siamensis A CR High volume EC imports consisted exclusively of captive- No bred specimens.

Scleropages formosus A EN High volume EC imports consisted exclusively of captive- No bred specimens.

Araucaria araucana A VU High volume EC imports consisted exclusively of No artificially propagated specimens.

Astrophytum asterias A VU High volume EC imports consisted exclusively of No artificially propagated specimens.

Obregonia denegrii A VU High volume EC imports consisted exclusively of No artificially propagated specimens.

Uebelmannia pectinifera A LC High volume EC imports consisted exclusively of No artificially propagated specimens.

Saussurea costus A High volume EC imports consisted exclusively of No artificially propagated specimens.

Euphorbia decaryi A EN High volume EC imports consisted exclusively of No artificially propagated specimens.

Dendrobium cruentum A n/a High volume EC imports consisted exclusively of No artificially propagated specimens.

Paphiopedilum armeniacum A EN High volume EC imports consisted exclusively of No artificially propagated specimens.

Abies guatemalensis A VU Sharp increase Sharp increase was due to trade for No scientific purposes.

Papio hamadryas B NT Overall increase Positive opinion formed for Ethiopia, No Kenya, South Africa, U. R. Tanzania and Zimbabwe at SRG 20. P. hamadryas from Ethiopia was reviewed for SRG 24 (positive opinion maintained). EC imports of wild sourced trophies and skulls have shown a notable increase since then, most trade originating from Namibia in 2005.

1 IUCN Red List Categories: EX- Extinct, EW- Extinct in the wild, CR- Critically Endangered, EN- Endangered, VU- Vulnerable, NT- Near Threatened, LC- Least Concern, DD- Data deficient, NE- Not evaluated.

4

Taxon EC IUCN Selection criteria Notes Rewiew? Annex Red List1 Pseudalopex griseus B LC High volume (into Reviewed for SRG 40, positive opinions No EC and Candidate), were given for specimens originating from overall increase Argentina and Chile. (into Candidate countries only)

Ursus maritimus B VU Sharp increase Increase due to movement of live bears No (into Candidate across borders as part of a travelling countries only) exhibition/circus in 2005.

Lynx rufus B LC High volume, Reviewed for SRG 40, positive opinions No overall increase were confirmed for specimens originating from Canada and the United States but a positive opinion was removed for Mexico.

Panthera leo B VU Overall decrease Included in 2005 analysis on basis of an No overall decrease in EC imports of wild- sourced trophies.

Arctocephalus pusillus B LC High volume (EC Reviewed for SRG 40, positive opinions No & Candidate), were formed for Namibia and South Africa. sharp increase, high variability (into Candidate countries only)

Equus zebra hartmannae B NE Sharp increase Reviewed for SRG 32, following which an No import restriction was confirmed for (E. zebra- Angola. In 2005, import numbers of wild classified sourced Equus zebra hartmannae showed a as EN) sharp increase in trade in 2005, reaching its highest level over the past ten years. Namibia was the main exporter.

Pecari tajacu B LC High volume (EC); The vast majority of imports in 2005 No sharp increase, originated from Peru. Exports from Peru high variability were included in the CITES Significant (Candidate) Trade Process in 2001. Skin exports from Peru are below level set by export quota.

Tayassu pecari B LC High volume All EC imports of T. pecari skins (the main No term traded) originated in Peru. Exports from Peru were included in the CITES Significant Trade Process in 2001. Skin exports from Peru are below level set by export quota.

Gyps africanus B LC Overall increase Veterinary ban on EC imports of wild- No sourced birds.

Gyps bengalensis B CR Sharp increase Veterinary ban on EC imports of wild- No sourced birds.

Otis tarda B VU Sharp increase Veterinary ban on EC imports of wild- No sourced birds.

Amazona aestiva B LC Overall increase Veterinary ban on EC imports of wild- No sourced birds.

5

Taxon EC IUCN Selection criteria Notes Rewiew? Annex Red List1 Amazona dufresniana B NT Overall increase Veterinary ban on EC imports of wild- No sourced birds.

Poicephalus senegalus B LC High volume Veterinary ban on EC imports of wild- No sourced birds.

Psittacus erithacus B NT High volume Veterinary ban on EC imports of wild- No sourced birds.

Alligator mississippiensis B LC High volume, Reviewed for SRG 41 and a positive opinion No sharp increase was confirmed for the United States, the only range State.

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus B NE High volume, Most trade is to EU from Venezuela. No sharp increase Reviewed for SRG 41 and a positive opinion (C. was formed for Venezuela. crocodilus- LC)

Caiman crocodilus fuscus B NE High volume Trade mostly in captive-bred specimens No from Colombia. (C. crocodilus- LC)

Caiman yacare B LC Overall increase Steady increase in EC imports of wild- No sourced skins in recent years, but positive opinion formed for Bolivia, the main exporter, in 2006 following discussions on the quota for this species.

Crocodylus niloticus B LC High volume Trade mostly in captive-bred or ranched No specimens from Zimbabwe, South Africa and Mozambique.

Crocodylus novaeguineae B NE (C. Overall increase Trade mostly in wild sourced specimens SRG 44 - novaeguineae novaeguine from Papua New Guinea. No species Review trade ae- LC) review has been undertaken for this from Papua species. EU represents about 5% of world New Guinea trade.

Iguana iguana B n/a High volume EC imports consisted almost exclusively of No captive-bred specimens.

Tupinambis merianae B n/a High volume Reviewed for SRG 40 and a positive opinion No was formed for Argentina, the main exporter.

Varanus niloticus B n/a High volume This species is mainly sourced from the SRG 44 - wild. Species reviewed for SRG 15, 24, and Review trade 35 but the major 2005 exporters (Mali, from Mali, Chad, Sudan) were not reviewed. Chad, Sudan

Varanus salvator B n/a High volume Reviewed for SRG 41 and positive opinions No were formed for the main exporters: Indonesia and Malaysia.

Python breitensteini B n/a High variability Reviewed for SRG 30 and a positive opinion No was formed for Indonesia, the main exporter.

6

Taxon EC IUCN Selection criteria Notes Rewiew? Annex Red List1 Python brongersmai B n/a High volume Reviewed for SRG 40 and a positive opinion No was formed for Indonesia and a negative opinion was formed for Malaysia.

Python molurus bivittatus B NE High volume EC imports consisted almost exclusively of No captive-bred specimens. (P. molurus- NT)

Python regius B n/a High volume, EC imports have shifted from wild caught No overall increase to ranched source in 2005. Problems with reporting have been noted - see SRG 40. Trade from the major exporters, Ghana, Togo and Benin, has been reviewed since 2005.

Python reticulatus B n/a High volume (EC), Reviewed for SRG 41 and a positive opinion No was formed for Indonesia, the main sharp increase exporter in 2005. Imports of specimens from (Candidate) Peninsular Malaysia are currently suspended.

Ptyas mucosus B n/a High volume Reviewed for SRG 23 and 32 but little SRG 44 - information was available for Thailand, the Review trade main exporter to the EC in 2005. All EC- from imports in 2005 involved wild-sourced Thailand skins.

Naja sputatrix B n/a Sharp increase Reviewed for SRG 41 and a positive opinion No was formed for Indonesia. A sharp increase in imports from Indonesia was noted in 2005.

Hoplobatrachus tigerinus B LC High volume EC imports consisted mainly of captive- No bred specimens from a non-range State.

Polyodon spathula B VU High volume, Reviewed for SRG 20. Increase in wild SRG 44 - sharp increase sourced imports from the US in 2005 - a Review trade positive opinion was formed for the US in from the 2001. United States of America

Hirudo medicinalis B NT High volume The majority of wild-sourced specimens No originated from . This trade was reviewed for SRG 26, and was not identified as major threat. Quotas have remained more or less constant since 1998.

Tridacna derasa B VU Sharp increase Two countries exported wild sourced T. No derasa in 2005: Viet Nam, which is subject to a negative opinion (12/06/2006) and the Cook Islands where the species has been introduced.

7

Taxon EC IUCN Selection criteria Notes Rewiew? Annex Red List1 Strombus gigas B n/a High volume Jamaica and the Turks and Caicos Islands No were the two main exporters to the EC in 2005. The management of S. gigas in Jamaica was discussed at SRG 20 and a positive opinion was subsequently formed. Little information was found for Turks & Caicos, a lesser exporter.

Galanthus elwesii B n/a High volume Turkey was the sole exporter to the EC in SRG 44 - 2005. CITES Significant Trade review of Review trade trade from Turkey in 1999, and Turkey from Turkey export quota has not increased significantly since then. 2007 export quota was the same as 2006 quota.

Galanthus woronowii B n/a High volume CITES Significant Trade review of bulb SRG 44 - trade from Turkey and Georgia in 1999, but Review trade Georgia‘s export quota has increased since from Georgia then. Georgia‘s 2007 export quota was and Turkey lower than 2006 quota but similar to 2001 & 2002. Tukey‘s has remained at similar level since first quotas were set in 2000.

Selenicereus grandiflorus B n/a Sharp increase This species has not been subject to a SRG No review. For the second year running a sharp increase in trade has been noted. In 2005, Morroco, a non-range State, exported 4000kg to the EC.

Euphorbia spp. B EN/CR/ Sharp increase The 14 species selected were exported by No VU Madagascar; most of them have been subject to negative opinions since 2006. No EU decisions were made for Euphorbia denisiana, E. famatamboay, E. itremensis, E. mahabobokensis

Euphorbia antisyphilitica B n/a High volume, Reviewed for SRG 41 and a positive opinion No overall increase was formed for Mexico.

Pericopsis elata B EN High volume The top two exporters to the EC in 2005 SRG 44 - were Cameroon and the Democratic Review trade Republic of the Congo (approximately 46% from of trade each). Exports from Cameroon Democratic were reviewed in 2005 for SRG 34. The Republic of Democratic Republic of the Congo though the Congo has not been reviewed.

Swietenia macrophylla B VU High variability Subject to ongoing discussions by the SRG No and CITES.

Nepenthes bicalcarata B VU Sharp increase Little trade has been recorded over the past No ten years; the import of some dried plants in 2005 resulted in the selection of this species on the basis of a ‗sharp increase‘ in trade.

8

Taxon EC IUCN Selection criteria Notes Rewiew? Annex Red List1 Cyclamen cilicium B n/a High volume All plants were imported from Turkey in SRG 44 - 2005. CITES Significant Trade review of Review trade bulb trade from Turkey in 1999. Turkey‘s from Turkey quotas are at similar levels since then.

Cyclamen coum B n/a High volume, Turkey exported the vast majority of plants SRG 44 - overall increase to the EC in 2005. Reviewed for SRG 41 and Review trade positive opinion formed for Turkey. from Turkey

Cyclamen hederifolium B n/a High volume All plants were imported from Turkey in SRG 44 - 2005. CITES Significant Trade review of Review trade bulb trade from Turkey in 1999; but from Turkey Turkey‘s export quota has increased by c. 50% since then but has not been fully utilised.

Prunus africana B VU High volume, Reviewed in the CITES Significant Trade No sharp increase Process. Cameroon accounted for 70% of the trade to the EC. Trade from U.R. Tanzania is to be presented at SRG 42.

Aquilaria malaccensis B VU Sharp increase A sharp increase was noted but EU-imports No are very low when compared to the rest of the world.

Gonystylus spp. B NE/ VU High volume, Subject to ongoing discussions by the SRG No sharp increase

Serinus mozambicus C LC High volume Veterinary ban on EC imports of wild- No sourced birds.

Pelusios castaneus C n/a Overall increase Overall increase in import numbers of live, No wild-sourced Pelusios castaneus from Ghana and Togo. This species was deleted from App. III by Ghana in 2007, and is not listed by Togo.

Daboia russelii C n/a Sharp increase Main exporter to the EU in 2005 was No Thailand. This species is listed on Appendix III by India.

Cedrela odorata C VU Overall increase Subject to ongoing discussions and action in No the CITES arena

9

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

REPTILIA: CROCODYLIDAE

SPECIES: Crocodylus novaeguineae novaeguineae

SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: New Guinea Crocodile (English), Crocodile de Nouvelle-Guinée (French), Cocodrilo de Nueva Guinea (Spanish), nyaguineakrokodil (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Indonesia, Papua New Guinea

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Papua New Guinea

IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/ Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: -

TAXONOMIC NOTE: Crocodylus novaeguineae was previously considered to comprise two C. n. novaeguineae (New Guinea Crocodile) and C. n. mindorensis (Philippine crocodile). However, as noted in the CITES Standard reference (Wermuth & Mertens, 1996), most sources now recognise two separate species: C. novaeguineae and C. mindorensis (King & Burke, 1989; Hall, 1989; Thorbjarnarson et al., 1992; Britton, 2002). It is assumed for the purposes of this report that all trade reported from Papua New Guinea refers to C. n. novaeguineae, the only subspecies (using the previous ) to occur there. For this reason, data reported from Papua New Guinea using both the name C. novaeguineae and C. n. novaeguineae are included in the trade tables below.

TRADE PATTERNS: Crocodylus novaeguineae novaeguineae was selected for this review on the basis of an overall increase in trade between 1996-2005 in wild sourced skins into the European Community (UNEP-WCMC 2007). Tables 3-5 summarise CITES trade data for this subspecies. All skins imported by the EC over the period 2001-2006 originated in Papua New Guinea, although they were all traded via third parties, namely Singapore (98%) and Japan (2%). Between 1996-2005, imports into the EC have increased from a few tens in the mid 1990s to annual imports averaging 1,940 skins since 2002 (UNEP-WCMC, 2007). No export quotas for Papua New Guinea for this species/subspecies have been published on the CITES website. The species‘s skin was reported to be very valuable (Britton, 2002). Kula & Solmu (1996) reported an average of 24,500 C. novaeguineae skins exported from Papua New Guinea between 1977 and 1995, with harvest levels varying between 39,000 in 1979 and 12,000 in 1994. The relative proportion of ranched skins compared with wild skins

10

increased between 1977 and 1995, but the number of ranched skins was always lower than that of wild skins, and varied between 500 (in 1980) and 10,400 (in 1994). However, since then Solmu (2004) indicated that, in Papua New Guinea, ―the majority of current ranched skins are C. porosus due to the current market forces. C. novaeguineae ranched skins constitute a very small proportion; the highest was in 1998 with 6,211 skins and since then has declined to only 6 in 2002‖. Table 3. Direct exports of Crocodylus novaeguineae and C. n. novaeguineae from Papua New Guinea to EU-27, 2001-2006.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2006 Total skins T W Importer 27 11 38 Exporter 27 27

Table 4. Main indirect exports of Crocodylus novaeguineae and C. n. novaeguineae originating from Papua New Guinea to EU-27, 2001-2006. Exporter Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Australia skins T R Importer Exporter 66 66 skins T W Importer Exporter 1 1 Japan France skins T C Importer Exporter 2 2

small leather products T C Importer 23 10 33 Exporter 23 10 33 W Importer 88 138 191 Exporter 79 79 skins T W Importer 25 25 Exporter small leather products T C Importer 30 30 Exporter 3 3 W Importer 112 180 47 339 Exporter 112 180 1 42 335 small leather products T C Importer Exporter 9 9 W Importer Exporter 3 3 Italy skins T W Importer 35 41 76 Exporter 2 36 38 small leather products T W Importer 19 34 21 74 Exporter 8 19 34 61 small leather products T W Importer 12 12 Exporter 30 30 Portugal small leather products T W Importer 6 9 4 19 Exporter 20 6 9 35 Spain small leather products T W Importer 18 9 27 Exporter 18 18 skins T W Importer Exporter 4 4 small leather products T C Importer 70 70 Exporter 70 3 73 W Importer 20 20 Exporter 1 70 59 130

11

Exporter Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Singapore France skins T C Importer 26 9 267 35 337 Exporter 35 267 35 337 W Importer 1385 1498 1770 1315 5968 Exporter 1416 1494 1661 1325 5896 Germany skins T W Importer 51 51 Exporter 91 91 Italy skins T C Importer 25 16 41 Exporter 25 16 41 W Importer 622 961 1583 Exporter 4 695 931 1630 United States Italy skins T R Importer 50 50 Exporter Importer 1411 1557 2037 2032 1094 8131 skins Exporter 68 1453 1498 1933 2116 1038 8106 Subtotals Importer 113 180 125 206 210 834 small leather products Exporter 133 190 7 192 303 825

Table 5. Main direct exports of Crocodylus novaeguineae and C. n. novaeguineae from Papua New Guinea to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Australia meat (kg) T W Importer 15000 15000 Exporter - C Importer 7500 21000 28500 Exporter skins P C Importer Exporter 2 2 T R Importer 1035 1035 Exporter W Importer 384 153 537 Exporter 1062 744 674 410 2890 - C Importer 76 76 Exporter R Importer 157 208 365 Exporter W Importer 495 218 713 Exporter specimens S W Importer 226 226 Exporter teeth P W Importer Exporter 103 106 209 T C Importer 79 79 Exporter Japan skins T C Importer 550 1289 247 37 2123 Exporter 6 4 10 R Importer 6 6 Exporter 1331 1331 W Importer 16825 12726 24015 15040 68606 Exporter 14798 17446 13858 23509 69611 Rep. of Korea skins T W Importer 223 223 Exporter Singapore skins T C Importer 1489 220 1709 Exporter

12

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total R Importer Exporter 128 128 W Importer 3692 600 4048 7698 4987 6834 27859 Exporter 3348 600 3949 5365 13262 South Africa skins T W Importer 44 44 Exporter Thailand skins T R Importer 220 220 Exporter United States skin pieces S W Importer 16 16 Exporter T W Importer 32 32 Exporter skins T C Importer 19 19 Exporter I Importer 19 19 Exporter small T W Importer 26 26 leather Exporter products Importer 7500 21000 15000 43500 meat Exporter Importer 16 32 48 skin pieces Exporter Importer 4727 18633 20274 32564 20478 6878 103554 skins Exporter 20668 18798 18482 29288 87236 Subtotals Importer 26 26 small leather products Exporter Importer 226 226 specimens Exporter Importer 79 79 teeth Exporter 1 103 106 210

13

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES

Crocodylus novaeguineae is found on the island of New Guinea (Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya) (Groombridge, 1987; WCMC, 1988; Luxmoore et al., 1988; King & Burke, 1989; Britton, 2002). It was reported that, despite heavy exploitation across the island, C. novaeguineae occurred in large numbers (Hollands, 1985). Luxmoore et al. (1988) considered that ―overall, populations of C. novaguineae appear to be widely depleted to some extent, severely depleted in places, but adequate densities are retained in parts of both Irian Jaya and Papua New Guinea‖. Groombridge (1987) reported that: ―intense exploitation for skins, which peaked in the 1960s, led to widespread depletion of populations, but adequate populations are known or thought to persist, mainly in remote and inaccessible lowland grass-swamps. Difficult terrain and secretive habits inhibit reliable estimations of population size or location, but may also hinder exploitation‖. C. novaeguineae was considered to remain ―widely distributed and abundant in the wild‖ (Ross, 1994). Crocodylus novaeguineae was assessed in 1996 when it was listed as 'Least Concern' on the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2007). Britton (2002) gave a population estimate of 50,000 to 100,000 individuals (over the whole of the species‘ range).

PAPUA NEW GUINEA: In Papua New Guinea, C. novaeguineae was reported to occur in areas of suitable freshwater habitat throughout the lowlands, north and south of the central highlands, extending from the border with Irian Jaya eastward to the vicinity of Robinson River near Abau (Central Province) (Whitaker et al., 1982; Luxmoore et al., 1988). It was reported to be absent from the island provinces of Papua New Guinea (Whitaker et al., 1982; Luxmoore et al., 1988), except perhaps Fergusson Island (Whitaker et al., 1982). Status: The largest populations in Papua New Guinea were reported to be present in the hinterland freshwater systems and overland freshwater swamps and lakes. Known strongholds of these habitats are in the localities within upper Sepik (May River/Green River areas) and upper Ramu systems of North Papua New Guinea and likewise the Bamu and Strickland systems in the south (Pernetta & Burgin, 1980). Large populations were reported to exist in the middle to upper reaches of some of the tributaries of the Sepik and Ramu wetland river systems (Kula & Solmu, 1996). Presence of the species was also confirmed in the Purari River area, although no reliable status information was collected from there (Pernetta & Burgin, 1980). As a result of over-hunting, by 1967 C. novaeguineae was threatened with extinction. By 1968, despite increased hunting, the yield of skins had dropped by half, and crocodile populations had been wiped out along the easily accessible river systems (NRC, 1983). The species‘s status at the time was considered to be ―rare and declining rapidly‖ (King & Brazaitis, 1971). Groombridge (1982) reported that ―good numbers remain in large tracts of inland grassy swamp, especially in more remote areas. The upper and middle Strickland River, with up to 2.23 crocodiles/km, primarily adults and subadults, may remain at historic population levels. Locally overhunted, with severe declines noted, for example, in Fly and Sepik River populations, and Lake Murray. There is some evidence for slight recovery of C. novaeguineae in Lake Murray and the Fly river, due in the former to Government releases (10 adults in 1980) and escapes from the Baboa crocodile station, and in the latter to reduced hunting pressure. Crocodile density is still (1978-1980) only 0.18 crocodiles/km on Lake Murray, and 1.8 and 0.35 on the lower and middle Fly. In Papua New Guinea a density of 2 or more crocodiles/km appears indicative of healthy crocodile populations. The maximum density observed during extensive day and night surveys (between October 1978-July 1980) of over 2,703 km of river and lakeshore in Papua New Guinea‘s Western and Southern Highlands Provinces was only 2.23 animals/km (on the middle Strickland). It is considered that crocodile hunting should be banned on rivers with a density index of under 0.5. A recent

14

survey of navigable portions of the Purari River revealed a low density of crocodiles, subject to substantial exploitation; hunters interviewed suggested that the population had declined in the last decade. However, significant numbers of C. novaeguineae may exist undetected in large areas of grass swamp connected by creeks to the main river‖. Groombridge (1982) also gave the following indication of the 1960s and 1970s exploitation levels of C. novaeguineae in Papua New Guinea: ―The volume of C. novaeguineae skins produced in the PNG trade has more than doubled between 1975 and 1979; it is not possible to state whether the breeding populations are becoming increasingly supportive of harvesting, or are simply being over-exploited. Nearly half the skins produced are from West Sepik and East Sepik Provinces, most of the remaining half are from Western Province; it is possible that this reflects the relative density of C. novaeguineae populations, or more likely, simply the areas of major exploitation‖. Population monitoring was first seriously pursued in 1980 (Hollands, 1987). As monitoring crocodile populations in Papua New Guinea by spotlight counts proved difficult and inefficient, aerial nest counts of the Sepik area were used as an index of population trend (Hollands, 1982; Cox, 1985; Hollands, 1987; Thorbjarnarson et al., 1992). Based on the initial aerial nest surveys, Hollands (1982) estimated a C. novaeguineae population in Papua New Guinea of between 80,000 and 100,000 crocodiles producing 138,000-178,000 eggs per year. However, Hollands (1987) indicated that results of the nest surveys were subject to a number of biases (e.g. percentage of females breeding each year), but that results obtained to date (1987) showed an increase. Hollands (1987) also reported that trade statistics indicated that the wild populations were recovering, and that the mean size of wild skins in trade between 1973 and 1984 showed a small but steady increase, rather than a decrease. It was also suggested that because of its preference for the heavily vegetated, remote swamps throughout the country, C. novaeguineae in Papua New Guinea would be almost impossible to exterminate, even if no controls existed (Hollands, 1985; Hollands, 1987). The results of the aerial C. novaeguineae nest counts during 1981-1996 appeared to be highly variable from year to year, ranging from totals of 71 to 110 nests for the 21 primary sites surveyed (Kula & Solmu, 1996). The maximum density of C. novaeguineae nests found in the Sepik study (30 active nests found in 1983 amongst 3.75 km2 of suitable habitat, or 5.3 nests/km2) occurred in the Pwimakyiyapa lagoons in East Sepik province (Cox, 1985). Despite an initial 38% increase in nesting between 1981-1983 (Cox, 1985; Groombridge, 1987), the overall nesting trend up to 1996 was a slight decline, although this trend was not statistically significant (Kula & Solmu, 1996). Kula & Solmu (1996) noted that C. novaeguineae nests in the dry seasons and so is susceptible to disturbances by human activities such as burning vegetation. Such disturbances may force females to nest in more secluded, forested areas, where they would be poorly represented in the survey. Kula & Solmu (1996) also considered that the status of the species was secure, as much of the inaccessible habitat held unsurveyed populations of crocodile. Hollands (1985) noted that great caution needed to be exercised when interpreting the data over a short period, as ―for instance, despite the 40% decrease in the nesting index for C. novaeguineae between 1983 and 1984, it is unlikely that the population of adult females (let alone the total population) dropped by this amount. It also indicates that initial enthusiasm for the ‗increase‘ between 1981 and 1983 was premature‖. Solmu (2004) noted that between 1988-2004, there was a trend, although not significant, towards a decreasing number of C. novaeguineae nests. An analysis in 2004 of the 1981-2004 aerial nesting surveys (Solmu, 2004) emphasised, however, that C. novaeguineae in Papua New Guinea was apparently increasing in numbers. The species‘ nesting effort was considered to be more representative of the whole nesting habitat in the region than of the breeding population as a whole, and it was deemed reasonable to assume that the species was increasing in numbers perhaps through the recruitment of younger females in to the breeding population (Solmu, 2004).

15

Solmu (2004) also argued that C. novaeguineae may be excluded completely from nesting areas if C. porosus nests counts continued to increase due to the highly territorial nature of the latter (Solmu, 2004). It was inferred from the survey results between 1981 and 2006 that wild populations of C. novaeguineae were viable in the Sepik, and by extension other areas of Papua New Guinea, and that the species‘ nesting trend was stable (Sine & Kula, 2006). Legislation: In response to the unfavourable status of this species, legislation was passed by the Papua New Guinea government in 1969 – the Crocodile Trade Ordinance (Bustard, 1970; Dowes, 1971; NRC, 1983; Hollands, 1987). ―The law did not ban crocodile hunting, but banned the possession, sale, and export of skins larger than 20 inches (51 cm) wide. In this way, it protected breeding-sized animals while allowing for the harvest of juveniles. It also allowed a person to kill a crocodile if attacked (but barred the selling of the skin, if it were oversized). In 1980, the legislation was supplemented by a law banning the export of small skins. Together, the bans on possessing large skins and exporting small skins have created a stimulus for gathering small crocodiles from the wild and rearing them to moderate size on farms‖ (NRC, 1983). Besides size restrictions, controls over licensing, buying, farming and exporting were also included in the legislation (Hollands, 1987; Luxmoore et al., 1988; Solmu, 2004). For the period 1969-1980, it was noted that: ―within little more than a decade the crocodile skin industry in PNG was transformed from a troubled, unregulated industry with a suspect future to one of a competently managed resource that continues to assure the economic livelihood of many rural people while maintaining healthy populations of both crocodile species [C. novaeguineae and C. porosus]‖ (Hall, 1990). Ranching: It has been argued that, since there is a very high mortality of hatchling crocodiles in the wild, a harvestable surplus exists that could be taken and reared to commercial size in captivity, without affecting the status of wild populations (Luxmoore et al., 1988). The size limit of 51 cm was, however, considered by some authors to be too high, since C. novaeguineae can reportedly start breeding at around 30-40 cm belly width (Cox, 1985; Hollands, 1985). Crocodile ranching officially started in Papua New Guinea in 1972, and in the late 1970s it was extensively supported by a UNDP/FAO assistance programme that provided personnel and funds for technical support and programme management (Kwapena & Bolton, 1982; NRC, 1983). Ten years later, it was reported that crocodile ranching had expanded remarkably in Papua New Guinea, becoming the main source of income for the people of some swamp and river areas (NRC, 1983). Groombridge (1987) considered the collection of young to stock rearing-farms as a threat to the survival of the species, and suggested that the effects of the ranching programme on the wild populations were unknown and may possibly be deleterious. Groombridge (1987) also noted, however, that the initial results from a monitoring scheme were encouraging, as they indicated a 38% increase in nesting on the Sepik region between 1981 and 1983. Britton (2002) later considered the programme successful and in a large part responsible for the recovery of the species, together with a subsequently set up monitoring programme. In 1988, a programme commenced to harvest C. novaeguineae eggs from nests in flood-prone or human-predation prone areas, to be taken to the Mainland Holdings hatchery (Thorbjarnarson et al., 1992; Cox & Solmu, 1996). However, only three C. novaeguineae egg harvests were conducted, between 1988-1989, with a total of 4236 eggs. It was suggested that this could have been due to the secluded character of C. novaeguineae nesting, and hence difficult detection of nests by hunters; the alleged seasonal availability of other wild eggs; or other factors (Cox & Solmu, 1996; Solmu, 2004). The C. novaeguineae egg harvest programme was later abandoned, due to investment and economic decisions (Solmu, 2004). It was suggested that a move towards egg collection of C. porosus only was the result of the higher value of skins of this species (Jenkins et al., 2004).

16

REFERENCES: Britton, A. 2002. Crocodilian species list. Florida Museum of Natural History & Crocodile Specialist Group, URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csl.html Accessed: 4-1-2008. Bustard, H. R. 1970. A future for Crocodiles. Oryx, 10: 249-258. Cox, J. 1985. Crocodile Nesting Ecology in Papua New Guinea. Field Document No. 5, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Rome. 96 pp. Cox, J. H. & Solmu, G. 1996. Crocodile egg harvests as an effective conservation tool: The Papua New Guinea experience 1985-1996. Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 13th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, , pp. 396-409. Dowes, M. C. 1971. Management of the crocodile industry in Papua and New Guinea. Proceedings of the 1st Working Meeting of Crocodile Specialists. Supplementary Paper No. 32. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland. 131-136. Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-Reptilia Red Data Book Part 1: Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 426 pp. Groombridge, B. 1987. The distribution and status of world crocodilians, in Webb, G. J. W., Manolis, S. C., & Whitehead, P. J., (eds.), Wildlife management: Crocodiles and Alligators. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd, Chipping Norton, Australia. 9-24. Hall, P. M. 1989. Variation in geographic isolates of the New Guinea Crocodile (Crocodylus novaeguineae Schmidt) compared with the similar, allopatric, Philippine Crocodile (C. mindorensis Schmidt). Copeia, 1989 (1): 71-80. Hall, P. M. 1990. Crocodile skin industry trade statistics for Papua New Guinea, 1969-1980. Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 9th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 268-286. Hollands, M. 1982. The status of crocodile populations in Papua New Guinea. Proceedings of the 6th working meeting of the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 1-23. Hollands, M. 1985. A review of crocodile management in Papua New Guinea - Aims, methods and effectiveness. Presented at the technical conference on crocodile management, Darwin. Department of Primary Industry. Papua New Guinea. Hollands, M. 1987. The management of crocodiles in Papua New Guinea. In Webb, G., Manolis, S., & Whitehead, P., (eds.), Wildlife management: crocodiles and alligators. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia. 73-89. IUCN. 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species., IUCN, URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Accessed: 8-1-2008. Jenkins, R. W. G., Jelden, D., Webb, G. J. W., & Manolis, S. C. 2004. Review of crocodile ranching programs. Conducted for CITES by the IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. Sanderson, Australia. King, F. W. & Brazaitis, P. 1971. Species identification of commercial crocodilian skins. Zoologica, 56 (2): 15-70. King, F. W. & Burke, R. L. 1989. Crocodilian, Tuatara, and Turtle Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Association of Systematics Collections, DC. 216 pp. Kula, V. V. & Solmu, G. C. 1996. Summary report on the status of Crocodylus porosus and Crocodylus novaeguineae in Papua New Guinea. Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 13th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 363-395. Kwapena, N. & Bolton, M. 1982. The national crocodile project in Papua New Guinea: A summary of policy and progress. Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 5th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group, Gainesville, Florida, USA, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 315-321. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B., & Broad, S. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: A review of selected species in CITES Appendix II, Vol. 2. Reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 306 pp. NRC 1983. Crocodile farming in Papua New Guinea, in Managing tropical animal resources: Crocodiles as a resource for the tropics. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 9-20. Pernetta, J. C. & Burgin, S. 1980. Census of Crocodile Populations and Their Exploitation in the Purari Area (with an Annotated Checklist of the Herpetofauna). Office of Environment and

17

Conservation, Central Govt. Offices, Waigani and Dept. of Minerals and Energy, Konedobu, Papua New Guinea. Ross, J. P. 1994. Conservation of crocodilians in Eastern Asia, Oceania and Australasia. Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 2nd Regional Meeting (Eastern Asia, Oceania, Australasia), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Sine, R. & Kula, V. 2006. Status of Crocodylus porosus and C. novaeguineae in Papua New Guinea after twenty-five years (1981-2006) of aerial nesting surveys. Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Solmu, G. C. 2004. Status of Crocodylus porosus and Crocodylus novaeguineae conservation and management in Papua New Guinea (1981-2004). Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 17th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 195-203. Thorbjarnarson, J. B., Messel, H., King, F. W., & Ross, P. 1992. Crocodiles: an action plan for their conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. UNEP-WCMC. 2007. Analysis of the European Community and Candidate Countries Annual Reports to CITES 2005. UNEP-WCMC. Cambridge, UK. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General E- Environment ENV E.4- Development and Environment pp 178. WCMC 1988. World Checklist of Threatened Amphibians and Reptiles. Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, Peterborough, UK. Wermuth, H. & Mertens, R. 1996. Schildkröte, Krokodile, Brückenechsen. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 506 pp. Whitaker, R., Whitaker, Z., & Mills, D. 1982. Reptiles of Papua New Guinea. Division of Wildlife, Dept. of Lands & Environment.

18

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

REPTILIA: VARANIDAE

SPECIES: Varanus niloticus

SYNONYMS: Lacerta capensis, Lacerta nilotica, Monitor elegans senegalensis, Monitor pulcher, Stellio saurus

COMMON NAMES: African Small-grain Lizard (English), Nile Monitor (English), Varan du Nil (French), Varano del Nilo (Spanish), nilvaran (Swedish)

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

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Chad, Mali, Sudan

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Chad (10 September 1998), Cameroon (25 October 2005) and United Republic of Tanzania (5 September 2002). Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Benin and Togo (first applied 20 December 2005) and a current Article 6(4) b suspension for ranched specimens first applied on 22 December 1997. Current Article 6(4) b suspension for wild specimens from Burundi and Mozambique (first applied on 22 December 1997). Previous Article 6(4)b suspensions for Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho, Mauritania, Rwanda, Swaziland, first applied on 22 December 1997, and subsequently removed on 24 September 2000. TRADE PATTERNS: Varanus niloticus was selected for this review on the basis of a high volume of trade in wild-sourced skins from Chad, Mali and Sudan into the European Community in 2005 (UNEP-WCMC, 2007). An overview of the CITES export quotas for V. niloticus quotas from Chad, Mali and Sudan between 1997 and 2008, and the corresponding reported trade levels, is presented in Table 6. It is apparent that levels of reported trade in V. niloticus from the three countries have been below the quotas established since 1997. Tables 7-9 summarise CITES trade data for this species from these three countries.

19

Table 6. CITES export quotas for Varanus niloticus from Chad, Mali and Sudan and associated global exports, reported by importer and exporter. All quotas refer to skins unless otherwise indicated. Trade data refer to wild-sourced skins.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Chad Quota 100,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 * ** Exports reported 36,051 23,488 37,300 48,799 64,043 42,888 79,841 67,740 41,042 by Imp. Exports reported 36,043 23,488 65,447 7,062 72,992 64,056 45,450 61,900 by Exp. Mali Quota 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 Exports reported 75,800 68,210 24,180 61,748 32,891 56,362 51,152 1,708 48,089 69,077 by Imp. Exports reported 103,350 50,070 41,180 58,248 68,481 80,323 29,180 89,679 by Exp. Sudan Quota 100,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 Exports reported 38,000 38,000 32,000 148,500 75,000 52,000 20,001 24,240 20,500 33,400 by Imp. Exports reported 54,756 64,331 100,017 77,206 54,000 46,903 28,641 by Exp. * Wild-taken specimens with a total width exceeding 20cm ** Skins of wild-taken specimens

Table 7. Direct exports of Varanus niloticus from Chad, Mali and Sudan to EU-27, 2001- 2006. Exp. Imp. Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Chad France bodies S W Importer Exporter 1 1 skins T W Importer 33043 21888 42289 42740 41042 181002 Exporter 41992 6853 13250 34900 96995 small leather products P W Importer Exporter 4 4 S W Importer Exporter 14 14 specimens S W Importer Exporter 100 300 5 405 Germany skins T W Importer Exporter 5000 5000 Spain skins T W Importer 7500 20000 27500 Exporter 7500 30000 37500 small leather Mali products - I Importer 193 193 Exporter skins T W Importer Exporter 20 20 small leather products - - Importer 20 4 24 Exporter France live S W Importer Exporter 2 2 skins T W Importer 26891 45559 50040 500 40559 68077 231626 Exporter 40471 68503 27080 81663 217717

20

Exp. Imp. Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total small leather products T W Importer 14.58 14.58 Exporter 150 150 Germany skins T W Importer 1000 2500 3500 Exporter 1000 2500 3500 Italy skins S W Importer Exporter 3 3 T W Importer 3000 1100 208 5020 1000 10328 Exporter 10 6000 1100 211 7321 large leather Spain products T W Importer 1 1 Exporter skins T W Importer 6000 7803 13803 Exporter 21000 5800 5305 32105 small leather products T W Importer Exporter 398 398 Sudan France skins T W Importer Exporter 400 400 800 large leather Germany products P W Importer 1 1 Exporter skins T W Importer 75000 40000 20000 20000 20000 31000 206000 Exporter 70000 20000 20000 110000 skins T W Importer Exporter 4 4 Italy skins T W Importer 12000 4240 500 2400 19140 Exporter 2200 4240 6440 Spain skins T W Importer Exporter 2 2 Chad skins Importer 40,543 41,888 42,289 42,740 41,042 208,502 Exporter 49,492 36,853 18,250 34,900 139,495 Sub- Mali skins Importer 32,891 56,362 51,140 1,708 48,079 69,077 259,257 totals Exporter 61,481 80,323 29,183 89,679 260,666 Sudan skins Importer 75,000 52,000 20,000 24,640 20,500 33,400 225,540 Exporter 72,206 20,400 24,640 117,246

Table 8. Main indirect exports of Varanus niloticus originating from Chad, Mali and Sudan to EU-27, 2001-2006. All wild-sourced unless otherwise indicated.

Origin Term Units Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Chad large leather products - Importer 51 3 10 19 2 3 88 Exporter 7 3 8 18 live - Importer 3 3 Exporter skin pieces - Importer 20 499 519 Exporter 10 20 30

2,032 (30 36,156 (30 skins - Importer 6,494 1,278 source C) 248 427 25,677 source C) Exporter 6,606 1,456 1,912 258 225 22 10,479 Mali large leather products pairs Importer 2 14 13 29 Exporter 1 1 - Importer 30 20 4 7 10 4 75

21

Origin Term Units Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Exporter 1 2 1 12 2 18 live - Importer 13 19 90 122 Exporter skin pieces kg Importer 2.4 2.4 Exporter 3.4 7.73 4.4 15.53 - Importer 358 148 506 Exporter 1,816 100 8 1,924 skins kg Importer Exporter 2.4 2.4 - Importer 16,197 199 558 580 814 13,669 32,017 Exporter 16,185 249 1,037 626 1,540 11 19,648 Sudan large leather products pairs Importer 6 6 Exporter - Importer 8 18 12 10 48 Exporter 1 28 24 53 skin pieces pairs Importer Exporter 371 371 - Importer 742 742 Exporter 6,357 21,392 27,749 skin/leather items pairs Importer Exporter 1 1 skins - Importer 75,170 11,496 19,700 11,175 10 13 117,564 Exporter 76,617 12,615 10,700 20,418 11 2 120,363 Subtotals (skins only): Chad skins Importer 6,494 1,278 2,032 248 427 25,677 36,156 Exporter 6,606 1,456 1,912 258 225 22 10,479 Mali skins Importer 16,197 199 220 55 814 13,669 31,154 Exporter 16,185 240 220 101 1,540 11 18,297 Sudan skins Importer 75,122 11,291 19,700 11,175 10 13 11,7311 Exporter 73,228 11,276 10,700 20,418 11 2 11,5635

Table 9. Direct exports of Varanus niloticus from Chad, Mali and Sudan to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. Exp. Importer Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Chad Argentina skins W Importer 1000 1000 Exporter Hong Kong skins W Importer Exporter 200 200 Japan skins W Importer 1500 1500 Exporter 1500 1500 small leather products W Importer 2 2 Exporter Malaysia skins W Importer 2 2 Exporter small leather products W Importer 4 4 Exporter Singapore skins W Importer 22000 37300 25000 84300 Exporter 22000 300 27000 27000 76300 Thailand skins W Importer

22

Exp. Importer Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Exporter 26863 26863 Tunisia skins W Importer Exporter 40 40 United States skins W Importer 250 250 Exporter small leather products W Importer 1 1 Exporter small leather Mali Japan products W Importer 27 27 Exporter Malaysia skins W Importer 12 12 Exporter Senegal skins W Importer Exporter 7000 7000 large leather United States products W Importer 2 2 Exporter live W Importer 30 30 Exporter shoes W Importer 22 22 Exporter skins W Importer 10 10 Exporter small leather products W Importer 4 4 Exporter Sudan Egypt skins W Importer Exporter 5000 54000 26500 4000 89500 small leather products W Importer Exporter 95 95 Malaysia skins W Importer 1 1 Exporter small leather products W Importer 3 3 Exporter Saudi Arabia skins W Importer Exporter 3 3 United Arab Em. skins W Importer Exporter 1 1 large leather United States products I Importer 2 2 Exporter

23

Exp. Importer Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Chad skins Importer 23,500 1,000 37,552 25,000 87,052 23,500 Exporter 23,500 27,203 27,200 27,000 10,4903 23,500 Mali live Importer 30 30 30 Exporter Subtotals ski ns Importer 12 10 22 Exporter 7,000 7,000 7,000 Sudan skins Importer 1 1 Exporter 5,000 54,000 26,503 4,001 89,504 5,000

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES: Varanus niloticus is considered to be widely distributed in sub-Saharan Africa (Welch, 1982; Luxmoore et al., 1988; Bayless, 2002), occurring from 18oN longitude to the most southern part of the continent, and extending along the River Nile up to Egypt (Pianka et al., 2004). The species was reported to be hunted for its skin, as a source of food for domestic consumption, and also for the pet trade (de Buffrenil, 2004; IEA, 2005). Luxmoore et al. (1988) reported that ―while the species as a whole is not threatened, exploitation appears to be a cause of local depletion. Field information on population status and trends is required to help assess the long-term sustainability of the present high trade levels‖. They added that V. niloticus is ―widely used, apparently throughout the continent, for food and skins. […] The skin trade poses a threat to some local populations‖ (Luxmoore et al., 1988). In a report to the European Commission, Istituto Ecologia Appplicata (IEA, 2005) stated that ―no evidence exists that the species as a whole is threatened, but the scale of exploitation in addition to local utilisation is thought likely to lead to local depletion. […] Management programs should be developed for the species and captive breeding should be considered to supply animals for the pet trade. Because of the sheer number of animals coming from these operations, their production should be thoroughly documented, and the effects on wild populations should be assessed and monitored‖. It has also been reported that ―in parts of Africa they [V. niloticus] are heavily exploited for their skins, which make a durable leather, and they may be under threat because of this; however, the proliferation of dams in parts of Africa has provided extra habitat for the species, and they thrive in such places‖ (Spawls, 2002).

CHAD: Occurrence reported in Chad (Bayless, 2002). Keith & Plowes (1997) reported that V. niloticus had been extensively hunted for the skin trade in Chad, and was seldom encountered. They considered the status of the species to be ―probably threatened (but insufficient information is available)‖. WCMC et al. (1993) reported that most quality skins traded in N'djamena come from the Lake Chad region. De Buffrenil (1991) found that V. niloticus was ‗very common‘ in all regions of Lake Chad visited. Hunting methods used were traditional, and only covered a fraction of the available habitat. De Buffrenil suggested that as long as these techniques are continued, and the number of groups of hunters (at the time of de Buffrenil‘s a minimum of 12 groups, consisting of 12-15 hunters, operating full-time for 5-6 months of the year) does not increase, then the population of Varanus will be able to withstand harvesting levels. De Buffrenil (1991) estimated actual production capacity as 75,000 skins per year for the whole of Chad: 35,000 for Lake Chad, 25,000 for Moyen Chari and Salamat, and 15,000 for other regions. De Buffrenil (2004) reported that ―in the Lake Chad region (in the territory of Chad), Nile monitor "fishing" is a semi-professional activity. From September to late December, when water stretches are swollen, the monitors are captured with large hooks baited with frog, fish or monitor meat. Such hooks are only efficient for catching sub-adults and adults of both sexes. Monitor skins and meat are sun-dried. The meat is directly sold at markets in Chad,

24

Cameroon and Nigeria by the "fishermen", whereas the skins enter a complex trade network, organized at several levels. Though massive, this hunting seems to have provoked no local extinction of the species up to now. However, the control of local authorities on the activity of hunters and fishermen in the bush, and on the illegal trade in skins across the borders, is very limited. Recent studies suggest that Nile monitor populations could have developed some degree of demographic accommodation allowing them to resist their heavy exploitation‖.

MALI: Occurrence reported in Mali (Bayless, 2002). Reported to occur in the Adrar Mountain Region in the north and at Bourem (Mertens, 1942; cited in Luxmoore et al., 1988). Also reported from the central delta of the Niger River (de Buffrenil & Rimblot-Baly, 1999). Reported from the localities of Bourem (16o57‘N, 0o21‘W) (Andersson, 1935; cited in Joger & Lambert, 1996) and Mourdiah (14o28‘N, 3o19‘W) (Lambert, 1993; cited in Joger & Lambert, 1996). It was indicated that the species was heavily exploited in Mali, where possibly as a result, it has a higher reproductive output and shorter longevity than those from the Lake Chad region (de Buffrenil & Rimblot-Baly, 1999; de Buffrenil et al., 1999; de Buffrenil & Hemery, 2002).

SUDAN: Occurrence reported in Sudan (Bayless, 2002). Reported to occur along the Nile in the provinces of Halfa, Dongola, Berber and Khartoum, and up the Blue Nile as far south as Roseires. It was not observed on the main White Nile, but was found on the Bahr el Gebel and the Bahr el Zeraf as far south as Lado (, 1933). The species was described as ―not uncommon‖ on the main Nile in the provinces of Halfa, Dongola, Berber and Khartoum, and ―really numerous‖ on the Blue Nile between Wad Medani and Roseires (Flower, 1933). Considered ―common‖ in the swamp and floodplain of the Nile river basin of Sudan (Springuel & Ali, 2005).

REFERENCES: Andersson, L. G. 1935. Reptiles and batrachians from the Central Sahara. Goteborgs Kunglich Vetenskaps och Vitterhets Samhalles Handlingar, 4: 3-19. Bayless, M. K. 2002. Monitor lizards: a pan-African check-list of their zoogeography (Sauria: Varanidae: Polydaedalus). Journal of Biogeography, 29 (12): 1643-1701. de Buffrenil, V. 1991. Etude des varans du nil (Varanus niloticus) de la Republique du Tchad. Mission report, CITES Secretariat, Geneve, Switzerland. de Buffrenil, V. 2004. Exploitation of African monitor lizards: the case of the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus) in Chad. Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, 129 (1/2): 75-89. de Buffrenil, V., Castanet, J., & Rimblot, F. 1999. Maturation genitale des varans du Nil males (Varanus niloticus) dans trois populations du Sahel. Revue Canadienne Zoologie, 77 (2): 222-232. de Buffrenil, V. & Hemery, G. 2002. Variation in longevity, growth, and morphology in exploited Nile Monitors (Varanus niloticus) from Sahelian Africa. Journal of Herpetology, 36 (3): 419-426. de Buffrenil, V. & Rimblot-Baly, F. 1999. Female reproductive output in exploited Nile Monitor Lizard (Varanus niloticus L.) populations in Sahelian Africa. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77: 1530-1539. Flower, S. S. 1933. Notes on the recent reptiles and amphibians of Egypt, with a list of the species recorded from that Kingdom. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1933: 735-851. IEA 2005. A study of species which are subject to import restrictions according to the article 4.6 of Regulation 338/97. Istituto Ecologia Applicata, Rome, Italy. Joger, U. & Lambert, M. R. K. 1996. Analysis of the herpetofauna of the Republic of Mali, I. Annotated inventory, with description of a new Uromastyx (Sauria: Agamidae). Journal of African Zoology, 110 (1): 21-51.

25

Keith, J. O. & Plowes, D. C. H. 1997. Considerations of wildlife resources and land use in Chad. Technical Paper No. 45. Office of Sustainable Development, Bureau for Africa, US Agency for International Development. Lambert, M. R. K. 1993. On growth, sexual dimorphism, and the general ecology of the African spurred tortoise, Geochelone sulcata in Mali. Chelonian Conservation Biology, 1 (1): 37-46. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B., & Broad, S. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: A review of selected species in CITES Appendix II, Vol. 2. Reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 306 pp. Mertens, R. 1942. Die Familie der Warane (Varanidae). Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 466: 235-391. Pianka, E. R., King, D. R., & King, R. A. 2004. Varanoid Lizards of the World. University Press, Bloomington, USA. 588 pp. Spawls, S. 2002. A field guide to the reptiles of East Africa. Academic Press, . 543 pp. Springuel, l. & Ali, 0. 2005. The River Nile basin, in Fraser, L. H. & Keddy, P. A., (eds.), The World's Largest Wetlands: Ecology and Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 347-392. UNEP-WCMC 2007. Analysis of the European Community and Candidate Countries Annual Reports to CITES 2005. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General E- Environment ENV E.4- Development and Environment pp 178. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. WCMC, IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group and TRAFFIC International. 1993. Significant Trade in Wildlife: a review of select animal species in CITES Appendix II. Draft report to the CITES Animals Committee, June 1993. Welch, K. R. G. 1982. Herpetology of Africa: a checklist and bibliography of the orders Amphisbaenia, Sauria, and Serpentes. RE Krieger Pub. Co., Malabar, Florida.

FURTHER READING: De Buffrenil. 1992. La pêche et l'exploitation du varan du Nil (Varanus n. niloticus) dans la région du lac Tchad = Capture and utilization of the Nile monitor (Varanus n. niloticus) in the Lake Chad region. Bulletin de la Société herpétologique de France 62, pp. 47-56

26

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

REPTILIA: COLUBRIDAE

SPECIES: Ptyas mucosus

SYNONYMS: Coluber mucosus

COMMON NAMES: Indisk rottesnog (Danish), Oosterse rattenslang (Dutch), Common Rat Snake (English), Dhaman (English), Oriental Rat Snake (English), Elaphe de I'Inde (French), Grand serpent ratier de I'Indie (French), Serpent ratier (French), Serpent ratier indien (French), Serpent ratier oriental (French), Rattennatter (German), Rattenschlange (German), Dhaman (Italian), Serpente dei natti indiano (Italian), Serpenti dei ratti (Italian), Culebra ratera oriental (Spanish), orientalisk råttsnok (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, China, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Thailand

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: A positive opinion was formed for all countries on 22 July 1997. Current positive opinion for China formed on 31 August 2001 and applied from 29 October 2001. Previous Article 6(4) b suspension for China, first applied on 19 September 1999 and removed on 29 October 2001. Previous Article 6(4) b suspension for Indonesia, first applied on 19 September 1999, for wild specimens except: (i) specimens from the marked and registered stockpiles of 102,285 skins that were acquired before 30 September 1993 provided that the CITES secretariat has confirmed the validity of the Indonesian export permit. Previously Indonesia had a positive opinion formed on 22 April 1999.

TRADE PATTERNS: Ptyas mucosus was selected for this review on the basis of a high volume of trade in live and wild sourced skins into the European Community in 2005 (UNEP-WCMC, 2007). In contrast, the Analysis of the 2004 Annual Report to CITES identified an overall decrease in EC-reported imports of wild-sourced skins of Ptyas mucosus over the period 1995- 2004. EC imports in 1998, an anomalously high year compared with subsequent years, were over 580,000 skins. However, the level of trade in 2005 was 25% higher than the 1999-2004 average.

27

Table 10 summarises CITES trade data for P. mucosus. No direct exports of this species have been reported from Thailand to any country since 1996. However, relatively high re-exports with origin Thailand have been reported to the European Community since 1997. All EC-imports in 2005 involved wild-sourced skins (total of 117,320 skins), imported mostly from Singapore (92%) and Hong Kong (7%) with origin Thailand (85%) and Indonesia (15%). Also in 2005, Singapore reported the export to the United Kingdom of 54,000 wild-sourced skins of unknown origin, and the United Kingdom reported this trade (but as source ―O‖) in 2006. ―Very substantial‖ trade in Ptyas mucosus was reported to have taken place over the period 1984-89, and in 1990 it was ―apparently the most abundant reptile species in trade‖ (Jenkins & Broad, 1994). No export quotas for Thailand for this species have been published on the CITES website.

Table 10. Indirect exports of Ptyas mucosus skins to the EU 27 originating in Thailand, 2001-2006. Source W, purpose T.

Importer Exporter Reported by 2002 2004 2005 2006 Total

Germany Singapore Importer 16282 36283 98210 7000 157775 Exporter 16282 48857 89560 10000 164699 Italy Canada Importer Exporter 12 12 China Importer 932 932 Exporter Hong Kong Importer 840 15 855 Exporter United States Importer 645 645 Exporter 645 645 Spain Singapore Importer 3000 3000 Exporter 3000 3000 Importer 19282 37215 99695 7015 163207 Total Exporter 19282 48857 90205 10012 168356

CONSERVATION STATUS in RANGE STATES: Reported to be widely distributed in sub-Himalayan Asia, from Iran to Taiwan, Province of China and to Java (Cox, 1998). The conservation status of Ptyas mucosus has not yet been assessed in the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2007). A study in central Java suggested that Ptyas mucosus did well in disturbed habitats and that, due to its high reproductive levels, it could support a significant commercial offtake (Boeadi et al., 1998).

THAILAND: Occurence reported in Thailand (Taylor, 1965; Reitinger & Lee, 1978; WCMC, 1988; Welch, 1988; Cox, 1998; Nabhitabhata & Chan-ard, 2005). Ptyas mucosus was reported to occur in all provinces in Thailand (from agricultural areas to hill forests), and was listed as ‗Least Concern‘ in the country‘s Red Data Book (Nabhitabhata & Chan-ard, 2005). Ptyas mucosus was listed as a protected species in 1994 under the Wild Animal Reservation and Protection Act 1992. Under this Act, protected species are not allowed to be exploited by any means. However, the law has a provision for stock clearing within 3 years after taking effect.

28

A number of media sources (e.g. Ho Binh Minh, 2008; Bell, 2008) reported that on 17th January 2008 the authorities of Viet Nam seized over one ton of ratsnakes (Ptyas mucosus) found in more than 60 boxes aboard a Vietnam Airlines flight from Bangkok. This was reported to be the second time in about a month that such snakes were found in air cargo to Viet Nam. The previous month the airport authorities also seized 1,550 pounds of snakes on board a Thai Airways flight to Hanoi. No further information on the status of the species in Thailand was identified. REFERENCES: Bell, T. 2008. Ton of live snakes found on plane in Vietnam. Telegraph 18 January 2008 , URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/18/wsnake118 .xml Accessed: 30-1-2008. Boeadi, S., Shine, J., Sugardijto, M., Amir, M., & Sinaga, M. H. 1998. Biology of the commercially harvested Rat Snake (Ptyas mucosus) and Cobra (Naja sputatrix) in Central Java. Mertensiella: Conservation, trade and sustainable use of lizards and snakes in Indonesia, 9: 99-104. Cox, M. J. 1998. A Photographic Guide to Snakes and Other Reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland, London, UK. 144 pp. Ho Binh Minh 2008. More snakes on a plane. Reuters. 18 January 2008. URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1832217420080118 Accessed: 30-1-2008. IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 08-1-2008. Jenkins, M. & Broad, S. 1994. International trade in reptile skins: a review and analysis of the main consumer markets, 1983-1991. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK. Nabhitabhata, J. & Chan-ard, T. 2005. Thailand Red Data: Mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Bangkok, Thailand. 234 pp. Reitinger, F. F. & Lee, J. K. S. 1978. Common snakes of South East Asia and Hong Kong. Heinemann, Hong Kong. Taylor, E. H. 1965. The serpents of Thailand and adjacent waters. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 45 (9): 609-1096. UNEP-WCMC 2007. Analysis of the European Community and Candidate Countries Annual Reports to CITES 2005. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General E- Environment ENV E.4- Development and Environment pp 178. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. WCMC 1988. World checklist of threatened amphibians and reptiles. Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, Peterborough, UK. Welch, K. R. G. 1988. Snakes of the Orient: a checklist. RE Krieger Pub. Co., Malabar, Florida. 183 pp.

29

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

ACTINOPTERYGII: POLYODONTIDAE

SPECIES: Polyodon spathula

SYNONYMS: Squalus spathula

COMMON NAMES: Skestør (Danish), Lepelsteur (Dutch), American paddlefish (English), Duckbill Cat (English), Mississippi Paddlefish (English), Paddlefish (English), Spadefish (English), Spoonbill Cat (English), Spoonbill Catfish (English), Lapasampi (Finnish), Poisson spatule (French), Löffelstör (German), Paddelfisch (German), Pesce spatola (Italian), Skjestør (Norwegian), Wioslonos amerykanski (Polish), Peixe- espátula (Portuguese), Veslonos (Russian), Pez espátula (Spanish), Sollo (Spanish), mississippiskedstör (Swedish), Skedstör (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Canada (ex), United States of America

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: United States of America

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for the United States, formed on 18th July 2001. Previously there was a negative opinion for the United States formed on 4th August 2000.

TRADE PATTERNS: The American paddlefish Polyodon spathula was selected for review following a high volume of trade and a sharp increase in trade in meat and eggs into the European Community in 2005. Tables 12-13 summarise CITES trade data for this species between 2000 and 2006. Trade involved wild and captive bred specimens, the latter included items reported as both source ‗C‘ and ‗F‘. The trade in 2005 was the highest level recorded for this species into the EC over the period 1997-2006. Trade into the EC of wild-sourced eggs has increased, rising from 43kg in 2000 to 3,574kg in 2006. Additionally, the EC reported the import of 8,350kg wild-sourced meat in 2005 increasing to 10,374kg in 2006. All EC-imports of wild source Polyodon spathula originated in the United States of America. Germany and Belgium accounted for 44.9% and 39.6% respectively of EC imports of wild sourced eggs. Furthermore Germany accounted for the import of 100% of wild source meat. Other notable EC importers of eggs were France importing 908kg in 2006 and Spain importing 481kg over three years (2002-2004). Over the period 2000-2006, trade in captive-bred P. spathula products consisted of eggs, live eggs and live specimens. No EC imports were reported between 2001 and 2003. In 2004, the import of 15,000 ‗live‘ captive bred specimens was reported followed by the import in 2005 of 141,000 ‗egg (live)‘.As with the trade in wild-sourced American paddlefish, all EC imports of captive-bred Polyodon spathula originated in the United States of America.

30

Caviar is the primary reason for national and international economic interest in paddlefish (Raymakers & Hoover, 2002; Raymakers, 2006). The rise in exports of paddlefish in the last 10 years has been linked to trade bans for caviar from sturgeon species in the Caspian Sea region (Birstein et al., 1998; Billard & Lecointre, 2001; Henley et al., 2001; Raymakers, 2002). The wholesale prices for paddlefish roe in Tennessee increased from around US$110/kg in 2004–2005 to US$143-187/kg during the 2005–2006 season. In some localities in Tennessee during the 2006–2007 season, fishers received more than US$200/kg for paddlefish roe (Bettoli et al., 2007). In 2004, paddlefish roe prices on the internet were found to be between US$381-1340/kg (Pikitch et al., 2005). An internet search conducted by C. White, (UNEP- WCMC) of the same companies surveyed in Pikitch et al. (2005) found that prices were between US$563- $1,234.45/kg in January 2008. The market value of the reported paddlefish harvest from the River was US$1.2 million in 1999 and US$4.3 million in 2000 (Henley et al., 2001).

Table 11. CITES export quotas for Polyodon spathula from the United States (CITES Notif. No. 2001/041) Year Quota Notes 2001 250 kg caviar; captive-bred (Note: not subject to Decision 11.58) 3000 kg meat; captive-bred (Note: not subject to Decision 11.58) 7700 kg caviar; wild-taken (Note: not subject to Decision 11.58) 500 kg meat; wild-taken (Note: not subject to Decision 11.58) 2000000 fertilized live eggs from aquaculture

Table 12. Direct exports of Polyodon spathula from the United States of America to EU-27, 2000-2006. [No indirect trade reported] Reported Importer Term Units Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total by Belgium egg (live) - F Importer 20000 20000 Exporter 100 100 eggs kg W Importer 590 1017 395 192 1476 3671 Exporter 10 1018 395 192 1477 3092 live - F Importer 100 100 Exporter egg (live) - C Importer Exporter 20000 20000 eggs - F Importer Exporter 10000 10000 egg (live) - C Importer Exporter 50000 50000 F Importer 50000 50000 Exporter Denmark eggs kg W Importer 0 29 29 Exporter 14 45 5 55 119 France eggs kg W Importer 908 908 Exporter 7 26 907 940 Germany eggs kg W Importer 43 5 349 373 2195 1190 4155 Exporter 2 5 348 373 620 1191 2539 - F Importer 25000 25000 Exporter 25000 25000 W Importer Exporter 46 46 live - F Importer 15000 15000 Exporter 15000 15000 meat kg W Importer 8350 10374 18724

31

Reported Importer Term Units Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total by Exporter 8351 10375 18726 Greece eggs kg W Importer Exporter 10 22 10 77 119 Italy eggs kg W Importer 20 20 Exporter 64 56 24 83 227 Latvia meat kg W Importer Exporter 75 75 Netherlands eggs kg W Importer Exporter 14 22 36 egg (live) - F Importer 71000 71000 Exporter 71000 20000 91000 live - F Importer 20000 20000 Exporter Portugal eggs kg W Importer Exporter 14 14 eggs kg W Importer 0 0 Exporter 0 0 - F Importer Exporter 50000 50000 Spain eggs kg I Importer 10 10 Exporter W Importer 31 150 300 481 Exporter 24 44 10 450 143 671 eggs kg W Importer Exporter 22 22 United Kingdom eggs kg W Importer Exporter 5 5 egg (live) - C Importer Exporter 70000 70000 F Importer 141000 141000 Exporter 71000 20100 91100 eggs kg I Importer 10 10 Exporter W Importer 43 0 676 1516 1068 2387 3574 9265 Subtotals Exporter 2 120 170 1410 1263 986 3834 7784 - F Importer 25000 25000 Exporter 85000 85000 W Importer Exporter 46 46 live - F Importer 15000 20100 35100 Exporter 15000 15000 meat kg W Importer 8350 10374 18724 Exporter 75 8351 10375 18801

Table 13. Direct exports of Polyodon spathula from the United States of America to countries other than EU-27, 2000-2006. Reported Importer Term Units Source by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Barbados eggs kg W Importer Exporter 44 41 85 Canada eggs kg W Importer 62 20 82 Exporter 63 47 20 130 Chile eggs kg W Importer

32

Reported Importer Term Units Source by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Exporter 19 19 38 China egg(live) - C Importer 124500 300000 350000 774500 Exporter 235000 235000 F Importer 300000 300000 600000 Exporter 300000 600000 820000 475000 928000 3123000 eggs kg C Importer 10 10 Exporter - C Importer 400000 175000 575000 Exporter F Importer 200000 735000 1200000 2135000 Exporter 156500 524500 681000 Costa Rica eggs kg W Importer Exporter 5 5 Fr. Polynesia eggs kg W Importer Exporter 55 29 22 11 117 Hong Kong egg(live) - F Importer 875000 875000 Exporter 200000 250000 1085000 756000 408000 2699000 eggs kg W Importer Exporter 9 9 - F Importer 756000 408000 1164000 Exporter Israel eggs - F Importer Exporter 10000 10000 Japan eggs kg I Importer Exporter 0 0 0 W Importer 1088 1084 1835 3078 3010 2630 12727 Exporter 2886 1698 988 3253 3030 2995 4503 19352 - W Importer Exporter 280 280 meat kg W Importer 15 366 381 Exporter Russian Fed. meat kg W Importer Exporter 21 21 Singapore eggs kg W Importer 0 0 Exporter 57 20 14 101 192 South Africa eggs kg W Importer Exporter 10 19 5 34 Switzerland eggs kg W Importer Exporter 110 110 egg Taiwan, P.O.C (live) - F Importer Exporter 100000 75000 60000 50000 285000 eggs - F Importer Exporter 4000 4000 Trinidad/Tobago eggs kg W Importer Exporter 143 143 Turkey eggs kg W Importer Exporter 29 29 meat kg W Importer Exporter 60 60 United Arab Em. eggs kg W Importer Exporter 15 15 Uruguay eggs kg I Importer

33

Reported Importer Term Units Source by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Exporter 0 0 W Importer Exporter 115 953 12 18 33 1131 egg(live) - C Importer 124500 300000 350000 774500 Exporter 235000 235000 F Importer 300000 300000 875000 1475000 Exporter 600000 925000 1905000 1291000 1386000 6107000 eggs kg C Importer 10 10 Exporter I Importer Exporter 0 0 0 W Importer 1151 1084 1835 3078 3030 2631 12810 Subtotals Exporter 3064 1827 2004 3425 3138 3174 4758 21390 - C Importer 400000 175000 575000 Exporter F Importer 200000 1491000 1608000 3299000 Exporter 170500 524500 695000 W Importer Exporter 280 280 meat kg W Importer 15 366 381 Exporter 60 21 81

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES Polyodon spathula is one of two living paddlefish species and is now restricted to the United States as a native species (Speer, 2000). There have been no Canadian records since the early 1900s (Parker, 1988) and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (Government of Canada, 2008) classified the species as extirpated in 2001. The Paddlefish has been introduced to various other countries including the Russian Federation, Romania and as part of polyculture systems (Billard & Lecointre, 2001). The species is restricted to freshwater and is potamodrous (migrates within a river/lake system) and many records from tagged individuals demonstrate migrations of around 500km (Billard & Lecointre, 2001; Henley et al., 2001; Zigler et al., 2003). The species was considered to have a relatively high level of intrinsic vulnerability to fishing mortality, with an index of 59.30 (the index values ranging from 1 to 100, with 100 being the most vulnerable) based on their biological characteristics (slow-growing, long-lived and late maturing) (FishBase, 2005; Cheung et al., 2005; Cheung et al., 2007). Males reach maturity at 6- 8 years of age and females at 9-10 years (Billard & Lecointre, 2001; FishBase, 2005). The status of Polyodon spathula was last evaluated by the IUCN in 2004 when it was listed on the IUCN Red List as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2007).

UNITED STATES: The species has a widespread distribution in rivers in the eastern and central U.S., although it is less widely distributed than it was historically. The historical range included 26–27 States in the United States (Graham, 1997) whereas its current range includes the following 22 States: , Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, , West Virginia and Wisconsin (Pikitch et al., 2005). It was recorded as regionally extinct from New York, and and possibly extinct in and (Pikitch et al., 2005). In North Carolina it was listed as ‗Endangered‘ and ‗Extinct‘ (Pikitch et al., 2005). Status: Populations were described as faring well in some areas, but apparently declining or of unknown trend in much of the range (Graham, 1997). In 1994, the population was reported to be stable in Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,

34

Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota and wild populations were considered to be increasing in Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin, whilst they were declining in Illinois and North Dakota (Graham, 1997). The paddlefish was reported to be a protected species in Idaho and Texas, and to be in decline in 10 other States (Billard & Lecointre, 2001). It was considered ‗threatened‘ in Michigan, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin. In Tennessee, it was considered to be of ‗Special concern‘ and it was listed as ‗Endangered‘ in Virginia (Pikitch et al., 2005). In 1995, the species was removed from the list of species under conservation concern in North Dakota (USFWS, 1995). In January 1989, the American Fisheries Society classified the species as being of Special Concern (NatureServe, 2007). At that time there were discussions of whether the species should be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (Bemis et al., 1997). In particular, the lack of basic information on population size and structure, growth rate, and fisheries harvest was highlighted, and while fisheries biologists from some States indicated that paddlefish were declining, in other areas they were reportedly expanding and occupying habitat from which they had been extirpated (Speer, 2000). This led to it being listed as a category 2 species (recognising insufficient data). An investigation by the US Fisheries and Wildlife Services concluded in 1992 that the listing of paddlefish as Threatened was not warranted (Mims, 2001). However, since then several management initiatives have been established. In 1995, the Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association (MICRA) launched a basin-wide, multi-year, coded wire tagging paddlefish to help address issues of paddlefish population size and large-scale movements. All 22 States in which the paddlefish is present are involved in the MICRA Paddlefish/Sturgeon Sub-committee and since 1995, these States have coded-wire tagged over 6,395 adult wild paddlefish to assess their abundance and migration patterns in the Mississippi River basin (NatureServe, 2007). It seems these studies will be on-going until at least 2010 (Henley et al., 2001). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists in the Columbia Fisheries Office are managing the database for this project. In 2002, over 1.5 million hatchery-reared juveniles and 18,000 wild adult paddlefish had been tagged and released to enhance stocks throughout the Mississippi River basin and in several large rivers in Texas (NatureServe, 2007; Columbia FRO, 2007). Tagging results from the MICRA paddlefish project and harvest reports from States with sport and commercial fisheries between 1995-2000 indicated that range-wide paddlefish populations exceeded 10,000 mature individuals with a large area of occupancy and could sustain harvests. It was also noted that ―substantial subpopulation mixing may occur due to large-scale movements of adult paddlefish‖ (IUCN, 2007) The State of Missouri has undertaken a ten-year research programme to gather and analyze data regarding status, demographics, and fisheries impacts for Acipenseriform species (Thomas, 2002). Research and cooperation was also said to be continuing in, and between, the States of North Dakota and Montana in the northernmost limits of the paddlefish‘s range (Thomas, 2002). Restocking programmes had been started in Louisiana, Kansas, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and West Virginia (TRAFFIC International et al., 2000). By 2004, assessments in Kentucky Lake in Tennessee had concluded that ―the population was experiencing growth overfishing (i.e., the average size of harvested fish was less than the size that would maximize yield-per-recruit), and severe recruitment overfishing (i.e., the adult stock is overfished to the point that it does not have the reproductive capacity to replenish itself) would occur whenever weather conditions (i.e., dry winters) allowed heavy fishing activity‖ (Scholten & Bettoli, 2005). Furthermore, researchers found that for every mature (i.e., egg-laden) female paddlefish that was harvested, about 12 immature females and male paddlefish were captured by gill nets and that paddlefish by-catch (i.e., males and juvenile females; regulatory discards) suffered high rates of mortality at warm water temperatures (≥ 15°C) at the end of the fishing season (Bettoli & Scholten, 2006; Scholten & Bettoli, 2007). The Status and Strategic Plan for the Ohio Sub-basin also found indications of recruitment

35

overfishing, with ―few older fish observed in the population‖ and an ―annual mortality of between 47-68% during 1995-2001‖ (Henley et al., 2001), indicative of a population exposed to extensive harvest. Threats: The species was considered to be threatened due to three main factors: over- harvesting, habitat loss and pollution (Stone, 2007). In 1992, the USFWS evaluated the threats posed by competition, predation, diseases and parasites and found that these were not limiting factors for stocks. Although dams, habitat, and water quality concerns still occurred in several locations, the majority of formerly occupied habitats were considered to still be available to this species (IUCN, 2007). However, it has been reported that the reason for the species decline is a loss of spawning grounds and rearing habitat (Billard & Lecointre, 2001). Dams also prevent the natural migratory spawning behaviour of American paddlefish (Jerome & Fink, 2004). Paddlefish populations dramatically declined due to over-fishing after the turn of the last century (Pikitch et al., 2005). Concern for paddlefish stocks has recently increased and some authors have suggested that this is linked to the collapse of many sturgeon stocks in the world, resulting in an increased demand for paddlefish eggs for the caviar trade (Speer, 2000; Henley et al., 2001; Jerome & Fink, 2004). The Strategic Plan for the Ohio River Sub-basin considered ‗exploitation, legal and illegal, as a serious threat to paddlefish‘ to the area (Henley et al., 2001). By-catch has also been highlighted as a more recent threat and a contribution to over-exploitation (Bettoli & Scholten, 2006). Summary of past CITES and SRG Action: The species was first reviewed by UNEP-WCMC for SRG 3 in 1997. In 2000, the TRAFFIC Network recommended to the CITES Animals Committee that Polyodon spathula be included in the Review of Significant Trade process under category 2 (insuffcient enough information available from the range State to conclude whether the Convention was being implemented correctly and if trade was non-detrimental to the species) (CITES Secretariat, 2001). The species was included in the Review of Significant Trade process by the Animals Committee in 2000 (CITES Secretariat, 2001). At the 16th Animals Committee, the working group on the Review of Significant Trade concluded that this was a category 2 species i.e. it is not clear whether or not the provisions of Article IV of the Convention are being implemented. Further review of the species at that time was not apparently undertaken. The Scientific Review Group formed a negative opinion (through postal procedure) for Polyodon spathula from the US on the 4th of August 2000, confirmed on the 22nd August, 2000. Following SRG 18 on the 7th of November 2000, the European Commission proposed the negative opinion be re-considered on the 24th of November 2000 but the SRG maintained a negative opinion at SRG 19 on the 12th December 2000. At SRG 19 (26th of March 2001), the lack of clarification of the status of Polyodon spathula in the US was highlighted. It was reported that ―except for two States, Montana and North Dakota, real field data was still missing and questions remained‖. Illegal Trade: A survey of 209 State sturgeon biologists and fishery managers in 1997 revealed that paddlefish poaching was of concern in 13 of the 18 States that responded (Hesse & Carreiro, 1997; cited in Jennings & Zigler, 2000). Poaching was reported in Tennessee, Nebraska and Louisiana, and suspected cases were reported in Iowa and Kansas (TRAFFIC International et al., 2000). A letter from the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, to the USFWS, dated 16 August 2000, reported that ―law enforcement intelligence suggests that P. spathula are being illegally caught by commercial fishermen for their roe (caviar). Poaching is an ongoing problem, consisting not of isolated infrequent occurrences, but rather being organised and secretive operations‖ (TRAFFIC International et al., 2000). In 2002, 3,500 kg of illegally obtained paddlefish roe were seized, revealing a ‗flourishing trade in paddlefish caviar‘. This resulted in prosecution of three Tennessee wholesalers for violations of the Lacey Act (Bettoli et al., 2007).

36

Management: Paddlefish populations are managed by individual States or by interstate commissions. With a few exceptions, commercial fisheries for paddlefish species were considered not to be managed and monitored according to appropriate scientific standards (Speer, 2000). A report by TRAFFIC in 2000 stated that ―even where effective regulations are in place, State officials are concerned that increasing prices for American caviar may entice poachers to illegally harvest and sell caviar from American species‖ (Speer, 2000). In 1997, seven States (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee) allowed commercial fishing for paddlefish, though annual harvest was not systematically monitored (Graham, 1997). By 2000, six States allowed commercial fishing (Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee) (TRAFFIC International et al., 2000; Thomas, 2002). IUCN (2007) reported that authorities believed the harvest was well managed and sustainable in these States although there were reports of individual subpopulations that had been overexploited. An internet search carried out in January 2008 of the relevant State management agencies found that only four States still allow commercial fishing of paddlefish: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In 2000 the following eight States allowed sport fishing: Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Dakota (TRAFFIC International et al., 2000). In January 2008, a survey of Federal State websites for fisheries management (a directory of the State websites surveyed can be found on http://wwwaux.cerc.cr.usgs.gov/MICRA/) was undertaken by UNEP-WCMC, and found that: - At least fourteen States allowed recreational fishing: Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas?, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. Regulations in place in 2007/2008 included a combination of seasonal restrictions, size limits as well as catch limits ranging from 1-8 per day and fishing methods (snagging and archery). - The State of Montana introduced a total harvest quota of 500 fish for 2008. - Regulations varied greatly per State and some had specific regulations to local areas within their State. For example, regarding recreational fishing, in Indiana it is illegal to take Paddlefish from any waters, whereas in Kentucky there is a statewide limit of 2 paddlefish for either gigging or snagging, except in the Lake Barkley tailwater (Cumberland River) and in the Kentucky Lake tailwater (Tennessee River), where up to 8 paddlefish may be taken daily. - In Kentucky, a harvester permit is required for licensed commercial fishermen to harvest roe fish or its roe. The commercial fishing season for paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) extends from November 1 through April 24. Commercial fishermen can only harvest Paddlefish that are 32 inches or greater, as measured from the beginning of the eye to the fork of the tail fin. All harvested roe in Kentucky can be sold only to licensed commercial roe dealer permittees. - In Tennessee, Polyodon spathula may be taken and sold commercially, except from Cherokee Reservoir, where taking and possession of paddlefish by commercial fishing methods is prohibited. Commercial fishers who intend to fish for commercial roe fish must obtain a Commercial Fishing License and a Commercial Roe Fish Permit prior to harvesting any part of a paddlefish from Tennessee waters. Paddlefish harvested from Tennessee waters must be marketed to a licensed wholesale fish dealer. The open season for paddlefish is November 15 to April 7 (Statewide) and November 15 to April 15 (Mississippi River). Paddlefish harvested from the Mississippi River must be 34 inches or larger from the eye to the fork of the tail to be legal for harvest. Minimum eye to fork length limits for all other Tennessee waters vary by season between 36 and 38 inches.

37

- In 2008, eleven States did not permit commercial or recreational harvest of paddlefish (Alabama, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin). A Framework for the Management and Conservation of Paddlefish and Sturgeon Species in the United States was prepared by the National Paddlefish and Sturgeon Steering Committee in 1992 and proposed a framework for the conservation of fish species including the paddlefish (National Paddlefish and Sturgeon Steering Committee, 1992). Commerical fishing for paddlefish in the Tennessee River was largely unregulated through the 1990s (Bettoli et al., 2007). According to Bettoli et al. (2007), working in fisheries management of Tennessee ―the paddlefish fishery entered the 2006-2007 season with more regulations than ever before and a promise from the regulatory commission that stricter regulations will be imposed in the future if necessary‖. However, they noted that the ―new Tennessee regulations, coupled with rising prices for paddlefish roe, may be contributing to increased commercial fishing activity on the Ohio River, particularly by Tennessee residents (Bettoli et al., 2007) and concluded that ―biologists throughout the Mississippi River basin should continue to work together to monitor their respective paddlefish fisheries, and the DMA should continue to scrutinize requests for export permits for paddlefish roe, especially if unambiguous signs of overfishing exist‖. In the Ohio Sub-Basin (Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois), the total combined commercial harvest of flesh and eggs was greater in 2000 than in 1999: flesh harvest increased from 63,827 kg in 1999 to 159,109 kg in 2000, and egg harvest increased from 2,733 kg 1999 to 10,071 kg in 2000 (Henley et al., 2001). REFERENCES: Bemis, W. E., Birstein, V. J., & Waldman, J. R. 1997. Sturgeon biodiversity and conservation: an introduction. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48 (1): 13-14. Bettoli, P. W. & Scholten, G. D. 2006. Bycatch rates and initial mortality of paddlefish in a commercial gillnet fishery. Fisheries Research, 77 (3): 343-347. Bettoli, P. W., Scholten, G. D., & Reeves, W. C. 2007. Protecting paddlefish from overfishing: a case history of the research and regulatory process. Fisheries, 32 (8): 390-399. Billard, R. & Lecointre, G. 2001. Biology and conservation of sturgeon and paddlefish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 10 (4): 355-392. Birstein, V. J., Doukakis, P., Sorkin, B., & DeSalle, R. 1998. Population aggregation analysis of three caviar-producing species of sturgeons and implications for the species identification of black caviar. Conservation Biology, 12 (4): 766-775. Cheung, W. W. L., Pitcher, T. J., & Pauly, D. 2005. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic extinction vulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biological Conservation, 124: 97-111. Cheung, W. W. L., Watson, R., Morato, T., Pitcher, T. J., & Pauly, D. 2007. Intrinsic vulnerability in the global fish catch. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 333: 1-12. CITES Secretariat. 2001. Proceedings of the Sixteenth meeting of the Animals Committee. Shepherdstown (USA), 11-15 December 2000. AC16. Columbia FRO. 2007. Columbia Fishery Resources Office - Accomplishment report. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Columbia FRO. URL: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ColumbiaFisheries/Reports/ARS%20CMFRO%20Ja nuary%2007.pdf Accessed 11-2-2008. FishBase. 2005. Polyodon spathula. Wikipedia, URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyodon_spathula Accessed: 14-1-2008. Government of Canada. 2008. Species at risk act public registry: Paddlefish URL: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=63 Accessed: 14-2- 2008. Graham, K. 1997. Contemporary status of the North American paddlefish, Polyodon spathula. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48 (1): 279-289.

38

Henley, D., Frankland, L., Hale, S., O'Bara, C., & Stefanavage, T. 2001. Paddlefish in the Ohio river sub-basin: current status and strategic plan for management. Ohio River Fisheries ManagementTeam. Columbus, Ohio. Hesse, L. W. & Carreiro, J. R. 1997. The status of paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, lake sturgeon, and shovelnose sturgeon. River Ecosystems Inc. Report prepared for MICRA. 63 pp. IUCN. 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, IUCN. URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 8-1-2008. Jennings, C. A. & Zigler, S. J. 2000. Ecology and biology of paddlefish in : historical perspectives, management approaches, and research priorities. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 10 (2): 167-181. Jerome, J. and Fink, W. 2004. Polyodon spathula, Animal Diversity, URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Polyodon_spa thula.html.Ac Accessed: 30-1-2008. Mims, S. D. 2001. Aquaculture of paddlefish in the United States. Aquatic Living Resources, 14 (6): 391-398. National Paddlefish and Sturgeon Steering Committee. 1992. Framework for the management of conservation of paddlefish and sturgeon species in the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington,D.C. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: 30-1- 2008. Parker, B. J. 1988. Status of the paddlefish, Polyodon spathula, in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist, 102 (2): 291-295. Pikitch, E. K., Doukakis, P., Lauck, L., Chakrabarty, P., & Erickson, D. L. 2005. Status, trends and management of sturgeon and paddlefish fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 6 (3): 233- 265. Raymakers, C. 2002. International trade in sturgeon and paddlefish species- the effect of CITES listing. International Review of Hydrobiology, 87 (5): 525-537. Raymakers, C. 2006. CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: its role in the conservation of Acipenseriformes. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 22 (1): 53-65. Raymakers, C. & Hoover, C. 2002. Acipenseriformes: CITES implementation from range States to consumer countries. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 18 (4-6): 629-638. Scholten, G. D. & Bettoli, P. W. 2005. Population characteristics and assessment of overfishing for an exploited paddlefish population in the Lower Tennessee River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134 (5): 1285-1298. Scholten, G. D. & Bettoli, P. W. 2007. Lack of size selectivity for paddlefish captured in hobbled gillnets. Fisheries Research, 83 (2-3): 355-359. Speer, L. 2000. Roe to ruin: the decline of sturgeon in the Caspian Sea and the road to recovery. Natural Resources Defense Council. Stone, R. 2007. The last of the leviathans. Science, 316 (5832): 1684. Thomas, P. O. 2002. Response from the Management Authority of the United States of America (to the CITES Secretariat) to the Notification to the Parties No. 2001/85 on Sturgeon conservation. Eighteenth meeting of the Animals Committee. San José (Costa Rica), 8- 12 April 2002. AC18 Inf.3. TRAFFIC International, IUCN, & UNEP-WCMC. 2000. Significant Trade Review: Acipenseriformes. Implementation of Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.). Sixteenth Meeting of the CITES Animals Committee. Shepherdstown (USA), 11-15 December 2000. Doc.AC.16.7.2. USFWS. 1995. North Dakota's federally listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species - 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bismarck. 42 pp. Zigler, S. J., Dewey, M. R., Knights, B. C., Runstrom, A. L., & Steingraeber, M. T. 2003. Movement and habitat use by radio-tagged paddlefish in the upper Mississippi River and tributaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23 (1): 189-205.

39

40

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

AMARYLLIDACEAE

SPECIES:

SYNONYMS: Chianthemum elwesii, Chianthemum graecum, Galanthus bulgaricus, Galanthus caucasicus hiemalis, Galanthus elwesii akmanii, Galanthus elwesii baytopii, Galanthus elwesii globosus, Galanthus elwesii maximus, Galanthus elwesii melihae, Galanthus elwesii monostictus, Galanthus elwesii platyphyllus, Galanthus elwesii robustus, Galanthus elwesii tuebitaki, Galanthus elwesii wagenitzii, Galanthus elwesii whittallii, Galanthus elwesii whittallii, Galanthus elwesii whittallii, Galanthus elwesii yayintaschii, Galanthus globosus, Galanthus globosus, Galanthus gracilis baytopii, Galanthus graecus, Galanthus graecus maximus, Galanthus graecus maximus, Galanthus maximus, Galanthus melihae, elwesii, Galanthus nivalis graecus, Galanthus nivalis maximus

COMMON NAMES: Giant snowdrop

RANGE STATES: Bulgaria, Greece, Moldova, Netherlands (int), Romania, , Turkey, Ukraine

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Turkey

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current ‗no opinion‘ formed on the 2nd of September 1997 for Turkey. Current positive opinion for all other countries formed on the 2nd of September 1997.

TRADE PATTERNS: Galanthus elwesii was selected for this review on the basis of a high volume of trade in live, wild sourced specimens into the European Community in 2005 (UNEP-WCMC, 2007). As in 2004, EC-reported imports of G. elwesii in 2005 comprised the import by the Netherlands of 5.3 million wild-sourced from Turkey (UNEP-WCMC, 2007). Tables 15-16 summarise CITES trade data for this species. Export quotas have been published on the CITES website since 1999 (Table 14) and do not appear to have been exceeded. Galanthus elwesii was reported to be one of the most exported ornamental plants from Turkey (BaSer, 2000). Galanthus species have also been harvested for the extraction of bioactive alkaloids (Galanthamine) since 1950s for their medicinal properties (Sener et al., 1998).

41

Table 14. CITES quotas for Galanthus elwesii from Turkey Year Quota Notes 2008 6,100,100 bulbs 2007 6,100,100 bulbs 2006 6,100,100 bulbs 2005 6,100,100 bulbs 2004 6,000,100 bulbs 2003 6,000,000 bulbs 2002 6,000,000 bulbs 2001 6,000,000 bulbs 2000 5,800,000 bulbs 1999 5,800,000 live

Table 15. Direct exports of Galanthus elwesii from Turkey to EU-27, 2001-2006. Purpose T and term live unless otherwise specified. [No indirect trade reported] Reported Importer Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total by Denmark A Importer 50,000 50,000 Exporter W Importer Exporter 50,000 50,000 Netherlands A Importer 264,770 198,000 230,000 240,000 100,000 1,032,770 Exporter 488,100 100,000 200,000 240,000 200,000 1,228,100 W Importer 4,323,900 5,871,530 5,536,860 5,605,000 5,290,000 5,240,000 31,867,290 Exporter 5,251,900 5,542,720 5,545,000 5,134,600 5,560,000 5,600,000 32,634,220 40,000 42,365 150,000 7,000 160,000 399,365 United Kingdom A Importer Exporter 150,000 150,000 52,860 160,000 157,640 670,500 Importer 304,770 42,365 348,000 237,000 450,000 100,000 1,482,135 A Exporter 638,100 100,000 350,000 52,860 400,000 357,640 1,898,600 Subtotals Importer 4,323,900 5,871,530 5,536,860 5,605,000 5,290,000 5,240,000 31,867,290 W Exporter 5,251,900 5,542,720 5,545,000 5,134,600 5,610,000 5,600,000 32,684,220

Table 16. Direct exports of Galanthus elwesii from Turkey to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Switzerland live T W Importer 90,000 90,000 Exporter 110,000 105,000 105,000 95,000 90,000 505,000 - A Importer 5,000 5,000 Exporter W Importer 110,000 105,000 18,600 233,600 Exporter Importer 5000 5,000 A Exporter Subtotals Importer 110,000 105,000 0 18,600 90,000 0 323,600 W Exporter 110,000 105,000 105,000 95,000 90,000 0 505,000

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES Galanthus elwesii grows in woods, scrub and rocky pastures (Tutin et al., 1980). The conservation status of G. elwesii has not yet been assessed in the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2007). In 1997, its status was considered to be ‗Indeterminate‘ in the Red List of Threatened plants (Walter & Gillett, 1997).

TURKEY: Relatively broad distribution, mainly in north-west and western Turkey as well as the south-western and southern Anatolian regions of Turkey (Brickell, 1984; McGough et al.,

42

1993). Several reports of this species in the Taurus mountain range where it was considered to be common (Bishop et al., 2001; Mustard & Yüzbasioglu, 2005). The supporting statement to the proposal to include Galanthus spp. in CITES Appendix II in 1989 stated that ―Populations of Galanthus species in most European countries are believed to have declined substantially in recent years as a result of habitat loss, and the 10 species and subspecies in Turkey are known to be decreasing more rapidly still as a result not only of habitat loss but the pressure of collection to supply the accelerating horticultural demand [...] Galanthus elwesii probably still numbers in hundreds of millions, but as well as the decline in Turkey, it is considered endangered in the north-eastern portion of its range in the U.S.S.R.‖ (CITES Secretariat, 1989). Although some of the more accessible areas of the Taurus mountains had been affected by over-collection in the past, Bimmerman (2000) concluded that there was ―no evidence that the levels of collection and export of Galanthus elwesii had a harmful effect on the conservation of the species concerned or the territory occupied by the populations‖ (Bimmerman, 2000). However, the ―thriving trade in wild-collected bulbs‖ such as Galanthus elwesii was reported to be continuing ―in many of Turkey‘s protected areas‖ (pers. comm. from Mike Read in Carey et al., 2000). Other sources stated that ―in general the species is not under threat from , so commercial collection remains its biggest single cause of threat‖ (Euro+Med PlantBase, 2008). In 2004, Galanthus elwesii was considered for review but, not selected as part of the ‗Significant trade in plants‘ at the 14th Meeting of the Plants Committee, as the exporting country ―appears to have good management controls in place for this species‖(UNEP- WCMC, 2003). Mustard & Yüzbasiog¡lu (2005) shared the view that the trade in Galanthus was sustainable and well regulated. Summary of past SRG action: Discussions by the SRG regarding this species first took place in 1997. On the 28th of July, Galanthus elwesii was ―to be reconsidered following submission of information on new taxonomy and application of new IUCN criteria to be sent to WCMC by the UK.‖ On the 8th of September 1997, a ‗no opinion‘ was formed for Turkey at the 2nd Meeting of the SRG. The species was reviewed by WCMC for SRG 3 (WCMC, 1997). Following several missions (1992 and 1999) by the SRG to review the Bulb trade in Turkey, a positive opinion was confirmed in July 2000 at SRG 17 for Galanthus elwesii. Management: Following their trip in 1999, Bimmerman (2000) reported that some improvements in management had been noted and that the quota system in place could even be regarded as exemplary in sustainable trade. Bimmerman (2000) reported that all four exporters were working on propagation of Galanthus; however, it seemed to be a typical characteristic that Galanthus elwesii was not easy to propagate. Despite quotas established for artificially propagated Galanthus elwesi in the order of 300,000-500,000 bulbs per year, this report stated that ―none of the exporters are very enthusiastic about growing Galanthus from seeds‖ and further noted that no seeds had been sown the previous year. More commonly each exporter had its own fields to grow the wild- transplanted stocks for another few years until they reach export size. Bimmerman (2000) stated: ―The sustainable exploitation of bulbs under the present quota system in Turkey appears to be much better for nature conservation than merely artificial propagation, because there is now a direct relation with the situation in the wild. In this way the wild populations are better monitored and are probably protected better than without sustainable wild exploitation.‖ In Turkey, wild geophytes are subject to collection controls and restricted by export quota under national legislation, including wild transplanted geophytes grown in cultivation under supervision of the Ministry (Bimmerman, 2000). The national quota is fixed each year by the Scientific Authority for Plants which is then divided by the Technical Committee between the four traders who export the bulbs and tubers (Anon, 1999). Quotas are divided, based on a points system by which exporters gain points based on quality of housing facilities,

43

production equipment, number of personnel, marketing and membership of trade and professional organisations (Bimmerman, 2000). The traders consult with the members of the Scientific Authority in their area as to how to divide their quota between the different collecting areas and how to set the quota per area. The area quota is then given to the head collectors, who divide this quota between the different collectors. The whole system is regulated and controlled and monitored at every level (Anon, 1999). REFERENCES: Anon. 1999. Significant Trade - Bulb trade from Turkey. Draft. Ninth Meeting of the Plants Committee. Darwin (Australia), 7-11 June 1999. Doc.PC9-item 9.1.7.a. BaSer, K. H. C. 2000. Current knowledge on the wild food and non-food plants of Turkey. CIHEAM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies). Bimmerman, A. J. 2000. Conservation and cultivation of some geophytes in Turkey and Georgia. Report of the third fact-finding mission to Turkey. Prepared for the EC Working Group of the CITES Scientific Authority. 69 pp. Bishop, M., Davis, A. P., & Grimshaw, J. 2001. Snowdrops. The Griffin Press, UK. 363 pp. Brickell, C. D. 1984. Galanthus, in Davis, P. H., (ed.), Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK. 367-372. Carey, C., Dudley, N., & Stolton, S. 2000. Squandering paradise? The importance and vulnerability of the world's protected areas. WWF. Gland, Switzerland. CITES Secretariat. 1989. Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention – Other proposals. Seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Lausanne (Switzerland), 9 to 20 October 1989. Euro+Med PlantBase. 2008. Galanthus elwesii, Euro+Med PlantBase, URL: http://europlant.org/ Accessed: 30-1-2008. IUCN. 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, IUCN, URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 8-1-2008. McGough, H. N., Cowley, E. J., Moller, D., Kluge, R., & Wijnands, D. O. 1993. The conservation and cultivation of geophytes in Turkey. Report of the second European Community fact finding mission to Turkey. 49 pp. Mustard, M. & Yüzbasioglu, S. 2005. Turkish delights, Kew Spring 2005: 26-27. Sener, B., Koyuncu, M., Bingol, F., & Muhtar, F. 1998. Production of bioactive alkaloids from Turkish geophytes. IUPAC. URL: http://marz- kreations.com/WildPlants/AMRY/Docs/NRCTZ/BioactiveAlkaloids.pdf. Accessed: 30-1-2008. Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Moore, D.M., Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M. & Webb, D.A. Flora Europaea. Volume 5: Alismataceae to Orchidaceae (Monocotyledones). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UNEP-WCMC. 2003. Review of Significant Trade - Analysis of trade trends with notes on the conservation status of selected species. Volume 1: Plants. Prepared for the CITES Plants Committee, CITES Secretariat by the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre. PC14 Doc.9.3. UNEP-WCMC. 2007. Analysis of the European Community and Candidate Countries Annual Reports to CITES 2005. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General E- Environment ENV E.4- Development and Environment. Cambridge, UK. 178 pp. Walter, K. S. & Gillett, H. J. 1997. IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants. Compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 412 pp. WCMC. 1997. Review of Annex B Species. Part 2. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Cambridge, UK.

44

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

AMARYLLIDACEAE

SPECIES: Galanthus woronowii

SYNONYMS: Galanthus ikariae, Galanthus ikariae latifolius, Galanthus latifolius

COMMON NAMES:

RANGE STATES: Georgia, Russian Federation, Turkey

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Georgia, Turkey

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: A positive opinion, formed on 23rd June 1999, is currently in place for Turkey and Georgia. Previously a ‗no opinion‘ had been formed for these countries on 2nd September 1997.

TRADE PATTERNS: Galanthus woronowii was selected for this review on the basis of a high volume of trade, mostly in live, wild sourced specimens into the European Community in 2005 (UNEP-WCMC, 2007). Tables 19-22 summarise CITES trade data for this species. EC-reported imports of Galanthus woronowii from Georgia and Turkey from 2001-2006 comprised live specimens (bulbs). The Netherlands was the primary EC importer of the species from both Georgia and Turkey, although Denmark and, to a lesser extent, Germany and the United Kingdom also reported imports. The majority of G. woronowii imported into EU-27 from Georgia during 2001-2006 was traded via Turkey. An overview of the CITES export quotas for G. woronowii from Turkey and Georgia between 1999 and 2008 is presented in Table 17. Levels of reported direct trade in G. woronowii from the two countries have been below the quotas established. Galanthus elwesii was reported to be one of the most exported ornamental plants from Turkey (BaSer, 2000). Galanthus species have also been harvested for the extraction of bioactive alkaloids (Galanthamine) since 1950s for their medicinal properties (Sener et al., 1998).

45

Table 17. CITES Export quotas for Galanthus woronowii from Georgia and Turkey and associated global exports, reported by importer and exporter. All quotas refer to bulbs. Trade data refer to term ‘live’ from all sources. 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Georgia Quota 10,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,00* 15,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 Exports reported by Imp. 5,000,030 2,000,132 2,000,000 2,007,575 2,000,000 - - Exports reported by Exp. 10,000,000 10,000,042 15,000,150 12,000,285 18,000,000 18,000,000 13,000,000 - - Turkey Quota 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,100 2,000,100 2,000,100 2,000,100 2,000,100 Exports reported by Imp. 1,356,200 1,763,850 2,000,000 1,983,000 1,975,700 1,879,750 1,832,300 - Exports reported by Exp. 15,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,879,750 2,000,000 - *ranched.

Table 18. Direct exports of Galanthus woronowii from Georgia to EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live specimens. Reported Importer Purpose Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total by Germany S W Importer 32 32 Exporter 32 32 Netherlands T R Importer 2,000,000 2,000,000 Exporter 2,000,000 2,000,000 W Importer 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,000 Exporter 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 11,000,00 UK S W Importer 0 Exporter 85 85 Importer 2,000,000 2,000,000 R Exporter 2,000,000 2,000,000 Subtotals Importer 32 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,032 W Exporter 32 2,000,085 2,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 11,000,11 7 Table 19. Indirect exports of Galanthus woronowii originating in Georgia to EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was purpose T. Reported Exporter Importer Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total by Turkey Netherlands R Importer 5,998,500 5,998,500 Exporter 10,000,000 10,000,000 W Importer 10,000,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 8,100,000 64,100,000 Exporter 1,000,000 10,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 16,000,000 13,000,000 70,000,000

Table 20. Direct exports of Galanthus woronowii from Georgia to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. Reported Importer Term Purp. Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total by Turkey live T R Importer Exporter 13,000,000 13,000,000 W Importer Exporter 10,000,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 13,000,000 55,000,000 United States live S W Importer Exporter 118 200 318 S W Importer 100 100 Exporter seeds G A Importer (g) Exporter 10 10

46

Reported Importer Term Purp. Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total by Switzerland live - A Importer 1,800 1,800 Exporter W Importer 5,775 5,775 Exporter Importer 100 0 0 5,775 0 5,875 W Exporter 118 10,000,200 16,000,000 0 16,000,000 13,000,000 42,000,318 Importer 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotals R Exporter 13,000,000 0 0 0 0 13,000,000 Importer 0 0 0 1,800 0 1,800 A Exporter 10 0 0 0 0 10

Table 21. Direct exports of Galanthus woronowii from Turkey to EU-27, 2001-2006. All trade was in live specimens. [No indirect trade reported] Importer Purpose Source Reported 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total by Netherlands T A Importer 2,300 2,300 Exporter 69,050 69,050 W Importer 1,670,550 1,910,000 1,908,000 1,900,000 1,739,250 1,757,300 10,885,100 Exporter 1,914,950 1,910,000 1,908,000 1,900,000 1,739,250 1,925,000 11,297,200 Denmark T A Importer 75,000 75,000 75,000 225,000 Exporter W Importer 75,000 75,000 Exporter 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000 - A Importer 75,000 75,000 150,000 Exporter Importer 2,300 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 377,300 A Exporter 69,050 0 0 0 0 0 69,050 Subtotals Importer 1,745,550 1,910,000 1,908,000 1,900,000 1,739,250 1,857,300 11,060,100 W Exporter 1,914,950 1,985,000 1,983,000 1,975,000 1,814,250 2,000,000 11,672,200

Table 22. Direct exports of Galanthus woronowii from Turkey to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. No trade was reported for 2006. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Switzerland live T A Importer 65,500 65,500 Exporter W Importer Exporter 16,000 15,000 17,000 25,000 65,500 138,500 - W Importer 16,000 15,000 700 31,700 Exporter

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES The species can be found in dense deciduous woodlands, in damp crevices among rocks (Brickell, 1984). G. woronowii was reported to occur in the Transcaucasus and north-eastern Turkey (Davis, 2002). It “mainly occurs in the Pontus Mountains in north-eastern Turkey, and in the western Caucasus (eastern Georgia and southern Russia), around the eastern part of the Black Sea coast. It is found less frequently in the central Caucasus (Georgia), and only rarely in the northern Caucasus (Russia). The largest and most extensive populations probably occur in Georgia, in the provinces of Adzhariya (near Batumi) and Abkhazia, and in southern Russia in the vicinity of the Black Sea resort town of Sochi‖ (Bishop et al., 2001). The conservation status of Galanthus elwesii has not yet been assessed in the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2007).

47

GEORGIA: Occurrence reported in Georgia (Davis et al., 1999; FFI, 1999) where it is found in forests, shrubwoods and lower mountain belt of the country (MBG, 2003). It was considered to be ‗Vulnerable‘ in Georgia by the Missouri Botanical Garden (MBG, 2003). Harvesting of Galanthus woronowii was reported to only take place in south-west Georgia in the Ajara Autonomous Republic and Guria region (FFI, 1999; Association Green Alternative, 2002). Collection of Galanthus bulbs is carried out in already cultivated areas, mainly cornfields and plantations of citrus and tea (FFI, 1999). Since 1995, some companies have started setting land aside for the specific and sole cultivation of these plants. The system of production, cultivation and harvesting of bulbs is specific to Georgia and does not strictly fall under the defined CITES permit source codes of W, R or A (Association Green Alternative, 2002). At the 11th Plants Committee Meeting in September 2001, the authorities of Georgia and the CITES Secretariat discussed the issue and it was agreed that the bulbs currently harvested from agricultural fields were to be regarded as being of wild origin" (CITES Secretariat, 2002; UNEP-WCMC, 2004). The annual establishment of an export quota requires field expeditions to local cultivated areas; however, due to the lack of financing of the CITES Scientific Authority, few experts carry out these assessments (Association Green Alternative, 2002). Recent CITES discussion: In the regional report for presented to the 17th Plants Committee in April 2008 (Anon, 2008), the following information for Georgia was noted:

“CITES projects in the region The project "Improving the implementation of CITES for Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum from Georgia" has been elaborated. Specific objectives of this project are as follows: a) to assess the current state of the populations of Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum (= C. vernum) in Georgia; b) to develop cost-effective methods of species monitoring and quota establishment; c) to prepare the rules and regulations on artificial propagation operations in accordance with CITES. The project is planned to be implemented by June 2008.‖

Significant trade Snowdrop (Galanthus woronowii) and Cyclamen (Cyclamen coum) are among the species most exported annually from Georgia for commercial purposes. In 2004-2006, export quotas for Galanthus woronowii were 18 million bulbs per year. In 2007 it was reduced to 15 million. 100,000 Cyclamen tubers were exported annually, until 2007.

The following actions have been carried out in order to improve implementation of CITES for Galanthus woronowii and fulfill recommendations of CITES secretariat (letter of the Secretary- General of 18 August 2006) regarding trade in Galanthus: 1) amendments have been made to the legislation on harvesting of Galanthus woronowii; 2) The project "Improving the implementation of CITES for Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum from Georgia", has been elaborated and financed by the Government of the Netherlands.

Work to be done until the next Plants Committee meeting Georgia: Inventory and assessment of the standing stock of Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum. Establishment of conservative export quota in consultation with the CITES Secretariat and Plants Committee for Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum.

Developing a monitoring system to assess the trends of Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum populations. Developing guidelines on how to propagate artificially Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum, according to CITES. All above mentioned activities will be carried out within the project "Improving implementation of CITES for Galanthus woronowii and Cyclamen coum from Georgia".‖

48

Summary of past SRG action: A mission report by the SRG in 1999 concerning the conservation and trade of geophytes in Turkey and Georgia found that ―the situation in Georgia is completely different from the situation in Turkey‖ (Bimmerman, 2000). The report stated that the Management Authority of Georgia declared that all Galanthus woronowii were collected from farm fields and the edges of farm fields. Collecting bulbs from natural wild plant communities is strictly prohibited by Georgian federal law (Association Green Alternative, 2002). However, the experts on the trip expressed the following opinion: ―This can certainly be true for a large part of the harvest, because we have seen many hectares of farm fields with Galanthus. But this could not be true for 100%, because the species -Galanthus woronowii-, which we saw in a freshly collected sample was apparently collected from the wild‖ (Anon, 1999a).

TURKEY: Occurrence reported in north-east Anatolian region (Brickell, 1984; Davis et al., 1999) and in particular it is found in the Pontus Mountains (Bishop et al., 2001). The national Red List status in Turkey for this species is ‗Vulnerable‘ (Ekim et al., 2000). In Turkey, wild geophytes, including wild transplanted geophytes grown in cultivation under supervision of the Ministry, are subject to collection controls and restricted by export quota under national legislation (Bimmerman, 2000). The national quota is fixed each year by the Scientific Authority for Plants which is then divided by the Technical Committee between the 4 traders who export the bulbs and tubers (Anon, 1999b). Quotas are divided, based on a points system by which exporters gain points based on quality of housing facilities, production equipment, number of personnel, marketing and membership of trade and professional organisations (Bimmerman, 2000). The traders consult with the members of the Scientific Authority in their area as to how to divide their quota between the different collecting areas and how to set the quota per area. The area quota is then given to the head collectors, who divide this quota between the different collectors. The whole system is regulated and controlled and monitored at every level (Anon, 1999b). Mustard & Yüzbasioglu (2005) also shared the view that the trade in Galanthus is sustainable and well regulated. Summary of past SRG action: Several missions to Turkey have been carried out by EU scientists to assess the trade in bulbous plants; the first trip took place in 1988 and was followed by trips in 1992 and 1999 (Bimmerman, 2000). The species was reviewed by WCMC for SRG 3 and a suspension of imports from Turkey was considered (WCMC, 1997). It was decided at that meeting to form a ‗no opinion‘. Following several missions (1992 and 1999) by the SRG to review the bulb trade in Turkey, a positive opinion was established for the species at the 13th Meeting of the SRG on the 30th of June 1999. The 1999 SRG Mission Report stated: ―The sustainable exploitation of bulbs under the present quota system in Turkey appears to be much better for nature conservation than merely artificial propagation, because there is now a direct relation with the situation in the wild. In this way the wild populations are better monitored and are probably protected better than without sustainable wild exploitation‖ (Bimmerman, 2000). During the 1999 trip, it was reported that since Turkey had become Party to CITES in 1996, some improvements in management had been noted and that the quota system in place could even be regarded as exemplary in sustainable plant trade (Bimmerman, 2000). REFERENCES: Anon. 1999a. Significant Trade - Bulb trade from Georgia. Ninth Meeting of the Plants Committee. Darwin (Australia), 7-11 June 1999. Doc.PC9-item 9.1.7.b. Anon. 1999b. Significant Trade - Bulb trade from Turkey. Draft. Ninth Meeting of the Plants Committee. Darwin (Australia), 7-11 June 1999. Doc.PC9-item 9.1.7.a. Anon. 2008. Regional report for Europe. Seventeenth meeting of the Plants Committee Geneva (Switzerland), 15-19 April 2008. PC17 Doc.54 (Rev.1) Association Green Alternative 2002. Wildlife trade in Georgia. Tbillisi, Georgia. BaSer, K. H. C. 2000. Current knowledge on the wild food and non-food plants of Turkey. CIHEAM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies).

49

Bimmerman, A. J. 2000. Conservation and cultivation of some geophytes in Turkey and Georgia. Report of the third fact-finding mission to Turkey. Prepared for the EC Working Group of the CITES Scientific Authority. 69 pp. Bishop, M., Davis, A. P., & Grimshaw, J. 2001. Snowdrops. The Griffin Press, UK. 363 pp. Brickell, C. D. 1984. Galanthus. In Davis, P. H., (ed.), Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK. 367-372. Davis, A. P. 2002. Galanthus L., in Taxonomic revisions for Euro+Med Plantbase. Unpublished manuscript. 102 pp. Davis, A. P., McGough, H. N., Mathew, B., & Grey-Wilson, C. 1999. CITES bulb checklist. For the genera Cyclamen, Galanthus and Stembergia. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London. 87 pp. Ekim, T., Koyuncu, M., Vural, M., Duman, H., Aytaç, Z., & Digüzel, N. 2000. Türkiye Bitkileri Kirmizi Kitabi (Egrelti ve Tohumlu Bitkiler) [Red Data Book of Turkish Plants (Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta)]. Türkiye Tabiatini Koruma Dernergi (Turkish Association for the Conservation of Nature) edn. Ankara. 246 pp. FFI 1999. CITES Significant Trade in Appendix II Species (Plants): Review of Trade in Galanthus and Cyclamen in Turkey and Georgia (DRAFT). 1-55. IUCN. 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, IUCN, URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 8-1-2008. MBG. 2003. Rare, endangered and vulnerable plants of the Republic of Georgia, Missouri Botanical Garden, URL: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/georgia/ afamily.shtml#Amaryllidaceae Accessed: 9-1-2008. Mustard & Yüzbasioglu. 2005. Turkish delights. Kew magazine, spring 2005. 26-27. Sener, B., Koyuncu, M., Bingol, F., & Muhtar, F. 1998. Production of bioactive alkaloids from Turkish geophytes. IUPAC. URL: http://marz-kreations.com/WildPlants/AMRY/ Docs/NRCTZ/BioactiveAlkaloids.pdf. Accessed: 30-1-2008. UNEP-WCMC. 2004. Significant trade in plants. Selection of new species. Fourteenth meeting of the Plants Committee. PC14 Doc.9.3. UNEP-WCMC. 2007. Analysis of the European Community and Candidate Countries Annual Reports to CITES 2005. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General E- Environment ENV E.4- Development and Environment. Cambridge, UK. 178 pp. WCMC. 1997. Review of Annex B Species. Part 2. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Cambridge, UK.

50

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

3. Introduction to the Cyclamen group: The Cyclamen contains 20 species, all of which are listed in CITES Appendix II (Davis et al., 1999). They are native to parts of Europe, western Asia and parts of North Africa. Their habitat ranges from Fagus (Beech) woodland, through scrub and rocky areas, to alpine meadows where they flower in snow meltwater (Cyclamen Society, 2008). Ten species have been recorded in Turkey (Davis et al., 1999). Three, Cyclamen cilicium, C. coum and C. hederiforium are traded internationally in large numbers (Table 23). Table 23. Cyclamen species recorded in Turkey and their respective cumulative exports from Turkey from 2001-2006. (As reported by the exporter) Taxon dried plants live Cyclamen cilicium 250 1444450 Cyclamen coum 2099960 Cyclamen graecum 50 Cyclamen hederifolium 9700250 200 125 100 150 Cyclamen persicum 100 50 Cyclamen trochopteranthum Total 650 13245035

The current Turkish legislation for the collection of geophytes is outlined in the following paragraphs. This text was first presented at the SRG 41 as part of C. coum’s review (UNEP- WCMC, 2007). Legislation and Management of in Turkey: Legislation concerning collection of geophytes falls under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) and Ministry of Forestry and Environment. The MARA is the principal Ministry concerned and has published a regulation about the ―collection, production and export of natural flower bulbs‖. The main provisions of the regulation are the setting up of a Technical Committee and an Advisory Committee (Bimmerman, 2000).

The regulation was first prepared and issued in 1989 and later revised in 1991, 1995 and 2004. In 1995, a National Scientific Botany Group was appointed consisting of six scientists from Science, Pharmacy and Agriculture faculties of different provinces where the collection takes place. After Turkey become party to CITES (22 December 1996), TUBITAK (Turkish Scientific Research Council) was nominated as the scientific authority in Turkey and the same organisation has continued to work as the national advisory botany group. In the 2004 revision of the regulation, the national legislation was altered to take full account of the terminology of the CITES Convention (Ekim, 2007). The quota of wild collected and transplanted bulbs permitted for annual export is determined by the Flowerbulb Technical Committee, following field inspections made by scientific teams in nature and propagation fields). The Technical Committee makes a decision each year about the amount of each species to be exported (i.e. the export quota) (Ekim, 2007. The Technical Committee duties are: a) To determine the amount of bulbs obtained from nature or propagation as to genus, species and varieties. b) To allocate duties to the exporters and Exporter Association and to monitor same.

51

c) To meet twice a year (September and May).

The Advisory Committee comprises 28 representatives from: MARA (5), CITES Bulbous plants experts committee (8), Ministry of Forestry (1), General Directorate of Forestry (1), Ministry of Environment (1), Special Protected Areas Authority (1), The Prime Ministry International Commercial Under-secretary (1), General Directorate of Export (1), Export Development and Evaluation Centre (1), Related Ministries Provisional Directorates (5), Export Assocations (2), Societies/NGOs (2). The Advisory Committee duties are: a) To prepare the list of geophyte taxa that are subject to control. b) To calculate the global figure for wild collection for the controlled bulbs. c) To evaluate competence of exporters and assess their facilities. d) To determine the quotas for the exporting firms – if passed inspection at c) above. e) To establish a subcommittee or inspectorate of four persons (two scientists, one person from the General Directorate and one from the Trade Association) – to inspect all exporting firms. f) To examine areas of wild collection and analyse harvesting plans, determine time of wild collection and report on same. g) To prepare reports on a) – f) and present these to the Technical Committee. (Bimmerman, 2000). The main warehouses belonging to export companies were established under the 1991 regulation, making them more suitable for keeping bulbs. Ekim (2007) reported that there are now only four export companies. There is common agreement amongst the Turkish government, scientists and NGOs that there must be continued efforts to conserve wild populations of commercially important geophytes. This is because villagers who live in the areas where geophytes grow, are poor and collecting for commercial purposes provides them with some income (Ekim, 2007). The following is taken from Bimmerman (2000): The MARA Regulation controls collection, cultivation and export of geophytes on a three-tier Annex basis: Annex 1: Lists wild and propagated geophytes where collection and export is not subject to a quota. These are species that are widely artificially propagated. Annex 2: Lists wild geophytes where collection and/or export has been restricted by quota or other means. This includes wild transplanted geophytes grown in cultivation under supervision of the Ministry including Cyclamen coum. Annex 3: Geophytes where collection is prohibited for the purpose of export. Export permits only granted if artificially propagated. The Regulation outlines the mechanism by which quotas are divided, based on a points system. Exporters gain points based on quality of housing facilities, production equipment, numbers of personnel, marketing and membership of trade and professional organisations. Quotas are fixed each year by the Technical Committee based on the recommendations produced by the Advisory Committee. Local control mechanism for collection from the wild: Following the fixing of the annual quotas, provincial Directorates of the Ministry supply the export firms in their region with certificates outlining the numbers and details (area/taxa) of bulbs that can be collected from the wild. The calendar for harvesting is determined by the MARA and supervised by the

52

Forestry Department. The latter supplies a certificate of origin for wild species. Collection of geophytes is prohibited within National Parks and other protected areas. Local control on cultivation: Firms apply to the Provincial Directorates following approval of cultivation areas by the Technical Committee. Harvesting is supervised by the Provincial Directorate of the Agriculture Ministry, who supplies a harvesting certificate. Permission to export: Exporters apply to MARA for an export certificate to which they supply a Certificate of Origin and a Harvesting Certificate. Such certificates are not required for Annex 1 species, i.e. where collection is not subject to a quota, Provincial Directorates supervise the operation and arrange phytosanitary certification. They also feed back inspection data to the Ministry.

REFERENCES: Bimmerman, A. J. 2000. Conservation and cultivation of some geophytes in Turkey and Georgia 8-2- 2000 Report of the third fact-finding mission to Turkey. Prepared for the EC Working Group of the CITES Scientific Authority. 69 pp. Cyclamen Society. 2008. The Cyclamen Society website. URL: www.cyclamen.org Accessed: 16-1-2008. Davis, A. P., McGough, H. N., Mathew, P., & Grey-Wilson, C. 1999. CITES Bulb Checklist. For the genera: Cyclamen, Galanthus and Sternbergia.The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Ekim, T. 2007. Report by Head of CITES National Botany Group of CITES Scientific Authority, Turkey and President of Flowerbulb Association to CoP 14, The Hague, The Netherlands. UNEP-WCMC, 2007. Review of species selected on the basis of a new or increased export quota in 2007. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Cambridge, UK.

53

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

PRIMULACEAE

SPECIES: Cyclamen cilicium

SYNONYMS: Cyclamen cilicicum

COMMON NAMES: -

RANGE STATES: Turkey

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: -

TRADE PATTERNS: Cyclamen cilicium was selected for this review on the basis of a high volume of trade, mostly in live, wild sourced specimens into the European Community in 2005 (UNEP-WCMC, 2007). Tables 25-26 summarise CITES trade data for this species. Over the past ten years, Turkey‘s export quota for Cyclamen cilicium has remained stable at around 250000 tubers per year (Table 24). Table 24. CITES export quotas for Cyclamen cilicium from Turkey.

Year Quota Notes 2008 250100 tubers 2007 250100 tubers 2006 250100 tubers 2005 290100 tubers 2004 250100 tubers 2003 250000 tubers 2002 250000 tubers 2001 250000 tubers 2000 250000 tubers 1999 250000 live

Over the period 2001-2006, Turkey reported exporting 1,444,700 Cyclamen cilicium specimens to just two countries worldwide. The Netherlands was the main importer, accounting for 99.9% of imports (as reported by both the importer and exporter). These exports to the Netherlands were wild-sourced plants, apart from 35,500 artificially propagated specimens reported solely by Turkey in 2002. Most C. cilicium in trade between 2001-2006 were wild-sourced. However, Ekim (2007) reported that, after the 2008 season, all or most of export material would come from artificially propagated stock.

54

Table 25. Direct exports of Cyclamen cilicium from Turkey to EU-27, 2001-2006. [No indirect trade reported] Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Netherlands live T A Importer Exporter 35500 35500 W Importer 250000 239500 250000 250000 259000 210350 1458850 Exporter 250000 250000 194375 250000 250000 250000 1444375 dried United Kingdom plants S W Importer Exporter 250 250 live S W Importer Exporter 75 75

Table 26. Direct exports of Cyclamen cilicium from Turkey to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Switzerland live - W Importer 500 500 Exporter

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES:

TURKEY: C. cilicium is thought to be endemic to the mountains of southern Turkey centred on the Cilician Taurus (Grey-Wilson, 1988; Ozhatay, 2001). It was found during a 1998-2002 floristic survey on the Bozburun Mountain, in south-west Turkey (Fakir, 2006). In southern Turkey it was reported to be the most common species encountered (Mathew & Ozhatay, 2001) and was only locally threatened by habitat change (Ozhatay, 2001). Strong and healthy populations were thought to occur in approximately ten Important Plant Areas. The populations of C. cilicium are protected within Köprülü Kanyon National Park (Ozhatay, 2001). The 2000 Red Data Book of Turkish Plants listed C. cilicium as Lower Risk (near threatened) (Ekim et al., 2000). The 1989 edition of the Red Data Book (Ekim et al., 1989) had previously classified the species as Vulnerable. The Turkish First National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity noted the following: ‗C. cilicium is very restricted to certain regions and affects the economical structure of those regions, because there are so many native people who collect geophytes from the mountains‘ (Anon, 1998). In co-operation with the Turkish authorities, fact finding missions in Turkey on the conservation and cultivation of geophytes including C. cilicium were carried out with the involvement of EU Member States in 1988, 1992 and 1999 (Bimmerman, 2000). The 1992 survey concluded there was no evidence that C. cilicium collection was harmful to the species or the area the species occupied (McGough et al., 1993; Bimmerman, 2000). McGough et al. (1993) also indicated, as part of the 1992 survey results, that C. cilicium was widely collected for export, mostly from Beysehir, Isparta, Akseki and Alanya, but it was considered that, overall, the species appeared to be widespread and that there was no evidence that collection was not sustainable (McGough et al., 1993). A follow-up 1999 EC survey concluded that Turkey was making its best efforts for the sustainable exploitation of the CITES-listed bulb species Cyclamen. The survey group also concluded that their observations suggested that the export quota of Turkey for 1999 for C. cilicium (250,000 tubers) was well within the sustainable limits for this species. The group‘s opinion was that the quota was in conformity with the provisions of Article IV.2 of CITES and the requirements of article 4(2)a of the Council Regulation 338/97. It recommended that long- term scientific field research be required to monitor the effect of exploitation of wild populations of Cyclamen in Turkey (Bimmerman, 2000).

55

During the survey conducted by Bimmerman (2000), wild transplanted C. cilicium was reported as being cultivated in several areas: 1,300 plants (0.004 ha) at Trabzon by the firm Bilgin that were planted before 1998; 11,000 (0.05 ha) at Yalova Firm Arazisine by the firm Marla in 1998; 10,000 plants (0.02 ha) at Antalya-M. Demirci planted by the firm Tezel; 40,000 plants (0.08 ha) at Yasemin by the firm Yasemin in 1992; and 125,000 plants (0.2 ha) at Bozdağ by the firm Yasemin in 1994. In 2000 the CITES Plants Committee report stated, ―The bulb trade in Turkey involves probably thousands of collectors each year. Collecting takes place over a large part of Turkey and is very well regulated. The Plants Committee has recommended the Turkish regulatory system is an excellent example for other countries trading in the same type of species‖ (Anon, 2000). Groves (2001) pointed out that the co-operation between Turkish and EU scientists, governments, traders, NGOs and agencies has been instrumental to the development of a monitored quota system and sustainable harvesting techniques in Turkey. Groves noted that a collaborative project resulted between the CITES Scientific Authorities of the UK and Turkey whereby collected data were used to produce species distribution maps and to assess population levels in collection versus non-collection areas. Data gathered and analysed will be used to manage the long-term sustainable trade in species presently collected from the wild and to prepare a management plan for these species. REFERENCES: Anon. 1998. Turkish first national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Accessed 16-1- 2008. Anon. 2000. CITES Plants Committee Report of the Chairman of the Eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Gigiri, Kenya. PC11. Bimmerman, A. J. 2000. Conservation and cultivation of some geophytes in Turkey and Georgia. Report of the third fact-finding mission to Turkey. Prepared for the EC Working Group of the CITES Scientific Authority. 69 pp. Ekim, T., Koyuncu, M., Erik, S., & Ilarslan, R. 1989. Türkiye'nin tehlike altindaki nadir ve endemik bitki turleri [List of rare, threatened and endemic plants in Turkey prepared according to IUCN Red Data Book categories]. Türkiye Tabiatini Koruma Dernegi [Turkish Association for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources], Ankara. 227 pp. Ekim, T., M.Koyuncu, M.Vural, H.Duman, Z.Aytaç, & N.Adigüzel 2000. Türkiye Bitkileri Kirmizi Kitabi (Egrelti ve Tohumlu Bitkiler). Red Data Book of Turkish Plants (Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta). Türkiye Tabiatini Koruma Dernergi (Turkish Association for the Conservation of Nature) edn. Ankara. 246 pp. Fakir, H. 2006. Flora of Bozburun Mountain and Its Environs (Antalya-Isparta-Burdur, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Botany, 30: 149-169. Grey-Wilson, C. 1988. The Genus Cyclamen. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, in association with Christopher Helm and Timber Press. 147 pp. Groves, M. 2001. Trade in bulbs from Turkey. Report of conservation of species: CITES and CBD.IUCN UK Committee members meeting, Girton College, Cambridge, UK. Mathew, B. & Ozhatay, N. 2001. The Cyclamen of Turkey: A Guide to the Species of Cyclamen growing in Turkey. The Cyclamen Society. McGough, H. N., Cowley, E. J., Moller, D., Kluge, R., & Wijnands, D. O. 1993. The conservation and cultivation of geophytes in Turkey. Report of the second European Community fact finding mission to Turkey. 49 pp. Ozhatay, N. 2001. The cyclamen of Turkey: natural distribution in the Taurus Mountains. Cyclamen: The Journal of the Cyclamen Society, 25 (2): 47-50. UNEP-WCMC. 2007. Analysis of the European Community and Candidate Countries Annual Reports to CITES 2005. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General E- Environment ENV E.4- Development and Environment. Cambridge, UK. 178 pp.

56

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

PRIMULACEAE

SPECIES: Cyclamen coum

SYNONYMS: Cyclamen durostoricum

COMMON NAMES: -

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

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Turkey

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: -

TRADE PATTERNS: Cyclamen coum was selected for this review on the basis of a high volume of trade in 2005 and an overall increase in trade between 1996 and 2005, mostly in live, wild sourced specimens into the European Community (UNEP-WCMC, 2007). Tables 28- 29 summarise CITES trade data for this species. Over the period 2001-2006, Turkey reported exporting over two million C. coum to three countries worldwide. The Netherlands accounted for 99% of these imports (as reported by both the importer and exporter). All C. coum in trade between 2001-2006 were wild-sourced. Since 1999, Turkey‘s export quota for Cyclamen coum has trebled from 250,000 tubers in 1999 to 750,100 tubers in 2008 (Table 27). Table 27. CITES export quotas for Cyclamen coum from Turkey.

Year Quota Notes 2008 750100 tubers 2007 750100 tubers 2006 500100 tubers 2005 400100 tubers 2004 300100 tubers 2003 300000 tubers 2002 300000 tubers 2001 300000 tubers 2000 250000 tubers 1999 250000 live

57

Table 28. Direct exports of Cyclamen coum from Turkey to EU-27, 2001-2006. [No indirect imports reported] Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Denmark live T W Importer 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 6000 Exporter 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 6000 Netherlands live T W Importer 294500 294650 294700 295000 386000 428650 1993500 Exporter 294500 294610 294700 295000 395000 499000 2072810

Table 29. Direct exports of Cyclamen coum from Turkey to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2006. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Switzerland live T W Importer 4000 4000 Exporter 4500 4350 4300 4000 4000 21150 - W Importer 4500 4350 530 9380 Exporter

CONSERVATION STATUS in RANGE STATES

C. coum has a wide, though discontinuous, distribution. It can be found from Bulgaria in Eastern Europe, through northern and central Turkey to the southern Caucasus and northern Iran and then southwards to Syria and Lebanon. The species also has a wide altitudinal range from sea level to over 2,100 m. Along the shores of the Black Sea it is a common plant amongst Corylus (hazel) plantations. At higher altitudes it is typically a woodland plant or a plant of scrub or rock crevices (Grey-Wilson, 1988).

According to Mathew & Ozhatay (2001), it grows in shady places in coniferous and broadleaved woodland and scrub, sometimes growing amongst tree roots and rocks. It is a popular garden plant and among the hardiest of the 19 recognised Cyclamen species (Alpine Garden Society, 2007; Cyclamen Society, 2008).

TURKEY: The occurrence of C. coum was reported in Turkey (Davis et al., 1999; Mathew & Ozhatay, 2001). It was reported to be especially plentiful in the hills and mountains by the Black Sea, and to also be found in the Amanus range (Mathew & Ozhatay, 2001). It was considered to be the most widespread and arguably the most abundant Cyclamen species in Turkey (Ozhatay, 2001). Yalinkilic (2008) indicated that the species is very widely distributed in Turkey and is common in north-east Anatolia, including Tracia. They stated that in many places in north- east Anatolia it covers the ground like a carpet, mostly under trees and also grows here in hazelnut fields as a weed. As a result, every year after clearing the fields of hazelnut, many bulbs are thrown away (Yalinkilic, 2008). The Turkish First National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity noted the following: ‗C. coum is very restricted to certain regions and affects the economical structure of those regions, because there are so many native people who collect geophytes from the mountains‘ (Anon, 1998). In co-operation with the Turkish authorities, fact finding missions in Turkey on the conservation and cultivation of geophytes including C. coum were carried out with the involvement of EU Member States in 1988, 1992 and 1999. The 1992 survey concluded there was no evidence that C. coum collection was harmful to the species or the area the species occupied. CITES reported exports from Turkey in that year were 69,750 C. coum (McGough et al., 1993). A follow-up 1999 EC survey concluded that Turkey was making its best efforts for the sustainable exploitation of the CITES-listed bulb species of Cyclamen. The survey group also concluded that their observations suggested that the export quota of Turkey for 1999 for C.

58

coum (250,000 tubers) was well within the sustainable limits for this species. The group‘s opinion was that the quota was in conformity with the provisions of Article IV.2 of CITES and the requirements of article 4(2)a of the Council Regulation 338/97. It recommended that long- term scientific field research be required to monitor the effect of exploitation of wild populations of Cyclamen in Turkey. During the survey wild transplanted C. coum was reported as being cultivated in two areas: 20,000 plants (0.02 ha) at Trabzon by the firm Bilgin that were planted before 1998, and 270,000 (0.1ha) at Bozdağ cultivated by the firm Marla that were planted in 1994 (Bimmerman, 2000). Yalinkilic (2008) stated in correspondence with the European commission that the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs encouraged artificial propagation of C. coum, and as a result a quota of 250,000 artificially propagated pieces was established in 2007 and 2008 (Legislation No. 2007/45 ―Notification for the list of exportation for natural flower bulbs for 2008‖). On the CITES website there is no reference to the source of the C. coum tubers for the 2007 and 2008 quotas. As a result of the 1999 EC survey, in 2000 the CITES Plants Committee report stated, ―The bulb trade in Turkey involves probably thousands of collectors each year. Collecting takes place over a large part of Turkey and is very well regulated. The Plants Committee has recommended the Turkish regulatory system is an excellent example for other countries trading in the same type of species‖ (Anon, 2000). Groves (2001) pointed out that the co-operation between Turkish and EU scientists, governments, traders, NGOs and agencies have been instrumental to the development of a monitored quota system and sustainable harvesting techniques in Turkey. Groves noted that a collaborative project resulted between the CITES Scientific Authorities of the UK and Turkey whereby collected data were used to produce species distribution maps and to assess population levels in collection versus non-collection areas. Data gathered and analysed was intended to be used to manage the long-term sustainable trade in species collected from the wild, and to prepare a management plan for these species. However, a 2000 survey carried out on medicinal and aromatic commercial native plants in the eastern Black Sea region of Turkey concluded that C. coum was being excessively harvested and recommended that its collection be limited or forbidden in the region (Küçük et al., 2003). C. coum was one of 150 plant species in the Black Sea region that have been sold commercially. The total annual income provided by C. coum (US$38446) was found to be higher than for any other medicinal or aromatic plant species collected in the region. The total annual production of 5,060 kg reported by local people was thought to be an under-estimate (Küçük et al., 2003). According to Ekim (2007) the species has been sustainably used so far and the amount exported is not harmful to the species.

REFERENCES: Alpine Garden Society. 2007. Cyclamen coum, Alpine Garden Society, URL: http://www.alpinegardensociety.net/plants/plantportrait/Cyclamen+coum/43 Accessed: 16-7-2008. Anon. 1998. Turkish first national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. URL: http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/tr/tr-nr-01-en.pdf Accessed 16-1-2008. Anon. 2000. CITES Plants Committee Report of the Chairman of the Eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Gigiri, Kenya. PC11. Bimmerman, A. J. 2000. Conservation and cultivation of some geophytes in Turkey and Georgia. Report of the third fact-finding mission to Turkey. Prepared for the EC Working Group of the CITES Scientific Authority. 69 pp. Cyclamen Society. 2008. Cyclamen coum, Cyclamen Society, URL: http://www.cyclamen.org/coum.htm Accessed: 16-1-2008. Davis, A. P., McGough, H. N., Mathew, B., & Grey-Wilson, C. 1999. CITES bulb checklist. For the genera Cyclamen, Galanthus and Stembergia. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London. 87 pp.

59

Ekim, T. 2007. Latest news from exported geophytes of Turkey. Report by Head of CITES National Botany Group of CITES Scientific Authority, Turkey and President of Flowerbulb Association to CoP 14. The Hague, The Netherlands. Grey-Wilson, C. 1988. The Genus Cyclamen. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, in association with Christopher Helm and Timber Press. 147 pp. Groves, M. 2001. Trade in bulbs from Turkey. Report of conservation of species: CITES and CBD.IUCN UK Committee members meeting, Girton College, Cambridge, UK. Küçük, M., Çetiner, S., & Ulu, F. 2003. Medicinal and aromatic commercial native plants in the eastern Black Sea region of Turkey. Paper presented at the Seminar on Harvesting of Non-wood Products. International Agro-Hydrology Research and Training Centre in Menemen-Izmire (Turkey). URL: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4496E/ Y4496E04.htm. Accessed: 30-1-2008. Mathew, B. & Ozhatay, N. 2001. The Cyclamen of Turkey: a guide to the species of Cyclamen growing in Turkey. The Cyclamen Society. McGough, H. N., Cowley, E. J., Moller, D., Kluge, R., & Wijnands, D. O. 1993. The conservation and cultivation of geophytes in Turkey. Report of the second European Community fact finding mission to Turkey. 49 pp. Ozhatay, N. 2001. The cyclamen of Turkey: natural distribution in the Taurus Mountains. Cyclamen - The Journal of the Cyclamen Society, 25 (2): 47-50. UNEP-WCMC. 2007. Analysis of the European Community and Candidate Countries Annual Reports to CITES 2005. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General E- Environment ENV E.4- Development and Environment. Cambridge, UK. 178 pp. Yalinkilic, M.K. 2008. Letter from Prof. Dr. M. Kemal Yalinkilic (General Directorate, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs) to Hugo-Maria Schally (D-G Environment, Europeam Commission). March 2008.

60

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

PRIMULACEAE

SPECIES: Cyclamen hederifolium

SYNONYMS: Cyclamen neapolitanum, Cyclamen linearifolium

COMMON NAMES: Sowbread (English)

RANGE STATES: , Bulgaria, France, Greece, Italy, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, , , Serbia, Macedonia

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Turkey

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: -

TRADE PATTERNS: Cyclamen hederifolium was selected for this review on the basis of a high volume of trade, mostly in live, wild sourced specimens into the European Community in 2005 (UNEP-WCMC, 2007). Tables 31-32 summarise CITES trade data for this species. Since 1999, Turkey‘s export quota for Cyclamen hederifolium has increased from 1,265,000 in 1999 to 1,800,100 in 2004. The 2004 quota has been maintained annually until 2008 (Table 30). Table 30. CITES export quotas for Cyclamen hederifolium from Turkey.

Year Quota Notes 2008 1800100 tubers 2007 1800100 tubers 2006 1800100 tubers 2005 1800100 tubers 2004 1800100 tubers 2003 1750000 tubers 2002 1750000 tubers 2001 1500000 tubers 2000 1350000 tubers 1999 1265000 live

Over the period 2001-2006, Turkey reported exporting over 9,700,000 Cyclamen hederifolium tubers to three countries worldwide. The Netherlands was the main importer, accounting for 99.8% of imports (as reported by both the importer and exporter). According to exporting figures, exports of wild sourced plants have decreased over the six-year period to their lowest value in 2006. Substantial trade in artificially propagated plants has also been reported Table 31. Direct exports of Cyclamen hederifolium from Turkey to EU-27, 2001-2006. [No indirect imports reported] Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Netherlands live T A Importer 200000 498050 500000 800000 300000 405000 2703050 Exporter 500000 475000 500000 800000 300000 900000 3475000 W Importer 1298150 1246500 1246500 996300 996250 786620 6570320 Exporter 998150 1271500 1246500 996500 996250 700200 6209100

61

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total United Kingdom live S W Importer Exporter 50 50

Table 32. Direct exports of Cyclamen hederifolium from Turkey to countries other than EU- 27, 2001-2006. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Switzerland live T W Importer 3750 3750 Exporter 1850 3500 3500 3500 3750 16100 - W Importer 1850 3500 5130 10480 Exporter

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES: C. hederifolium is one of the most widespread Cyclamen species in Europe (Mathew & Ozhatay, 2001), with a wide Mediterranean distribution ranging from south-east France eastwards to south Turkey, including many Mediterranean islands excluding (Grey-Wilson, 1988).

TURKEY: C. hederifolium was reported to occur commonly in western Turkey in western Anatolia (McGough et al., 1993; Davis et al., 1999), growing along much of the Turkish Aegean coast, from just South of the Dardanelles to the Marmaris region (Ozhatay, 2001). The species is apparently widespread within this region, if somewhat localised (Ozhatay, 2001). Strong and healthy populations of this plant are known to occur within at least four Important Plant Areas: Kaz Daği, Dilek Peninsula and Menderes Delta, Reşadiye Peninsula, Bozburun Peninsula (Ozhatay, 2001). C. hederifolium was considered to be Vulnerable in Turkey (Atay, 1994). The Turkish First National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity noted the following: ‗C. hederifolium is very restricted to certain regions and affects the economical structure of those regions, because there are so many native people who collect geophytes from the mountains‘ (Anon, 1998). In co-operation with the Turkish authorities, fact finding missions in Turkey on the conservation and cultivation of geophytes including C. hederifolium were carried out with the involvement of EU Member States in 1988, 1992 and 1999 (Bimmerman, 2000). The 1992 survey concluded there was no evidence that C. hederifolium collection was harmful to the species or the area the species occupied (McGough et al., 1993; Bimmerman, 2000). Mc Gough et al. (1993) stated, as part of the 1992 survey findings, that: ―populations were seen under Quercus coccifera in Lutuflar near Bayindir. The cover of cyclamen is high with c. 50 plants per m2. The available habitat is extensive at this site and the regional population is likely to reach many millions of plants. Approximately 20 t of tubers are collected per annum at this site with no apparent effect on the population status. Collection has been reported for 16 years. An ideal site for part of a sustainable use study. Other populations were seen near Ortaklar and near Camlik‖. Mc Gough et al. (1993) also indicated that C. hederifolium was the most widely collected Cyclamen species, with collection centred on Aydin, Nazilli, Tire and Mugla (the coast area of Mugla and Izmir east of Izmir and north of Aydin Daglari) (McGough et al., 1993). A follow-up 1999 EC survey concluded that Turkey was making its best efforts regarding the sustainable exploitation of the CITES-listed bulb species Cyclamen. The survey group also concluded that their observations suggested that the export quota of Turkey for 1999 for C. hederifolium (1,350,000 tubers) was well within the sustainable limits for this species. The group‘s opinion was that the quota was in conformity with the provisions of Article IV.2 of CITES and the requirements of article 4(2)a of the Council Regulation 338/97. It recommended that long-term scientific field research be required to monitor the effect of exploitation of wild populations of Cyclamen in Turkey (Bimmerman, 2000).

62

During the survey, wild transplanted C. hederifolium was reported as being cultivated in several areas: 44,000 plants (0.05 ha) at Trabzon by the firm Bilgin that were planted before 1998; 103,000 (0.2 ha) and 22,000 (0.01 ha) plants at Izmir-M. Tezel and Manisa-M. Tezel, respectively, by the firm Tezel; 2,612,000 plants (2.05 ha) at Susurluk by the firm Yasemin between 1990-1998. Artificial propagation of Cyclamen spp. has reportedly produced very good results so far, the material mostly belonging to C. hederifolium and C. cilicicum (Denney, 2004). Following research (e.g. Muftuoglu et al., 2003), artificial propagation of C. hederifolium was considered particularly successful, and this led to an increase in the quota of 50,000 artificially propagated plants after 2003 (Ekim, 2007). As a result of the 1999 EC survey, in 2000 the CITES Plants Committee report stated, ―The bulb trade in Turkey involves probably thousands of collectors each year. Collecting takes place over a large part of Turkey and is very well regulated. The Plants Committee has recommended the Turkish regulatory system is an excellent example for other countries trading in the same type of species‖ (Anon, 2000). Groves (2001) pointed out that the co-operation between Turkish and EU scientists, governments, traders, NGOs and agencies have been instrumental to the development of a monitored quota system and sustainable harvesting techniques in Turkey. She noted that a collaborative project resulted between the CITES Scientific Authorities of the UK and Turkey whereby collected data were used to produce species distribution maps and to assess population levels in collection versus non-collection areas. Data gathered and analysed will be used to manage the long-term sustainable trade in species presently collected from the wild and to prepare a management plan for these species. In August 2007, three shipments with wild-sourced C. hederifolium tubers from Turkey were seized in the Netherlands because they contained more tubers than permitted on the import permits. The total amount of tubers permitted by the three import permits was 50,000 tubers (10,000, 20,000 and 20,000). However, a total of 391,640 tubers (78,040, 185,600 and 128,000 respectively) were imported using those three permits, nearly eight times more than permitted.

REFERENCES: Anon. 1998. Turkish first national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. URL: http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/tr/tr-nr-01-en.pdf Accessed 16-1-2008. Anon. 2000. CITES Plants Committee Report of the Chairman of the Eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Gigiri, Kenya. PC11. Atay, S. 1994. Annotations to WCMC printout entitled 'Turkey - conservation status listing of plants'. dated 21 June 1994. Included list of corrections by Prof. Dr. Neriman Ozhatay. Bimmerman, A. J. 2000. Conservation and cultivation of some geophytes in Turkey and Georgia. Report of the third fact-finding mission to Turkey. Prepared for the EC Working Group of the CITES Scientific Authority. 69 pp. Davis, A. P., McGough, H. N., Mathew, B., & Grey-Wilson, C. 1999. CITES bulb checklist. For the genera Cyclamen, Galanthus and Stembergia. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London. 87 pp. Denney, M. 2004. Cyclamen in a Turkish nursery. Cyclamen: The Journal of the Cyclamen Society, 28 (2): 58. Ekim, T. 2007. Latest news from exported geophytes of Turkey. Report by Head of CITES National Botany Group of CITES Scientific Authority, Turkey and President of Flowerbulb Association to CoP 14. The Hague, The Netherlands. Groves, M. 2001. Trade in bulbs from Turkey. Report of conservation of species: CITES and CBD. IUCN UK Committee members meeting, Girton College, Cambridge, UK. Mathew, B. & Ozhatay, N. 2001. The Cyclamen of Turkey: a guide to the species of Cyclamen growing in Turkey. The Cyclamen Society.

63

McGough, H. N., Cowley, E. J., Moller, D., Kluge, R., & Wijnands, D. O. 1993. The conservation and cultivation of geophytes in Turkey. Report of the second European Community fact finding mission to Turkey. 49 pp. Muftuoglu, N. M., Altay, H., & Erken, K. 2003. An investigation to determine the effect of various growing media and fertilizers in the production of Cyclamen hederifolium corms. Proc.Int.Fert.Soc. & Dahlia Greidinger Symp., pp. 381-383. Ozhatay, N. 2001. The cyclamen of Turkey: natural distribution in the Taurus Mountains. Cyclamen: The Journal of the Cyclamen Society, 25 (2): 47-50. UNEP-WCMC. 2007. Analysis of the European Community and Candidate Countries Annual Reports to CITES 2005. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General E- Environment ENV E.4- Development and Environment. Cambridge, UK. 178 pp.

64

SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE 2005 EC ANNUAL REPORT TO CITES

LEGUMINOSAE

SPECIES: Pericopsis elata

SYNONYMS: Afrormosia elata

COMMON NAMES: African teak (English), assamela (French), Teck d'Afrique (French), afrormosia (Spanish), teca africana (Spanish)

RANGE STATES: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Nigeria

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Democratic Republic of the Congo

IUCN RED LIST: Endangered

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Cameroon, first formed on 02 April 2002. Previous negative opinion for Cameroon (29 November 2001). Previous negative opinion formed for the Central African Republic (22 February 2006) that was later removed on 18 December 2006. Previous Article 4(6)b suspension for the Republic of Congo (22 February 2006) following a negative opinion formed on 05 September 2002. The negative opinion was removed on 18 December 2006.

TRADE PATTERNS: Pericopsis elata was selected for this review on the basis of a high volume of trade in wild sourced timber into the European Community in 2005 (UNEP- WCMC, 2007). Tables 33-34 summarise CITES trade data for this species. EC-reported imports of Pericopsis elata during 2005 consisted entirely of timber from wild sources. Since 2002, when trade reached a ten-year-low, trade has increased annually, with trade levels reported in 2005 matching levels reported between 1996-1999. In DRC, a quota of 50,000 m3 of P. elata logs, sawn wood and veneer sheets has been in place from 2003 to 2008. Both importer and exporter-reported trade from the DRC have been within this quota. It was reported that the species provides an important alternative to teak, being used in furniture making, interior and exterior work, flooring and boat-building (UNEP-WCMC, 1998; Affre, 2003). Oldfield (2004) indicated that: ―the main use of Pericopsis elata is for its commercially valuable timber. End uses for afromosia in international trade are generally given as shipbuilding (rails and decks), furniture, decorative veneer, high-quality joinery, decorative flooring and shop fittings. In Europe the main current use appears to be for parquet flooring. Local uses of Pericopsis elata include firewood, charcoal production, carpentry and traditional medicine‖. P. elata FOB (Free On Board) prices (e.g. buyer pays freight, insurance and unloading costs) in Europe were reported to be around 950€/m3 for sawn wood and 500-600€/m3 for logs in 2004 (Affre et al., 2004).

65

Table 33. Direct exports of Pericopsis elata from Democratic Republic of the Congo to EU- 27, 2001-2007. [No indirect trade reported] Importer Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Belgium carvings m3 P W Importer Exporter 0.252 0.252 logs m3 T W Importer 196.147 950.055 1146.202 Exporter 721.575 721.575 sawn m3 T W Importer 245.646 101.667 558.765 2761.905 3667.983 wood Exporter 245.646 703.989 663.733 1380.565 1800.632 4794.565 timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 1353.481 890.994 2244.475 veneer m3 T W Importer 46.675 46.675 Exporter Denmark sawn m3 T W Importer wood Exporter 16.959 16.959 France logs m3 T W Importer 46.854 46.854 Exporter 792.242 792.242 sawn m3 T W Importer 90.622 196.867 56.108 343.597 wood Exporter 15.525 392.685 24.763 56.108 66.775 555.856 timber m3 T W Importer 82.84 576.192 659.032 Exporter 82.845 92.945 680.231 46.854 902.875 Germany sawn m3 T W Importer 450.49 559.49 482.375 1492.355 wood Exporter 63.232 63.232 timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 450.495 418.644 220.936 1090.075 logs m3 T W Importer Exporter 385.314 385.314 Greece sawn m3 T W Importer wood Exporter 115.718 115.718 Italy logs m3 T W Importer 271.14 2120.45 2391.59 Exporter 1139.457 1139.457 sawn m3 T W Importer 1319.3 586.68 145.53 1818.62 3870.13 wood Exporter 146.081 1473.978 36 373.204 357.743 2387.006 timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 1600.618 2111.287 1501.992 5213.897 Latvia sawn m3 T W Importer 48.247 48.247 wood Exporter Poland sawn m3 T W Importer wood Exporter 50.51 50.51 - I Importer 17.67 17.67 Exporter Portugal sawn m3 T W Importer 77.357 82.277 874.77 1034.404 wood Exporter 82.277 169.628 123.387 375.292 logs m3 T W Importer Exporter 708.25 708.25 timber m3 T W Importer 740.33 740.33 Exporter 77.375 809.33 681.408 1568.113 veneer m3 T W Importer 75.599 75.599 Exporter Spain sawn m3 T W Importer wood Exporter 231.971 231.971 timber m3 T W Importer 30.154 26.574 56.728 Exporter 29.571 29.571 logs m3 T W Importer

66

Importer Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Exporter 106.36 106.36 United Kingdom timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 106.86 106.86 m3 Importer 82.84 2183.415 1173.304 5960.11 6237.727 15637.4 Total Exporter 82.845 2628.685 2952.369 6234.152 5321.689 6380.685 23600.43

Table 34. Direct exports of Pericopsis elata from DR Congo to countries other than EU-27, 2001-2007. Importer Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total China logs m3 T W Importer Exporter 6479.264 6479.264 sawn m3 T W Importer wood Exporter 232.043 257.18 489.223 timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 67.285 5439.494 5506.779 Hong Kong sawn m3 T W Importer wood Exporter 50.003 50.003 India timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 42.67 42.67 Indonesia logs m3 T W Importer Exporter 21.947 21.947 Japan timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 106.437 840.719 947.156 logs m3 T W Importer Exporter 172.714 172.714 Lebanon timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 0.825 129.808 130.633 Rep. of Korea timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 72.024 48.289 120.313 logs m3 T W Importer Exporter 295.103 295.103 Singapore logs m3 T W Importer Exporter 2700.899 2700.899 sawn m3 T W Importer wood Exporter 39.428 323.301 362.729 South Africa sawn m3 T W Importer wood Exporter 43.147 43.147 Switzerland timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 167.947 404.146 572.093 logs m3 T W Importer Exporter 62.959 62.959 Taiwan, P.O.C. timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 613.486 1376.553 1699.325 3689.364 Tunisia timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 42.251 42.251 Turkey logs m3 T W Importer Exporter 727.48 727.48 sawn m3 T W Importer wood Exporter 1192.76 87.872 155.823 1436.455 timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 303.062 25.956 329.018 United States sawn m3 T W Importer 78 78 wood Exporter 126.257 101.214 227.471

67

Importer Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total timber m3 T W Importer Exporter 102.833 102.833 m3 Importer 78 78 Total Exporter 1022.985 1242.763 376.707 8869.693 13040.36 24552.5

CONSERVATION STATUS in RANGE STATES: P. elata is a tropical hardwood found in the Guinean equatorial forests and the Congo Basin (Dickson et al., 2005) and the Central African Republic (Anon, 2003; Dickson et al., 2005). Threats to the species were considered to include commercial exploitation, clear- felling/logging of the habitat, burning, and extensive agriculture (UNEP-WCMC, 1998; Oldfield et al., 1998; Affre, 2003). It was reported that levels of exploitation were unsustainable in all countries and that the species and its habitat had declined through logging and clearance. Remaining populations were reportedly small and scattered, and natural regeneration was considered to be poor and insufficient to replace lost populations (UNEP-WCMC, 1998; Oldfield et al., 1998). It was reported that, although easily propagated from seed and stem cuttings, the species was not being planted on a large scale (UNEP-WCMC, 1998; Anon, 2003). In 2003 it was indicated that ―declines as a result of logging in Cote d‘Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria have been marked since international trade began 50 years ago. Significant stocks do however remain in Cameroon, Congo and DRC where the forests are more extensive and logging of this species has been more recent‖ (Anon, 2003). Pericopsis elata was classified as 'Endangered' in the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2007). This classification, however, was based on a 1994 assessment.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO (DRC): The distribution area of Pericopsis elata in the DRC was reported to be of the order of 33,650,000 hectares (336,500 km2), straddling the Congo River Basin in the Equateur and Orientale Provinces (MECNEF, 2004; Dickson et al., 2005). The main protected areas where the species was found were reported to be Yamgambi Man and Biosphere Reserve in the Kisangani region; Rubitele Forest Reserve; and Maiko National Park, between the Orientale Province and the Kivu (Dickson et al., 2005). Reported threats to P. elata around Kisangani were the use of the wood by local people for charcoal production, use of wood for carpentry, medicinal use of bark for treating cancer, and increasing exploitation of the timber by foreign logging companies (Anon, 2003). About 30 tree species, including Pericopsis elata, were reported to be exploited in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MECNEF, 2004; cited in Dickson et al., 2005). P. elata is amongst the most important timber species exported from the country (Affre, 2003). There were no numerical estimates of the amount being consumed domestically, but the exploitation of P. elata for export was thought to be much higher (Dickson et al., 2005). Extraction was reported to take place in the following territories: Equateur Province (Territories of Bumba, Djolu, Bolomba, Bongandanga, Lingende, Lisala, Basankusu, Bomongo, Kungu, Libenge), and Orientale Province (Territories of Ubundu, Yauma, Banalia, Bafwasende, Basoko, Aketi, Isangi, Wanie-Rukula) (Dickson et al., 2005). It was also reported that felling by local loggers who cannot then afford the transport costs to take the timber to markets has taken place (Anon, 2003). Between 1974-1991, 24% (8,227,411 ha) of the distribution area of P. elata was inventoried. The inventory data showed the P. elata stock to be over 11 million m3 (average density of 1.35 m3/ha) within the inventoried area. Using these data, estimates of total exploitable stock (over the whole of the distribution area) varied between 22 million and 33 million m3 (MECNEF, 2004; Dickson et al., 2005). Despite the uncertainty in this figure, and even taking

68

into consideration the high exploitation levels that occurred after the time of the inventory (particularly 1991-1998), it was considered reasonable to assume that the exploitable stock in 2005 was over 10 million m3 (Dickson et al., 2005). A Rapid Assessment Survey conducted in Lokutu, DRC, in 2007 found a P. elata density of 0.32 individuals per ha, based on a 4.7 km transect. It was argued that ―considering that the Kisangani area is described as the last stronghold of this species, the situation is more seriously than previously thought‖ (Bytynski & McCullough, 2007). During the period of civil conflict (1998-2003) the export of timber from the country was greatly reduced; much of the distribution area of P. elata was in rebel-controlled areas, and there were virtually no logs being shipped downriver to Kinshasa, although there were reports of some timber, including P. elata, being exported through Uganda and Rwanda (Dickson et al., 2005). The conflict also resulted in the country suffering from general institutional weakness, which was reported to affect the implementation of CITES (Dickson et al., 2005). The forestry sector in DRC was governed by Royal Decree of 1949 until a new Forest Code was developed in 1979 and amended in 1989. A law requiring one or two trees to be planted for every tree felled was apparently not being implemented (Anon, 2003). A new Forestry Code was introduced in 2002, but as of 2005 it was still not being fully implemented (Dickson et al., 2005). It was reported that there was ―little or no field capacity to supervise or enforce regulations in DRC‖ (SGS, 2002; cited in Anon, 2003). Illegal trade in wood, including P. elata, has been reported from DRC, not only going to the West but also to Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, along DRC‘s eastern borders (Affre et al., 2004). It was reported that all P. elata that is legally exported is transported down the Congo River to Kinshasa, and then by rail to the seaport of Matadi. It was also reported that in 2003 around one quarter of P. elata exports were in the form of parquet flooring, which is not covered by the CITES Appendix II listing (Dickson et al., 2005). Dickson et al. (2005) suggested that, because the exploitable stock was probably above 10 million m3 in 2005, even if production for export was to rise to pre-conflict levels of over 20,000 m3 per year, this would not represent a threat to the conservation of the species. They added: ―Both government officials and industry representatives in DRC were unanimous in holding that Pericopsis elata is not seriously threatened and is not likely to become so. Two general reasons, in addition to the existence of large stocks, were given for this. First, there is the remoteness of the distribution area. Much Pericopsis elata occurs more than 2,000 km away from the main exit port of Matadi. The road network is poor and all Pericopsis has to come down the Congo River to Kinshasa and then by rail to Matadi. The transportation costs are therefore high and provide a disincentive to exploitation. Second, the route that Pericopsis elata has to follow makes the monitoring and control of exports relatively easy‖. In 2003, an annual quota of 50,000 m3 was set for P. elata in DRC. The justification offered by the Management Authority of the DRC was that the potential production for each year is 652,831 m3, and that in the light of this, an annual quota of 50,000 m3 would not present any danger to the conservation of the species (Dickson et al., 2005). While it was not clear how the figure for the potential production had been arrived at, Dickson et al. (2005) considered that the estimates for the total stock suggested that ―an annual quota of 50,000 m3, even if it was met in full, would not threaten the species‖. Previous CITES discussions: At its 12th meeting (Leiden, May 2002), the Plants Committee considered Pericopsis elata for review under the Significant Trade Review process in accordance with Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.) [which has now been replaced by Resolution Conf. 12.8 (Rev. CoP13)]. It was concluded that ―these is a considerable trade in timber of this species, and it is not at all certain that this trade is truly non-detrimental. Candidate for review, but could be a costly project, in particular when field surveys are required‖.

69

At the 13th meeting of the Plants Committee (Geneva, August 2003), Decision 12.74 directed to the Plants Committee called for a review of Pericopsis elata under the Review of Significant Trade (Resolution Conf. 12.8). At its 14th meeting (Windhoek, February 2004), the Plants Committee categorized Range States and formulated and adopted recommendations concerning the species in accordance with paragraphs m), n) and o) of Resolution Conf. 12.8. P. elata in DRC was categorized as ―‗Species of possible concern‘ for which it was not clear whether or not the provisions of Article V, paragraphs 2(a) or 3 were being implemented‖(Anon, 2003). In the recommendations agreed at PC14 (Anon, 2004), the DRC was requested to provide information on: The national forest estate; Protected areas; Concession policies; Species inventories; Quotas; Current areas of harvesting; Information regarding minimum felling diameters; and Compliance and enforcement measures. It was agreed at PC14 that the result of experts‘ visits to range States for Pericopsis elata would be reported at PC15. This work was undertaken by Fauna and Flora International (Dickson et al., 2005). The project team considered that DRC had provided information on all these issues with the partial exception of ‗current areas of harvest‘ (Dickson et al., 2005; Anon, 2005). It was concluded, however, that there was no evidence that DRC had acted on an additional recommendation made at PC14, that stated ―The exporting States should be encouraged to work together to share experiences in the implementation of Article IV, to exchange information on procedures in place and to take common steps to improve monitoring of trade in the species‖ (Dickson et al., 2005; Anon, 2005). This last point had been considered of particular concern (Anon, 2003; Anon, 2005). Dickson et al. (2005) made the following recommendations regarding the DRC: DRC‘s attempts to reform its forestry sector and to strengthen relevant government institutions need to be continued and increased. External support is needed for this. There is a need to proceed with the implementation of the Forestry Code of 2002. There is a need to ensure that logging in forestry units takes place in accordance with agreed management plans. Inventory data on Pericopsis elata –and other species- needs to be updated. There is a need to improve the implementation of the CITES Appendix II listing for Pericopsis elata. Given DRC‘s willingness to collaborate with the Significant Trade Review process, together with the large stocks of Pericopsis elata within DRC, CITES and European Union bodies should support DRC in improving its CITES implementation. Closer collaboration between government agencies and the timber companies to ensure the implementation of sustainable forest management and conformity with the provisions of CITES is to be encouraged. At its 53rd meeting (Geneva, July 2005), the Standing Committee recommended that ―The Democratic Republic of the Congo should before the end of 2005 commit to fully collaborate

70

in the establishment of a regional management strategy for P. elata and formally request the Secretariat to provide assistance in this regard‖ (Anon, 2005). At its 54th meeting (Geneva, October 2006), the Standing Committee reported that DRC did not respond to the recommendation made at SC53, adding that ―this may be because as yet there has been no initiative to establish a regional management strategy. Under the terms of a joint project with the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Secretariat intends to establish such a strategy and the DRC will be invited to participate at that stage‖ (Anon, 2006). It was reported that the joint CITES-ITTO project will support the efforts of DRC to enforce existing legislation and to strengthen the quality of non-detriment findings. It was also reported that ―although procedures are not yet fully in place to ensure full compliance with Article IV of CITES in these countries, their national authorities are increasingly collaborating at the regional level and their timber industry is undergoing a radical reform. The CITES and ITTO secretariats will support these efforts through this joint project‖ (Sosa-Schmidt & Johnson, 2007). The joint CITES-ITTO project is funded over four years (2007-2010) and the first regional meeting took place in Cameroon in April 2008 (CITES Secretariat, 2008). The purpose of the Cameroon workshop was ―to develop a participative action plan with respect to the formulation of non-detriment findings for Afrormosia exports, focused on the key Assamela [Afrormosia] producing countries, and drawing on the cooperative efforts of exporters, importers, governments and NGO community‖ (Anon, 2008a). A questionnaire was sent to the range States, to be submitted prior to the workshop, and requesting information on (1) production/exploitation, (2) processing, (3) transport, (4) exportation, (5) institutional aspects, (6) the control system, (7) the fiscal system (fiscality), and (8) links with CITES (Anon, 2008a). An overview of the replies from the Democratic Republic of the Congo is presented below (Anon, 2008b): (1) Production/exploitation: Afrormosia occurs in the provinces of Equateur and Orientale over an estimated area of 33,650,000 ha. The supervision of forest exploitation is the responsibility of the ‗Direction de la Gestion Forestière‘ (Forest Management Directorate). Species‘ abundance of 2 individuals/ha. Natural regeneration reported. No plantations. During 2005-2007, licensed logging companies were allowed to extract afromosia from an area of 51,336 ha, or 0.16% of the distribution area of the species in the two provinces where it occurs. The estimated potential volume for this extraction area was of 97,938 m3 and the volume extracted that was declared to the forest administration was of 44,322 m3. (2) Processing: a list of the ten firms with their own processing plants was given, but it was noted that the firms did not report the volumes processed during the years 2005- 2007. (3) Transport: data were not available. (4) Exportation: data on exports reported by the different exporting companies during 2005-2007 were provided. Totals amounted to 6,984 m3 in 2005, 14, 168 m3 in 2006 and 40,101 m3 in 2007. Between 11 and 14 companies reported exports during this three- year period. The reported destination countries were mostly EU countries, particularly Belgium, France and Italy, and also Portugal, Germany and Spain. (5) Institutional aspects: no data. (6) The control system: it was reported that the Control and Inspection Directorate of the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism controls exploitation, and that Customs and the Congolese Office of Control are in charge of controlling exports.

71

(7) Fiscal system: it was reported that there are no special taxes for P. elata. (8) Links with CITES: The main issues were reported to be: lack of representation of the Management Authority at the border‘s points of entry and exit; lack of inventories for the management of this species in order to estimate the harvestable volume; and that the current export quota is provisional. The action taken to address the problems was reported to be the request by the Management Authority to all forestry companies within the Afrormosia‘s distributional range to submit their inventories for the management of the species. The process of collecting results was reported to be still in progress. It was also reported that a good number of forestry enterprises are only starting to prepare their management plans, and therefore the Management Authority does not have data on the exploitable volumes. In view of this lack of information, the Management Authority acknowledges that it is very difficult to review the export quotas. The solutions proposed were: capacity building from the Management Authority to the enforcement bodies at the borders, in order to allow them to properly verify CITES permits; the Management Authority is seeking funding to carry out an inventory for the management of Afrormosia; once the Managment Authority gets hold of the inventory data on Afrormosia, it will update the export quota. REFERENCES: Affre, A. 2003. Afromosia: Portrait d'une espece et de ses interdits commerciaux. Info TRAFFIC, 3. Affre, A., Kathe, W., & Raymakers, C. 2004. Looking under the veneer: implementation manual on EU timber trade control: focus on CITES-listed trees. TRAFFIC Europe. Report to the European Commission. Brussels. Anon. 2003. Review of Significant Trade: Pericopsis elata. Windhoek (Namibia), 16-20 February 2004. PC14 Doc. 9.2.2. Annex 3. URL: http://www.cites.org/eng/com/pc/14/E- PC14-09-02-02-A3.pdf Accessed 20-1-2008. Anon. 2004. Review of information and confirmation of categorisation by the Plants Committee - Recommendations of the Significant Trade working group. Significant trade in plants: Implementation of Resolution Conf. 12.8. - Progress with the implementation of species reviews. PC14 WG 3.2 Doc. 1. Anon. 2005. Interpretation and implementation of the Convention - Review of Significant Trade. Fifty-third meeting of the Standing Committee. Geneva, Switzerland, 27 June-1 July 2005. SC53 Doc. 25. Anon. 2006. Interpretation and Implementation of the Convention - General compliance issues: Review of Significant Trade. Fifty-fourth meeting of the Standing Committee. Geneva (Switzerland), 2-6 October 2006. SC54 Doc. 42. Anon. 2008a. Survey on sustainable utilisation of afromosia in Africa. Regional workshop on Pericopsis elata (afrormosia or assamela), Kiribi, Cameroon, 2-4 April 2008. Anon. 2008b. Utilisation durable de l’afrormosia en Afrique – cas de la RDC. Bytynski, T. M. & McCullough, J. 2007. A Rapid Biological Assessment of Lokutu, Democratic Republic of Congo. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessments, 46. CITES Secretariat. 2008. Progress report on the joint ITTO-CITES timber project: first regional meeting. Seventeenth meeting of the Plants Committee. Geneva (Switzerland), 15-19 April 2008. PC17 Doc. 16.2. Dickson, B., Mathew, P., Mickleburgh, S., Oldfield, S., Pouakouyou, D., & Suter, J. 2005. An assessment of the conservation status, management and regulation of the trade in Pericopsis elata. Fauna and Flora International. Cambridge, UK. PC 15 Inf. 2. IUCN. 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, IUCN, URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 8-1-2008.

72

MECNEF. 2004. Etat des lieux du potentiel en Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia) on Republique Democratique du Congo. Ministere de l'Environnement, Conservation de la Nature, Eaux et Forest. Oldfield, S., Lusty, C., & MacKinven, A. 1998. The world list of threatened trees. World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK. SGS. 2002. Forest law assessment in selected African countries. Final Draft. Trade Assurance Services. World Bank/WWF Alliance. Sosa-Schmidt, M. & Johnson, S. 2007. CITES and ITTO join forces to promote the conservation and sustainable harvest of tropical timbers. Tropical Forest Update (ITTO Newsletter), 17 (1). UNEP-WCMC. 1998. Contribution to an evaluation of tree species using the new CITES listing criteria. Compiled by UNEP-WCMC on behalf of the CITES Management Authority of the Netherlands. 440 pp. UNEP-WCMC. 2007. Analysis of the European Community and Candidate Countries Annual Reports to CITES 2005. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General E- Environment ENV E.4- Development and Environment. Cambridge, UK. 178 pp.

73