Review of on the Basis of of 2014 CITES Quotas of Species Selected

UNEP-WCMC technical report

Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas

Part II

(Version edited for public release)

Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas. Part II.

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

Published November 2014

Citation UNEP-WCMC. 2014. Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas. Part II. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

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

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

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

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK Tel: +44 1223 277314 UNEP promotes www.unep-wcmc.org environmentally sound

practices globally and in its own activities. Printing on paper from environme ntally i sustainable forests and

recyclycled fibre is encouraged. Contents

Introduction and summary ...... 1 Note on quota-setting in Guyana ...... 3 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus ...... 4 Corallus caninus ...... 12 Corallus hortulanus ...... 16 Chelonoidis denticulata ...... 20 Dogania subplana ...... 25 Cyclemys dentata ...... 30 Euphorbia bulbispina ...... 36 Euphorbia pachypodioides ...... 38 Aloes from Madagascar – Overview of status, management and trade...... 40 Aloe capitata ...... 43 Aloe deltoideodonta ...... 46 Aloe guillaumetii ...... 49 Aloe imalotensis ...... 50 Aquilaria spp...... 53 Appendix ...... 66

Introduction and summary

This report presents a review of thirteen taxa selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas (UNEP-WCMC, 2014a) and provides an update of new and increased 2014 CITES export quotas published since the production of this analysis and the Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas: Part I (UNEP-WCMC, 2014b).

National export quotas for CITES listed taxa are an important tool to manage and monitor wildlife trade. The establishment or revision of an export quota should be based on a non-detriment finding (NDF) by the Scientific Authority of the exporting country and the NDF should be reviewed annually (Resolution Conf. 14.7 (Rev. CoP15)). Once such annual quotas are established, the need for a NDF for each individual shipment of the species concerned is eliminated.

The EU, through stricter measures outlined in the Wildlife Trade Regulations, requires an NDF by importing Member States and therefore monitors newly established quotas and changes to previous quota levels to assess the situation where necessary, or to reassess SRG opinions or EU decisions. Similarly, by assessing the new quotas early each year, the SRG can advise on the treatment of anticipated import applications within the EU.

Export quotas are usually established by each Party to CITES unilaterally on a voluntary basis, but they can also be set by the Conference of the Parties, or result from recommendations of the Animals and Plants Committees. To ensure that national quotas are effectively communicated and implemented on permits and certificates, countries should inform the CITES Secretariat when they establish national export quotas for CITES species (Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP16)). In turn, the Secretariat informs the Parties by publishing a list of national export quotas of which it has been informed (www.cites.org/eng/resources/quotas/index.php ).

In 2014, quotas were published on the CITES website ( www.cites.org ) on 14/03/2014 and were updated on 26/03/2014, 14/04/2014, 20/06/2014, 11/08/2014 and 25/09/2014.

Based on the quotas that were available on 28/04/2014, UNEP-WCMC analysed the 2014 CITES export quotas to identify:

a) Quotas that were newly established in 2014 (i.e. 2014 quotas for particular species/country/term/source combinations that have not previously been subject to a quota, or have not been subject to a quota for at least the last 5 years);

b) Quotas that increased or decreased in 2014 compared with 2013 quotas (or compared with 2012 quotas if no quota was published in 2013).

This analysis was discussed at SRG 68 on 28/05/2014 and a list of 18 taxa/country combinations that may warrant review was presented; in addition Member States were invited to suggest any additional species with new or increased quotas that may warrant review. An update on 2014 CITES export quotas was provided at SRG69, following which a further four species were selected for review.

The following 13 taxa/country combinations are reviewed in this report:

• Caiman crocodilus crocodilus /Guyana (increased quota, 16 015 live and 38 500 skins) • Corallus caninus /Guyana (increased quota, 1371 live) • Corallus hortulanus /Guyana (increased quota, 4570 live) 1

Introduction and summary

• Chelonoidis denticulata /Guyana (increased quota, 183 live) • Cyclemys dentata/ Indonesia (new quota, 12 915 live) • Dogania subplana/ Indonesia (new quota, 4500 live) • Euphorbia bulbispina/ Madagascar (new quota, 34 artificially propagated live plants) • Euphorbia pachypodioides/ Madagascar (new quota, 199 artificially propagated live plants) • Aloe capitata /Madagascar (increased quota, 1483 live) • Aloe deltoideodonta /Madagascar (increased quota, 3708 live) • Aloe guillaumetii /Madagascar (increased quota, 250 live) • Aloe imalotensis /Madagascar (increased quota, 178 live) • Aquilaria spp./Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah (new quota, 200 000 kg wood chips, wood blocks and essential oil)

The SRG agreed that further consideration might be necessary to determine whether the trade would have a harmful effect on the conservation status of these species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of these species. These reviews are presented below. Update since Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas

Since the publication of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas (UNEP-WCMC, 2014a) and the Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas: Part I (UNEP-WCMC, 2014 b), additional CITES export quotas were published from Cameroon, Indonesia, Madagascar and the United Republic of Tanzania on 11 th August 2014, and from Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Peru, Romania and Uganda on 25 th September 2014. Of these, there were no new quotas and the following relate to increased quotas:

An increase in the quota for Pericopsis elata (EN) from Congo, from 543.724 m3 sawn wood and 319.837 m3 logs in 2012 to 5039.087 m3 sawn wood and 2223.373 m3 logs in 2014; no quotas were published in 2013.

An increase in the quota for Prunus africana (VU) from Cameroon, from 634 763 kg dry bark in 2013 to 974 853 kg dry bark in 2014. The SRG formed a positive opinion for this 2014 annual export quota on 3 rd September 2014, subject to the origin being clearly indicated in the export permit.

An increase in the quota for Prunus africana (VU) from Democratic Republic of the Congo, from 72 000 kg dry bark in 2013 to 102 000 kg dry bark in 2014. A positive opinion was formed for bark from DRC on 30 th November 2012, subject to an annual quota of 72 000 kg and clear indication of origin in the export permit.

An increase in the quota for Swietenia macrophylla (VU) from Peru, from 775 659 m3 wood in 2011 (plus 3565.547 m 3 wood valid from 23 rd July 2010 until 22 nd July 2011), to 801 143 m 3 sawn wood in 2014; no quotas were published in 2012 or 2013.

Note on quota-setting in Guyana

In the Analysis of 2014 CITES Export Quotas (UNEP-WCMC, 2014a), it was noted that many of the quotas published by Guyana had increased compared with 2013, quite substantially in some cases. Before 2014, Guyana’s quota year ran from 4th April of the quota year to 3 rd April of the following year. In 2014, Guyana adopted a change to their licence year, aligning it with the calendar year. Due to a shortening of the original 2013/2014 licence period, unused quotas as of 31 st December 2013 were added to the pre- existing annual quotas for 2014.

The issuance of licences in relation to wildlife are detailed in the Environmental Protection (Wildlife Management and Conservation) Regulations, 2009, with Commercial Collecting Licences relating to the export and re-export of wild animals from Guyana detailed in the Wildlife Import and Export Regulations, 2009 (Government of Guyana, 2013).

Grimes et al . (2008) raised concerns over the apparent lack of knowledge on the population status of most species for which export quotas had been issued in Guyana and noted that no baseline data were available to assess harvesting levels. Duplaix (2001) also raised concerns over the setting of export quotas in the country possibly being based on levels of export rather than best information available. Illegal trade in wildlife between Guyana and Suriname was also reported to be a problem (Duplaix, 2001). References Duplaix, N. 2001. Evaluation of the animal and plant trade in the Guianas: preliminary findings . WWF- Guianas. Government of Guyana. 2013. Environmental Protection (Wildlife Management and Conservation) Regulations, 2009. The Official Gazette of Guyana (legal supplement) B 16 th November 2013. Government of Guyana National Printers Ltd, Georgetown, p. 137-183. Grimes, A., Fraser, D. and Zweede, M. 2008. FAA 118/119 Biodiversity and tropical forest assessment Guyana . 32 pp. UNEP-WCMC, 2014a. Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

UNEP-WCMC, 2014b. Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 export quotas . UNEP- WCMC, Cambridge.

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus

REPTILIA: ALLIGATORIDAE

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus II/B

COMMON NAMES: South American spectacled caiman (English), Caïman à lunettes (French), Babilla (Spanish)

RANGE STATES: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba (int), Ecuador, French Guiana (France), Guyana, Peru, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Puerto Rico (int), Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America (int)

UNDER REVIEW: Guyana

EU DECISIONS: Caiman crocodilus : Current positive opinion for Guyana and Venezuela, formed on 14/09/2007. Current positive opinion for Bolivia formed on 11/07/2000 and confirmed on 07/02/2013.

Current no opinion (i) for Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America formed on 02/12/2011. Previous positive opinion for these countries formed on 11/07/2000. Current no opinion (i) for Guatemala and Mexico formed on 20/06/2011.

Current no opinion (ii) for Nicaragua formed on 07/02/2013 and last confirmed on 12/09/2013. Previous positive opinion for Nicaragua formed on 11/07/2000. Current no opinion (ii) for Suriname formed on 07/02/2013 and confirmed on 28/05/2013. Previous positive opinion for Suriname formed on 22/07/1997 and confirmed on 14/09/2007.

Current no opinion (iii) for El Salvador formed on 20/06/2011.Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico first applied on 24/09/2000 and removed on 10/09/2012. Previous negative opinion for El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico formed on 11/07/2000.

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus: Current no opinion for Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago formed on 14/09/2007. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Ecuador, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 24/09/2000.

Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Bolivia first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 19/09/1999.

IUCN: Lower Risk/least concern

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus

Trade patterns Guyana: Caiman crocodilus crocodilus was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 under the order listing Crocodylia spp. Caiman crocodilus crocodilus is the only subspecies of Caiman crocodilus native to Guyana (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Therefore, all wild-sourced direct trade from Guyana reported as Caiman crocodilus can be considered to be Caiman c. crocodilus. Guyana has submitted CITES annual reports for all years 2003-2012.

Guyana published CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Caiman c. crocodilus of 20 000 skins and 10 000 live in all years from 1997 to 2013 (Table 1). These quotas applied to the period from 4 th April to 3 rd April the following year (as explained in the note on quota-setting above). In 2014, Guyana published increased CITES export quotas, applicable to the calendar year, of 38 500 skins and 16 015 live specimens of Caiman c. crocodilus .

According to data reported by Guyana and its trading partners in their annual reports to CITES, the export quota for wild-sourced skins appears to have been exceeded in 2008 (by 1000 skins according to Guyana); in 2009 (by 5999 skins according to Guyana and by 8250 skins according to importers); and in 2012 (by 10 500 skins according to importers). However, it is difficult to confirm these potential quota excesses due to the quota year not running according to the calendar year. A permit analysis indicated that three shipments reported by Mexico (amounting to 7 000 skins), were recorded by Guyana in their 2011 report (based on permit numbers), indicating that the apparent quota excess for 2012 may be closer to 3500 skins rather than 10 500. Additional discrepancies between trade reported by Guyana and that of Mexico (the sole importer in 2012) were also observed, with Mexico reporting the import of skins from Guyana on four export permits that were not reported by Guyana in any year (totalling 13 000 skins). The potential discrepancies could also relate to trade being reported on the basis of permits issued; neither Mexico nor Guyana have specified the basis for the compilation of their annual report (permits issued or actual trade).

Table 1: CITES export quotas of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus from Guyana and global direct exports of *wild-sourced skins and live specimens from Guyana 2003-2014 (including trade reported at species level). Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available.

Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Quota 1 (live) 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 16015 Importer 4672 3252 4107 2960 836 874 1375 2053 2076 335 Exporter 3373 2797 4087 3227 1612 7742 5716 2498 2648 1335 Quota 1 (skins) 20000 20000 20000 20000 20000 20000 20000 20000 20000 20000 20000 38500 Importer 3000 620 1300 2940 16205 18010 28250 19849 14250 30500 Exporter 0 620 2301 3720 16707 21000 25999 16250 16460 18000 1The 2014 quota applies to the calendar year. Previous quotas applied to the period from 4 th April of the year for which the quota was published to 3 rd April the following year. *Wild-sourced includes trade reported as Source “W” and without a source specified. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Direct exports of Caiman c. crocodilus to the EU-28 2003-2012 (including trade reported at species level) consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals, nearly all of which was traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). The principal importers were the Netherlands, Spain and Germany. Additionally, the United Kingdom reported the confiscation/seizure of 10 bodies in 2004, 17 bodies in 2007 and 4 small leather products in 2008.

Direct trade in Caiman c. crocodilus (including trade reported at species level) from Guyana to countries other than the EU-28 2003-2012 primarily comprised wild-sourced skins traded for commercial purposes 5

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus

(Table 3). The main importer was Mexico. The United States of America reported small numbers of confiscations/seizures of bodies and large leather products in 2003 and 2009.

Indirect trade in Caiman c. crocodilus (including trade reported at species level) from Guyana to the EU- 28 between 2003 and 2012 principally consisted of wild sourced trade for commercial purposes, the main terms being skins and small leather products, and trade being mainly via Panama (Table 3). Additionally, the import of small quantities of wild-sourced small leather products and skin pieces of Caiman c. fuscus , originating from Guyana (for which it is not a range state) were reported by Austria and France.

Additionally, the United States of America reported at the genus level the import of 1 body (source ‘U’) in 2004 and the confiscation/seizure of 28 small leather products in 2006 of Caiman spp. from Guyana.

Table 2: Direct exports of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus from Guyana to the EU-28 (EU), 2003-2012 (including trade reported at the species level). Virtually all trade was for commercial purposes.

Term Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total bodies I Importer 10 17 27 Exporter leather products (small) I Importer 4 4 Exporter live W* Importer 2176 1713 2815 2611 636 517 950 1743 1626 325 15112 Exporter 1354 1563 2630 2275 861 507 1227 1100 1651 895 14063 *Wild-sourced includes trade reported as Source “W” and without a source specified. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus

Table 3: Direct exports of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus (including trade reported at species level) from Guyana to countries other than the EU-28, 2003-2012. Most trade was for commercial purposes.

Term Unit Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total bodies - I1 Importer 3 1 4 Exporter U1 Importer 1 1 Exporter W Importer 2 1 2 5 Exporter leather products (large) - I1 Importer 2 2 Exporter W Importer Exporter 18 18 leather products (small) - W Importer 2990 192 3182 Exporter live - R Importer 50 50 Exporter W Importer 2496 1539 1292 349 200 357 425 310 450 10 7428 Exporter 2019 1234 1457 952 751 7235 4489 1398 997 440 20972 meat kg W Importer Exporter 2 2 skins - C Importer 1000 1000 2000 Exporter O Importer 19650 19650 Exporter W Importer 3000 620 1300 540 16205 18010 28250 19849 14250 30500 132524 Exporter 0 620 2301 3720 16707 21000 25999 16250 16460 18000 121057 - Importer 1200 1200 Exporter specimens ml W Importer Exporter 6 6 1Reported as Caiman crocodilus . As the source is unknown, it is not certain that this is C.c. crocodilus. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus

Table 4: Indirect exports of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus (including trade reported at species level) originating in Guyana to the EU-28, 2003-2012. Purpose was primarily commercial.

Term Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total leather products (large) U Importer 3 3 Exporter leather products (small) C Importer 50 2 52 Exporter 50 50 U Importer Exporter 22 22 W Importer 1884 86 176 27 33 608 7 32 2853 Exporter 181 99 358 183 10 682 11 8 1532 skin pieces W Importer 500 40 1 541 Exporter skins C Importer 2 2 Exporter W Importer 2000 140 250 450 9 60 2909 Exporter 862 400 250 450 32.5 100 2094.5 tails W Importer 496 496 Exporter Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus

Conservation Status Caiman crocodilus is a medium-sized crocodilian growing up to 2.7 m in length, found in lakes, ponds, marshes, forest swamps and slow-flowing rivers of Central and South America (Trutnau and Sommerlad, 2006; Crocodile Specialist Group, 2012). Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) considered Caiman crocodilus to range from southern Mexico to Peru, northern Bolivia and the northern half of Brazil. Including Caiman crocodilus yacare, the native range extends through Paraguay into northern Argentina. Of the five Caiman crocodilus subspecies, Caiman c. crocodilus has the most extensive range, covering much of northern South America (Busack and Pandya, 2001; Trutnau and Sommerlad, 2006; Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) reported its occurrence as “distributed throughout the Orinoco drainage from Colombia through Brazil north and east of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Guyana and French Guyana.

Female Caiman crocodilus reach sexual maturity at about 1.2 m, approximately 4-7 years of age, and lay an average of 30-40 eggs (Thorbjarnarson 1994; Velasco et al. 1996; Rueda-Almonacid et al ., 2007).

In 1996, Caiman crocodilus was categorised as Lower Risk/least concern in the IUCN Red List, with the following justification: “probably numbers in the millions, widely distributed throughout range, although locally depleted or extirpated in some localities” (Crocodile Specialist Group, 1996). However, it is noted that this assessment needs updating. Trutnau and Sommerlad (2006) reported that “Even though the species has become rare today and has been extirpated in some localities, Caiman crocodilus has a huge distribution area with population sizes that are possibly in the millions.” Britton (2009) estimated the size of the wild C. crocodilus global population at over one million individuals, whilst the Crocodile Specialist Group (2012) estimated the Venezuelan population alone to be over three million individuals. Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) noted that even taking into account local depletions, the population size overall may be larger than historically, as other more valuable crocodilian species are preferentially hunted.

The main threats to Caiman crocodilus were reported to include illegal hunting and habitat loss (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Large-scale exploitation of Caiman crocodilus was reported to have started in the 1950s, following population declines in sympatric larger crocodilian species with higher quality skins (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Since then, Caiman crocodilus was reported to have become the main source of crocodilian skins in trade (Hutton and Webb, 2003), with C. c. crocodilus and C. c. fuscus supplying the vast majority of skins on the international market (Velasco and De Sola, 2005 in: Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010).

Britton (2009) stated that “smuggling rings operating through Thailand and Singapore are extremely damaging to individual populations, and greater control measures and more effective legislation are needed”. However, Velasco and Ayarzagüena, (2010) reported that improvements in the implementation and enforcement of CITES regulations had contributed to a reduction of illegal trade. Each of the five named subspecies ( apaporiensis , crocodilus, fuscus, chiapasius and yacare ) have been designated an individual code in the universal tagging system for the identification of crocodilian skins (CITES Resolution Conf. 11.12 [Rev CoP15]). However, the practice of removing tags from skins before the tanning, and re-tagging the skins with the export tags after the tanning was thought to potentially allow laundering of illegal skins through tanneries (AC24 Doc. 11).

Caiman crocodilus was considered to be relatively resilient to the impacts of hunting, due to its ability to survive in various different habitats (Rueda-Almonacid et al ., 2007; Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010; Crocodile Specialist Group, 2012), early maturation at approximately four years at a relatively small size, and the lower hunting pressure on females and smaller individuals (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Furthermore, Caiman crocodilus was considered to have benefitted from the decline of populations of larger crocodilians (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010).

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus

Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) reported captive breeding programs for Caiman crocodilus in many range states and Caiman crocodilus and its subspecies were reported to be successfully kept and bred in captivity. However, Britton (2009) noted that farming and ranching may not be economically viable.

Guyana: Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) and Rueda-Almonacid et al . (2007) reported the occurrence of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus throughout Guyana and De Ávila Pires (2005) considered C. crocodilus (crocodilus ) to be widespread throughout the Guiana Shield area. Surveys conducted in 1989 of Caiman c. crocodilus reported it to be widespread in the lowlands of Guyana, although most of the accessible populations surveyed had been significantly or severely depleted by commercial hunting (Gorzula and Woolford, 1990 in: Thorbjarnarson et al. , 1992). More recent surveys of the herpetofauna and other groups in Iwokrama forest area in central Guyana recorded Caiman c. crocodilus (Donnelly et al ., 2005; Bicknell et al., 2013), however, it was not recorded in various other surveys (Pickles et al ., 2009; MacCulloch and Reynolds, 2012; Reynolds and MacCulloch, 2012; Alonso et al ., 2008). Alonso et al. (2013) noted that larger reptilians were less abundant near villages due to hunting pressure from local communities.

Research on Caiman c. crocodilus population status and the impact of the harvest in Guyana were reported to be needed (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). There was reported to be a national program based on the harvest of wild Caiman crocodilus populations (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010).

A representative of the regional Crocodile Specialist Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (Lucía Fernández, pers. comm. to UNEP-WCMC, 31 st October 2014) confirmed that it was difficult to obtain any official information regarding the management program for Caiman c. crocodilus in Guyana, although it was likely to be based on the hunting of adult animals. She noted that the CITES authorities of Guyana reported there to be no size limit for the skins and no hunting season established. There was reported to have been no recent monitoring of the wild population (Lucía Fernández, pers. comm. to UNEP-WCMC, 31 st October 2014). References Alonso, L., Vitus, A., Buckley, C., Fernandes, D., Fredericks, N., Fredericks, P., Gomes, E., Helms, J. and Hutchinson, C. 2013. South Rupununi Biodiversity Assessment Team (BAT) Expedition October 22- November 7 2013 Preliminary Report. WWF-Guianas and Global Wildlife Conservation. Austin, Texas. 97 pp. Alonso, L.E., McCullough, J., Naskrecki, P., Alexander, E. and Wright, H.E. 2008. A rapid biological assessment of the Konashen Community Owned Conservation Area, Southern Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment , 51. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. 90 pp. De Ávila Pires, T.C.S. 2005. Reptiles. In: T. Hollowell & R.P. Reynolds (Eds.). Checklist of the terrestrial vertebrates of the Guiana shield . Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington no. 13, 25–42. Bicknell, J., Snyder, A., Lim, B., Horsley, T., Bryce, C. and Worthington, R. 2013. Monitoring biodiversity by Operation Wallacea in the Iwokrama and Surama Forests, Guyana. Operation Wallacea research report 2011-2013. 40 pp. Britton, A. 2009. Caiman crocodilus (Linnaeus, 1758). Crocodilian species list. [Online]. 2009. Available at: http://crocodilian.com/cnhc/csp_ccro.htm. [Accessed: 18 September 2014]. Busack, S.D. and Pandya, S. 2001. Geographic variation in Caiman crocodilus and Caiman yacare (Crocodylia: Alligatoridae): Systematic and legal implications. Herpetologia , 57(3): 294–312. Campos, Z., Llobet, A.Q., Piña, C.I. and Magnusson, W.E. 2010. Caiman yacare (Yacare caiman) S.C. Manolis & C. Stevenson (Eds.). Third edition p.23–28. Crocodile Specialist Group 1996. Caiman crocodilus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. [Online]. 1996. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 18 September 2014].

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus

Crocodile Specialist Group 2012. Spectacled Caiman Caiman crocodilus. Species description . [Online]. 2012. Available at: http://www.iucncsg.org/pages/Crocodilian-Species.html. [Accessed: 18 September 2014]. Donnelly, M.A., Chen, M.H. and Watkins, G.G. 2005. Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia , 154: 55–69. Gorzula, S. and Woolford, J. 1990. Crocodilian resources in Guyana. Draft Report to CITES. Hutton, J. and Webb, G. 2003. Crocodiles: legal trade snaps back. In: S. Oldfield (Ed.). The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation . Earthscan Publication Ltd, London, UK. 108–120. MacCulloch, R.D. and Reynolds, R.P. 2012. Amphibians and reptiles from Paramakatoi and Kato, Guyana. Check List , 8(2): 207–210. Pickles, R., McCann, N. and Holland, A. 2009. A biodiversity assessment of the Rewa Head, Guyana . The Zoological Society of London, London. 49 pp. Reynolds, R.P. and MacCulloch, R.D. 2012. Preliminary Checklist of Amphibians and Reptiles from Baramita, Guyana. Check List , 8(2): 211–214. Rueda-Almonacid, J. V, Carr, J.L., Mittermeier, R.A., Rodríguez-Mahecha, J. V, Mast, R.B., Vogt, R.C., Rhodin, A.G.J., Ossa-Velásquez, J. de la, Rueda, J.N. and Mittermeier, C.G. 2007. Las tortugas y los cocodrilianos de los países Andinos del trópico . Conservation International, Bogotá, Colombia. 536 pp. Thorbjarnarson, J.B., Messel, H., King, F.W. and Ross, P. 1992. Crocodiles: an action plan for their conservation . H. Messel, F.W. King and J.P Ross (Eds). IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. p.137. Trutnau, L. and Sommerlad, R. 2006. Crocodilians. Their natural history and captive husbandry . Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Edition Chimaira. 646 pp. Velasco, A. and Ayarzagüena, J. 2010. Spectacled Caiman Caiman crocodilus . In: S.C. Manolis & C. Stevenson (Eds.). Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan . Crocodile Specialist Group, Darwin: IUCN SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, 10–15. Velasco, A. and De Sola, R. 2005. Exportaciones de pieles de cocodrilos desde Latino América Latina y el Caribe del Grupo de Especialistas en Cocodrilos C. Publication (Ed.). Reunión Regional de América Latina y el Caribe del Grupo de Especialista en Cocodrilos , 127–143.

Corallus caninus

REPTILIA: BOIDAE

Corallus caninus II/B

COMMON NAMES: Emerald tree boa (English), Boa émeraude (French), Boa esmeralda (Spanish)

SYNONYMS: Boa aurantiaca, Boa canina, Boa exigua, Boa hipnale, Boa thalassina, Chrysenis batesii, Corallus batesi, Corallus batesi, Xiphosoma araramboya, Xiphosoma canina

RANGE STATES: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, French Guiana (France), Guyana, Suriname

UNDER REVIEW: Guyana

EU DECISIONS: Current no opinion (ii) for Guyana and Suriname formed on 07/02/2013 and confirmed on 28/05/2013. Previous positive opinion for Guyana formed on 11/11/1997 and removed on 07/02/2013. Previous positive opinion for Suriname formed on 02/09/1997 and removed on 07/02/2013.

Current no opinion (i) for Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Plurinational State of Bolivia formed on 02/12/2011. Previous positive opinion for these countries formed on 11/11/1997 and removed on 02/12/2011.

IUCN: Not assessed

Taxonomic Note Henderson et al . (2009) recognised Corallus caninus only from the Guiana Shield region and Brazil north of the Rio Negro and Amazon River, referring to specimens previously also included with Corallus caninus from elsewhere in South America (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and elsewhere in Brazil) as Corallus batesii . Henderson et al . (2009) was adopted as the standard nomenclatural reference for C. batesii at CoP16 (CITES Notification No. 2012/060). Trade patterns Corallus caninus was listed in CITES Appendix II on 04/02/1977 under the family listing Boidae spp. Guyana has submitted CITES annual reports for all years 2003-2012.

Guyana published CITES export quotas for 880 individuals from 1997-2013; from 1999 onwards the quota specified ‘live’ (Table 1). These quotas applied to the period from 4 th April to 3 rd April the following year. Guyana published an increased CITES export quota of 1371 live specimens of C. caninus in 2014, starting on the 1 st January 2014. According to data reported by Guyana and the importers, the quota appears to have been exceeded in 2003 (by 80 individuals according to Guyana and 157 individuals according to the importers). This apparent quota excess may be due to Guyana reporting on permits issued, as opposed to actual trade; Guyana did not specify this in their annual report. The apparent quota excess in 2003 according to importer-reported data can partly be explained by year-end trade: 113 of the animals imported in 2003 were traded with export permits that were not reported by Guyana in its 2003 annual report, and were within the range of permit numbers reported in Guyana’s annual report for 2002.

Corallus caninus

Direct exports of C. caninus to the EU-28 2003-2012 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals, mainly traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). According to both importer- and exporter-reported data, trade declined over the period 2005-2011. The principal importers were Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Direct trade in C. caninus from Guyana to countries other than the EU-28 2003- 2012 primarily comprised wild-sourced, live individuals traded for commercial purposes. The main importer was the United States of America.

Indirect trade in C. caninus from Guyana to the EU-28 between 2003 and 2012 principally consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals exported via the United States of America for commercial purposes (Table 3). The United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of one scientific specimen in 2009 and 18 scientific specimens in 2010.

Additionally, the United States of America reported the direct import from Guyana of live, wild-sourced Corallus spp. at the genus level, totalling 40 individuals in 2006 and 50 individuals in 2011. This trade was not reported by Guyana.

Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Corallus caninus from Guyana and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Quota 1 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 880 1371 Importer 1037 813 571 480 754 538 455 451 358 382 Exporter 960 726 691 519 786 766 512 388 422 432 1The 2014 quota applies to the calendar year. Previous quotas applied to the period from 4 th April of the year for which the quota was published to 3 rd April the following year. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Table 2: Direct exports of Corallus caninus from Guyana to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. All trade was wild-sourced.

Importer Term Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live P Importer 25 25 Exporter T Importer 475 431 164 169 125 117 80 74 79 148 1862 Exporter 372 275 229 155 158 188 39 54 102 164 1736 - Importer 45 45 Exporter RoW bodies T Importer Exporter 1 1 live B, Z Importer 8 1 9 Exporter 9 9 P Importer 2 2 Exporter T Importer 562 380 407 311 584 421 375 352 271 233 3986 Exporter 588 451 462 364 628 578 473 334 311 268 4457

Corallus caninus

Table 3: Indirect exports of Corallus caninus originating in Guyana to the EU-28, 2003-2012 (no trade was reported in 2012).

Term Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total live W P Importer 5 5 Exporter W T Importer 30 44 6 23 15 36 8 4 166 Exporter 14 37 6 18 13 43 8 4 143 specimens I S Importer Exporter 1 18 19

Conservation status Corallus caninus is an arboreal snake that occurs in northern Brazil and the Guiana Shield area (Henderson et al ., 2009; de Ávila Pires, 2005). It occurs in lowland tropical forest (Henderson et al. , 2009) , both primary and secondary (Starace, 2013), usually below 200 m a.s.l. (Vidal et al ., 2005) but up to 1000 m a.s.l. (Wallach et al ., 2014). Adults were reported to reach an average size of 1500-2000 mm (Gasc & Rodrigues, 1980 in: Starace, 2013). Females were reported to reach sexual maturity at 4-5 years and bear 5-12 live offspring every other year (Paulette, 2008; Oxtoby, 2008), with gestation lasting 6-8 months (Starace, 2013).

C. caninus was reported to be a popular pet species because of its attractive colouration (Paulette, 2008; Marešová and Frynta, 2008). It was reported to have a high mortality in captivity and to be prone to various stress-related symptoms and diseases (Oxtoby, 2008).

The conservation status of the species has not been assessed by IUCN. Naugher (2004) regarded habitat loss as the primary threat to the species, and overcollection for the pet trade as a potential threat.

Guyana : Little systematically recorded data was available on the status of populations in Guyana. Wallach et al . (2014) listed it from three regions of central Guyana: Cuyuni-Mazaruni, Potaro-Siparuni, Upper Demerara-Berbice, and the coastal region of Essequibo Islands-West Demerara. A range map by Henderson (1993) indicated that it occurs throughout the country, apart from the northernmost parts. The species appears to be less frequently encountered in surveys than its congener C. hortulanus . Bicknell et al. (2013) and Donnelly et al. (2005) recorded it from two of 17 sites surveyed in Iwokrama in the Potaro-Siparuni region, central Guyana. Alonso et al. (2013) and Alonso et al. (2008) recorded it from two of five sites surveyed in the south-western region, Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo. Three other surveys in Guyana did not record the species: Rewa Head, southern Guyana (Pickles et al ., 2009), Baramita in northern Guyana (Reynolds and MacCulloch, 2012) and Paramakatoi in western Guyana (MacCulloch and Reynolds, 2012).

C. caninus has been noted as the most valuable reptile species in Guyana, with exports making over US$40 000 in 1999 (van Andel et al ., 2003). Export of C. caninus was reported to be an important source of income for Guyana (van Andel et al. , 2003). Van Andel et al. (2003) also reported that illegal trade of animals from Guyana into Suriname (to fill export quotas), or to Brazil, was common.

C. caninus from Guyana was recently reviewed as a case study for making CITES NDF findings (Rose, 2014), in which a negative opinion was recommended, due to a lack of data on population status and management of the species. Particular concern was raised that the species had not been recorded at sites where it occurred in 1993, possibly indicating localised extinctions (Rose, 2014). References

Corallus caninus

Alonso, L., Vitus, A., Buckley, C., Fernandes, D., Fredericks, N., Fredericks, P., Gomes, E., Helms, J. and Hutchinson, C. 2013. South Rupununi Biodiversity Assessment Team (BAT) Expedition October 22- November 7 2013 Preliminary Report . WWF-Guianas and Global Wildlife Conservation. Austin, Texas. 97 pp. Alonso, L.E., McCullough, J., Naskrecki, P., Alexander, E. and Wright, H.E. 2008. A rapid biological assessment of the Konashen Community Owned Conservation Area, Southern Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment , 51. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. 90 pp. Van Andel, T., MacKinven, A. and Bánki, O. 2003. Commercial Non-Timber Forest Products of the Guiana Shield. An inventory of commercial NTFP extraction and possibilities for sustainable harvesting . Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 192 pp. De Ávila Pires, T.C.S. 2005. Reptiles. In: T. Hollowell & R.P. Reynolds (Eds.). Checklist of the terrestrial vertebrates of the Guiana shield . Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington no. 13, 25–42. Bicknell, J., Snyder, A., Lim, B., Horsley, T., Bryce, C. and Worthington, R. 2013. Monitoring biodiversity by Operation Wallacea in the Iwokrama and Surama Forests, Guyana. Operation Wallacea research report 2011-2013. 40 pp. Donnelly, M.A., Chen, M.H. and Watkins, G.G. 2005. Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia , 154: 55–69. Gasc, J.P. and Rodrigues, M.T. 1980. Liste préliminaire des serpents de la Guyane française. Bulletin du Muséum national d’Histoire Naturelle Paris , 2(2): 559–598. Henderson, R.W. 1993. Corallus caninus . Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles , 574: 1–4. Henderson, R.W., Passos, P. and Feitosa, D. 2009. Geographic variation in the Emerald Treeboa, Corallus caninus (Squamata: Boidae). Copeia , 2009(3): 572–582. MacCulloch, R.D. and Reynolds, R.P. 2012. Amphibians and reptiles from Paramakatoi and Kato, Guyana. Check List , 8(2): 207–210. Marešová, J. and Frynta, D. 2008. Noah’s Ark is full of common species attractive to humans: The case of boid snakes in zoos. Ecological Economics , 64(3): 554–558. Naugher, K. 2004. Emerald tree boa (Corallus caninus) and Annulated boa (Corallus annulatus): North American regional studbook . Montgomery, Alabama: Montgomery Zoo & Mann Museum. Oxtoby, G.P. 2008. The Emerald Tree Boa – Corallus caninus. Husbandry and reproduction of the green tree boa of South America . http://www.coralluscaninus.nl/CORALLUS%20CANINUS_website.pdf Paulette, D. 2008. Corallus caninus - Emerald tree boa. Animal Diversity Web. URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Corallus_caninus/. Accessed: 16/09/2014. Pickles, R., McCann, N. and Holland, A. 2009. A biodiversity assessment of the Rewa Head, Guyana . ZSL Conservation Report No. 10. The Zoological Society of London, London. 49 pp. Reynolds, R.P. and MacCulloch, R.D. 2012. Preliminary checklist of amphibians and reptiles from Baramita, Guyana. Check List . 8 (2) p.211–214. Rose, M. 2014. Non-detriment Findings in CITES (NDFs) . Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Version 1.2 (2014). 98 pp. Starace, F. 2013. Serpents et amphisbènes de Guyane Française . Ibis Rouge Editions, Matoury, Guyane. 604 pp. Vidal, N., Henderson, R., Delmas, A.-S. and Hedges, S. 2005. A phylogenetic study of the Emerald treeboa ( Corallus caninus ). Journal of Herpetology , 39(3): 500–503. Wallach, V., Williams, K.L. and Boundy, J. 2014. Snakes of the world: a catalogue of living and extinct species . CRC press. 1237 pp.

Corallus hortulanus

REPTILIA: BOIDAE

Corallus hortulanus II/B

COMMON NAMES: Garden tree boa (English), Boa arboricole d’Amazonie (French), Boa arborícola de jardín (Spanish)

SYNONYMS: Boa ambleocephala, Boa elegans, Boa enydris, Boa hortulana, Boa merremi, Boa modesta, Boa obtusiceps, Coluber bitis, Corallus enydris, Corallus maculatus, Corallus obtusirostris, Vipera bitis, Vipera madarensis, Xiphosoma dorsuale, Xiphosoma hortulanum, Xiphosoma merremi, Xiphosoma ornatum

RANGE STATES: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana (France), Guyana, Peru, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Suriname

UNDER REVIEW: Guyana

EU DECISIONS: Current positive opinion for Guyana formed on 09/10/1997.

Current no opinion (i) for Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, formed on 02/12/2011. Previous positive opinions for these countries formed on 09/10/1997 and removed on 02/12/2011.

Current no opinion (ii) for Suriname formed on 07/02/2013 and confirmed on 28/05/2013. Previous positive opinion for Suriname formed on 22/07/1997 and removed on 07/02/2013.

IUCN: Not assessed

Trade patterns Corallus hortulanus was listed in CITES Appendix II on 04/02/1977 under the family listing Boidae spp. Guyana has submitted CITES annual reports for all years 2003-2012.

Guyana published CITES export quotas for 3000 individuals from 1997-2013; from 1999 onwards the quota specified ‘live’ (Table 1). These quotas applied to the period from 4 th April to 3 rd April the following year. Guyana published an increased CITES export quota of 4570 live specimens of C. hortulanus in 2014, beginning on the 1 st of January. According to data reported by Guyana and its trading partners, trade appears to have remained within quota for all years (Table 1).

Direct exports of C. hortulanus to the EU-28 2003-2012 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals, mainly traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). According to both importer- and exporter-reported data, trade declined over the period 2005-2011. The principal importers were Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Direct trade in C. hortulanus from Guyana to countries other than the EU-28 2003-2012 primarily comprised wild-sourced, live individuals traded for commercial purposes. The main importer was the United States of America.

Indirect trade in C. hortulanus from Guyana to the EU-28 between 2003 and 2012 consisted entirely of live, wild-sourced individuals exported for commercial purposes, mainly via the United States of America (Table 3).

Corallus hortulanus

Additionally, the United States reported the direct import from Guyana of live, wild-sourced Corallus spp. at the genus level, totalling 40 individuals in 2006 and 50 individuals in 2011. This trade was not reported by Guyana. The United States also reported the import of 48 live, wild-sourced C. cookii from Guyana in 2009; this species is not native to Guyana and a permit analysis revealed that the same trade was reported by Guyana as C. hortulanus.

Table 1: CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced Corallus hortulanus from Guyana and corresponding global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013- 2014 are not yet available.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Quota 1 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 4570 Importer 2516 2316 1587 1403 2370 2056 1611 1297 1104 1408 Exporter 2370 1907 1993 1581 2572 2692 1610 1341 1276 1618 1 The 2014 quota applies to the calendar year Previous quotas applied to the period from 4 th April of the year for which the quota was published to 3 rd April the following year. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Table 2: Direct exports of Corallus hortulanus from Guyana to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. All trade was wild-sourced.

Importer Term Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live T Importer 771 829 431 530 381 333 134 167 110 327 4013 Exporter 590 626 520 519 561 541 58 130 212 265 4022 - Importer 266 266 Exporter RoW bodies T Importer Exporter 30 30 live P Importer 53 53 Exporter T Importer 1745 1434 1156 873 1723 1723 1477 1130 979 1080 13320 Exporter 1780 1281 1473 1062 2011 2151 1552 1211 1049 1353 14923 Z Importer 15 1 16 Exporter 15

Table 3: Indirect exports of Corallus hortulanus from Guyana to the EU-28, 2003-2012. All trade was in live, wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes. No trade was reported 2011-2012.

Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Importer 17 31 24 38 14 10 10 2 146 Exporter 1 24 23 38 4 20 10 2 122

Conservation status Corallus hortulanus was reported to be one of the most frequently encountered neotropical snakes (McDiarmid et al., 1996). It is very widespread in South America east of the Andes from Colombia to southern Brazil including many offshore islands (McDiarmid et al. , 1996) and it was reported to be widespread throughout the Guiana Shield (De Ávila Pires, 2005). It occurs in a wide variety of habitats although mainly in lowland moist and wet forest (Henderson, 1993) but also sparsely in drier biomes including the cerrado (savanna-woodland) and caatinga (xeric thorn forest) of central and northeastern Brazil (O’Shea, 2011). It is a lowland species, usually occuring below 300 m a.s.l. but up to 915 m a.s.l. in

Corallus hortulanus

Peru (Henderson, 1997). It is primarily arboreal and may be abundant in river margins (Martins & Oliveira, 1999).

Adults were reported to reach an average size of 1000-1800 mm (Starace, 2013). Females produce a litter of 6-16 juveniles and may breed every other year (Pizzatto & Marques, 2007), with gestation lasting 6-7 months (Starace, 2013).

The conservation status has not been assessed by the IUCN, however the species was described as locally abundant (McDiarmid et al. , 1996), geologically and ecologically widespread (Henderson, 2007; Starace, 2013) and not considered to be at risk (Winner, 2008). O’Shea and Halliday (2002) and McDiarmid et al. (1996) described it as one of the most common snakes of the Amazon basin region.

C. hortulanus has many colour morphs (Henderson, 1993) and it is popular in the pet trade (van Andel et al ., 2003; Winner, 2008). Nóbrega Alves et al. (2012) noted that the species was also used for medicinal purposes and sometimes killed due to being misidentified as a poisonous species in Brazil. However, in an assessment of morbidity and mortality in captivity, Altherr and Freyer (2001) classified the species to be “suitable only for qualified keepers”, due to being “difficult to keep” or with “high mortality in captivity”.

Guyana: There was little systematically recorded information available on C. hortulanus populations in Guyana. Wallach et al . (2014) gave the recorded distribution from six of the ten regions of the Guyana namely: the northern coastal regions of Barima-Waini, Demerara-Mahaica, Essequibo Islands-West Demerara and Mahaica-Berbice; and the adjoining inland regions of Upper Demerara-Berbice and Cuyubi-Mazaruni. Reynolds and MacCulloch (2012) also reported it from Baramita (Barima-Waini), northern Guyana, but without details of abundance. In addition, several surveys have reported the species elsewhere in Guyana. Donnelly et al . (2005) recorded it from 6 of 12 sites in Iwokrama forest in Potaro-Siparuni in central Guyana between 1997 and 2002. Bicknell et al . (2013) also reported C. hortulanus from the Iwokrama forest at each of five sites surveyed between 2011-2013. MacCulloch and Reynolds (2012) did not report it from Paramakatoi and Kato in Potaro-Siparuni in central Guyana. Alonso et al. (2013) reported it from Kusad Mountain in the Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo region of south-western Guyana. Alonso et al . (2008) recorded it at each of three sites surveyed in Konashen community-owned area of southern Guyana.

No further information was located on status, threats or management. References Alonso, L., Vitus, A., Buckley, C., Fernandes, D., Fredericks, N., Fredericks, P., Gomes, E., Helms, J. and Hutchinson, C. 2013. South Rupununi Biodiversity Assessment Team (BAT) Expedition October 22- November 7 2013 Preliminary Report . WWF-Guianas and Global Wildlife Conservation. Austin, Texas. 97 pp. Alonso, L.E., McCullough, J., Naskrecki, P., Alexander, E. and Wright, H.E. 2008. A rapid biological assessment of the Konashen Community Owned Conservation Area, Southern Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment , 51. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. 90 pp. Altherr, S. and Freyer, D. 2001. Morbidity and mortality in private husbandry of reptiles . RSPCA and Pro Wildlife, West Sussex, UK. 122 pp. Van Andel, T., MacKinven, A. and Bánki, O. 2003. Commercial Non-Timber Forest Products of the Guiana Shield. An inventory of commercial NTFP extraction and possibilities for sustainable harvesting . Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 192 pp. De Ávila Pires, T.C.S. 2005. Reptiles. In: T. Hollowell & R.P. Reynolds (Eds.). Checklist of the terrestrial vertebrates of the Guiana shield . Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington no. 13, 25–42.

Corallus hortulanus

Bicknell, J., Snyder, A., Lim, B., Horsley, T., Bryce, C. and Worthington, R. 2013. Monitoring biodiversity by Operation Wallacea in the Iwokrama and Surama Forests, Guyana. Operation Wallacea research report 2011-2013. 40 pp. Donnelly, M.A., Chen, M.H. and Watkins, G.G. 2005. Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia , 154: 55–69. Henderson, R.W. 1997. A taxonomic review of the Corallus hortulanus complex of Neotropical tree boas. Caribbean Journal of Science , 33(3-4): 198–221. Henderson, R.W. 1993. Corallus enydris . Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles , 576: 1–6. Henderson, R.W. 2007. Species profile: Amazon treeboa ( Corallus hortulanus ). Iguana , 14(2): 85–. MacCulloch, R.D. and Reynolds, R.P. 2012. Amphibians and reptiles from Paramakatoi and Kato, Guyana. Check List , 8(2): 207–210. Martins, M. and Oliveira, M.E. 1999. Natural histroy of snakes in forests of the Manaus Region, Central Amazonia, Brazil. Herpetological Natural History , 6: 78–150. McDiarmid, R.W., Touré, T. and Savage, J.M. 1996. The proper name of the Neotropical tree boa often referred to as Corallus enydris (Serpentes: Boidae). Journal of Herpetology . 30 (3): 320–326. Nóbrega Alves, R.R., Pereira Filho, G.A., Silva Vieira, K., Silva Souto, W.M., Mendonça, L.E.T., Montenegro, P., Almeida, W.D.O. and Silva Vieira, W.L. 2012. A zoological catalogue of hunted reptiles in the semiarid region of Brazil. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine , 8(27): 1–29. O’Shea, M. 2011. Boas and pythons of the world . New Holland, London, UK. 160 pp. O’Shea, M. and Halliday, T. 2002. Reptiles and amphibians . Dorling Kindersley Ltd, London. 256 pp. Pizzatto, L. and Marques, O. 2007. Reproductive ecology of Boine snakes with emphasis on Brazilian species and a comparison to pythons. South American Journal of Herpetology , 2(2): 107–122. Reynolds, R.P. and MacCulloch, R.D. 2012. Preliminary Checklist of Amphibians and Reptiles from Baramita, Guyana. Check List , 8(2): 211–214. Starace, F. 2013. Serpents et amphisbènes de Guyane Française . Ibis Rouge Editions, Matoury, Guyane. 604 pp. Wallach, V., Williams, K.L. and Boundy, J. 2014. Snakes of the world: a catalogue of living and extinct species . CRC press. 1237 pp. Winner, K. 2008. Corallus hortulanus - Garden Tree Boa, in Animal Diversity Web . http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Corallus_hortulanus/ Accessed: 16/09/2014.

Chelonoidis denticulata

REPTILIA: TESTUDINIDAE

Chelonoidis denticulata II/B

COMMON NAMES: Yellow-footed tortoise (English), Tortue dentelée (French), Motelo (Spanish)

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

RANGE STATES: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Dominica (int), Ecuador, French Guiana (France), Guadeloupe (int), Guyana, Peru, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago

UNDER REVIEW: Guyana

EU DECISIONS: Current positive opinions for Guyana and Suriname formed on 23/02/2012. Previous positive opinion for Guyana formed on 15/12/1997 and removed on 21/11/1998. Previous positive opinion for Suriname formed on 22/7/1997 and removed on 21/11/1998.

Current no opinion (i) for Bolivia and Ecuador formed on 20/06/2011. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Bolivia and Ecuador first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 10/09/2012.

Previous Article 4.6(c) import suspensions for live wild specimens from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominica, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela first applied on 21/11/1998 and removed on 10/05/2006. (This suspension also covered all wild specimens from 18/05/2005). Previous no opinion (iii) for wild specimens from Brazil, Colombia, Dominica, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela formed on 15/12/1997.

IUCN: Vulnerable

Trade patterns Chelonoidis denticulata was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 under the genus listing of Chelonoidis spp. and since 04/05/1997 under the family listing Testudinidae spp. Guyana has submitted CITES annual reports for all years 2003-2012.

Guyana published CITES export quotas for 704 individuals 1997-2013; from 1999 onwards the quota specified ‘live’ (Table 1). These quotas applied to the period from 4 th April to 3 rd April the following year. Guyana published an increased CITES export quota of 887 live specimens of C. denticulata in 2014, beginning on the 1 st January. According to data reported by Guyana and the importers, trade appears to have remained within quota for all years.

Direct exports of C. denticulata to the EU-28 2003-2012 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals, mainly traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). The principal importers were Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Direct trade in C. denticulata from Guyana to countries other than the EU-28 2003-2012 comprised primarily wild-sourced, live individuals, nearly all of which were

Chelonoidis denticulata

traded for commercial purposes. The main importer was the United States of America. Small numbers of confiscations/seizures of live individuals were reported by the United States from 2004 to 2011.

Indirect trade in C. denticulata from Guyana to the EU-28 between 2003 and 2012 consisted of small numbers of live, wild-sourced individuals exported for commercial purposes mainly via the United States (Table 3).

Additionally, the United States reported at the genus level the confiscation/seizure of 0.454 kg of eggs and 1 kg of meat of wild-sourced Chelonoidis spp. from Guyana.

Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Chelonoidis denticulata from Guyana and global direct exports in live individuals, as reported by the countries of import and export 2003-2012. Trade data for 2013-2014 are not yet available.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Quota 1 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 704 887 Importer 436 351 397 277 621 475 459 431 383 485 - - Exporter 508 297 474 331 704 663 576 377 397 520 - - 1 The 2014 quota applies to the calendar year. Previous quotas applied to the period from 4 th April of the year for which the quota was published to 3 rd April the following year. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Table 2: Direct exports of Chelonoidis denticulata from Guyana to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. Virtually all trade was for commercial purposes.

Importer Term Unit Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live - W Importer 6 114 62 56 41 13 16 308 Exporter 25 41 83 82 81 16 18 10 356 RoW carapaces - W Importer Exporter 2 2 live - C Importer 100 100 Exporter I Importer 5 8 1 1 15 Exporter W Importer 436 351 397 271 507 413 403 390 370 469 4007 Exporter 483 297 474 290 621 581 495 361 379 510 4491 specimens ml W Importer Exporter 3 3 - W Importer Exporter 9 9 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Table 3: Indirect exports of Chelonoidis denticulata originating in Guyana to the EU-28, 2003-2010. All trade was in live, wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes. No trade was reported in 2004, 2005, 2011 or 2012.

Reported by 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Importer 2 10 12 17 16 57 Exporter 2 10 12 17 12 61 114

Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Chelonoidis denticulata

Conservation status Chelonoidis denticulata occurs extensively in northern South America east of the Andes including the Amazon basin and Atlantic fringe of Brazil and the Guiana shield region (van Dijk et al ., 2014). It also occurs in Trinidad (Fritz and Havaš, 2007) and introduced populations occur in Guadeloupe (van Dijk et al ., 2014) and Dominica (Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996).

C. denticulata is one of the largest South American mainland tortoises and can grow up to 82 cm in length and 60 kg in weight, although in the wild the average is around 40 cm in length and 15 kg in weight (Rueda-Almonacid et al. , 2007). It inhabits evergreen and deciduous rainforests (Vargas-Ramírez et al ., 2010), preferring dense forest habitats, often near water (Böhm, 2011); and it may also be found in savannah (de Ávila-Pires et al ., 2010). The home range is between 5.1 ha and 35.5 ha (Strong, 2005).

Sexual maturity was reported to be reached at eight to ten years (Alonso et al ., 2008) or later at between 12-15 years (Rueda-Almonacid et al. , 2007). Reproduction is thought to be possible several times a year (Ernst et al ., 2006), with up to five clutches produced every one to three weeks during the mating season (Ojasti, 1996). Eggs may be laid directly on the ground in clutches of up to 20, but 4-10 is more usual, and incubation lasts four to five months (Bonin et al ., 2006). Life expectancy is estimated at approximately 50 to 60 years (Alonso et al ., 2008), with 30 years considered to be the age at last reproduction (Maldonado Rodríguez, 2010).

C. denticulata was categorised as Vulnerable by the IUCN, although the assessment was noted to need updating (Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996). In a draft reassessment from 2011 (unpublished) it was reportedly assessed as Near Threatened (Van Dijk et al. , 2014). Bonin et al . (2006) noted that estimates of population status were unavailable, partially due to the secretive lifestyle of the species and Jerozolimski et al . (2009) considered the cryptic nature of the species to lead to variable density estimates. Population densities in different parts of the Amazon basin have been estimated at between 5.1 and 41 individuals km -2 (Jerozolimski et al ., 2009; Stevenson et al ., 2007).

Hunting of turtles for food and degradation of habitat were considered the main threats to the species (Bonin et al. , 2006). Ojasti (1996) noted that both C. denticulata and the Red-footed tortoise C. carbonaria were the most frequently hunted animals amongst subsistence hunters. Population densities near human settlements diminished rapidly and large individuals were reported to be less frequent near settlements (Pritchard, 1979; Strong, 2005). Chelonoidis denticulata was reported to be heavily harvested throughout its range by rural and indigenous people, leading to local extirpation (Pritchard and Trebbau, 1984; Strong and Fragoso, 2006; Ferronato and Morales, 2012) or near depletion (Maldonado Rodríguez, 2010). The species was considered to be vulnerable in the northern countries of South America bordering Brazil, due to hunting (Bernard, 2008). The species was also reported to be used for medicinal purposes in some areas (Walker, 1989; Bonin et al ., 2006), and to be a much sought after pet in its native rural and urban areas (Walker, 1989; Ojasti, 1996).

C. denticulata was considered to be vulnerable to harvest due to its slow growth and low reproduction rates (Ojasti, 1996), but the secretive lifestyle of the species was thought to afford some protection (Pritchard, 1979; Bonin et al ., 2006). The species was reported to show high levels of gene flow, suggesting a high capacity to colonise new habitats or to re-colonise areas where populations had been hunted to depletion (Farias et al ., 2007). C. denticulata was considered relatively difficult to breed in captivity, and the breeding of the species for food was not considered economically viable due to its slow growth and low reproductive rates (Ojasti, 1996).

Guyana : Chelonoidis denticulata is widely distributed in Guyana and has been recorded from the Baramita area in the northern region of Barima-Waini (Reynolds and MacCulloch, 2012), the Iwokrama Rainforest Reserve (Donnelly et al ., 2005; Bicknell et al. , 2013) and Rewa area of the Upper Takutu-Upper

Chelonoidis denticulata

Essequibo region in central Guyana (Pickles et al ., 2009) and the Sipu-Acarai Mountains in the East Berbice-Corentyne region of southern Guyana (Alonso et al ., 2008). The species was not recorded during surveys in the Kanuku Mountains in southwestern Guyana (Parker et al. , 1993), nor was it reported from surveys by Alonso et al . (2013) in south-western Guyana or MacCulloch and Reynolds (2012) in northern Guyana. C. denticulata was reported to occur in protected areas: Iwokrama Rainforest Reserve (Alonso et al ., 2008) and Konashen community-owned Conservation Area (Donnelly et al. , 2005), however hunting may still be permitted in some conservation areas (Grimes et al ., 2008).

C. denticulata was reported to be frequently hunted by local communities in Guyana (Henfrey, 2002; Alonso et al ., 2008) and lower densities of medium to large reptiles were observed in the vicinity of villages, where they are part of the local diet (Alonso et al ., 2008).

Alonso et al . (2008) considered that research was required on the use of tortoises by the local population in order to develop sustainable harvesting plans. C. denticulata was reported to be one of the main species traded for bushmeat in Guyana (van Andel et al ., 2003), with increasing levels of trade observed (Craig-Clark et al ., 2000 in: van Andel et al ., 2003), particularly in markets in Georgetown (van Andel et al ., 2003). References Alonso, L., Vitus, A., Buckley, C., Fernandes, D., Fredericks, N., Fredericks, P., Gomes, E., Helms, J. and Hutchinson, C. 2013. South Rupununi Biodiversity Assessment Team (BAT) Expedition October 22- November 7 2013 Preliminary Report . WWF-Guianas and Global Wildlife Conservation. Austin, Texas. 97 pp. Alonso, L.E., McCullough, J., Naskrecki, P., Alexander, E. and Wright, H.E. 2008. A rapid biological assessment of the Konashen Community Owned Conservation Area, Southern Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment , 51. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. 90 pp. Van Andel, T., MacKinven, A. and Bánki, O. 2003. Commercial Non-Timber Forest Products of the Guiana Shield. An inventory of commercial NTFP extraction and possibilities for sustainable harvesting . Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 192 pp. De Ávila-Pires, T.C.S., Hoogmoed, M.S. and Alves da Rocha, W. 2010. Notes of the Vertebrates of northern Pará, Brazil: a forgotten part of the Guianan Region, I. Herpetofauna. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi Ciências Naturais, Belém . 5 (1) p.13–112. Bernard, E. 2008. Inventários biológicos rápidos no Parque Nacional Montanhas do Tumucumaque, Amapá, Brasil . Arlington, VA, USA: Conservation International. Bicknell, J., Snyder, A., Lim, B., Horsley, T., Bryce, C. and Worthington, R. 2013. Monitoring biodiversity by Operation Wallacea in the Iwokrama and Surama Forests, Guyana. Operation Wallacea research report 2011-2013. 40 pp. Böhm, S. 2011. Observations on the South American yellow-footed tortoise (Chelonoidis denticulata) in French Guiana. Radiata , 20: 18–32. Bonin, F., Devaux, B. and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world . London, UK: A&C Black. Craig-Clark, I., Carmichael, C. and Craig, K. 2000. Overview of Wildlife issues in Guyana, Unpublished report prepared for Iwokrama workshop on Wildlife Management, Georgetown. Donnelly, M.A., Chen, M.H. and Watkins, G.G. 2005. Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia , 154: 55–69. Ernst, C.H., Altenburg, R.G.M. and Barbour, R.W. 2006. Turtles of the World . http://wbd.etibioinformatics.nl/bis/turtles.php . Accessed 05/09/2014. Farias, I.P., Jerozolimski, A., Melo, A., das Neves Viana, M., Martins, M. and dos Santos Monjeló, L.A. 2007. Population genetics of the Amazonian tortoises, Chelonoidis denticulata and C. carbonaria , (Cryptodira: Testudinidae) in an area of sympatry. Amphibia-Reptilia , 28: 357–365. Ferronato, B.O. and Morales, V.M. 2012. Biology and conservation of the freshwater turtles and tortoises of Peru. IRCF Reptiles & Amphibians , 19(2): 103–116. 23

Chelonoidis denticulata

Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Vertebrate Zoology , 57(2): 148–368. Grimes, A., Fraser, D. and Zweede, M. 2008. FAA 118/119 Biodiversity and tropical forest assessment Guyana . 32 pp. Henfrey, T.B. 2002. Ethnoecology, resource use, conservation and development in a Wapishana community in the South Rupununi, Guyana . Department of Anthropology and Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent at Canterbury, Kent, UK. Jerozolimski, A., Ribeiro, M.B.N. and Martins, M. 2009. Are tortoises important seed dispersers in Amazonian forests? Oecologia . p.517–528. MacCulloch, R.D. and Reynolds, R.P. 2012. Amphibians and reptiles from Paramakatoi and Kato, Guyana. Check List , 8(2): 207–210. Maldonado Rodríguez, A.M. 2010. The impact of Subsistence Hunting by Tikunas on Game Species in Amacayacu National Park, Colombian Amazon. Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the award of Doctor of Philosophy . p.-205. Ojasti, J. 1996. Wildlife utilization in Latin America: Current situation and prospects for sustainable management . Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Parker, T.A., Foster, R.B., Emmons, L.H., Freed, P., Forsyth, A.B., Hoffman, B. and Gill, B.D. 1993. A biological assessment of the Kanuku Mountain Region of southwestern Guyana . Conservation International. Pickles, R., McCann, N. and Holland, A. 2009. A biodiversity assessment of the Rewa Head, Guyana . The Zoological Society of London, London. 49 pp. Pritchard, P.C.H. 1979. Turtle conservation and exploitation . TFH Publications Inc., Neptune, USA. p.818–832. Pritchard, P.C.H. and Trebbau, P. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela . Contributions to Herpetology; Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Reynolds, R.P. and MacCulloch, R.D. 2012. Preliminary Checklist of Amphibians and Reptiles from Baramita, Guyana. Check List , 8(2): 211–214. Rueda-Almonacid, J. V, Carr, J.L., Mittermeier, R.A., Rodríguez-Mahecha, J. V, Mast, R.B., Vogt, R.C., Rhodin, A.G.J., Ossa-Velásquez, J. de la, Rueda, J.N. and Mittermeier, C.G. 2007. Las tortugas y los cocodrilianos de los países Andinos del trópico . Conservation International, Bogotá, Colombia. Stevenson, P., Borda, C., Rojas, A. and Álvarez, M. 2007. Population size, habitat choice and sexual dimorphism of the Amazonian tortoise ( Geochelone denticulata ) in Tinigua National Park, Colombia. Amphibia-Reptilia , 28: 217–226. Strong, J. 2005. Seed dispersal and the ecological implications of hunting Geochelone carbonaria and G. denticulata in northwestern Brazil . State University of New York. Strong, J.N. and Fragoso, J.M. V 2006. Seed Dispersal by Geochelone carbonaria and Geochelone denticulata in northwestern Brazil. Biotropica , 38(5): 683–686. Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group 1996. Chelonoidis denticulata . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 05/09/2014. Van Dijk, P.P., Iverson, J.B., Rhodin, A.G.J., Shaffer, H.B. and Bour, R. 2014. Turtles of the world, 7th Edition: annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution with maps, and conservation status. Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs , 5: 329–479. Vargas-Ramírez, M., Maran, J. and Fritz, U. 2010. Red- and yellow-footed tortoises, Chelonoidis carbonaria and C. denticulata (Reptilia: Testudines: Testudinidae), in South American savannahs and forests: do their phylogeographies reflect distinct habitats? Organisms Diversity & Evolution , 10: 161–172. Walker, P. 1989. Geochelone denticulata - Yellow-footed tortoise, Forest tortoise I.R. Swingland & M.W. Klemens (Eds.). IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group; The Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, Gland, Switzerland. p.22–23. 24

Dogania subplana

REPTILIA: TRIONYCHIDAE Dogania subplana II/B

COMMON NAMES: Malayan softshell turtle (English)

SYNONYMS: Dogania guentheri , Trionyx dilwynii , Trionyx frenatus , Trionyx pecki , Trionyx subplanus , Trionyz vertebralis

RANGE STATES: Brunei Darussalam, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

EU DECISIONS: none

IUCN: Lower Risk/least concern

Trade patterns Dogania subplana was listed in CITES Appendix II on 12/06/2013 and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 10/08/2013.

Indonesia published its first CITES export quota of 4500 live specimens of Dogania subplana in 2014. According to data in the CITES Trade Database (downloaded on 31/10/2014) there have been no reported exports of D. subplana from any country; however Indonesia’s annual report for 2013 has not yet been received.

Conservation status Dogania subplana is a small softshell turtle reaching a carapace length of 35 cm (Franklin, 2007), which inhabits hill streams (Pritchard, 1979) and has also been found in natural and artificial lakes (Diesmos et al. , 2008). Softshell turtles can lay multiple clutches per year, and D. subplana lays 3-7 eggs per clutch (CoP16 Prop. 38).

The species ranges from Myanmar, through the Thai-Malay Peninsula to Sumatra, Java, Borneo and the Philippines as well as many offshore islands (Pritchard, 1979, 1967; Fritz & Havaš, 2007).

Wild turtle populations were reported to have suffered a general decline, driven mainly by overexploitation, together with habitat degradation and loss (Lyons, Natusch, & Shepherd, 2013, and references therein). D. subplana is categorised as Lower Risk/least concern in the IUCN Red List (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000); however this assessment needs updating.

In 2000, D. subplana was described as locally common in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand (IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group & Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000), including within protected areas (Sharma and Tisen, 2000; van Dijk and Palasuwan, 2000).

The habitat preference of D. subplana was reported to coincide with major protected areas (IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group & Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000).

In 2011, the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group stated, “Detailed status information throughout a species’ range, combined with life history and ecological data establishing

Dogania subplana

parameters on which to base levels and quantities of sustainable offtake, are not available for a single Asian turtle species” (AC25 Doc. 19).

The life history characteristics of turtles were reported to make them highly vulnerable to overexploitation, and to make sustainable offtake of wild populations exceedingly difficult to achieve (AC25 Doc. 19). A recent workshop on the conservation of Asian tortoises and freshwater turtles identified the increasing volume and variety of turtles being sold as pets on the internet, much of which originated in Asia, as an emerging threat (Horne et al. , 2012). A survey of Asian turtle species in the western pet trade revealed that D. subplana was on sale in Germany and the Netherlands (Behler, 2000).

Information on the desirability of D. subplana meat is conflicting (CoP16 Prop. 38). Softshell turtles of Indochina and Indonesia, including D. subplana , were reported to be primarily traded for consumption as meat and tonic foods in traditional medicine (TRAFFIC, 2008). Auliya (2006) reported that the species was threatened by the consumption trade; however, D. subplana meat was reputed to be of inferior quality (van Dijk et al. , 2000) and the least favoured softshell species in the food trade (IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group & Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). Islamic dietary rules prohibit the consumption of chelonian meat (but not eggs) (CoP16 Prop. 38). Nevertheless, Sharma and Tisen (2000) reported that known uses of D. subplana in Malaysia included eggs as food, a source of meat (as the second most common softshell in Chinese restaurants and wet markets), and a source of medicine. In the Philippines, the turtles were reported to be popular in pet shops and used in traditional medicine (Diesmos et al. , 2008).

Seizures of D. subplana were reported from the Philippines (ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network, 2011) and Singapore (SC61 Doc. 47 (Rev. 2) Annex 2).

Before the listing of D. subplana on CITES Appendix II, TRAFFIC (2013) reported that large volumes of the lookalike species Amyda cartilaginea were falsely declared as D. subplana by exporters in Indonesia to avoid CITES restrictions.

Indonesia: Dogania subplana was reported from Sambas, West Kalimantan, Borneo (Auliya, 2006), Java (Samedi & Iskandar, 2000), the Kapuas river, Borneo (Moll & Moll, 2004), Pulau Bangkara, Sumatra (Tapley & Muurmans, 2011), and the following provinces of Sumatra: Aceh; Bengkulu; Jambi; Mentawai Archipelago and other islands of the West coast of Sumatra; Riau; Sumatera Barat and Sumatera Utara (Teynié et al. , 2010).

D. subplana was reported to be common in Indonesia (Samedi & Iskandar, 2000). Samedi and Iskandar (2000) considered that hunting for trade was the most significant threat to Indonesian freshwater turtle and tortoise populations, even though only a few ethnic groups in Indonesia used them as food. Auliya (2006) reported that live D. subplana were exported from Java for the international pet trade. Shepherd (2000) reported that turtles and tortoises were collected in large quantities from Sumatra and exported live, mostly to China, Hong Kong and Singapore. Shepherd continued that there was virtually no field data on how this trade was affecting wild populations. D. subplana was also reported to be used as medicine in West Sumatra (Hamdani et al. , 2013).

While large numbers of turtles and tortoises were reported to be harvested in Indonesia for the pet trade, a large proportion of this pet trade was noted to be to meet domestic demand (Shepherd & Nijman, 2007). The trade in Indonesian freshwater turtles and tortoises was reported to have grown considerably during the 1990s, most of which was exported to fulfil an increased demand from consumer countries in East Asia, principally China (Samedi & Iskandar, 2000).

Between 50 and 100 D. subplana were observed during a survey of an export company in Medan (Sumatra) in 1999 and, according to staff, middlemen and trappers brought in approximately 200 kg of

Dogania subplana

the species per day (Shepherd, 2000). A review of the freshwater turtle and tortoise pet trade in the markets of Jakarta found that D. subplana was a species with low stock and low turnover, with only 2 specimens observed between August and November 2004 (Shepherd & Nijman, 2007). Stengel et al . (2011) observed none in a follow-up study in July and December of 2010; however, the methods differed between the two studies.

A study of hunting and trade in non-marine turtles and tortoises in Danau Sentarum National Park (West Kalimantan, Borneo) revealed that D. subplana was one of three species of softshell turtles targeted for trade (Walter, 2000).

The mortality rate for D. subplana was reported to be higher than for other softshell species, as they are more susceptible to infected scratches and cuts from claws of other turtles when packed in sacks together (Shepherd, 2000).

D. subplana is not protected in Indonesia under Regulation No. 7 (1999) (Republic of Indonesia, 1999). However, Indonesian national legislation stipulates that all trade in native non-protected species is regulated by a harvest and export quota system (Shepherd & Nijman, 2007). Quotas are set annually at a meeting including PHKA (the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation), LIPI (the CITES Scientific Authority), non-government organisations and traders, with regional sub-quotas (Shepherd & Nijman, 2007). Where no quota is set, harvest is prohibited (Shepherd & Nijman, 2007). Quotas for D. subplana appeared to decline between 1998 and 2010, but increased in 2014 (Table 1). According to Shepherd and Nijman (2007), before 2006 all native species of tortoises and freshwater turtles were only permitted to be traded as pets. The quota purpose for subsequent years was not identified.

Table 1 . Reported Indonesian export quotas for Dogania subplana 1998-2014.

Year Quota Reference 1998 13 500 (Samedi & Iskandar, 2000) 2004 2700 (Shepherd & Nijman, 2007) 2006 5000 (Schoppe, 2009) 2010 2000 (Stengel et al. , 2011) 2014 4500 CITES export quota No data were available for missing years. Quotas were reported as export quotas, except for 2006, where the quota type was not specified.

D. subplana was reported from several protected areas, including Betung Kerihun National Park (West Kalimantan), Batang Ai National Park (Sarawak), Mt Kinabalu (Sabah)(Auliya, 2006) and from Danau Sentarum National Park (West Kalimantan) (Walter, 2000). According to the Wetland Database, D. subplana also occurs in the Perian Nature Reserves (East Kalimantan) and Gunung Leuser National Park (North Sumatra) (Wetlands International, n.d.).

A study of reptile trade in Indonesia revealed that, although Indonesian national legislation to regulate exploitation of wildlife was comprehensive, and exporters were aware of the regulations, illegal trade was carried out openly, demonstrating a “serious lack of enforcement, and hence little deterrent for illegal activity” (Nijman et al. , 2012). Furthermore, as non-detriment findings had not been performed for many reptile species, Nijman et al. (2012) questioned the scientific basis for the harvest limits.

Shepherd and Nijman (2007) identified a significant problem of illegal trade in freshwater turtles and tortoises in Jakarta. An update in 2011 reported that although the Indonesian authorities had made efforts to combat the illegal wildlife trade, by numerous seizures and market raids, the illegal trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles continued (Stengel et al. , 2011). Stengel et al . (2011) suggested that the 27

Dogania subplana

persistence of illegal trade was due to a lack of concerted and persistent effort to eliminate illegal activity in markets and to prohibitively penalise offenders.

In 2006, an Indonesian ship with an illegal cargo of 72 crates of turtles, including D. subplana was seized by Singapore enforcement officers. The apparent destination market was Hong Kong (TRAFFIC, 2006). References ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network 2011. Law enforcement actions in Southeast Asia to protect threatened flora and fauna . (January - March 2011): 1–7. Asian Turtle Trade Working Group 2000. Dogania subplana . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: October 07, 2014]. Auliya, M.A. 2006. Taxonomy, life history and conservation of giant reptiles in West Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) . Natur und Tier Verlag GmbH, Münster, Germany. 432 pp. Behler, J. 2000. National and international pet trade. In: S. Altherr and D. Freyer (Eds.). The decline of Asian turtles . Pro Wildlife, 14–16. Diesmos, A., Brown, R., Alcala, A.C. and Sison, R. V 2008. Status and distribution of nonmarine turtles of the Philippines. Chelonian Conservation and Biology , 7(2): 157–177. Van Dijk, P.P., Iskandar, D.T., Palasuwan, T., Rhodin, A.G.J., Samedi, Sharma, D.S.K., Shepherd, C.R., Tisen, O.B. and Genorupa, V.R. 2000. Turtle trade in southeast Asia: regional summary (Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and Thailand). In: Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs 2: 145-147. Van Dijk, P.P. and Palasuwan, T. 2000. Conservation status, trade and management of tortoises and freshwater turtles in Thailand. In: van Dijk, P.P., B.L. Stuart, and A.G.J. Rhodin (Eds.). Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia . Chelonian Research Monographs 2: 137-144. Franklin, C.J. 2007. Turtles: An extraordinary natural history 245 million years in the making . Voyageur Press, St. Paul, US. Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Vertebrate Zoology , 57(2): 148–368. Hamdani, R., Tjong, D.H. and Herwina, H. 2013. Potential of herpetofauna on traditional medicine in West Sumatera. Jurnal Biologi Universitas Andalas , 2(2): 110–117. Horne, B.D., Poole, C.M. and Walde, A.D. 2012. Conservation of Asian tortoises and freshwater turtles: setting priorities for the next ten years. Recommendations and conclusions from the workshop in Singapore, February 21-24, 2011 . Wildlife Conservation Society Singapore Ltd, Singapore. IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group and Asian Turtle Trade Working Group 2000. Recommended changes to 1996 IUCN Red List status of Asian turtle species. In: van Dijk, P.P., B.L. Stuart, and A.G.J. Rhodin (Eds.). Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia . IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group and Asian Turtle Trade Working Group. Chelonian Research Monographs, No. 2: 156-164. Lyons, J.A., Natusch, D.J.D. and Shepherd, C.R. 2013. The harvest of freshwater turtles (Chelidae) from Papua, Indonesia, for the international pet trade. Oryx , 47(02): 298–302. Moll, D. and Moll, E.O. 2004. The ecology, exploitation, and conservation of river turtles . Oxford University Press, New York, USA. Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R., Sanders, K.L. and Sanders, M. 2012. Over-exploitation and illegal trade of reptiles in Indonesia. Herpetological Journal , 22: 83–89. Pritchard, P.C.H. 1979. Encyclopedia of turtles . TFH Publishing Inc., Neptune, USA. Pritchard, P.C.H. 1967. Living turtles of the world . TFH Publications Inc., Neptune, USA. Republic of Indonesia 1999. Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7 concerning the Preservation of Wild Plants and Animals . Indonesia.

Dogania subplana

Samedi and Iskandar, D.T. 2000. Freshwater turtle and tortoise conservation and utilization in Indonesia. In: van Dijk, P.P., B.L. Stuart, and A.G.J. Rhodin (Eds.). Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Foundation 2: 106-111. Schoppe, S. 2009. Status, trade dynamics and management of the Southeast Asian Box Turtle in Indonesia . TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 105 pp. Sharma, D.S.K. and Tisen, O.B. 2000. Freshwater turtle and tortoise utilization and conservation status in Malaysia. In: van Dijk, P.P., B.L. Stuart, and A.G.J. Rhodin (Eds.). Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs 2: 120-128. Shepherd, C.R. 2000. Export of live freshwater turtles and tortoises from north Sumatra and Riau, Indonesia: a case study. In: Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Foundation 2: 112-119. Shepherd, C.R. and Nijman, V. 2007. An overview of the regulation of the freshwater turtle and tortoise pet trade in Jakarta, Indonesia . TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 24 pp. Stengel, C., Shepherd, C. and Caillabet, O. 2011. The trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles in Jakarta revisited . Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 24 pp. Tapley, B. and Muurmans, M. 2011. Herpetofaunal records from Pulau Bangkaru, Sumatra. Herpetology Notes , 4: 413–417. Teynié, A., David, P. and Ohler, A. 2010. Note on a collection of amphibians and reptiles from Western Sumatra (Indonesia), with the description of a new species of the genus Bufo. Zootaxa , 43: 1–43. TRAFFIC 2006. Seizures and prosecutions. TRAFFIC Bulletin , 21(1): 35–40. TRAFFIC 2013. TRAFFIC Recommendations on the Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices at the 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties . 36 pp. TRAFFIC 2008. What’s driving the wildlife trade? A review of expert opinion on economic and social drivers of the wildlife trade and trade controls in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. East Asia and Pacific Region Sustainable Development Discussion Papers . East Asia and Pacific Region Sustainable Development Department, World Bank, Washington D.C. Walter, O. 2000. A study of hunting and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises (order Chelonia) at Danau Sentarum. Borneo Research Bulletin , 31: 323–335. Wetlands International n.d. Wetland Database . Available at: http://www.wetlands.or.id/wdb/wdb.php. [Accessed: September 24, 2014].

Cyclemys dentata

REPTILIA: GEOEMYDIDAE Cyclemys dentata II/B

COMMON NAMES: Asian leaf turtle (English)

SYNONYMS: Cistudo diardii , Cyclemys bellii, Cyclemys orbiculata , Cyclemys ovata , Emys dentata , Emys dhor , Emys hasseltii

RANGE STATES: Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

EU DECISIONS: none

IUCN: Lower Risk/near threatened

Taxonomic note The CITES Standard Nomenclature reference for Testudines recognises five species: Cyclemys atripons, C. dentata, C. oldhamii, C. pulchristriata and C. shanensis (Fritz and Havaš, 2007). Species boundaries in the genus Cyclemys were reported to be difficult to define using morphology (Stuart and Fritz, 2008). Historically, the genus Cyclemys was considered to contain one species, Cyclemys dentata , or sometimes two species, C. dentata and C. tcheponensis (Stuart and Fritz, 2008). Between 1997 and 2008, several taxonomic revisions occurred as new species were identified and as an effort to resolve uncertainty (Stuart and Fritz, 2008; Fritz et al. , 2008 and references therein). During the period of taxonomic uncertainty, some authors referred to the Cyclemys dentata complex or group, making it plain that they were referring to C. dentata sensu lato . It was not always possible to determine which taxonomy was used in literature, particularly from before 2008. References to C. dentata in Indonesia, unless otherwise specified, may refer to C. dentata , C. oldhamii or possibly C. shanensis shanensis , whose distribution is insufficiently known, but taken by Guïcking et al . (2002; in Fritz & Havaš, 2007) to include the Greater Sunda Islands. Trade patterns Cyclemys dentata was listed in CITES Appendix II on 12/06/2013 and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 10/08/2013.

Indonesia published its first CITES export quota of 12 915 live specimens of Cyclemys dentata in 2014. According to data in the CITES Trade Database (downloaded on 31/10/2014) there have been no reported exports of C. dentata from any country; however Indonesia’s annual report for 2013 has not yet been received.

Conservation status Cyclemys dentata is a small to medium-sized omnivorous semi-aquatic turtle (Bonin et al. , 2006) that occurs in plains and low hills, living in small rivers, streams and ponds (Das, 2010). Sexual maturity was reported to be reached at around eight years in males and 10 to 12 years in females (Bonin et al. , 2006). Females may lay four or five clutches per year, each with three to four eggs (Bonin et al. , 2006).

Cyclemys dentata (sensu stricto ) is found in the Southern Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java and Borneo (Fritz and Havaš, 2007) in addition to the Philippines, where it was reported from Palawan, Tawitawi

Cyclemys dentata

(Fritz and Havaš, 2007) and Sulu (Bonin et al. , 2006). It was also reported from Singapore and Thailand (van Dijk et al. , 2012).

C. dentata is categorised as Lower Risk/near threatened in the IUCN Red List; however the assessment was of C. dentata sensu lato , and noted that the conservation status of the more recently recognised species was not assessed and that it was likely that some taxa would be threatened (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). Because of this, the Red List assessment was considered to be in need of updating (CoP16 Prop. 32).

Wild turtle populations were reported to have suffered a general decline, driven mainly by overexploitation, together with habitat degradation and loss (Lyons, Natusch, & Shepherd, 2013, and references therein). However, Bonin et al . (2006) reported that C. dentata (sensu stricto ) “appears to be reasonably abundant,” while in both Malaysia (Sharma and Tisen, 2000) and the Palawan Island group of the Philippines (Fidenci and Castillo, 2009), it was described as widespread and common. It was categorised as Critically Endangered in the Singapore Red Data Book (CoP16 Prop. 32).

Information on the global conservation status of the species is lacking. In 2011, the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group stated, “Detailed status information throughout a species’ range, combined with life history and ecological data establishing parameters on which to base levels and quantities of sustainable offtake, are not available for a single Asian turtle species” (AC25 Doc. 19).

A survey of Asian turtle species in the western pet trade revealed that C. dentata was abundant in trade and on sale in Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America (Behler, 2000). Records from the United Kingdom indicated that 1032 C. dentata were imported by the UK between 1986 and 1990 (Smart and Bride, 1993 in: Behler, 2000).

The meat and eggs of freshwater turtles and tortoises were reported to be used and traded for food and medicine (Samedi and Iskandar, 2000).

C. dentata (sensu lato ) was reported to occur in substantial numbers in the food trade (AC19 Doc. 15.1). According to the United States Law Enforcement (LEMIS) database, over 14 000 C. dentata were reported to have been imported by the United States during the period 1999-2010, making it the most highly traded non-CITES turtle species by a considerable margin (CoP16 Prop. 32). These data probably referred to C. dentata sensu lato (CoP16 Prop. 32).

Several reports of illegal trade were identified. The operator of Guangdong turtle farm in China, which bred C. dentata among other species, reportedly mentioned that she knew some stock were smuggled from southeast Asia (TRAFFIC, 2008). Seizures of Cyclemys dentata (sensu lato ) have been reported from several countries, including China (van Dijk and Palasuwan, 2000), Hong Kong (ATCN, 2004a; TRAFFIC, 2002), Indonesia (TRAFFIC, 2006), Myanmar (ATCN, 2004b), Singapore (SC61 Doc. 47 (Rev. 2) Annex 2; CoP16 Prop 32), Thailand (TRAFFIC, 2000) and Viet Nam (ATCN, 2004c; CoP16 Prop 32).

Before the listing of Cyclemys spp. on CITES Appendix II, TRAFFIC (2013) reported that CITES listed species of other genera such as Notochelys platynota and Heosemys spinosa were known to be illegally exported from South-East Asia to China, falsely declared as Cyclemys spp. to avoid CITES restrictions.

Cyclemys dentata

Indonesia: C. dentata (sensu stricto ) was reported from West Kalimantan, Borneo (Auliya, 2006), Java (Fritz and Havaš, 2007; Das, 2010) and several provinces of Sumatra (Aceh, Bengkulu, Jambi, Mentawai Archipelago and other islands of the West coast of Sumatra, Riau, Sumatera Barat, Sumatera Selatan and Sumatera Utara) (Teynié et al. , 2010).

C. dentata was reported to be common in Indonesia (Samedi and Iskandar, 2000). Yuwono (1998), a reptile trader, reported that Cyclemys spp. was collected in Java, Kalimantan and Sumatra, and described the status as abundant, continuing that, “thousands can be collected if needed”. However, Shepherd (2000) reported that trappers rarely collected turtles as a full-time occupation, as had previously been the case. This was attributed to a decrease in prices and increasing difficulty in finding substantial quantities of turtles.

Samedi and Iskandar (2000) considered the most significant threat to Indonesian freshwater turtle and tortoise populations to be hunting for trade, although only a few ethnic groups in Indonesia were reported to use freshwater turtles and tortoises as food. The trade in these species was reported to have grown considerably during the 1990s, most of which was exported to fulfil an increased demand from consumer countries in East Asia, principally China (Samedi and Iskandar, 2000).

Habitat destruction was reported to be the second biggest threat to Indonesian freshwater turtle and tortoise populations, with the lowland areas where they are found being the most threatened habitat type, and poorly represented in protected areas (Samedi and Iskandar, 2000).

Shepherd (2000) reported that turtles and tortoises were collected in large quantities from Sumatra and exported live, mostly to China, Hong Kong and Singapore. Shepherd continued that there was virtually no field data on how this trade was affecting wild populations. Ibarrondo et al . (2006) reported that C. dentata was (among other turtles) traded in large quantities in Indonesia, but that this gave a false impression of abundance, and although it became [locally] hard to find, trade continued because it was widespread.

While large numbers of turtles and tortoises were reported to be harvested in Indonesia for the pet trade, a large proportion of this pet trade was noted to be to meet domestic demand (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007). An extensive trade in turtle plastra (the ventral surface of the shell) and turtle paste from Indonesia (mainly Sulawesi, but possibly from a wider range) to East Asia was also identified (Samedi and Iskandar, 2000). C. dentata was reported to represent 14.6 per cent of reported trade in freshwater turtles from Indonesia in 1998 (AC17 Inf. 7).

A review of the freshwater turtle and tortoise pet trade in Jakarta found that C. dentata was a species with high stock and high turnover (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007). Shepherd and Nijman (2007) observed 241 C. dentata at pet retailers in Jakarta between August and November 2004, and in a follow-up study in July and December of 2010, Stengel et al . (2011) observed 19 specimens; however, the methods differed between the two studies. It was noted that although the turtles were most likely C. dentata sensu stricto , the taxonomy needed clarification (Stengel et al. , 2011).

C. dentata is not protected in Indonesia under Regulation No. 7 (1999) (Republic of Indonesia, 1999). However, Indonesian national legislation to regulate exploitation of wildlife was considered to be comprehensive (Nijman et al. , 2012), and stipulates that all trade in native non-protected species is regulated by a harvest and export quota system (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007). Quotas are set annually at a meeting including PHKA (the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation), LIPI (the CITES Scientific Authority), non-government organisations and traders, with regional sub-quotas (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007). Where no quota is set, harvest is prohibited (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007). Quotas for C. dentata appeared to decline between 1998 and 2010; however the 2014 CITES annual export quota was higher than the 2010 quota under Indonesian national legislation (Table 1). According 32

Cyclemys dentata

to Shepherd and Nijman (2007), before 2006 all native species of tortoises and freshwater turtles were only permitted to be traded as pets. The quota purpose for subsequent years was not identified.

Table 1 . Reported Indonesian export quotas for Cyclemys dentata (sensu lato ) 1998-2014.

Year Quota Reference 1998 21 450 (Samedi and Iskandar, 2000) 2004 18 000 (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007) 2006 15 000 (Schoppe, 2009) 2010 4500 (Stengel et al. , 2011) 2014 12 915 CITES 2014 export quota No data were available for missing years. Quotas were reported as export quotas, except for 2006, where the quota type was not specified.

According to Decree No. 447/Kpts-11/2003, harvest or capture and distribution of wild plant and animal specimens in Indonesia requires a license from PHKA (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007). All wildlife exporters in Indonesia must be registered with PHKA (Shepherd and Nijman, 2007).

C. dentata was reported from protected areas in Indonesia. According to the Wetland Database, C. dentata (sensu lato ) occurs in the Danau Sentarum National Park (West Kalimantan), Berbak National Park (Sumatra) and Gunung Leuser National Park (North Sumatra) (Wetlands International, n.d.).

A study of reptile trade in Indonesia revealed that although exporters were aware of the regulations, illegal trade was carried out openly, demonstrating a “serious lack of enforcement, and hence little deterrent for illegal activity” (Nijman et al. , 2012). Furthermore, the scientific basis for the harvest limits for many reptile species was questioned, as non-detriment findings had not been performed (Nijman et al. , 2012).

Shepherd and Nijman (2007) identified a significant problem of illegal trade in freshwater turtles and tortoises in Jakarta. An update in 2011 suggested that although the Indonesian authorities had made efforts to combat the illegal wildlife trade, by numerous seizures and market raids, the illegal trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles continued (Stengel et al. , 2011). Stengel et al . (2011) suggested that the persistence of illegal trade was due to a lack of concerted and persistent effort to eliminate illegal activity in markets and to prohibitively penalise offenders.

In 2006, an Indonesian ship with an illegal cargo of 72 crates of turtles, including C. dentata was seized by Singapore enforcement officers. The apparent destination market was Hong Kong (TRAFFIC, 2006).

References Asian Turtle Trade Working Group 2000. Cyclemys dentata. In: IUCN 2014. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 24/09/2014]. ATCN 2004a. Trade seizures reported. The Asian Turtle Crisis Bulletin , 1(2): 7. ATCN 2004b. Trade seizures reported. The Asian Turtle Crisis Bulletin , 1(3): 6. ATCN 2004c. Trade seizures reported. The Asian Turtle Crisis Bulletin , 1(1): 3. Auliya, M.A. 2006. Taxonomy, life history and conservation of giant reptiles in West Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) . Natur und Tier Verlag GmbH, Münster, Germany. 432 pp. Behler, J. 2000. National and international pet trade. In: S. Altherr and D. Freyer. (Eds.). The decline of Asian turtles . Pro Wildlife. 14–16. Bonin, F., Devaux, B. and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world . A&C Black, London, UK.

Cyclemys dentata

Das, I. 2010. Field guide to the reptiles of South-East Asia . New Holland Publishers Ltd, London, UK. 376 pp. Diesmos, A., Brown, R., Alcala, A.C. and Sison, R. V 2008. Status and distribution of nonmarine turtles of the Philippines. Chelonian Conservation and Biology , 7(2): 157–177. Van Dijk, P.P., Iverson, J.B., Shaffer, H.B., Bour, R. and Rhodin, A.G.J. 2012. Turtles of the World , 2012 update: annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status Rhodin, A.G.J., Pritchard, P.C.H., van Dijk, P.P., Saumure, R.A., Buhlmann, K.A., Iverson, J.B. and Mittermeier, R.A. (Eds.). Chelonian Research Monographs , 5: 243–328. Van Dijk, P.P. and Palasuwan, T. 2000. Conservation status, trade and management of tortoises and freshwater turtles in Thailand. In: van Dijk, P.P., Stuart, B.L. and Rhodin, A.G.J. (Eds.). Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia . Chelonian Research Monographs 2: 137-144. Fidenci, P. and Castillo, R. 2009. Some data on the distribution, conservation status and protection of freshwater turtles in the Palawan Island Group, Philippines. Testudo , 7(2): 76–87. Fritz, U., Guicking, D., Auer, M., Sommer, R.S., Wink, M. and Hundsdorfer, A.K. 2008. Diversity of the Southeast Asian leaf turtle genus Cyclemys : how many leaves on its tree of life? Zoologica Scripta , 37(4): 367–390. Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Vertebrate Zoology , 57(2): 148–368. Guïcking, D., Fritz, U., Wink, M. and Lehr, E. 2002. New data on the diversity of the Southeast Asian leaf turtle genus Cyclemys Bell, 1834. Molecular results (Reptilia: Testudines: Geoemydidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden , 23(4): 75–86. Hendrie, D.B. 2000. Status and conservation of tortoises and freshwater turtles in Viet Nam. In: van Dijk, P.P., Stuart, B.L. and Rhodin, A.G.J. (Eds.). Asian turtle trade: Proceedings of a workshop on conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia . Chelonian Research Monographs 2: 63-73. Horne, B.D., Poole, C.M. and Walde, A.D. 2012. Conservation of Asian tortoises and freshwater turtles: setting priorities for the next ten years. Recommendations and conclusions from the workshop in Singapore, February 21-24, 2011 . Wildlife Conservation Society Singapore Ltd, Singapore. Ibarrondo, B., Silvestre, A. and Soler, J. 2006. Tortugas salvajes de Indonesia: El saqueo de un paraíso. Reptilia , 58: 51–57. Lyons, J.A., Natusch, D.J.D. and Shepherd, C.R. 2013. The harvest of freshwater turtles (Chelidae) from Papua, Indonesia, for the international pet trade. Oryx , 47(02): 298–302. Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R., Sanders, K.L. and Sanders, M. 2012. Over-exploitation and illegal trade of reptiles in Indonesia. Herpetological Journal , 22: 83–89. Republic of Indonesia 1999. Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7 concerning the Preservation of Wild Plants and Animals . Indonesia. Samedi and Iskandar, D.T. 2000. Freshwater turtle and tortoise conservation and utilization in Indonesia. In: van Dijk, P.P., Stuart, B.L. and Rhodin, A.G.J. (Eds.). Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Foundation 2: 106-111. Schoppe, S. 2009. Status, trade dynamics and management of the Southeast Asian Box Turtle in Indonesia . TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 105 pp. Sharma, D.S.K. and Tisen, O.B. 2000. Freshwater turtle and tortoise utilization and conservation status in Malaysia. In: van Dijk, P.P., Stuart, B.L. and Rhodin, A.G.J. (Eds.). Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs 2: 120-128. Shepherd, C.R. 2000. Export of live freshwater turtles and tortoises from north Sumatra and Riau, Indonesia: a case study. In: Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Foundation 2: 112-119.

Cyclemys dentata

Shepherd, C.R. and Nijman, V. 2007. An overview of the regulation of the freshwater turtle and tortoise pet trade in Jakarta, Indonesia . TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 24 pp. Smart, A. and Bride, I. 1993. The UK trade in live reptiles and amphibians . Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK. 99 pp. Stengel, C., Shepherd, C. and Caillabet, O. 2011. The trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles in Jakarta revisited . Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 24 pp. Stuart, B. and Fritz, U. 2008. Historical DNA from museum type specimens clarifies diversity of Asian leaf turtles (Cyclemys). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 94(1): 131–141. Teynié, A., David, P. and Ohler, A. 2010. Note on a collection of amphibians and reptiles from Western Sumatra (Indonesia), with the description of a new species of the genus Bufo. Zootaxa , 43: 1–43. TRAFFIC 2000. Seizures and prosections. TRAFFIC Bulletin , 18(2): 73–76. TRAFFIC 2002. Seizures and prosecutions. TRAFFIC Bulletin , 19(2): 76–79. TRAFFIC 2006. Seizures and prosecutions. TRAFFIC Bulletin , 21(1): 35–40. TRAFFIC 2008. The state of wildlife trade in China . TRAFFIC East Asia - China Programme, Beijing. 36 pp. TRAFFIC 2013. TRAFFIC Recommendations on the Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices at the 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties . 36 pp. Wetlands International n.d. Wetland Database . Available at: http://www.wetlands.or.id/wdb/wdb.php. [Accessed: 24/09/2014]. Yuwono, F.B. 1998. The trade of live reptiles in Indonesia. Conservation, trade and sustainable use of lizards and snakes in Indonesia - Mertensiella , 9: 9–15.

Euphorbia bulbispina

EUPHORBIALES: EUPHORBIACEAE

Euphorbia bulbispina II/B

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 18/02/2005 and last confirmed on 04/09/2014. Previous negative opinion for Madagascar formed on 02/04/2002.

IUCN: Vulnerable

Trade patterns Euphorbia bulbispina was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 under the genus listing Euphorbia spp. Madagascar published a CITES export quota for 34 artificially propagated live E. bulbispina in 2014; the only previous quota for the species was a zero quota published in 2013.

Direct exports of E. bulbispina from Madagascar to the EU-28 during the period 2003-2012 consisted of small numbers of live, wild-sourced and artificially propagated plants (Table 1) exported to the Czech Republic and France (including Réunion). Direct exports to countries other than the EU-28 2003-2012 consisted of live, wild-sourced plants exported to the United States of America, Japan and Thailand for commercial purposes (Table 1). No direct trade has been reported since 2006, either to the EU-28 or elsewhere. Furthermore, there were no reported indirect exports of E. bulbispina originating in Madagascar to the EU-28 during the period 2003-2012.

Table 1: Direct exports of Euphorbia bulbispina from Madagascar to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. All trade was in live plants. No trade was reported 2007-2012.

Importer Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total EU A G Importer 2 2 Exporter W P Importer 2 2 Exporter 2 2 T Importer Exporter 8 8 RoW W T,- Importer 100 63 163 Exporter 63 63 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014 Conservation status Euphorbia bulbispina is a medium-sized deciduous shrub, 80-100 cm in diameter and up to 1 m in height (Rauh, 1992). The species is endemic to northern Madagascar (Antsiranana district), where it was reported to be locally abundant on limestone on the summit of Windsor Castle (Bobaomby) and surrounding rocks (Rauh, 1992; Haevermans, 2004). It may also be present on the rocks of the Montagne des Français, further south (Haevermans, 2004).

E. bulbispina is categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Haevermans, 2004). The exact extent of occurrence and area of occupancy was reported to be unknown but E. bulbispina was considered likely to be restricted to a very small area and to occur outside protected areas (Haevermans, 2004; Rauh and 36

Euphorbia bulbispina

Razafindratsira, 1991). The CITES Management Authority of Madagascar ( in litt . to CITES Secretariat, 2008 in: PC19 Doc. 12.3) reported the species to occur in the New System of Conservation (NSC) AP Ouest.

Habitat degradation, fire and collection for the horticulture trade were considered the major threats to the species (Haevermans, 2004).

In 2008, it was reported that operators held a stock of 973 plants of E. bulbispina (CITES MA of Madagascar in litt . to CITES Secretariat, 2008 in: PC19 Doc. 12.3).

Fifty-two Euphorbia taxa from Madagascar were selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade Process following CoP14, including E. bulbispina (PC 17 Summary Record, PC18 Doc 8.4). Following review by UNEP-WCMC in 2010 (PC19 Doc. 12.3), E. bulbispina was categorised by the Plants Committee as of Urgent Concern (PC19 Summary Record). For all species of Urgent Concern, Madagascar was recommended to, within three months, establish a voluntary export quota system, put in place a zero export quota for wild specimens, and inform the Secretariat of the process under which non-detriment findings were made before reopening trade (PC19 Summary Record). Madagascar established a zero quota for E. bulbispina in December 2012, pending results of studies commissioned by the Secretariat (SC63 Doc. 14).

In February 2014, the CITES Management Authority of Madagascar submitted a report on implementation of the recommendations of the Plants Committee, including proposed quotas for 2014 (SC65 Inf. 2). The report noted that, while export of wild specimens of certain Euphorbia species (including E. bulbispina ) was prohibited, operators had been authorised to collect, on a one-off basis, wild specimens to supply parent plants for nurseries (SC65 Inf. 2). The Scientific Authority was charged with determining an annual export quota for each species based on the availablility of artifically- propagated plants from approved operators. The quotas also take into account the minimum size of specimens suitable for export, with the number of specimens that can be traded not exceeding 30 per cent of stocks (SC65 Inf. 2). However, the SA cautioned that the measures would not be fully effective without adequate training of customs officers and border police in discriminating between wild and artificially propagated specimens (SC65 Inf. 2).

In 2014, the actual stock of artificially propagated E. bulbispina was reported to be 112 individuals, with an authorised export quota of 34 individuals, to be updated annually following inspections of operators and analysis of the number of specimens in trade (SC65 Inf. 2). Subsequently, the Standing Committee determined that the recommendations had been implemented and the Secretariat notified Madagascar in March 2014 that the species had been removed from the review process (SC65 Inf. 2; SC65 Doc. 26.1). References Haevermans, T. 2004. Euphorbia bulbispina. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 23/10/2014]. Rauh, W. 1992. Succulant Euphorbias of northern Madagascar. Collectanea Botanica , 21: 197–210. Rauh, W. and Razafindratsira, A. 1991. 1991. A new species of Euphorbia from Madagascar. Euphorbia Journal , 7: 31.

Euphorbia pachypodioides

EUPHORBIALES: EUPHORBIACEAE

Euphorbia pachypodioides II/B

SYNONYMS: Euphorbia antankara

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 04/09/2014. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Madagascar formed on 29/03/2006 and confirmed on 12/06/2006.

IUCN: Critically Endangered

Trade patterns Euphorbia pachypodioides was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 under the genus listing Euphorbia spp. Madagascar published a CITES export quota of 199 artificially propagated live E. pachypodioides in 2014; the only previous quota for the species was a zero quota published in 2013.

Direct trade in E. pachypodioides from Madagascar to the EU-28 2003-2006 consisted of live, wild- sourced and artificially propagated plants mainly for commercial purposes (Table 1). The main importer was Germany. Direct exports to countries other than the EU-28 2003-2006 consisted of live, wild- sourced plants exported to the United States of America, Thailand, and Japan for commercial purposes (Table 1). The EU formed a negative opinion for wild-sourced E. pachypodioides from Madagascar in 1997 and has a current suspension, formed in 2008. There were no reported indirect exports of E. pachypodioides originating in Madagascar to the EU-28 during the period 2003-2012.

Table 1: Direct exports of Euphorbia pachypodioides from Madagascar to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. No trade was reported in 2003, 2008, 2009 or 2011.

Importer Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 2012 Total EU B W Importer 4 4 Exporter G A Importer 3 3 Exporter P A Importer Exporter 2 2 T A Importer Exporter 3 3 W Importer 110 110 Exporter 148 130 10 288 RoW T,- W Importer 27 185 75 20 307 Exporter 0 185 75 65 10 335 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014

Euphorbia pachypodioides

Conservation status Euphorbia pachypodioides is a succulent, dwarf, deciduous Euphorbia , usually with a single spiny cylindrical stem, 50-70 cm tall (Rauh, 1995). The only known recorded locations for E. pachypodioides lie within the boundaries of the Tsingy of Ankarana Special Reserve, northern Madagascar (Haevermans, 2004b), where it grows on eroded limestone cliffs (Rauh, 1992).

The species is categorised as Critically Endangered in the IUCN Red List, as it is known only from a single location, with continuing decline in its population (Haevermans, 2004). The area of occupancy was stated to be only 7.8 km 2 (Haevermans, 2004).

Habitat degradation, fire and collection for horticulture were considered to be the major threats to the species; E. pachypodioides was reported to have a high horticultural appeal (Haevermans, 2004b).

It was reported that in 2008, operators held a stock of 343 plants of E. pachypodioides (CITES MA of Madagascar in litt . to CITES Secretariat, 2008 in: PC19 Doc. 12.3).

E. pachypodioides was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade Process following COP 14 (PC 17 Summary Record, PC18 Doc 8.4). Following review by UNEP-WCMC in 2010 (PC 19 Doc. 12.3) the species was categorised by the Plants Committee as of Urgent Concern (PC 19 Summary Record). For all species of Urgent Concern, Madagascar was recommended to, within three months, establish a voluntary export quota system, put in place a zero export quota for wild specimens, and inform the Secretariat of the process under which non-detriment findings were made before reopening trade (PC19 Summary Record). Madagascar established a zero quota for E. pachypodioides in December 2012, pending results of studies commissioned by the Secretariat (SC63 Doc. 14).

In February 2014, the CITES Management Authority of Madagascar submitted a report on implementation of the recommendations of the Plants Committee, including proposed quotas for 2014 (SC65 Inf. 2). The report noted that, while export of wild specimens of certain Euphorbia species (including E. pachypodioides ) was prohibited, operators had been authorised to collect, on a one-off basis, wild specimens to supply parent plants for nurseries (SC65 Inf. 2). The Scientific Authority was charged with determining an annual export quota for each species based on the availablility of artifically propagated plants from approved operators. The quotas also take into account the minimal size of specimens suitable for export, with the number of specimens that can be traded not exceeding 30 per cent of stocks (SC65 Inf. 2). However, the SA cautioned that the measures would not be fully effective without adequate training of customs officers and border police in discriminating between wild and artificially propagated specimens (SC65 Inf. 2).

In 2014, the actual stock of artificially propagated E. pachypodioides was reported to be 663 individuals, with an authorised export quota of 199 individuals (SC65 Inf. 2). Subsequently, the Standing Committee determined that the recommendations had been implemented and the Secretariat notified Madagascar in March 2014 that the species had been removed from the review process (SC65 Inf. 2; SC65 Doc. 26.1). References Haevermans, T. 2004. Euphorbia pachypodioides. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 22/10/2014]. Rauh, W. 1992. Succulant Euphorbias of northern Madagascar. Collectanea Botanica , 21: 197–210. Rauh, W. 1995. Succulent and xerophytic plants of Madagascar. Vol. 1. Strawberry Press, Mill Valley, California. 343 pp.

Overview of Aloes from Madagascar

Aloes from Madagascar – Overview of status, management and trade.

Aloes are perennial, leaf-succulent xerophytes, adapted for survival in arid regions (Newton, 2004; Carter et al. , 2011). They are widespread in sub-Saharan Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and on Madagascar and several smaller Indian Ocean islands, but absent from moist lowland forests of mainland Africa (Newton, 2004; Carter et al. , 2011; Cousins and Witkowski, 2012). They are long-lived plants, with some species living up to c. 150 years (Smith and Van Wyk, 2009 in: Cousins and Witkowski, 2012).

The genus Aloe contains >500 species, with >100 species endemic to Madagascar (Castillon & Castillon, 2010; Cousins & Witkowski, 2012). The status of the Aloe species in this report have not yet been assessed by IUCN (IUCN, 2014).

Aloes are widely used in the horticulture trade (Newton, 2004; Carter et al. , 2011; Cousins and Witkowski, 2012; Grace, 2011). Aloes have been used as medicinal plants for centuries and their leaves (particularly Aloe vera ) are also used in cosmetics and the skin-care industry (Newton, 2004; Carter et al. , 2011; Grace, 2011; Cousins and Witkowski, 2012).

The most sought-after species among succulent collectors were reported to include rare, morphologically distinctive and difficult to grow taxa (Grace, 2011). The miniature Madagascan species were reported to be particularly popular for artificial hybridisation and production of new cultivars suitable for pot cultivation (Newton, 2004). Illegal collection of highly sought-after species was reported to have depleted wild populations due to illicit harvesting (Cousins & Witkowski, 2012).

The main threats to Aloes include destruction of natural habitats through bushfires, deforestation, industrial expansion and agricultural development, overcollection of plants for horticulture, and destruction of plants during harvesting of leaf exudates (Oldfield and Supthut, 1997; Newton, 2004; Cousins and Witkowski, 2012; Castillon and Castillon, 2010). Castillon and Castillon (2010) considered all Madagascan Aloes to be threatened in the wild, although they noted that some species with vast distributions were less endangered, including A. capitata and A. deltoideodonta (both reviewed in this report). In 2010, Castillon and Castillon (2010) considered that CITES should more strictly control in situ collection of Madagascan Aloes for commercial purposes, whilst favouring multiplication of seeds in nurseries. Carter et al. (2011) considered Aloes to be fairly easy to cultivate.

Twenty-four Aloe species from Madagascar were selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade Process following CoP14 (PC18 Doc 8.4), including the four species reviewed in this report ( Aloe capitata , A. deltoideodonta , A. guillaumetii and A. imalotensis ). Following review by UNEP-WCMC in 2010 (PC19 Doc. 12.3), these four species were categorised as Possible Concern (PC19 Summary Record). For all Aloe species of Possible Concern, Madagascar was required to review available information and put in place a conservative export quota within 6 months (PC19 Summary Record). Madagascar established a zero quota for these species in December 2012, pending results of studies commissioned by the Secretariat (SC63 Doc. 14). In February 2014, the Management Authority of Madagascar submitted a report on implementation of recommendations by the Plants Committee, including proposed quotas for 2014, following which it was determined that the recommendations had been implemented and the Secretariat notified Madagascar in March 2014 that the species had been removed from the review process (SC65 Inf. 2; SC65 Doc. 26.1).

The CITES Management Authority of Madagascar reported that they based their non-detriment findings for succulent plants on the methodology described in CoP15 Doc 16.3 (SC65 Inf. 2).

Overview of Aloes from Madagascar

The CITES MA of Madagascar reported that specimens of Aloe capitata , A. deltoideodonta , A. guillaumetii and A. imalotensis were generally exported as whole plants, but sometimes seeds were also exported (SC65 Inf. 2). The Scientific Authority of Madagascar recommended that export applications specified the variety of the species because threats to the species depend on the variety under consideration (SC65 Inf. 2). They also recommended that operators start to propagate/breed the species using its seeds, as this was considered to be relatively easy (SC65 Inf. 2).

In 2010, The CITES Management Authority of Madagascar (in litt to UNEP-WCMC, 2010, in: PC19 Doc. 12.3) reported that Madagascan Aloes (whole plants, seeds, cut flowers) could only be exported by operators licensed by the Malagasy State, the export quota of a species depending on the amount of stock that each operator had in their nursery. They reported that operators were required to propagate plants in their nurseries and that an assessment of stocks was carried out annually by the Management and Scientific Authorities. Whilst the majority of exported Aloes were reported to come from the nurseries of traders, wild plant harvest was reported to be only permitted for operators licensed by the Malagasy State, with quantities for each species determined by agreement between the Management Authority and the operator (CITES MA of Madagascar in litt to UNEP-WCMC, 2010, in: PC19 Doc. 12.3).

Kew Royal Botanic Gardens has launched a collaborative ‘Madagascar Aloe Conservation Project’, which aims to i) assess the conservation status of Madagascar’s Aloe species, ii) develop and implement a conservation strategy incorporating in-situ and ex-situ measures and iii) publish an identification guide for workers in the field (KRBG MACP, 2014). Trade at the genus level According to data held within the CITES Trade Database, 33 native species of Aloe were reported in direct, wild-sourced trade from Madagascar 2003-2012 globally (as of 05/09/2014). Madagascar has submitted CITES annual reports for all years 2003-2012.

Direct trade in Aloe spp. reported at the genus level to the EU-28 over the period 2003-2012 mainly consisted of live, wild-sourced plants; dried plants for scientific purposes were also recorded at notable levels by Madagascar (but not recorded by importers) (Table 1). The main importer of live plants was the Czech Republic. Additionally, the confiscation/seizure of one dried plant was reported by the United Kingdom in 2003 and three live artificially propagated plants were reported exported as personal possessions. No indirect exports of Aloe spp. to the EU-28 originating in Madagascar were reported at the genus level 2003-2012.

Direct trade to countries other than the EU-28 mainly comprised seeds and live, wild-sourced plants traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). The main importer of live plants was the United States of America, and the main importer of seeds was Thailand (according to exporter-reported data only).

Overview of Aloes from Madagascar

Table 1: Direct exports of wild-sourced Aloe spp . (reported at the genus level) from Madagascar to the EU-28 (EU), 2003-2012. No trade was reported in 2007 or 2009.

Term (unit) Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 dried plants S Importer Exporter 1 8 244 253 live B Importer 30 30 Exporter G Importer 8 8 Exporter P Importer Exporter 53 31 4 88 T Importer 20 20 Exporter 45 45 seeds (g) S Importer Exporter 2 1 2 5 10 specimens S Importer Exporter 1 1 Subtotals Importer 38 20 58 (live only) Exporter 53 31 49 133 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Table 2: Direct exports of Aloe spp . (reported at the genus level) from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 (EU), 2003-2012. No trade was reported in 2009.

Term Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 Total dried plants W S Importer Exporter 7 2 6 1 16 live W P Importer 25 58 83 Exporter 325 20 345 T Importer 215 40 175 380 130 50 50 1040 Exporter 45 175 380 130 100 830 A P Importer 20 20 Exporter seeds W T Importer Exporter 1300 1300 specimens W S Importer Exporter 2 2 Subtotals Importer 25 273 40 175 380 130 50 50 1123 (live, W only) Exporter 325 65 175 380 130 100 1175 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014.

Aloe capitata

LILIALES: LILIACEAE

Aloe capitata II/B

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current positive opinion for Madagascar formed on 02/04/2002

IUCN: Not assessed

Taxonomic Note The CITES standard nomenclatural reference for Aloes (Newton & Rowley, 2001) recognises five varieties of Aloe capitata : A. capitata var. capitata , A. capitata var. cipolinicola , A. capitata var. gneissicola and A. capitata var. quartziticola. A sixth variety, A. capitata var. angavoana, was described in 2009 (Carter et al . 2011), but is not yet recognised by CITES.

Castillon and Castillon (2010) proposed that Aloe capitata var. cipolinicola and A. capitata var. gneissicola should be elevated to species level. Likewise, Carter et al. (2011) considered that varieties sivicola and cipolinicola might merit recognition at the species level. Trade patterns Aloe capitata was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 under the genus listing Aloe spp. Madagascar published a CITES export quota of 1483 live Aloe capitata in 2014; the only previous quota for the species was a zero quota published in 2013. No trade data is yet available for 2013 or 2014 to verify that trade was within quota for these years.

Direct exports of A. capitata from Madagascar to the EU-28 2003-2012 consisted of small numbers of live plants, leaves and seeds, mainly wild-sourced, and for a range of purposes (Table 1). The main importers were the Czech Republic and France (including Réunion). Direct exports of A. capitata from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 2003-2012 consisted of generally small numbers of live, mainly wild- sourced plants (Table 1). According to importer-reported data, the main importer was the United States of America, while according to Madagascar, Japan, Switzerland and Egypt were the main importers. No indirect exports of A. capitata originating in Madagascar to the EU-28 were reported 2003-2012.

Aloe capitata

Table 1: Direct exports of Aloe capitata from Madagascar to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-20012. No trade was reported 2007, 2008 or 2010-2012.

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2009 Total EU leaves W S Importer Exporter 3 3 live W B Importer 5 2 7 Exporter G Importer 4 4 Exporter P Importer 6 6 Exporter 7 6 13 A G Importer 3 3 Exporter T Importer Exporter 3 3 seeds (g) W S Importer Exporter 3 3 RoW live A P Importer 10 10 Exporter 2 2 W Importer 100 6 106 Exporter 10 5 15 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014. Conservation status Aloe capitata was reported to be a very polymorphic species, with several described varieties, all named after the habitat or geologic substrate on which they grow (Rauh, 1995 in: PC19 Doc. 12.3). Carter et al. (2011) described A. capitata as “a splendid species, of considerable horticultural potential, that is easily recognised by its densely flowered, rounded, capitate racemes, with flowers that open first from the top.”

Aloe capitata was reported to be “Common on the granite and gneiss mountains of the Central Madagascan Highlands, at altitudes of 1,200-1,600 m” (Carter et al. , 2011). Carter et al. (2011) provided the following distribution information on different varieties:

A. capitata var. cipolinicola : “Inhabiting cipolin (metamorphic limestone or marble) country and not found on any other substrate, distribution extends south and north of an east-to-west Ivato-Itremo axis, where it is found in abundance east and west of Ambatofinandrahana, on rocky ground and thin grassy soils at altitudes of 1,200-1,400 m.”`

A. capitata var. gneissicola : “Distributed along the boundary between the Western Domain and the Central Highlands, between Mahatsinjo and Tsaratanana to the north of Antananarivo, at altitudes of 1,000-1,450 m, and southward along many of the more or less isolated granitoid mountains in the Betsileo country of Fianarantsoa Province to just south of Ambalavao, within the same altitudinal range.”

A. capitata var. quartzicola : “Widely spread over the southern half of the Central Highlands of Madagascar, growing invariably on quartzite, at altitudes of c. 1,000-1,600 m.” [.....] “It is particularly common to the east of Ambatofinandrahana in the vast and interesting Itremo highlands.”

A. capitata var. silvicola : “Confined to the rain forests of north-western Madagascar, and possibly on the densely wooded Montagne d’Ambre in the extreme north of the island”

Castillon and Castillon (2010) [who considered A. capitata var. cipolinicola and A. capitata var. gneissicola as separate species] considered A. capitata to be “common on the rocky hills of Imerina, and

Aloe capitata

even widespread, growing from Tampoketsa in the north of Antananarivo to the massif of Andringitra in south-Betsileo, with many local forms, sometimes described as varieties or different species.” They provided the following information on varieties (Castillon & Castillon, 2010):

A. capitata var. angavoana : “Angavo, Tampoketsa of Ankazobe [a high plateau], on the road to Mahajanga, alt. 1500 m”. Zone: The Imerina province, northern central Madagascar.

A. capitata var. cipolinicola [as A. cipolinicola ]: “It inhabits plains, hills or conifer forests of Itremo and Ibity ranges, but only on soils rich in marble formations; alignments of hundreds of plants can be seen following marble veins through naked plateaus.” “Abundant around the town of Ambatofinandrahana and the small village of Itremo.” Zone: The Itremo range, central Madagascar.

A. capitata var. gneissicola [as A. gneissicola ]: “hills along the road to Mahajanga, after the Tampoketsa (Andriba, Mahatsinjo, Tsaratanana…), 500-800 m of altitude.” Zone: The West coast.

A. capitata var. quartzicola : “rocky hills, Ibity and Itremo mountains, [growing] in full sun or under ‘tapia’ (Uapaca bojeri , Euphorbiaceae) forests.” Zone: The Ibity range, central Madagascar.

A. capitata var. silvicola : “Manongarivo massif, epiphytic or saxicolous [rock-living] plant, alt. 1000-1200 m; humid forests in the Ambohitra massif near Antsiranana.” Zone: The North.

Rauh (1995 in: PC19 Doc. 12.3) considered A. capitata to be one of the most widespread species of the Central Highlands.

A. capitata var. silvicola was reported to be “poorly known and seldom collected” (Carter et al. , 2011).

The CITES Authorities of Madagascar reported that the density of Aloe capitata was 2770 ind./ha, with a regeneration rate of 126 per cent (considered average), and a predicted chance of future decline of 91 per cent (SC65 Inf. 2).

In 2014, the CITES Authorities of Madagascar considered bushfires and the collection and use of blocks of stone/marble for construction to be the main threats to the species (SC65 Inf. 2). Previously, they listed habitat degradation, fire, mining and collection for the horticultural trade as threats to the species (CITES Management Authority of Madagascar in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2010). Carter et al. (2011) reported that “Unfortunately, the numbers of this species are being gradually reduced by incessant grass-fires, as a result of which regeneration is negligible.”

Castillon and Castillon (2010) considered A. capitata to be less threatened than other Madagascan Aloe species, due to its vast distribution.

The CITES Authorities of Madagascar reported that five varieties of A. capitata occurred in the central region of Madagascar ( angavoana , capitata , cipolinicola , gneissicola and quartziticola ) and that A. capitata var . silvicola occurred in the north and west (SC65 Inf. 2). They specified that the 2014 quota of 1482 individuals was for the six known varieties (SC65 Inf. 2).

Aloe deltoideodonta

LILIALES: LILIACEAE

Aloe deltoideodonta II/B

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: none

IUCN: Not assessed

Taxonomic Note The CITES standard nomenclatural references for Aloes (Newton and Rowley, 2001; updated by Lüthy, 2007) recognise the following varieties of Aloe deltoideodonta : A. deltoideodonta var. brevifolia , A. deltoideodonta var. candicans , A. deltoideodonta var. deltoideodonta and Aloe deltoideodonta var. fallax (although spelt A. deltoidea var. fallax ).

Castillon and Castillon (2010) suggested that A. deltoideodonta var. candicans be elevated to species level, with A. deltoideodonta var. fallax becoming A. candicans var. fallax . They also recognise two additional varieties: A. deltoideodonta var. intermedia [considered a synonym of Aloe subacutissima by CITES, Newton and Rowley, 2001] and A. deltoideodonta var. ruffingiana (Castillon & Castillon, 2010) .

The Addenda of Carter et al . (2011) notes the recognition of several subspecies of A. deltoideodonta - A. deltoideodonta ssp. amboahangyensis , A. deltoideodonta ssp. brevifolia , A. deltoideodonta ssp. candicans , A. deltoideodonta ssp. esomonyensis and A. deltoideodonta ssp. fallax (based on International Cactus Adventures 84: 24 2009), as well as noting the variety A. deltoideodonta var. ruffingiana , as recognised by Castillon and Castillon (2010). Trade patterns Aloe deltoideodonta was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 under the genus listing Aloe spp. Madagascar published a CITES export quota of 3708 live A. deltoideodonta in 2014; the only previous quota for the species was a zero quota published in 2013. No trade data is yet available for 2013 or 2014 to verify that trade was within quota for these years, although no trade has been reported in this species since 2008.

Direct exports of A. deltoideodonta from Madagascar to the EU-28 2003-2012 comprised live plants and seeds to the Czech Republic and France, and seeds to the United Kingdom (Table 1). Most trade took place between 2005 and 2007. Trade was nearly all for commercial purposes and was reported as mainly artificially propagated by importers and as a mixture of artificially propagated and wild-sourced by exporters. However, a permit analysis of the trade in 2005 revealed that 4800 live plants exported to France were reported as wild-sourced by Madagascar and the same plants were reported as artificially propagated by the importer. Similarly, 500 live plants reported as wild-sourced by Madagascar in 2007 were reported as artificially propagated by France in 2008. Direct exports of A. deltoideodonta from Madagascar to countries other than the EU-28 2003-2012 consisted of 21 live, wild-sourced plants (Table 1) to Japan and Switzerland.

No indirect exports of A. deltoideodonta originating in Madagascar to the EU-28 were reported 2003- 2012.

Aloe deltoideodonta

Table 1: Direct exports of Aloe deltoideodonta from Madagascar to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. No trade was reported 2009-2012.

Importer Term (unit) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total EU live A T Importer 4800 3600 1920 500 10820 Exporter 3600 1920 5520 W G Importer 2 Exporter T Importer Exporter 4800 500 5300 seeds (g) W S Importer Exporter 2 2 RoW live W P, - Importer 6 6 Exporter 6 6 W T Importer 5 10 15 Exporter 5 10 15 Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014. Conservation status Castillon and Castillon (2010) reported that A. deltoideodonta occurred on “rocky hills on the plateau of Horombe, in the south of Betroka, Androy (Esomony, surroundings of Amboasary …) alt. 100-1000 m” in Bara country, south-central Madagascar. Information on the different varieties of A. deltoideodonta is presented in Table 2.

The CITES Authorities of Madagascar reported that the density of Aloe deltoideodonta was 7330 ind./ha, with a regeneration rate of 85 per cent (considered poor), and a predicted chance of future decline of 92 per cent (SC65 Inf. 2).

In 2014, the CITES Authorities of Madagascar considered bushfires and the collection and use of blocks of stone/marble for construction to be the main threats to the species (SC65 Inf. 2).

Castillon and Castillon (2010) considered A. deltoideodonta to be less threatened than other Madagascan Aloe species, due to its vast distribution.

While CITES recognises four varieties of A. deltoideodonta (A. d. var. brevifolia , A. d. var. candicans , A. d. var. deltoideodonta and A. d. var. fallax (Newton and Rowley, 2001; updated by Lüthy, 2007), the CITES Authorities of Madagascar specified that their 2014 quota of 3708 individuals was for the following five varieties: A. d. var. brevifolia, A. d. var. candicans, A. d. var. fallax, A. d. var. intermedia 1 and A. d.var. ruffingiana (SC65 Inf. 2).

Carter et al. (2011) noted that “The variety brevifolia is still poorly known and only the variety candicans , with its conspicuously white floral bracts, and the recently described, closely related variety fallax , with lineate leaves, can be positively identified.”

Aloe deltoideodonta var. deltoideodonta was reportedly only known from Baker’s original description in 1883 and by Rev. R. Baron’s material collected in 1882 and 1887 (Reynolds, 1966 in: PC19 Doc. 12.3). Its distribution was recorded by Rev. R. Baron as ‘Central Madagascar’ and ‘Chiefly from northwest Madagascar’ (Reynolds, 1966 in: PC19 Doc. 12.3).

1 A. deltoideodonta var. intermedia is considered a synonym of Aloe subacutissima in the CITES standard nomenclature reference (Newton and Rowley, 2001). Madagascar has not published any quotas for A. subacutissima. 47

Aloe deltoideodonta

Table 2: Distribution of different Aloe deltoideodonta varieties

Variety Carter et al. (2011) Castillon and Castillon (2010) brevifolia “Originating from south-west “Benenitra, valley of Onilahy, on flat Madagascar on rocky sandstone at 1,000 rocks, alt. 100 m; between Betroka and m altitude, but not properly known.” Benenitra.” Zone: Bara country, south- central Madagascar. candicans “Fairly widespread and common from “rocks between Ankaramena and east of Ambalavao to near Zazafotsy in Zazafotsy, alt. 800-1100 m.” Bara the Fianarantso Province on granite country. outcrops and whale-backs, at 660-800 m in altitude.” fallax “Known with certainty only from the “between Ambalavao and Ankaramena, type locality” south-west of Ambalavao. on granitic rocks, among grasses, with Pachypodium densiflorum (Apocynaceae) and Euphorbia leucodendron (Euphorbiaceae), at about 800 m of altitude. Its area of distribution does not overlap that of the candicans variety.” Zone: Bara country, south- central Madagascar. intermedia [considered a “Betroka and surroundings, Itrongay, synonym of Aloe south of the Horombe plateau.” subacutissima by CITES, Considered an extreme form of the Newton and Rowley, typical species. Zone: Bara country, 2001]: south-central Madagascar.

ruffingiana [not “north of Ambovombe; Esomony, on recognised by CITES, rocks or in forest.” Considered a shady Newton and Rowley, forest form of A. deltoideodonta. Zone: 2001]: Zone: Androy and Mahafaly countries, southern Madagascar.

Aloe guillaumetii

LILIALES: LILIACEAE

Aloe guillaumetii II/B

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: none

IUCN: Not assessed

Trade patterns Aloe guillaumetii was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 under the genus listing Aloe spp. Madagascar published a CITES export quota of 250 live A. guillaumetii in 2014; the only previous quota for the species was a zero quota published in 2013. No trade data is yet available for 2013 or 2014 to verify that trade was within quota for these years.

According to data in the CITES Trade Database (downloaded on 05/09/2014), direct exports of A. guillaumetii from Madagascar to the EU-28 during the period 2003-2012 consisted of 12 plants exported to France and ten plants to Portugal in 2005. All trade was live, wild-sourced, for personal purposes and reported by Madagascar only. There were no reported direct exports to countries other than the EU-28 2003-2012 and no reported indirect exports of A. guillaumetii originating in Madagascar to the EU-28 during the same period. Conservation status Aloe guillaumetii was reported to be known only from its type locality – Antsiranana Province, a few kilometres from Ambilobe, where it was reported to be plentiful, growing on sandstone ledges (Carter et al. , 2011). Castillon and Castillon (2010) reported that it occurred in the rocky hills around Ambilobe, northern Madagascar.

The CITES Authorities of Madagascar reported that the species occurred in the north and northeast of Madagascar (SC65 Inf. 2).

The CITES Authorities of Madagascar reported that the density of Aloe guillaumetii was estimated at 4040 ind./ha, with a regeneration rate of 49 per cent (considered poor), and a predicted chance of future decline of 50 per cent (SC65 Inf. 2).

In 2014, the CITES Authorities of Madagascar considered bushfires and the collection and use of blocks of stone/marble for construction to be the main threats to the species (SC65 Inf. 2).

Aloe imalotensis

LILIALES: LILIACEAE

Aloe imalotensis II/B

SYNONYMS: Aloe contigua; Aloe deltoideodonta var. contigua

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: none

IUCN: Not assessed

Taxonomic Note The CITES standard nomenclatural reference for Aloes (Lüthy, 2007) recognises the variety Aloe imalotensis var. longiracemosa . Trade patterns Aloe imalotensis was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 under the genus listing Aloe spp. Madagascar published a CITES export quota of 178 live A. imalotensis in 2014; the only previous quota for the species was a zero quota published in 2013. No trade data is yet available for the 2013 or 2014 to verify that trade was within quota for these years.

According to data in the CITES Trade Database (downloaded on 05/09/2014), direct exports of A. imalotensis from Madagascar to the EU-28 during the period 2003-2012 consisted of ten live, wild- sourced plants exported to Germany in 2005 for personal purposes and reported by Madagascar only. Reported direct exports to countries other than the EU-28 during the period 2003-2012 consisted of six live, wild-sourced plants exported to Switzerland (recorded exported in 2003 for personal purposes; reported imported in 2004 without a source specified)

There were no reported indirect exports of A. imalotensis originating in Madagascar to the EU-28 2003- 2012. Conservation status Aloe imalotensis was reported to occur on triassic schists and sandstones of the Imaloto valley, south- central Madagascar, at an altitude of c. 600 m (Carter et al. , 2011). It was reported to be “quite common in the northern end of the Isalo Mountains [...] south and south-westward to the Onilahy River, where it has been collected near the towns of Bezaha and Benenitra” (Carter et al. , 2011). Castillon and Castillon (2010) reported its occurrence on the Horombe plateau in the Imaloto valley and Isalo range, at altitudes of 600-1000 m.

A. imalotensis var. longiracemosa was described from near the city of Mahaboboka in Toliara Province, south-western Madagascar (Castillon, 2005 in: PC19 Doc. 12.3).

The CITES Authorities of Madagascar noted the species occurrence in the Isalo National Park (SC65 Inf. 2). They recognised two varieties: Aloe imalotensis var. imalotensis and A. imalotensis var. longiracemosa (SC65 Inf. 2).

Aloe imalotensis

The CITES Authorities of Madagascar reported that the density of Aloe imalotensis was estimated at 3180 ind./ha, with a regeneration rate of 89 per cent (considered poor), and a predicted chance of future decline of 67 per cent (SC65 Inf. 2).

Aloe references

Aloe references Carter, S., Lavranos, J.J., Newton, L.E. and Walker, C.C. 2011. Aloes - the definitive guide . Kew Publishing, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 719 pp. Castillon, J.-B. 2005. Eine neue Art und eine neue Varietät der Gattung Aloe (Aloaceae) aus der Region von Tuléar, Madagaskar. Kakteen und andere Sukkulenten , 56(10): 267–271. Castillon, J.-B. and Castillon, J.-P. 2010. The Aloe of Madagascar . J.-P. Castillon (Ed.). MSM Ltd, Etang- Salé, Réunion. 399 pp. Cousins, S.R. and Witkowski, E.T.F. 2012. African aloe ecology: a review. Journal of Arid Environments , 85: 1–17. Grace, O.M. 2011. Current perspectives on the economic botany of the genus Aloe L. (Xanthorrhoeaceae). South African Journal of Botany , 77(4): 980–987. IUCN. 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 16/09/2014. KRBG MACP. 2014. Madagascar Aloe Conservation Project . Kew Royal Botanic Gardens, UK. URL: http://www.kew.org/science-conservation/research-data/science-directory/projects/madagascar- aloe-conservation-project. Accessed 16/09/2014. Lüthy, J.M. 2007. An update and supplement to the CITES Aloe & Pachypodium checklist . Bern, Switzerland. Newton, L.E. 2004. Aloes in habitat. In: T. Reynolds (Ed.). Aloes: the genus Aloe . CRC Press LLC, London. 416 pp. Newton, L.E. and Rowley, G.D. 2001. CITES Aloe and Pachypodium checklist U. Eggli (Ed.). Städtische Sukkulenten-Sammlung, Zurich, Switzerland and The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Oldfield, S. and Supthut, D. 1997. Madagascar. In: S. Oldfield (Ed.). Status survey and conservation action plan: Cactus and succulent plants . IUCN/SSC Cactus and Succulent Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 59–67. Rauh, W. 1995. Succulent and xerophytic plants of Madagascar. Vol. 1. Strawberry Press, Mill Valley, California. 343 pp. Reynolds, G.W. 1966. The Aloes of tropical Africa and Madagascar . The Aloe Book Fund, Swaziland. 537 pp. Smith, G.F. and Van Wyk, B. 2009. Aloes in Southern Africa . Struik Nature, Cape Town.

Aquilaria spp.

MYRTALES: THYMELAEACEAE

Aquilaria spp. II/B

COMMON NAMES: Agarwood (English)

RANGE STATES Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic UNDER REVIEW: Republic of), Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam Malaysia

SPECIES A. beccariana , A. hirta , A. microcarpa , A. malaccensis , A. rostrata PRESENT IN MALAYSIA:

EU DECISIONS: A. malaccensis : Current no opinion for Malaysia formed on 14/09/2007.

Current negative opinion for Bangladesh formed on 11/09/2012 and confirmed on 07/12/2012.

Current no opinion (iii) for Thailand formed on 06/12/2013 and confirmed on 27/02/2014.

Current no opinion (iii) for Indonesia formed on 22/02/2000 and confirmed on 25/06/2004. Previous no opinion (ii) for Indonesia.

IUCN: A. beccariana (VU), A. hirta (VU), A. microcarpa (VU), A. malaccensis (VU), A. rostrata (CR)

Trade patterns Aquilaria malaccensis was listed in CITES Appendix II on 16/02/1995, and the genus Aquilaria spp. was listed in CITES Appendix II on 12/01/2005. Malaysia has submitted CITES annual reports for all years 2003-2012.

Malaysia published CITES export quotas for A. malaccensis from Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah between 2007 and 2013, broadening it to apply to the whole genus (Aquilaria spp.) in 2014. For each of these years, Malaysia also published a separate quota for Sarawak (applying a genus-level quota from 2012).The quotas from 2007-2011 applied to “powder and wood chips”; whereas quotas 2012-2014 applied to "wood chips, wood blocks and essential oil”. This genus was selected for review based on the 2014 quota for Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah; however, data within the CITES Trade Database is recorded at the country level and does not consider the region of origin, making disaggregating on this basis difficult. An analysis of the original annual reports from Malaysia, which contains separate trade data by region, revealed that there was no reported trade in A. malaccensis from Sarawak 2007-2012 (though small amounts of A. beccariana were reported in 2006 and 2009, and of A. microcarpa in 2008 and 2011). Therefore, compliance with quotas for Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah can be assessed based on the total exports from Malaysia as reflected within the CITES Trade Database during the period 2007-2012.

Trade in A. malaccensis, as reported by both the importers and the exporter, appears to have remained within quota for all years 2007-2012 (Table 1). However, from 2009 onwards, Malaysia has reported all direct exports as Aquilaria spp., whilst a shipment by shipment comparative analysis for the major 53

Aquilaria spp.

importers (e.g. Singapore, Viet Nam and India) indicates that importer-reported values for imports of A. malaccensis largely correspond to trade reported by Malaysia at the genus level. It is therefore noteworthy that over the period 2009-2011, Malaysia’s reported exports of Aquilaria spp. chips and powder (2009: 205 988 kg; 2010: 223 360 kg; 2011: 266 290 kg) are greater than the annual export quotas of 200 000 kg of A. malaccensis chips and powder.

The quota from 2012 onwards also includes oil, which is typically reported in litres (including as reported in 2012 by Malaysia) but the quota is given in kilograms, making it difficult to verify quota compliance with respect to this term/unit combination.

Direct exports of Aquilaria to the EU-28 2003-2012 consisted of small quantities of wild-sourced chips, powder, timber and oil, reported as either as Aquilaria spp. or Aquilaria malaccensis (Table 2). The majority of trade was reported by the exporter only, although Italy reported the import of 40 kg of timber in 2011.

Direct trade in Aquilaria from Malaysia to countries other than the EU-28 between 2003 and 2012 primarily consisted of wild-sourced chips, powder and, to a lesser extent, timber for commercial purposes (Table 3). The majority of trade was reported as Aquilaria malaccensis or Aquilaria spp., although smaller quantities were also traded as A. beccariana , A. crassna , A. filaria and A. subintegra 2. The main trading partners of wild-sourced parts and derivatives, according to exporter-reported figures, were Singapore, Viet Nam, Taiwan, Province of China and the United Arab Emirates. Comparatively small quantities of artificially-propagated and pre-Convention Aquilaria derivatives were also reported, most notably 10 350 kg of chips recorded as source ‘A’ by importers in 2012 (primarily United Arab Emirates). Additionally, New Zealand and Saudi Arabia both reported small numbers of confiscated/seized items.

Indirect trade in Aquilaria from Malaysia to the EU-28 between 2003 and 2012 principally comprised chips and powder (Table 4). With the exception of two litres of oil exported as pre-Convention, all trade was wild-sourced. All trade was for commercial purposes and traded as Aquilaria malaccensis . The main re-exporter was Japan.

2 Malaysia is not considered a range state for Aquilaria crassna , A. filaria or A. subintegra . 54

Aquilaria spp.

Table 1: CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Aquilaria malaccensis from Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah only) and global direct exports of A. malaccensis from Malaysia, as reporter by the importers and exporter, 2007-2012. Trade data for 2013 is not yet available. Values are rounded to whole numbers, where applicable. For each year, trade to which the quota does not apply is greyed-out.

Term Reported by 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Quota for A. malaccensis (kg). powder and Peninsular Malaysia and wood chips 190000 170000 200000 200000 200000 200000 200000 Sabah 1 (kg) Aquilaria malaccensis chips (kg) Importer 68291 90359 63869 75866 70057 66166 Exporter 74969 62198 oil (kg) Importer 25 73 Exporter powder (kg) Importer 6100 11000 35500 70500 74500 Exporter 49100 6100 timber (kg) Importer 10250 13038 3449 3325 6350 13390 Exporter 13068 Subtotals (quota terms only, kg) Importer 68291 96459 74869 111366 140557 79556 Exporter 124069 68298 0 0 0 0 1Quota 2007-2011 applies to "powder and wood chips"; quota 2012-2013 applies to "wood chips, wood blocks and essential oil. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014

Aquilaria spp.

Table 2: Direct exports of Aquilaria 1 from Malaysia to the EU-28, 2003-2012. All trade was wild-sourced. No trade was reported 2003-2005 or 2012.

Taxon Term Unit Purpose Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Aquilaria spp. chips kg - Importer Exporter 52 52 oil l T Importer Exporter 1 1 0.4 2.4 powder kg - Importer Exporter 40 40 Aquilaria malaccensis chips kg T Importer 1 1 Exporter 15.6 15.6 oil l T Importer Exporter 1 1 timber kg T Importer 40 40 Exporter 1The genus Aquilaria was listed in 2005. A. malaccensis has been listed since 1995. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014

Aquilaria spp.

Table 3: Direct exports of wild-sourced (sources ‘W’, ‘U’ and source unspecified) Aquilaria 1 from Malaysia to countries other than the EU-28, 2003-2012. Purpose was primarily commercial.

Taxon Term Unit Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Aquilaria spp. chips kg Importer 6140 2710 4345 558 76 1473 15302 Exporter 239184 253928 33200 205988 142088 162790 174849 1212027 derivatives kg Importer Exporter 7 7 extract kg Importer 7 7 Exporter medicine kg Importer 18 18 Exporter oil kg Importer 4 4 Exporter l Importer 38 38 Exporter 11 169 179 252 187 130 126 1053 - Importer 2 2 Exporter powder kg Importer 2500 2500 Exporter 21000 30985 7500 81180 103500 244165 timber kg Importer 28 18 46 Exporter 75 3954 27982 11367 43378 Aquilaria beccariana live - Importer 100 100 Exporter timber m3 Importer Exporter 300 300 - Importer Exporter 560 560 Aquilaria crassna chips kg Importer 334 334 Exporter live - Importer 1500 1000 2500 Exporter Aquilaria filaria chips kg Importer 20 105 200 550 875 Exporter Aquilaria malaccensis chips kg Importer 308295 196925 136481 133535 68290 90359 63869 75866 70057 66166 1209842 Exporter 337670 221541 74954 62198 696363 57

Aquilaria spp.

Taxon Term Unit Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total - Importer 5 5 Exporter live kg Importer 25 25 Exporter - Importer 2800 190 2990 Exporter oil kg Importer 25 73 98 Exporter l Importer 109 115 79 68 118 32 521 Exporter 388 80 468 powder kg Importer 15000 5000 2000 6100 11000 35500 70500 74500 219600 Exporter 19800 49100 6100 75000 timber kg Importer 411 10250 13038 3449 3325 6310 13390 50173 Exporter 13068 13068 Aquilaria microcarpa chips kg Importer 100 100 Exporter 2 2 timber kg Importer Exporter 7 7 Aquilaria subintegra chips - Importer 1 1 Exporter live - Importer 76050 3210 79260 Exporter oil - Importer 1 1 Exporter Subtotals (main terms chips kg Importer 308295 196925 142721 136245 72655 91022 63944 77539 70391 66716 1226453 only) Exporter 337670 221541 239184 253928 74954 95400 205988 142088 162790 174849 1908392 powder kg Importer 15000 5000 2000 6100 11000 38000 70500 74500 222100 Exporter 19800 21000 30985 49100 13600 81180 103500 319165 timber kg Importer 411 10250 13038 3449 3353 6328 13390 50219 Exporter 75 17022 27982 11374 56453 oil l Importer 147 115 79 68 118 32 559 Exporter 11 169 388 259 252 187 130 126 1520 1The genus Aquilaria was only listed in 2005. A. malaccensis has been listed since 1995. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014

Aquilaria spp.

Table 4: Indirect exports of wild-sourced Aquilaria 1 originating in Malaysia to the EU-28, 2003-2012. All trade was reported as Aquilaria malaccensis , for commercial purposes. No trade was reported 2003-2004.

Term Unit Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total chips kg Importer 3 2 1 21 1 16 45 Exporter 10 8 6 30 30 43 57 503 687 - Importer 200 60 260 Exporter 210 210 derivatives kg Importer 3 1 1 6 Exporter 4 7 11 - Importer 70 804 874 Exporter extract kg Importer 1 1 Exporter l Importer 1 1 Exporter - Importer 67 144 211 Exporter oil kg Importer 4 85 89 Exporter 1 4 2 3 11 l Importer 2 1 3 Exporter 2 2 4 powder - Importer 40 40 Exporter timber kg Importer 1 2 Exporter 1The genus Aquilaria was only listed in 2005. A. malaccensis has been listed since 1995. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014

Aquilaria spp.

Conservation status Species of the genus Aquilaria are large evergreen trees growing mainly in South and Southeast Asia, from near sea level to altitudes of up to 1500 m (Barden et al ., 2000; Persoon, 2008). They have adapted to live in a variety of habitats, including those that are rocky, sandy or calcareous, well-drained slopes and ridges and land near swamps (Barden et al ., 2000; CoP13 Prop. 49). They are typical understory trees with patterns of seedling distribution indicating that few seeds are dispersed more than a few metres from the adult tree (CoP13 Prop. 49).

As a result of wounding and/or a fungal infection, Aquilaria species (and several other genera in the Thymelaeaceae family) develop agarwood, a fragrant resin-impregnated heartwood of high economic value (Barden et al ., 2000; Persoon, 2007; 2008). The availability of agarwood (also known as aloeswood, eaglewood and gaharu) is naturally restricted owing to the nature of its formation. It is found naturally in only a small percentage of trees in the Thymelaeaceae family with the highest grade product usually harvested from certain Aquilaria species (Barden et al. , 2000) (Zich and Compton, 2001).

The use of agarwood has been reported in many ancient cultures, for medicinal, aromatic and religious purposes (Barden et al ., 2000; Persoon, 2008; Chua, 2008; Lim & Awang Anak, 2010). Its use has increased dramatically since the 1970s, particularly in the Middle East and northeast Asia consumer markets (Chua, 2008). Today, it is one of the most precious essential oils in the Middle East (used in perfumes and other cosmetic products); there is a large market for top class incense in Japan; and solid pieces of agarwood are highly appreciated as ‘natural art’ in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, Province of China (Persoon, 2008). Agarwood is also used to make sculptures, beads and bracelets, and in the production of traditional Chinese and Korean medicine (Persoon, 2008).

Whilst Aquilaria malaccensis has been listed on CITES Appendix II since 1995, concern over the effect of trade in agarwood (and the difficulty in distinguishing products in trade to the species level) led to the listing of the genus Aquilaria , together with Gyrinops and Gonystylus , on CITES Appendix II in 2005 (Lim & Awang Anak, 2010; CoP13 Prop. 49 & 50).

Malaysia: At least twelve (Chua, 2008) to nineteen (Lim & Awang Anak, 2010) species native to Malaysia are thought to produce agarwood, belonging to the genera Aetoxylon, Aquilaria, Gonystylus, Wikstroemia and Enkleia (all Thymelaeaceae). In a recent review of agarwood trade in Malaysia produced for the CITES Secretariat, Lim and Awang Anak (2010) considered six Aquilaria species to occur in Malaysia (Table 5); A. malaccensis is thought to be the most important source of agarwood.

Table 5: Aquilaria species occurring in Malaysia. (Source: Lim & Awang Anak, 2010) Species Distribution in Malaysia IUCN Red List VU (needs updating) Aquilaria beccariana Peninsular Malaysia (Johor), Sabah, Sarawak Aquilaria hirta Peninsular Malaysia (Terengganu, Pahang, Johor) VU (needs updating) Aquilaria malaccensis Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, Sarawak VU (needs updating) Aquilaria microcarpa Sabah, Sarawak VU (needs updating) Aquilaria rostrata Peninsular Malaysia (Endemic to Gunung Tahan) CR Aquilaria sp. 1 Tawan (2004) Sarawak -

In general, there was found to be little country-specific information on distribution, population status or trends, with most information concerning A. malaccensis . Furthermore, references often reported a species to be present on Borneo, without specifying whether this included each of the three countries that make up the island: Malaysia (states of Sabah and Sarawak), Indonesia (provinces of North, East, West, Central and South Kalimantan) or Brunei Darussalam.

A. beccariana was reported to occur from Peninsular Malaysia to Sumatra (Indonesia), and to be common in Borneo (CoP13 Prop. 49). Oyen and Xuan Dung (1999) described it as a tree growing up to 60

Aquilaria spp.

20 m tall, occurring in primary forest from sea-level up to 800 m altitude. It was reported to be rarely found in swampy forest (CoP13 Prop. 49).

A. hirta was reported to occur in Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and eastern Sumatra (Indonesia) (Oyen & Xuan Dung, 1999; CoP13 Prop. 49) as well as the Indonesian islands of Riau and Lingga (CoP13 Prop. 49). It was reported to grow on hill slopes, from the lowland up to 300 m (CoP13 Prop. 49).

A. microcarpa was reported to occur in Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra, the Indonesian islands of Belitung and Bangka, and throughout Borneo (Oyen & Xuan Dung, 1999; CoP13 Prop. 49). It was reported to grow up to 40 m tall (Oyen & Xuan Dung, 1999) on lowland forest up to 200 m (CoP13 Prop. 49).

A. rostrata was described as a rare tree known only from Peninsular Malaysia (Pahang, Gunung Tahan) (Oyen & Xuan Dung, 1999; CoP13 Prop. 49). Whilst the majority of Aquilaria species have not been assessed by the IUCN since 1998, A. rostrata was categorised in 2012 as Critically Endangered (Lim, 2012), with the justification that “This poorly known tree is confined to a single location in the State of Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia. Although it is only known from type material collected in 1911, given the known threats to other Aquilaria species, it seems highly probable that this species is very threatened.” This species is thought to be the only agarwood-producing species endemic to Malaysia; however, its taxonomic status remains doubtful and it may already be extinct (Lim, 2012).

A. malaccensis was reported to occur from northeastern India, through Myanmar to Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra (Indonesia), Bangka (Indonesia), Borneo and the Philippines (Oyen & Xuan Dung, 1999). Barden et al . (2000) reported A. malaccensis to be distributed through Peninsular Malaysia, except for the States of Kedah and Perlis. There was some historical uncertainty as to the species’ occurrence in Sarawak, however it has been recorded in inventories of Lambir Hills National Park (Lee et al ., 2002 in: Lim & Awang Anak, 2010) and is described on the Forest Department Sarawak website as “rare but widespread in Sarawak” (Forest Department Sarawak, 2014).

Oyen & Xuan Dung (1999) reported that “ A. malaccensis is commonly found in primary and secondary forest, mainly in plains but also on hillsides and ridges up to 750 m altitude. It always occurs scattered, in Peninsular Malaysia and north-eastern India at a density of about 2.5 trees/ha.” A. malaccensis was described as “the most common Aquilaria species found throughout in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah (Whitmore, 1973; Cockburn, 1980 in: Lim & Awang Anak, 2010). The species was reported to be widespread but not to occur at particularly high stocking densities (Lim & Awang Anak, 2010; Chua, 2008). In 2007, the Malaysian population of Aquilaria malaccensis was evaluated to be Vulnerable (Chua, 2008).

The Fourth National Forest Inventory, conducted between 2002 and 2004 for Peninsular Malaysia, was reported to provide the Aquilaria spp. stocking densities in the virgin, logged-over and stateland forests (Anon, 2006 in: Chua, 2008). It estimated 0.62 stem ha -1 for size classes >10 cm dbh for all Aquilaria spp. These stems have an estimated timber volume of 0.311 m 3 ha -1. Trees 10-14.9 cm dbh were reported to make up 48 per cent of the total stem number while trees 15-44.9 cm dbh provided 67 per cent of the total volume ( Anon, 2008; Chua, 2008). The state of Pahang was reported to have the highest volume of Aquilaria while Kelantan has the highest number of stems (Mohd Paiz, 2006 in: Chua, 2008). It is noted that these estimates are for stem number and timber volume of all Aquilaria species, noting that not all stems produce agarwood (Chua, 2008).

Threats, harvest and trade: The main threats to Aquilaria species in Malaysia were reported to be unsustainable harvest/overexploitation (Oyen & Xuan Dung, 1999; Chua, 2008; Lim, 2012 ) and human induced habitat loss and degradation (Chua, 2008; CoP13 Prop. 49). Harvest of Aquilaria species for agarwood was reported to take place in Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah (CoP13 Prop. 49).

Aquilaria spp.

There are two main methods of harvesting agarwood: fatal harvest (where the whole tree is chopped down) and sub-lethal harvest (Chua, 2008; Lim & Awang Anak, 2010). Whilst fatal harvest is the most commonly reported method, harvesters (including local communities) also practise non-destructive harvesting methods, including coppicing and chipping and cutting the infected part of the tree on a rotation basis over a number of years (Chua, 2008; Lim & Awang Anak, 2010).

It was reported to be difficult, particularly for inexperienced harvesters, to identify infected agarwood trees (Barden et al ., 2000; Persoon, 2007; 2008). Due to the high demand and value of agarwood, there was reported to be increasing indiscriminate felling of diseased and healthy trees, leading to concerns that this is likely to be detrimental to the viability of Aquilaria spp. populations (Oyen & Xuan Dung, 1999; CoP13 Prop. 49).

There were also reports of widespread illegal harvesting of agarwood in Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak), by both Malaysians and foreign nationals (Barden et al ., 2000; Lim & Awang Anak, 2010). Illegal harvest was reported to take place in all types of forest, including protected areas, and Malaysians were also reported to have been involved in illegal agarwood harvesting in Brunei and Indonesia (Chua, 2008; Lim & Awang Anak, 2010). There was also reported to be an influx of fake agarwood products on the market made from non-infected Aquilaria wood impregnated with cheap oil – so called Black Magic Wood (Persoon, 2007; 2008).

There is an increasing global demand for agarwood, with Malaysia being a major exporter (Lim & Awang Anak, 2010). The retail price of agarwood was reported to vary between countries and depend on quality (Oyen & Xuan Dung, 1999), with agarwood chips and segments selling for several hundred to several thousand US dollars per kilogramme (Barden et al. , 2000). In Malaysia, the 1996 prices per kg were reported to range from US$ 5 for mixed grades to US$ 1000 for the top grade (Oyen & Xuan Dung, 1999). High quality oil, extracted from agarwood through distillation, was reported to reach prices of up to US$ 50 000 to US$ 80 000 per litre (Persoon, 2007). It is estimated that for the production of one litre of oil, 100 to 150 kilos of agarwood is necessary (Persoon, 2007). Persoon (2008) reported that desire for the highest quality agarwood in Japan and the Middle East meant that manufacturers in these countries preferred to process the raw materials themselves.

Although most agarwood chips and oil were believed to be exported from Malaysia, there was reported to be a considerable domestic market in agarwood incense and medicine in Malaysia, particularly among the ethnic Chinese (Lim & Awang Anak, 2010).

Most parts and derivatives of agarwood in trade are not readily recognizable to the species level (Lim & Awang Anak, 2010).

Whilst most agarwood continues to be harvested from the wild, high prices and local depletion of resources was reported to have led to a variety of efforts to stimulate the growth of agarwood, through deliberate wounding of wild trees, laboratory and field experiments to investigate the stimulation of agarwood production and cultivation of Aquilaria trees in large scale plantations (Persoon, 2007; 2008; CoP13 Prop. 49). Lim & Awang Anak (2010) reported that the Malaysian government and the private sector had taken steps to investigate the potential of establishing Aquilaria plantations in the country, with a number of trial plots established. Chua (2008) reported that “Trial planting of Aquilaria malaccensis , as part of both government and private sector initiatives, is being conducted in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak (Mohd Paiz, 2006; Dawend et al ., 2005; D. Alloysius, Yayasan Sabah, pers. comm.). Research attempts are being carried out on inoculation, chemical analysis of the resin, growth performance under plantation conditions, and large-scale planting in Malaysia. Experimental planting of this species has not yet expanded to commercial scale.”

Aquilaria spp.

Management: The commercial harvesting of agarwood was reported to require a license and removal pass issued by the State Forestry Departments in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and the Sarawak Forestry Corporation (Chua, 2008), prior to the application and issuance of CITES export permits.

Harvesting in all production forests of the Permanent Reserved Forests (PRFs) in Peninsular Malaysia was reported to be managed through the Selective Management System (SMS), which encourages sustainable forest management (Chua, 2008). However, this contains no specific management plan for agarwood-producing species, and as agarwood is treated as a minor forest product, harvesting was reported not to be subject to the restrictions imposed by SMS (Chua, 2008). In 2005, a Standard of Procedures was developed to control and monitor harvesting, processing and trade of Aquilaria (Anon, 2005 in: Chua, 2008). This was reported to include the need for a harvest license, a harvest quota set at 500 kg of wood chips per month per license and prevention of harvest of trees less than 20 cm diameter or trees in flower and fruit (Chua, 2008).

Chua (2008) summarises the legislation in place for Malaysia’s three administrative regions (Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak):

“Peninsular Malaysia and Federal Territories The National Forestry Act 1984 (amended 1993) regulates the collection of minor forest produce through the application of licenses. There is no specific category for agarwood in the State Forest Rules made under the Act. In Peninsular Malaysia, wood chips, powder and oil are classified as minor forest products in accordance with Section 2(b) of the Act and a license is required for collecting. However, for the purpose of the collection of royalties, gaharu comes under an open clause of the Royalty Rate List that states ‘Minor Forest Produce: Miscellaneous – Forest produce not mentioned above’ (e.g. Pahang Forest Rules 1987 Sch II (ii) 2.11 (d)). Such harvest requires a license or permit issued by the State Forestry Department. There is no provision in Peninsular Malaysia that declares agarwood-producing species as totally protected. […]

Sabah The Sabah Forest Rules 1969 fix the royalty rate on gaharu [agarwood] at 10% of the value (Sch II, Pt A, s(h) ‘Minor Forest Produce (Damar, Fossil, Gums, Gaharu , Cinnamon, Sticks, Tengkawang, etc)’). The Rules originally listed Aquilaria malaccensis as a Commercial Species, Class J, with a minimum felling diameter of 60 cm dbh (Sch I). However, effective 02 January 2004, the Sabah Forestry Department has classified A. malaccensis as a prohibited species to be retained inside Forest Reserves (Sch C; Clause 1(31) of the Standard Sustainable Forest Management Licence Agreement – s 15(1) Forest Enactment 1968). In addition, the Sabah Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997 requires a permit for harvesting any species listed in Appendices I and II of CITES. Beginning in 2004, Sabah imposed a ban on gaharu extraction from its Forest Reserves while the local CITES Management Authority has been requested to verify extraction permits with the State Forest Department.

Sarawak Although the State Forest Rules made under the Forest Ordinance 1958 contain detailed prescriptions governing the collection of royalties and fees, as well as collection of latex and resin from a number of tree species, there is no specific provision for agarwood. Provision for the collection of royalties on gaharu harvested in Sarawak under license is set out in section 52(2). Sch I, Class III, Miscellaneous, ‘Other forest produce not specified above’, with the rate specified as 10% ad valorem . […]

The key agarwood-producing species in Sarawak, Aetoxylon sympetalum, Aquilaria beccariana and A. microcarpa , are specifically listed as ‘protected plants’ under the Sarawak's Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1998 (Part II of the Second Schedule). A permit from the Controller of Wildlife is required to harvest and trade in these species as well as any plant species included in CITES Appendices I and II. […] In addition, the Sarawak National Parks and Nature Reserves Ordinance 1998 makes it an offence for any person to collect or remove gaharu from any national park or nature reserve.”

Aquilaria spp.

Aquilaria malaccensis was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade process at the 12 th meeting of the Plants Committee, May 2002 (PC12 Executive Summary); the species was reviewed for the 14 th meeting of the Plants Committee, February 2004, where Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak were categorised as ‘of urgent concern’ (PC14 Doc. 9.2.2 Annex 2). Specific recommendations for Malaysia included the need to hold a consultative workshop on agarwood trade and establishing a cautious national quota for trade in agarwood (PC14 WG3.2 Doc. 1). At the 54 th meeting of the Standing Committee, October 2006, it was reported that Malaysia had complied with most of the recommendations and steps had been taken to strengthen and improve the procedures for licensing the harvest of, trade in and processing of Aquilaria spp.; however Malaysia had not yet established a cautious harvest and export quota (SC54 Doc. 42 ). Malaysia then notified the Secretariat that it had established an export quota of 200 000 kg of powder and woodchips for 2007, following which the Plants Committee requested that Malaysia submit a report explaining the scientific basis for this quota (SC54 Summary Record). Subsequently on 7 December 2006 Malaysia submitted an explanation, which was accepted by the Secretariat on 11 January 2007 (Lim & Awang Anak, 2010). A. malaccensis was subsequently removed from the review process ( SC54 Doc. 42; PC17 Doc. 8.3 Annex).

The regulation of harvest, processing and trade of agarwood was considered to require improvement (Chua, 2008; Lim & Awang Anak, 2010). References Anon 2006. Malaysian Country Report: Management of Aquilaria tree for Gaharu. Paper presented at “The Expert Group Meeting on Agarwood–capacity building workshop for improving enforcement and implementation of the listing of Aquilaria malaccensis and other agarwood-producing species”. 14-17 November 2006, Kuala Lumpur. Anon 2008. Report of the Fourth National Forest Inventory, Peninsular Malaysia [in Malay]. Forestry Department, Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 97 pp. Anon 2005. Rules for the licensing and regulation of the exploitation of Karas (Aquilaria malaccensis). Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Barden, A., Anak, N.A., Mulliken, T. and Song, M. 2000. Heart of the matter: agarwood use and trade and CITES implementation for Aquilaria malaccensis . TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK. 52 pp. Chua, L. 2008. Agarwood (Aquilaria malaccensis) in Malaysia. NDF Workshop case studies, WG1 - Trees, case study 3. 1–17 pp. Cockburn, P.F. 1980. Trees of Sabah. Vol. 1. Sabah Forest Record No. 10 . Sabah Forestry Department, Sandakan. Dawend, J., Make, J., Philip, L., Tan, S. and Franklin, R.K. 2005. System approach on sustainable gaharu conservation in Sarawak: an overview. Paper presented at International Seminar on Synergistic Approach to Appropriate Forestry Technology for Sustaining Rainforest Ecosystems, 7-9 March 2005. Universiti Putra Malaysia, Bintulu Campus, Sarawak, Malaysia. Forest Department Sarawak 2014. Thymelaeaceae: Aquilaria malaccensis: Gaharu engkaras . Available at: http://www.forestry.sarawak.gov.my/modules/web/pages.php?mod=webpage&sub=page&id=649. [Accessed: October 14, 2014]. Lee, H.S., Ashton, P.S., Yamakura, T., Tan, S., Davies, S.J., Itoh, A., Chai, E.O.K., Ohkubo, T. and LaFrankie, J. V 2002. The 52-hectare forest research plot at Lambir Hills, Sarawak, Malaysia: Tree distribution maps, diameter tables and species documentation . Forest Department Sarawak & The Arnold Arboretum - CTFS Asia Program. Lim, T.W. 2012. Aquilaria rostrata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: October 07, 2014]. Lim, T.W. and Awang Anak, N. 2010. Wood for trees: a review of the agarwood (gaharu) trade in Malaysia. A report commissioned by the CITES Secretariat. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 116 pp.

Aquilaria spp.

Mohd Paiz, K. 2006. Status perladangan dan penghasilan gaharu di Semenanjung Malaysia dan cabaran masa hadapan. Paper presented at the “Seminar Permodenan Industri Gaharu Malaysia”, 25 April 2006 . Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology Research (MINT), Technology Park, Dengkil, Selangor. Oyen, L.P.A. and Xuan Dung, N. 1999. Plant resources of south-east Asia 19: essential-oil plants . Prosea Foundation, Bogor, Indonesia. 279 pp. Persoon, G.A. 2007. Agarwood: the life of a wounded tree . IIAS Newsletter #45 Autumn 2007. 24–25. Persoon, G.A. 2008. Growing “The wood of the gods”: agarwood production in southeast Asia. In: Snelder, D.J. and R.D. Lasco (Eds.). Smallholder tree growing for rural development and environmental services: lessons from Asia . Springer Science, 245–262. Whitmore, T.C. 1973. Thymelaeaceae. In: Whitmore, T.C. (Ed.). Tree flora of Malaya. Volume 2 . Longman Press, Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia.

Appendix

Appendix Table 1: Purpose of trade

Code Description

T Commercial

Z Zoo

G Botanical garden

Q Circus or travelling exhibition

S Scientific

H Hunting trophy

P Personal

M Medical (including biomedical research)

E Educational

N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild

B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation

L Law enforcement / judicial / forensic

Table 2: Source of specimens

Code Description

W Specimens taken from the wild

X Specimens taken in “the marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State”

R Ranched specimens: specimens of animals reared in a controlled environment, taken as eggs or juveniles from the wild, where they would otherwise have had a very low probability of surviving to adulthood

D Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Appendix-I plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention

A Plants that are artificially propagated in accordance with Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP15), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 (specimens of species included in Appendix I that have been propagated artificially for non-commercial purposes and specimens of species included in Appendices II and III)

C Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5

F Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that do not fulfil the definition of ‘bred in captivity’ in Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof

U Source unknown (must be justified)

I Confiscated or seized specimens (may be used with another code)

O Pre-Convention specimens