Review of species affected by CoP16 nomenclature changes and which are subject to EU decisions

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the

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

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

November, 2013

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

219 Huntingdon Road

Cambridge

CB3 0DL

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314

Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136

Email: [email protected] Website: www.unep-wcmc.org PREPARED FOR The United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP- The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment centre of the United Nations Environment DISCLAIMER Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect intergovernmental environmental organisation. the views or policies of UNEP, contributory The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, organisations or editors. The designations combining scientific research with practical policy employed and the presentations do not imply the advice. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part highlight the many values of biodiversity and put of UNEP, the European Commission or authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre contributory organisations, editors or publishers of decision-making. Through the analysis and concerning the legal status of any country, territory, synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the city area or its authorities, or concerning the Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The information for conventions, countries and mention of a commercial entity or product in this organisations to use in the development and publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP. implementation of their policies and decisions.

UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically © Copyright: 2013, European Commission rigorous procedures and services. These include ecosystem assessments, support for the implementation of environmental agreements, global and regional biodiversity information, research on threats and impacts, and the development of future scenarios.

CITATION

UNEP-WCMC. 2013. Review of species affected by CoP16 nomenclature changes and which are subject to EU decisions . UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

Table of Contents

Introduction to the species sheets ...... 4

SPECIES: Trioceros sternfeldi ...... 5 SPECIES: Phelsuma dorsivittata ...... 9 SPECIES: Phelsuma parva ...... 13 SPECIES: Candoia paulsoni ...... 17 SPECIES: Gopherus morafkai ...... 23

Annex I: Key to purpose and source codes ...... 30

Introduction

Introduction to the species sheets The changes in nomenclature that result from the adoption of new Standard Nomenclature references at CITES CoP16 (Resolution Conf. 12.11 Rev. CoP16) have affected a number of taxa subject to current EU decisions and in some instances further scrutiny was considered to be required to ensure that the relevance of the original decisions is maintained. This report presents reviews of the conservation status and trade of those of cases where further analysis of the species status was found to be needed. On the basis of the Overview of the impact of CITES CoP16 nomenclature changes on current EU decisions (SRG 65), five taxa were selected for more in-depth review: - Trioceros sternfeldi from United Republic of Tanzania; - Phelsuma dorsivittata from Madagascar; - Phelsuma parva from Madagascar; - Candoia paulsoni from Indonesia and Solomon Islands; and - Gopherus morafkai from Mexico and United States of America. In most cases, CITES trade data was not available for the taxa recognised post-CoP16 and data represents the status pre-CoP16.

Trioceros sternfeldi

REVIEW OF SPECIES AFFECTED BY COP16 NOMENCLATURE CHANGES AND WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO EU OPINIONS

REPTILIA CHAMAELEONIDAE

SPECIES: Trioceros sternfeldi

SYNONYMS: Chamaeleo sternfeldi, Chamaeleon bitaeniatus graueri, Chamaeleon bitaeniatus rudis, Chamaelen bitaeniatus tornieri, Chamaeleon burgeoni, Chamaeleo [n] rudis, Chamaeleo rudis sternfeldi

RANGE STATES: United Republic of Tanzania

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: United Republic of Tanzania

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: All opinions originally formed for Chamaeleo rudis , from which Trioceros sternfeldi was split following CoP16. Current positive opinion for all wild-sourced specimens from the United Republic of Tanzania first applied on 23/06/1999 and last confirmed on 14/09/2010.

TRADE PATTERNS: United Republic of Tanzania: Tanzania has published a CITES export quota for wild-sourced Trioceros rudis sensu lato every year from 1997 onwards, and for F1 specimens every year from 2003 onwards, with the exception of 2010 when a quota for captive-bred specimens was published (Table 1). Given that T. rudis sensu stricto is not known to occur in Tanzania, it is likely that all trade reported as T. rudis originating in Tanzania is in the species T. sternfeldi . The quota for wild-sourced specimens was exceeded according to data reported by Tanzania in 2003, and according to data reported by importers in every year 2003-2009. Trade remained within the quotas for source ‘F’ and ‘C’ specimens in every year 2003-2011. Tanzania specified that its CITES annual report for the year 2003 was compiled on the basis of actual trade. Tanzania’s CITES annual reports for 2007 and 2012 have not yet been received; trade data for 2013 are not yet available. Table 1. CITES export quotas for Trioceros rudis from the United Republic of Tanzania and global direct exports, as reported by the importers and exporter, 2003-2013. All trade was in live specimens; no trade in captive-bred specimens was reported in 2010 (trade to which no quota applies in any given year is greyed out). The United Republic of Tanzania’s CITES annual reports for 2007 and 2012 have not yet been received; trade data for 2013 are not yet available. Source 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 W Quota (wild-taken) 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000§ 1000§ Importer 2182 1474 1312 1944 3440 2595 1428 821 743 Exporter 1110 657 940 972 877 1000 966 516 F Quota (F1 specimens) 353 310 240 264 238 244 321 321 ♦ 321 350 178 Importer 92 192 145 51 105 150 85 60 Exporter 186 40 197 47 80 68 30 Key: § = applies to live specimens only; ♦ = applies to live, captive-bred specimens

Trioceros sternfeldi

Direct trade from Tanzania reported as T. rudis 2003-2012 consisted exclusively of live specimens, the majority wild-sourced and traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). Notable quantities of source ‘F’ specimens were also traded, while small quantities of captive-bred and ranched specimens were reported in trade by importers only in 2004 and 2006, respectively. Importers also reported small numbers of seized/confiscated live specimens in 2003-2004. Trade reported by importers exceeded trade reported by Tanzania in every year 2003-2011, with the exception of 2010. According to importer-reported data, trade peaked in 2007 and subsequently declined in every year. Imports to the EU-28 from all sources accounted for 37 per cent of total global direct imports from Tanzania reported as T. rudis over the period 2003-2011, according to importer-reported data. Trade data by EU Member State is available here: https://db.tt/0cd8m7Ur . Indirect exports originating in Tanzania to the EU-28 reported as T. rudis consisted of six live, wild- sourced specimens re-exported via Canada in 2003 for commercial purposes, reported by Canada only. Table 2. Direct exports reported as Trioceros rudis from the United Republic of Tanzania to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2011. All trade was in live specimens. The United Republic of Tanzania’s CITES annual reports for 2007 and 2012 have not yet been received; no trade was reported in 2012. Importer Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total ECMember W B Importer 20 20 Exporter T Importer 769 695 569 499 1016 781 426 442 312 5509 Exporter 467 308 322 309 462 351 412 182 2813 Z Importer Exporter 20 20 F T Importer 92 192 140 45 40 100 60 40 709 Exporter 111 40 176 11 30 48 416 I - Importer 31 59 90 Exporter RoW W B Importer 11 11 Exporter T Importer 1413 779 732 1425 2424 1780 1002 379 431 10365 Exporter 643 349 618 663 415 649 534 334 4205 Z Importer 34 34 Exporter F T Importer 5 6 65 50 25 20 171 Exporter 75 21 36 50 20 30 232 C B Importer 14 14 Exporter R T Importer 50 50 Exporter Subtotals W Importer 2182 1474 1312 1944 3440 2595 1428 821 743 15939 Exporter 1110 657 940 972 877 1000 966 516 7038 F Importer 92 192 145 51 105 150 85 60 880 Exporter 186 40 197 47 80 68 30 648 C Importer 14 14 Exporter R Importer 50 50 Exporter I Importer 31 59 90 Exporter

TAXONOMIC NOTE The genus Chamaeleo was previously subdivided into two sub-genera, Chamaeleo (Chamaeleo ) and Chamaeleo (Trioceros ) (Klaver and Böhme, 1997), but a review of morphology and genetics led Tilbury and Tolley (2009) to conclude that the two sub-genera were distinct enough to warrant their elevation

Trioceros sternfeldi

to separate genera. Within the Trioceros genus, several species complexes (groups) have been recognised, in addition to subgroups within these complexes (Krause and Böhme, 2010; Tilbury and Tolley, 2009). T. sternfeldi was considered part of the bitaeniatus complex and, within this, a member of the rudis subgroup (Krause and Böhme, 2010). The Tanzanian forms of this subgroup were originally assigned to a rudis subspecies ( Chamaeleo rudis sternfeldi ) although their independent taxonomic status was later demonstrated (Klaver and Bohme, 1997 and Krause, 2006, in Krause and Böhme, 2010; Tilbury and Tolley, 2009) and these taxonomic changes were adopted at CITES CoP16. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Trioceros sternfeldi is a small chameleon species endemic to Tanzania, where it was found to be restricted to several high altitude volcanic montane areas (above 2000 m AMSL) (Tilbury, 2010). It has been recorded at Mts. Meru, Kilimanjaro, Hanang, Embagai and Ngorongoro (Tilbury, 2010). The species was reported to inhabit mist forest habitats, where it was often found in the scrubby vegetation and bushes on forest edges (Tilbury, 2010). T. sternfeldi populations were found to be fragmented and restricted to relatively small areas and specific types of habitat (Krause and Böhme, 2010). No information on the population size and status was located. The species has a viviparous reproductive strategy and following a gestation period of 5-6 months, it produces 4-12 offspring (Tilbury and Tolley, 2009; Tilbury, 2010). Spawls et al. (2002) noted that C. rudis adapted well to cultivation and urbanisation and was found in hedges, shrubbery, tall crops and roadside vegetation; it is unclear to what extent these characteristics apply to T. sternfeldi . The species has not yet been assessed by the IUCN. Burgess et al. (2007) noted that chameleons were extensively collected for the pet trade from mountainous areas in Tanzania, although the discussion did not cover the areas where T. sternfeldi occurs. Patrick et al. (2011) considered that insufficient demographic data were available to assess the effects of harvesting on the viability of chameleon populations in Tanzania. In a review of the global trade in chameleons, Carpenter et al. , (2004) noted that exports of C. rudis from Tanzania were of potential concern as the species was endemic and had a restricted range and therefore even low levels of trade could increase the risk of extinction if they represented a high level of extraction. Illegal wildlife trade was recognised as a key problem facing the wildlife sector in Tanzania (United Republic of Tanzania, 2007). The populations on Mts. Meru, Kilimanjaro and Ngorongoro were reported to be protected within National Parks (Tilbury, 2010) and the removal of any animal from such parks was prohibited by law (United Republic of Tanzania, 2002). Mt. Hanang is a Catchment Forest Reserve, which was found to be increasingly threatened by illegal logging, fires and drought; given the small size of the reserve, even minor disturbances were thought likely to be impacting on the habitat of forest dependant species [such as this species] (Krause and Böhme, 2010). The export of any wildlife species, specimens or products listed in the CITES Appendices requires a permit from the Management Authority (MA) in accordance with the Wildlife Conservation Act (United Republic of Tanzania, 2009). The following conditions must be adhered to in cases of live animal trade: the company must be registered in Tanzania and possess the appropriate capture gear, facilities and holding grounds in addition to a valid license and capture identity card, a capture permit must be acquired prior to capture and the appropriate export permit must be obtained before export (Wildlife Division, 2011). Tanzania reportedly imposed a temporary ban on all wildlife exports in August 2011 following a significant illegal export of wildlife (BBC, 2011), however, it is unclear how long this ban was in force. C. rudis was considered to be a difficult species to keep in captivity as it is extremely sensitive to changes in temperature; it has a short lifespan in captivity and was reported as being unsuitable for private husbandry (Lutzmann, 1998 in Altherr and Freyer, 2001); this may also apply to T. sternfeldi . It was reported that breeding facilities to cater for the trade in live chameleons existed in Tanzania, although details of species involved were not provided (United Republic of Tanzania, 2007).

Trioceros sternfeldi

REFERENCES:

Altherr, S. and Freyer, D. (2001). Morbidity and mortality in private husbandry of reptiles . West Sussex, UK: RSPCA and Pro Wildlife. BBC, 2011. Tanzania bans wildlife exports after animals stolen. 18/8/2011. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14577065 [Accessed: 1 November 2013]. Burgess, N. D., Butynski, T. M., Cordeiro, N. J., Doggart, N. H., Fjeldsa, J., Howell, K. M., Kilahama, F.B., Loader, S.R., Lovett, J.C., Mbilinyi, B., Menegon, M., Moyer, D.C., Nashanda, E., Perkin, A., Rovero, F., Stanley, W.T. and Stuart, S.N. (2007). The biological importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Biological Conservation , 134 (2), 209–231. Carpenter, A. I., Rowcliffe, J. M. and Watkinson, A. R. (2004). The dynamics of the global trade in chameleons. Biological Conservation , 120 (2), 291–301. Klaver, C. J. J. and Böhme, W. (1997). Chamaeleonidae. In H. Wermuth (Ed.), Das Tierreich, Part 112 . Berlin and New York: Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co. Krause, P. and Böhme, W. (2010). A new chameleon of the Trioceros bitaeniatus complex from Mt. Hanang, Tanzania, East Africa (Squamata: Chamaeleonidae). Bonn zoological Bulletin , 57 (1), 19–29. Patrick, D. A., Shirk, P., Vonesh, J. R., Harper, E. B. and Howell, K. M. (2011). Abundance and roosting ecology of chameleons in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania and the potential effects of harvesting. Herpetological Conservation and Biology , 6(3), 422–431. Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R. and Ashe, J. (2002). A field guide to the reptiles of East Africa . New York, USA: Academic Press. Tilbury, C. R. (2010). Chameleons of Africa: An Atlas, including the chameleons of Europe, the Middle East and Asia . Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Chimaira Buchhandelsgesellschaft mbH. Tilbury, C. R. and Tolley, K. A. (2009). A re-appraisal of the systematics of the African genus Chamaeleo (Reptilia: Chamaeleonidae). Zootaxa , 2079 , 57–68. United Republic of Tanzania. (2002). The National Parks Act (p. 25). United Republic of Tanzania. (2007). The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania (p. 50). The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. United Republic of Tanzania. (2009). Wildlife Conservation Act (No. 5 of 2009) . Wildlife Division. (2011). Live Animal Trade. United Republic of Tanzania Minisitry of Natural Resources and Tourism . URL: http://www.wildlife.go.tz/cat.php?id=18.html Accessed: 08/10/2013.

Phelsuma dorsivittata

REVIEW OF SPECIES AFFECTED BY COP16 NOMENCLATURE CHANGES AND WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO EU OPINIONS

REPTILIA GEKKONIDAE

SPECIES: Phelsuma dorsivittata

SYNONYMS: Phelsuma lineata dorsivittata

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Opinion was originally formed for Phelsuma lineata , from which P. dorsivittata was split following CoP16. Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Madagascar first formed on 26/09/2006. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens of P. lineata from Madagascar first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 01/10/2007.

TRADE PATTERNS: Madagascar: Madagascar published a CITES export quota for live, wild-sourced Phelsuma lineata sensu lato in every year from 1999 onwards (Table 1). Given that both P. dorsivittata and P. lineata sensu stricto are known to occur in Madagascar, it is not possible to determine what proportion of the trade comprises the species P. dorsivittata . Trade appears to have remained within the quota in every year according to both exporter- and importer-reported data, with the exception of 2010, when the quota was apparently exceeded according to exporter-reported data only. Madagascar specified that its CITES annual report for 2010 was compiled on the basis of permits issued rather than actual trade. Madagascar’s CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received; trade data for 2013 are not yet available. Table 1. CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced Phelsuma lineata from Madagascar and global direct exports, as reported by the importers and exporter, 2003-2013. Madagascar’s CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received; trade data for 2013 are not yet available. Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Quota 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 3000 3000 Importer 1348 1238 1737 646 1008 1060 1287 1292 1829 716 Exporter 1755 1501 479 1639 1419 1615 1662 2633 1710

Direct trade from Madagascar reported as P. lineata 2003-2012 comprised primarily live, wild-sourced animals traded for commercial purposes; live, ranched and captive-bred animals were also reported in trade in small numbers in 2004 and 2012, respectively (Table 2). In addition, small numbers of wild- sourced bodies and specimens were traded for scientific purposes, and small quantities of

Phelsuma dorsivittata

seized/confiscated live animals were reported by importers in 2009 and 2011. Trade data by EU Member State is available here: https://db.tt/eyHbQKPj . Trade in live animals reported by Madagascar increased every year 2007-2010, but decreased by 35 per cent between 2010 and 2011. Madagascar’s annual report for 2012 has yet to be received; however importer-reported data for 2012 appears to reflect this trend, with a 60 per cent decline in trade between 2011 and 2012. In 2005, trade in live, wild-sourced animals reported by importers greatly exceeded that reported by Madagascar. Based on importer-reported data, live imports to the EU-28 from all sources represented 50 per cent of global live imports reported as P. lineata over the period 2003-2012. Indirect trade to the EU-28 originating in Madagascar reported as P. lineata for the period 2003-2012 comprised 10 live, wild-sourced specimens traded for commercial purposes in 2004, reported by the importer only. Table 2. Direct exports reported as Phelsuma lineata from Madagascar to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Quantities rounded to one decimal place, where applicable.) Importer Term (Units) Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU bodies W S Importer 5 5 3 1 28 42 Exporter 5 7 3 2 17 live W T Importer 440 708 835 293 581 419 592 732 773 716 6089 Exporter 757 541 334 764 649 982 757 1263 685 6732 C T Importer 20 20 Exporter R T Importer Exporter 20 20 specimens W S Importer (kg) Exporter <0.1 <0.1 W S Importer 25 200 225 Exporter 20 200 220 RoW bodies W S Importer Exporter 25 15 40 live W S Importer 1 1 Exporter T Importer 908 529 902 353 427 641 695 560 1056 6071 Exporter 998 960 145 875 770 633 905 1370 1025 7681 R T Importer 90 90 Exporter 70 70 I T Importer 40 30 70 Exporter specimens W S Importer 25 9 8 11 2 2 57 Exporter

Subtotals W Importer 1348 1238 1737 646 1008 1060 1287 1292 1829 716 12161 (live only) Exporter 1755 1501 479 1639 1419 1615 1662 2633 1710 14413 C Importer 20 20 Exporter R Importer 90 90 Exporter 90 90 I Importer 40 30 70 Exporter

Phelsuma dorsivittata

TAXONOMIC NOTE Phelsuma dorsivittata was previously considered a subspecies of P. lineata, P. l. dorsivittata , but genetic analyses provided sufficient support for the populations of P. l. dorsivittata in northern Madagascar to be recognised as a separate species, P. dorsivittata (Rocha et al ., 2010). P. lineata had been recognized by CITES at CoP 13 (October 2004), when the standard reference for the genus Phelsuma, (Hallmann et al. , 2008) , was adopted. Previously, the species had been recognised as P. minuthi . CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Phelsuma dorsivittata is a gecko species endemic to Madagascar which inhabits low elevation (sea level to 1 100 m) humid forest, drier transitional forest and open areas of rainforest, where it was often observed on Pandanus screw palms (D’Cruze et al. , 2008; Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011; Glaw and Vences, 2007). While it was found in intact and degraded habitats, on agricultural land and in houses, it was believed to most likely require the presence of trees in these areas (Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). P. dorsivittata was found to occur as two subpopulations in northern Madagascar: one at Montagne d’Ambre and in the adjacent Forêt d’Ambre Special Reserve and Fontenay Nature Park, and the other at Iharana (Vohemar) (D’Cruze et al. , 2008; Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). In the surveys undertaken at Forêt d’Ambre Special Reserve, the species was found to be “infrequent” (D’Cruze et al. , 2008), while at Montagne d’Ambre it was common (Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). No information was believed to be available on the subpopulation from Vohemar, and the distance and lack of apparently suitable forest habitat in between these locations was thought to mean that the population is severely fragmented (Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). The overall population trend was considered to be unknown and the need for further information has been identified (Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). No information on estimated population numbers could be located. P. dorsivittata was classified as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List on the basis that it has an extent of occurrence of 970 km 2 and occurs as a severely fragmented population (Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). It was also noted that if future research indicates continuing decline in the extent or quality of its habitat, or in the number of mature individuals, it will require listing as endangered (Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). The main threats to the species were considered to be slash-and-burn agriculture and logging, which were reported to be widespread in Forêt d’Ambre and threatening the region around Vohemar (Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). The extent to which these activities posed a threat to the species was unknown, as it was found to be able to survive in a range of anthropogenic habitats, including agricultural land, although it was believed unlikely to be able to tolerate the complete loss of forest vegetation (Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). P. lineata was listed as a Category I, Class II protected species in Decree No. 2006-400 of 2006, which means that collection from the wild requires permission from the in-country CITES authorities (Ministère de l’Environnement, des Eaux et Forêts et du Tourisme, 2006). However, this legislation does not reflect the recent taxonomic changes and the protection status of P. dorsivittata is unclear. Several categories of protected areas are recognised in Madagascar, including integral natural reserves, natural parks and special reserves and Law No. 2001-005 prohibits the sale of wild animals from any protected areas (UNEP/UNCTAD, 2008a). Most of the recorded localities of P. dorsivittata are within protected areas – the Montagne d’Ambre National Park and the Forêt d’Ambre Special Reserve are managed by ANGAP (Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées) and the Fontenay Nature Park is privately owned and managed (D’Cruze et al. , 2008). There are no protected areas in or around Vohemar (Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). While pressure from human activities within Montagne d’Ambre National Park is limited, Forêt d’Ambre Special Reserve was reported to be seriously degraded and subject to heavy pressure (Glaw and Rakotondrazafy, 2011). In 1994 CITES imposed an export ban on most reptile species from Madagascar, but since P. lineata [nor P. dorsivittata ] was not included in this ban, trade in this species was reported to have increased (Altherr and Freyer, 2001). P. lineata was imported into the EU in high quantities in the 1990s, with 71 per cent of specimens being wild sourced (Auliya, 2003). Madagascar was selected for a country-

Phelsuma dorsivittata

based review of Significant Trade by the CITES Animals Committee in 2001, which led to the formulation of a CITES Action Plan and the development of several measures to strengthen the implementation of CITES; in 2005 a law was passed that brought Malagasy legislation in line with CITES requirements (UNEP/UNCTAD, 2008a, 2008b). A review of the national wildlife policy noted that while there had been significant advances made in the implementation of CITES in Madagascar, there were still several weaknesses such as a lack of adequate political support for the implementation of CITES and a lack of personnel and resources for control and monitoring (UNEP/UNCTAD, 2008a, 2008b). As a result, some species were still illegally traded in large numbers (UNEP/UNCTAD, 2008a). Rakotoarivelo et al. (2011) considered Madagascar’s legal framework for the use and protection of wildlife to be sound and the classification into various categories (protected, pest and legally hunted) to be clear and consistent with classification on IUCN Red Lists and CITES. P. lineata was considered a difficult species to breed (Altherr and Freyer, 2001) and Auliya (2003) noted that high levels of mortality led to sharp increases in price, in between being collected in the wild and being sold in consumer markets. It is unclear to what extent this applies to P. dorsivittata .

REFERENCES: Altherr, S. and Freyer, D. (2001). Morbidity and mortality in private husbandry of reptiles . West Sussex, UK: RSPCA and Pro Wildlife. Auliya, M. (2003). Hot trade in cool creatures - a review of the live reptile trade in the European Union in the 1990s with a focus on Germany . TRAFFIC Europe (p. 105). Brussels, Belgium: TRAFFIC Europe. D’Cruze, N., Kohler, J., Franzen, M. and Glaw, F. (2008). A conservation assessment of the amphibians and reptiles of the Forêt d’Ambre Special Reserve, north Madagascar. Madagascar Conservation & Development , 3(1), 44–54. Glaw, F. and Rakotondrazafy, N. A. (2011). Phelsuma dorsivittata . In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.redlist.org Accessed: 01/10/2013. Glaw, F. and Vences, M. (2007). A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar (3rd ed., Vol. Third, p. 495). Cologne: Vences & Glaw Verlag. Hallmann, G., Krueger, J. and Trautmann, G. (2008). Faszinierende Taggeckos Die Gattung Phelsuma (2. überarb.). Muenchen: Natur und Tier - Verlag GmbH. Ministère de l’Environnement des Eaux et Forêts et du Tourisme. (2006). Manuel de procédures pour la gestion de la faune et de la flore sauvages de Madagascar (p. 111). Rakotoarivelo, A. R., Razafimanahaka, J. H., Rabesihanaka, S., Jones, J. P. G. and Jenkins, R. K. B. (2011). Lois et règlements sur la faune sauvage à Madagascar: Progrès accomplis et besoins du futur. Madagascar Conservation & Development , 6(1), 37–44. Rocha, S., Rosler, H., Gehring, P. S., Glaw, F., Posada, D., Harris, D. J. and Vences, M. (2010). Phylogenetic systematics of day geckos, genus Phelsuma , based on molecular and morphological data (Squamata: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa , 2429 , 1–28. UNEP/UNCTAD. (2008a). National Wildlife Trade Policy Review: Madagascar . Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. UNEP/UNCTAD. (2008b). Wildlife Trade Policy Reviews: Synthesis Report (p. 23). UNEP-CITES Secretariat-UNCTAD-IHEID.

Phelsuma parva

REVIEW OF SPECIES AFFECTED BY COP16 NOMENCLATURE CHANGES AND WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO EU OPINIONS

REPTILIA GEKKONIDAE

SPECIES: Phelsuma parva

SYNONYMS: Phelsuma quadriocellata, Phelsuma quadriocellata parva

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Opinion originally formed for Phelsuma quadriocellata , from which Phelsuma parva was split following CoP16. Current positive opinion for all wild-sourced specimens from Madagascar first formed on 26/09/2006.

TRADE PATTERNS: Madagascar: Madagascar published a CITES export quota for live, wild-sourced Phelsuma quadriocellata sensu lato in every year from 1999 onwards (Table 1). Given that both P. parva and P. quadriocellata sensu stricto are known to occur in Madagascar, it is not possible to determine what proportion of the trade comprises the species P. parva . The quota appears to have been exceeded according to importer-reported data only in 2005, and according to exporter-reported data only in 2010. Madagascar specified that its CITES annual report for 2010 was compiled on the basis of permits issued rather than actual trade. Analysis of the export permits reported by importers in 2005 suggests that of the 2130 specimens imported, 1303 were in fact exported on permits issued in 2004, suggesting that the 2005 quota was not in fact exceeded. Similarly, in 2004, 749 of the specimens reported by importers were exported on permits that were issued the previous year. Madagascar’s CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received; trade data for 2013 are not yet available. Table 1. CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced Phelsuma quadriocellata from Madagascar and global direct exports, as reported by the importers and exporter, 2003-2013. Madagascar’s CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received; trade data for 2013 are not yet available. Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Quota 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 1833 1833 Importer 1219 1198 2130 1446 1053 1268 1403 1133 1978 717 Exporter 1785 1527 1926 1926 1486 1571 1768 2512 1710

Direct trade from Madagascar reported as P. quadriocellata 2003-2012 consisted primarily of live, wild- sourced animals traded for commercial purposes; a small number of live, ranched animals and captive-bred animals were also reported in trade in 2004 and 2012 respectively (Table 2). In addition, small numbers of wild-sourced bodies and specimens were traded for scientific purposes, and importers reported small quantities of seized/confiscated live animals in 2009 and 2011. Trade data by EU Member State is available here: https://db.tt/eyHbQKPj .

Phelsuma parva

Trade in live animals reported by Madagascar increased every year 2008-2010 following a low in 2007, but decreased by 32 per cent between 2010 and 2011. Although Madagascar’s annual report for 2012 has not yet been received, this trend appears to be reflected in importer-reported data for 2012, with a 63 per cent decline in trade between 2011 and 2012. Live imports to the EU-28 from all sources accounted for 53 per cent of global live imports from Madagascar reported as P. quadriocellata over the period 2003-2012, according to importer-reported data. No indirect trade reported as P. quadriocellata originating in Madagascar to the EU-28 was reported over the period 2003-2012. Table 2. Direct exports reported as Phelsuma quadriocellata from Madagascar to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. Madagascar’s CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received. Importer Term Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU bodies W S Importer 2 3 3 1 9 18 Exporter 1 3 3 3 10 live W T Importer 420 679 1020 866 602 617 662 793 875 657 7251 Exporter 767 541 1238 899 737 924 809 1254 806 7975 R T Importer Exporter 15 15 C T Importer 20 20 Exporter RoW bodies W S Importer Exporter 46 4 50 live W T Importer 799 519 1110 580 451 651 741 340 1103 6294 Exporter 1018 986 688 1027 749 647 959 1258 904 8236 R T Importer 85 85 Exporter 70 70 I T Importer 40 30 70 Exporter specimens W S Importer 5 5 20 8 38 Exporter

Subtotals W Importer 1219 1198 2130 1446 1053 1268 1403 1133 1978 657 13485 (live only) Exporter 1785 1527 1926 1926 1486 1571 1768 2512 1710 16211 R Importer 85 85 Exporter 85 85 C Importer 20 20 Exporter I Importer 40 30 70 Exporter

TAXONOMIC NOTE Phelsuma parva was formerly considered a subspecies of P. quadriocellata, P. q. parva, but molecular analyses determined that the two taxa were distinct at the species level and P. parva should be considered a full species Rocha et al. (2010).

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Phelsuma parva is a small gecko species endemic to Madagascar, which is found in coastal forests and lowland rainforest up to 500 m above sea level (Glaw and Vences, 2007; Randrianantoandro et al., 2011). Randrianantoandro et al. (2011) reported that P. parva was restricted to eastern and southern Madagascar in the coastal area between Tamatave in the east and Nahampoana in the southeast and inland to Ifanadiana. Rocha et al. (2010) noted that the species occurred at Sainte Luce in the southeast, while Gehring et al. (2010) described it as having a restricted distribution and recorded it at several low altitude sites on the east coast (Vohibola, Sahafina, the northern banks of Mahanoro and Marolambo and the surrounding area). Glaw and Vences (2007) listed the distribution of P. q. parva as Ampasimanolotra, Ilot Prune, Mananjary, Ifanadianaa and Toamasina. Van Heygen (2004) recorded P. q. parva on the Ampasindava Peninsula in northwestern Madagascar, on indigenous palms in

Phelsuma parva

primary forests, in the secondary vegetation on smaller deciduous trees and in coffee plantations. The population was considered to be established and the remoteness of the area and low levels of economic activity made it unlikely to have been a case of anthropogenic dispersal, which had been the case for a population of P. q. parva discovered on the nearby island of Nosy Be (Van Heygen, 2004; Budzinski, 2001 in Van Heygan, 2004). Randrianantoandro et al. (2011) noted that some inland populations of P. quadriocellata may be assignable to P. parva but that clarification was required. P. quadriocellata females were reported to lay on average six clutches of two eggs each per year, within 3-5 weeks of each other (Glaw and Vences, 2007). Randrianantoandro et al . (2011) noted that the species was regularly encountered and that it was sometimes abundant in Pandanus screw palms in the southeast; it was also found to be able to persist to a certain degree in disturbed areas of forest (Glaw and Vences, 2007; Randrianantoandro et al., 2011). However, the overall population trend was considered to be one of decline due to the ongoing loss of forest habitat throughout its range (Randrianantoandro et al ., 2011). P. parva was classified as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List on the basis that it has an extent of occurrence of at least 39 113 km 2 and while there was uncertainty over whether major threats exist, it was unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category (Randrianantoandro et al. , 2011). The main threat to P. parva was considered to be deforestation and the species was believed unlikely to be able to tolerate the complete loss of forest vegetation (Randrianantoandro et al ., 2011). The coastal forest around Sainte Luce was found to be threatened by conversion to agriculture and potentially at risk from future mineral sand mining; some of the other localities where the species was recorded were isolated forest fragments and also subject to pressures from agriculture (Randrianantoandro et al ., 2011). A review of significant trade in P. quadriocellata in 1993 noted that P. q. parva appeared to be affected by commercial exploitation (WCMC, IUCN/SSC, and TRAFFIC, 1993). More recently, Randrianantoandro et al. , (2011) recognised the need for research into the threats affecting P. parva and the ability of the species to tolerate them, although commercial collection was not considered a threat. P. quadriocellata was listed as a Category I, Class II protected species in Decree No. 2006-400, 2006, which meant that collection from the wild required permission from the in-country CITES authorities (Ministère de l’Environnement, des Eaux et Forêts et du Tourisme, 2006; Randrianantoandro et al. , 2011). However, this legislation does not reflect the recent taxonomic changes and the protection status of P. parva is unclear. Madagascar has a number of categories of protected areas, managed by ANGAP (National Association for the Management of Protected Areas), and Law No. 2001-005 prohibits the sale of wild animals from any protected area (UNEP/UNCTAD, 2008a). There were reported to be some protected forest fragments in the area around Sainte Luce, where P. parva was found and Vohibola was also a protected area (Gehring et al. , 2010; Randrianantoandro et al. , 2011). However, the extent of the species’ occurrence in other protected areas was considered unknown (Randrianantoandro et al. , 2011). In 1994 CITES imposed an export ban on most reptile species from Madagascar but since P. quadriocellata [nor P. parva ] was not included in this ban, trade in this species increased (Altherr and Freyer, 2001) and Auliya (2003) noted that P. quadriocellata was traded in high quantities into the EU in the 1990s, with 72 per cent of imports being wild-sourced. Madagascar was selected for a country- based review of Significant Trade by the CITES Animals Committee in 2001, which led to the formulation of a CITES Action Plan and the development of several measures to strengthen the implementation of CITES; in 2005 a law was passed that brought Malagasy legislation in line with CITES requirements (UNEP/UNCTAD, 2008a, 2008b). A review of the national wildlife policy noted that while there had been significant advances made in the implementation of CITES in Madagascar, there were still several weaknesses such as a lack of adequate political support for the implementation of CITES and a lack of personnel and resources for control and monitoring (UNEP/UNCTAD, 2008a, 2008b). As a result, some species were still illegally traded in large numbers (UNEP/UNCTAD, 2008a). Rakotoarivelo et al. (2011) considered Madagascar’s legal framework for

Phelsuma parva

the use and protection of wildlife to be sound and the classification into various categories (protected, pest and legally hunted) to be clear and consistent with classification on IUCN Red Lists and CITES. Altherr and Freyer (2001) reported that P. quadriocellata was a difficult species to breed and Auliya (2003) noted that high levels of mortality in this species resulted in sharp price increases in between collection in the wild and sale in consumer markets. It is unclear to what extent this applies to P. parva .

REFERENCES: Altherr, S. and Freyer, D. (2001). Morbidity and mortality in private husbandry of reptiles. West Sussex, UK: RSPCA and Pro Wildlife. Auliya, M. (2003). Hot trade in cool creatures - a review of the live reptile trade in the European Union in the 1990s with a focus on Germany . TRAFFIC Europe (p. 105). Brussels, Belgium: TRAFFIC Europe. Gehring, P., Ratsoavina, F. M. and Vences, M. (2010). Filling the gaps – amphibian and reptile records from lowland rainforests in eastern Madagascar. Salamandra , 46 (4), 214–234. Glaw, F. and Vences, M. (2007). A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar (3rd ed., Vol. Third, p. 495). Cologne: Vences & Glaw Verlag. Ministère de l’Environnement, des Eaux et Forêts et du Tourisme. (2006). Manuel de procédures pour la gestion de la faune et de la flore sauvages de Madagascar (p. 111). Rakotoarivelo, A. R., Razafimanahaka, J. H., Rabesihanaka, S., Jones, J. P. G. and Jenkins, R. K. B. (2011). Lois et règlements sur la faune sauvage à Madagascar: Progrès accomplis et besoins du futur. Madagascar Conservation & Development , 6(1), 37–44. Randrianantoandro, J. C., Glaw, F. and Rakotondrazafy, N. A. (2011). Phelsuma parva . In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.redlist.org Accessed: 02/10/2013. Rocha, S., Rosler, H., Gehring, P. S., Glaw, F., Posada, D., Harris, D. J. and Vences, M. (2010). Phylogenetic systematics of day geckos, genus Phelsuma , based on molecular and morphological data (Squamata: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa , 2429 , 1–28. UNEP/UNCTAD. (2008a). National Wildlife Trade Policy Review: Madagascar . Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. UNEP/UNCTAD. (2008b). Wildlife Trade Policy Reviews: Synthesis Report (p. 23). UNEP-CITES Secretariat-UNCTAD-IHEID. Van Heygen, E. (2004). The genus Phelsuma GRAY, 1825 on the Ampasindava peninsula, Madagascar. Phelsuma , 12 , 99–117. WCMC, IUCN/SSC and TRAFFIC. (1993). Significant trade in wildlife: a review of selected animal species in CITES Appendix II. Cambridge, UK: Draft report to the CITES Animals Committee.

Candoia paulsoni

REVIEW OF SPECIES AFFECTED BY COP16 NOMENCLATURE CHANGES AND WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO EU OPINIONS

REPTILIA BOIDAE

SPECIES: Candoia paulsoni

COMMON NAMES: Paulson's Bevel-nosed Boa (English)

SYNONYMS: Candoia carinata, Candoia carinata paulsoni

RANGE STATES: Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia, Solomon Islands

IUCN RED LIST: Not Evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: All opinions originally formed for Candoia carinata , from which C. paulsoni was split following CoP16. Current negative opinion for all wild-sourced specimens from Indonesia first applied on 11/09/2012. Current positive opinion for all wild-sourced specimens from Solomon Islands first applied on 09/10/1997 (all countries) and last confirmed on 12/06/2006. Previous positive opinion for all wild-sourced specimens from all range states first formed on 09/10/1997 and removed for Papua New Guinea on 02/12/2011. Previous Article 4.6b import suspensions for all captive-bred specimens from Solomon Islands first applied on 30/04/2004 and removed on 18/02/2005.

TRADE PATTERNS: Indonesia: Indonesia has published a CITES export quota for wild-sourced Candoia carinata sensu lato every year from 1997 onwards; from 1999 onwards, the quota applied to live specimens only (Table 1). Given that both C. paulsoni and C. carinata sensu stricto are known to occur in Indonesia, it is not possible to determine what proportion of the trade comprises the species C. paulsoni . Trade appears to have remained within the quota in every year with the exception of 2004, when the quota was exceeded according to data reported by Indonesia but not according to importer-reported data. Indonesia did not specify whether its 2004 CITES annual report was compiled on the basis of permits issued or actual trade. Table 1. CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced Candoia carinata from Indonesia and global direct exports, as reported by the importers and exporter, 2003-2013. Indonesia’s CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received; trade data for 2013 are not yet available. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Quota 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 Reported by importer 432 681 427 735 675 685 281 316 553 43 Reported by exporter 961 1104 1041 967 1077 1080 1030 965 988

Candoia paulsoni

Direct trade from Indonesia reported as C. carinata 2003-2012 consisted of live animals, the majority of which were wild-sourced and traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). Notable quantities of source ‘F’ animals were also reported in trade. Trade data by EU Member State is available here: https://db.tt/gIQ9fDgi . Trade reported by Indonesia declined over the period 2003-2011 overall; Indonesia’s CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received. Importer-reported trade peaked in 2006 and subsequently declined, but increased in both 2010 and 2011. Imports to the EU-28 accounted for 29 per cent of global direct imports from Indonesia reported as C. carinata over the period 2003-2012, according to importer-reported data. Indirect exports originating in Indonesia to the EU-28 reported as C. carinata consisted of small quantities of live, wild-sourced animals traded for commercial purposes; no trade has been reported since 2008 (Table 3). Table 2. Direct exports reported as Candoia carinata from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. All trade was in live specimens. Indonesia’s CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received. Importer Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU W P Importer 4 6 10 Exporter T Importer 62 167 129 225 236 316 91 49 150 43 1468 Exporter 125 226 164 345 366 424 106 143 231 2130 C T Importer 10 10 Exporter F T Importer 39 80 119 Exporter 37 41 39 100 7 224 I - Importer 1 1 Exporter RoW W Q Importer 4 4 Exporter T Importer 370 514 298 506 439 365 184 267 403 3346 Exporter 836 878 877 622 711 656 924 822 757 7083 C T Importer 40 40 Exporter F T Importer 66 55 37 149 76 93 476 Exporter 117 197 163 51 66 99 12 705 I T Importer 20 20 Exporter Subtotals W Importer 432 681 427 735 675 685 281 316 553 40 4828 Exporter 961 1104 1041 967 1077 1080 1030 965 988 9213 C Importer 40 10 50 Exporter F Importer 66 55 76 149 76 173 595 Exporter 154 238 202 151 66 106 12 929 I Importer 1 20 21 Exporter

Table 3. Indirect exports reported as Candoia carinata to the EU-28 originating in Indonesia, 2003-2008. No trade was reported in 2009-2012. All trade was in live, wild-sourced specimens traded for commercial purposes. Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Importer 2 5 4 10 21 Exporter 5 14 6 2 27

Solomon Islands: The Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007 and has submitted CITES annual reports for the years 2008-2010 only. The Solomon Islands has not published any CITES export

Candoia paulsoni

quotas for Candoia carinata sensu lato . Given that both C. paulsoni and C. carinata sensu stricto are known to occur in the Solomon Islands, it is not possible to determine what proportion of the trade comprises the species C. paulsoni . Direct trade from the Solomon Islands reported as C. carinata 2003- 2012 consisted primarily of live animals, the majority of which were wild-sourced and traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). Small quantities of captive-bred live animals were also reported in trade in 2003 and 2008-2010, and importers reported 65 seized/confiscated live animals in 2008. Trade data by EU Member State is available here: https://db.tt/cIb9AE6L . Trade in live animals has shown an overall decline over the period 2003-2011; no trade was reported in 2012. Imports of live animals to the EU-28 accounted for 38 per cent of global direct imports from the Solomon Islands reported as C. carinata over the period 2003-2011, according to importer-reported data. Indirect exports originating in the Solomon Islands to the EU-28 reported as C. carinata consisted of small quantities of live, wild-sourced animals traded for commercial purposes in 2003 (two animals, reported by the importer only) and 2004 (12 animals as reported by the importers and five animals as reported by the re-exporters). Table 1. Direct exports reported as Candoia carinata from the Solomon Islands to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2011. The Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007 and has submitted CITES annual reports for the years 2008-2010 only. No trade was reported in 2012. Importer Term Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total EU live W T Importer 310 11 60 30 147 20 51 50 679 Exporter 450 50 80 580 C T Importer 100 100 Exporter 20 20 RoW live W T Importer 252 130 145 151 107 273 20 10 1088 Exporter 1133 130 20 1283 S Importer Exporter 55 55 C T Importer 50 20 27 97 Exporter 100 100 I T Importer 65 65 Exporter derivatives W T Importer Exporter 40 40 C T Importer Exporter 50 50 specimens W S Importer 6 6 Exporter

Subtotals W Importer 562 141 145 211 137 420 40 51 60 1767 (live only) Exporter 1638 180 100 1918 C Importer 150 20 27 197 Exporter 120 120 I Importer 65 65 Exporter

TAXONOMIC NOTE Candoia paulsoni was previously considered to be a synonym of Candoia carinata (UNEP-WCMC, 2011), however it was widely recognised that C. carinata contained several distinctive forms, which were often allocated to the subspecies C. c. carinata and C. c. paulsoni (O’Shea, 2011). Smith et al. (2001) undertook a revision of C. carinata and determined it to be a complex of three species, in turn comprising two subcomplexes, which showed very little overlap in their distributions. The C. carinata subcomplex comprised C. carinata and C. supercilliosa, while the C. paulsoni subcomplex comprised C. paulsoni. Several subspecies were also recognised, including six subspecies of C. paulsoni : C . p. mcdowelli , C. p. paulsoni , C. p. rosadoi , C. p. sadleri , C. p. tasmai and C. p. vindumi. The

Candoia paulsoni

16 th Conference of the Parties to CITES adopted Smith et al. (2001) as the Standard Nomenclature Reference for the C. carinata complex and C. paulsoni was split from C. carinata (Resolution Conf. 12.11 (Rev. CoP16)).

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Candoia paulsoni is a moderate sized (maximum length of 0.8–1.3 m) stout-bodied boid species which is primarily terrestrial and inhabits forests and cultivated land (McCoy, 1980; O’Shea, 2011). It has a fragmented distribution comprising three separate geographical divisions: the eastern division includes the Solomon Islands and the small islands to the east of New Ireland (Papua New Guinea), the central division includes some of northeastern mainland Papua New Guinea and the islands to the southeast of the mainland, while the western division is centred on the Indonesian island of Halmahera, with additional records from neighbouring islands and possibly northwestern Sulawesi (Koch et al., 2009; O’Shea, 2011; Smith et al ., 2001). C. paulsoni has a viviparous mode of reproduction and produces litters of 30-50 offspring (O’Shea, 2011). The species has not been officially evaluated by the IUCN, although a recent provisional classification of C. paulsoni in the Pacific Islands of Oceania considered it to be of Least Concern (Pippard, 2012). Indonesia : C. p. tasmai was the only subspecies of C. paulsoni which was found to occur in Indonesia (Smith et al. , 2001). It has been recorded from Halmahera and surrounding islands and the Talaud Islands (De Lang and Vogel, 2006; Koch et al. , 2009; Smith et al. , 2001) and while some authors reported it from north Sulawesi (e.g. De Lang and Vogel, 2006; Smith et al. , 2001), Koch et al. (2009) considered that the records for this location may be incorrect and noted that the species had not been found in recent field surveys in this area. De Lang and Vogel (2006) reported that herpetofaunal studies in Sulawesi had only taken place on a very limited scale and recognised an urgent need to undertake further snake surveys, with C. p. tasmai mentioned as a priority species in this respect due to its relative rarity and potential threats from human activities. Iskandar and Erdelen (2006) noted that population sizes, status and trends for many Indonesian snake species remained unknown. No information on population estimates or trends could be found for this species. The main threat to Indonesian reptile species was considered to be habitat destruction, which was reported to be taking place at an alarming rate, although it was also noted that wildlife trade had affected some species (Iskandar and Erdelen, 2006). C. paulsoni was not listed as a protected species in Indonesia (Republic of Indonesia, 1999), therefore harvesting from the wild was reported to be permitted, with quotas being set on an annual basis (Natusch and Lyons, 2012). The CITES Management Authority (MA) of Indonesia (2011) reported that wild harvest was allowed for abundant species and that the approach for establishing quotas was precautionary, taking into consideration factors such as population size, trends, geographic range and harvest location. All CITES Appendix II listed species were confirmed to be controlled with regards to harvest, domestic transport and export (CITES MA of Indonesia, 2011). The national quota was reported to be split and allocated to provinces, with export permits then being issued at the national level (CITES MA of Indonesia, 2011). Hunters and traders must be registered and have the relevant permits to capture, transport and sell wildlife (Natusch and Lyons, 2012). In a study of the reptile pet trade in Indonesia, Natusch and Lyons (2012) noted that large numbers of snakes were traded illegally. The CITES MA of Indonesia (2011) reported that monitoring of illegal trade in snakes had been successful and had led to declines in such trade. Two separate blocks of forest on Halmahera Island are protected as the Aketajawe-Lolobata National Park (Setiadi et al ., 2010) and on the island of Karakelang (Talaud archipelago) approximately 350 km 2 of forest is protected, some as a wildlife reserve, although management was noted to be lacking and it was threatened by agricultural encroachment, illegal logging and fire (Riley, 2003). However, information on the occurrence of C. paulsoni within these specific areas could not be located. Solomon Islands: C. p. paulsoni was the only subspecies of C. paulsoni which was found in the Solomon Islands and since C. carinata is no longer considered to occur in this range state since the

Candoia paulsoni

taxonomic revision (Smith et al. , 2001), all references to C. carinata or C. c. paulsoni in the Solomon Islands can be considered to be C. p. paulsoni. C. paulsoni [C. p. paulsoni ] was found throughout most of the Solomon Islands archipelago, including the main islands and the Santa Cruz group (McCoy, 1980; Smith et al ., 2001). McCoy (1980) described the species as widespread and “probably the most abundant of the snakes in the Solomon Islands”. No more recent information on population estimates or trends could be found for this species. Habitat destruction was identified as a threat to Solomon Islands reptiles by Pauku and Lapo (2009) as well as Leary (1991), who also noted that trade did not represent a significant threat to Solomon Islands fauna. However, illegal trade in flora and fauna was reported to take place in provincial areas (UNDP-GEF, 2006). C. carinata is listed in Schedule II (Regulated and Controlled Species) of the Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998, meaning that export for commercial purposes is only permitted by an approved person with a valid permit (National Parliament of Solomon Islands, 1998), although it is unclear whether this listing applies to C. paulsoni considering the taxonomic changes. UNDP-GEF (2006) considered this legislation to be lacking, as it had been gazetted but not fully implemented, had no supporting policies or regulations and did not fully establish a legal regime for the protection of wildlife. The need to review this Act to enable effective wildlife management and to regulate the movement of species was recognised by the Solomon Islands government in 2008 (Ministry of Environment Conservation and Meteorology, 2008a). As of 2008, the Solomon Islands had one National Park, four forest reserves, two marine and terrestrial protected areas, two catchment areas and lakes, managed by communities, NGOs or government, in addition to 18 proposed protected areas (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology, 2008b). However, several weaknesses in the protected area system were highlighted, including poor governance, land tenure issues, political instability, limited financial and human resources and the lack of species lists for many areas (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology, 2008b).

REFERENCES: CITES MA of Indonesia. (2011). Country report of Indonesia: Snake trade and conservation . Jakarta, Indonesia: Indonesian Ministry of Forestry. De Lang, R., and Vogel, G. (2006). The snakes of Sulawesi. In M. Vences, T. Köhler and W. Böhme (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica (pp. 35–38). Herpetologia Bonnensis II. Iskandar, D. T. and Erdelen, W. R. (2006). Conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Indonesia: issues and problems. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation , 4(1), 60–87. Koch, A., Arida, E., Riyanto, A. and Böhme, W. (2009). Islands between the realms: A revised checklist of the Herpetofauna of the Talaud Archipelago, Indonesia, with a discussion about its biogeographic affinities. Bonner Zoologische Beitraege , 56 , 107–129. Leary, T. (1991). A review of terrestrial wildlife trade originating from Solomon Islands. Australian Zoologist , 27 , 1–62. McCoy, M. (1980). Reptiles of the Solomon Islands (p. 80). Papua New Guinea: Wau Ecology Institute (Handbook No. 7). Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology. (2008a). Corporate Plan 2008-2010 . Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology. (2008b). Supporting Country Action on the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas - Solomon Islands Application for Funding (p. 20). National Parliament of Solomon Islands. (1998). Wildlife Protection and Management Act (No. 10 of 1998). Natusch, D. J. D. and Lyons, J. A. (2012). Exploited for pets: the harvest and trade of amphibians and reptiles from Indonesian New Guinea. Biodiversity and Conservation , 21 , 2899–2911. O’Shea, M. (2011). Boas and pythons of the world (p. 160). London, UK: New Holland.

Candoia paulsoni

Pauku, R. and Lapo, W. (2009). Solomon Islands National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (p. 71). Final report. Prepared for Solomon Islands Government, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology. Pippard, H. (2012). The current status and distribution of reptiles in the Pacific Islands of Oceania (pp. 1–14). IUCN Oceania Regional Office. Republic of Indonesia. (1999). Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7 concerning the Preservation of Wild Plants and Animals. Indonesia. Riley, J. (2003). Population sizes and the conservation status of endemic and restricted-range bird species on Karakelang, Talaud Islands, Indonesia. Bird Conservation International , 13 , 59–74. Setiadi, M. I., Hamidy, A., Abidin, Z., Susanto, D., Brown, R. M., Peterson, A. T., Li, X. and Evans, B. J. (2010). Genetic structure of herpetofauna on Halmahera Island, Indonesia: implications for Aketajawe-Lolobata National Park. Conservation Biology , 24 (2), 553–62. Smith, H. M., Chiszar, D., Tepedelen, K. and van Breukelen, F. (2001). A revision of the bevel-nosed Boas ( Candoia carinata complex) (Reptilia: Serpentes). Hamadryad , 26 (2), 283–315. UNDP-GEF. (2006). National Capacity Self Assessment - Solomon Islands (p. 94). UNEP-WCMC (Comps.). (2011). Checklist of CITES species (p. 552). CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland, and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Gopherus morafkai

REVIEW OF SPECIES AFFECTED BY COP16 NOMENCLATURE CHANGES AND WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO EU OPINIONS

REPTILIA TESTUDINIDAE

SPECIES: Gopherus morafkai

SYNONYMS: Gopherus polyphemus agassizii, Scaptochelys agassizii, Testudo agassizii

RANGE STATES: Mexico, United States of America

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Mexico, United States of America

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6b import suspensions for all wild-sourced specimens from Mexico and the United States of America originally formed for Gopherus agassizii , from which Gopherus morafkai was split following CoP16, first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 11/07/2013. TRADE PATTERNS Mexico: Mexico has not published any CITES export quotas for Gopherus agassizii sensu lato . Given that G. agassizii sensu stricto is not known to occur in Mexico, it is likely that all trade reported as G. agassizii originating in Mexico is in the species G. morafkai . No direct or indirect exports originating in Mexico to the EU-28 reported as G. agassizii were reported over the period 2003-2012. Direct trade from Mexico to countries other than the EU-28 reported as G. agassizii 2003-2012 consisted of wild- sourced specimens traded primarily for scientific purposes, and small quantities of wild-sourced live animals and derivatives traded for personal purposes (Table 1). In addition, small quantities of seized/confiscated live animals and carapaces were reported by importers. Mexico’s CITES annual report for the year 2012 has not yet been received. Table 1. Direct exports reported as Gopherus agassizii from Mexico to countries other than the EU-28, 2003- 2011. No trade was reported in 2012; Mexico’s CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received. Term Units Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total carapace - I P Importer 1 2 3 Exporter W P Importer 4 2 6 Exporter carvings - W P Importer 2 2 Exporter live - I P Importer 4 6 2 6 18 Exporter W P Importer 8 7 2 4 21 Exporter meat kg W P Importer 0.454 0.454 Exporter specimens - W S Importer 231 64 31 107 103 536

Gopherus morafkai

Term Units Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Exporter 300 720 230 720 600 830 450 3850 T Importer 79 79 Exporter

United States: The United States has not published any CITES export quotas for G. agassizii sensu lato . Given that both G. morafkai and G. agassizii sensu stricto are known to occur in the United States, it is not possible to determine what proportion of the trade comprises the species G. morafkai . Direct trade from the United States reported as G. agassizii 2003-2012 consisted primarily of wild-sourced specimens traded for scientific purposes in 2004 and 2010 (Table 2). All trade was reported by the United States only. The only EU importer was the United Kingdom; trade data by EU Member State is available here: https://db.tt/5cvqWWrI . The majority of trade was exported to countries other than the EU-28, notably Australia and Canada. The United States’ CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received. No indirect trade reported as G. agassizii originating in the United States was reported over the period 2003-2012. Table 2. Direct exports reported as Gopherus agassizii from the United States to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2004-2011. No trade was reported in 2003, 2005, 2007-2009 or 2012; the United States’ CITES annual report for 2012 has not yet been received. (Figures rounded to one decimal place, where applicable.) Importer Term Units Source Purpose Reported by 2004 2006 2010 2011 Total

EU carapace kg W S Importer 1.4 1.4 Exporter

scales kg W S Importer <0.1 <0.1 Exporter

specimens kg W S Importer 0.3 0.3 Exporter

RoW live - I P Importer 1 1 Exporter

W P Importer 1 1 Exporter

specimens - W S Importer 412 284 1 697 Exporter

TAXONOMIC NOTE: Gopherus agassizii was previously considered to include all populations from the southwestern United States (US) and Mexico, until genetic, morphological and ecological evidence was found to elevate populations east and south of the Colorado River (in Arizona and Mexico) to species level, with the new name G. morafkai (Murphy et al ., 2011). Populations north and west of the Colorado River (in California, Nevada and Utah) retained the name G. agassizii (Murphy et al ., 2011). Since G. agassizii is no longer considered to occur in Mexico and Arizona, all references to G. agassizii in these locations were considered to be the species G. morafkai. The possibility that the Mexican populations of G. morafkai actually consist of two forms - G. morafkai and a Sinaloan thornscrub tortoise that may warrant recognition as a separate species - was reported to be subject to further investigation (Murphy et al., 2011). Since this potential taxonomic split would reduce the range of G. morafkai, it was believed to further the case for conservation action for this species (Murphy et al., 2011).

Gopherus morafkai

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Gopherus morafkai is a herbivorous desert tortoise, which was reported to be found east and south of the Colorado River in Arizona (US) and in northwestern Mexico, on rocky slopes and alluvial fans (Grover and DeFalco, 1995; Murphy et al ., 2011). Fifty-two per cent of their range was reported to be within Arizona and 48 per cent in Mexico (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Females have up to one clutch per year, with an average size of five eggs (Murphy et al ., 2011). Their slow moving and nonaggressive behaviour and the fact that they are diurnal was believed to make them vulnerable to collection, with females being particularly at risk as they tend to stay near their dens (Grover and DeFalco, 1995). Furthermore, their life history characteristics (long-lived with delayed sexual maturity) were thought to potentially constrain the ability of small populations to respond to increases in adult mortality (Edwards et al. , 2004). Juvenile survival rates were reported to be naturally low and a single female was estimated to contribute up to 6.85 tortoises that survive to sexual maturity over her lifetime (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2013a). G. morafkai has not been evaluated by the IUCN, although G. agassizii (which at the time of assessment included the populations now known as G. morafkai) was classified as Vulnerable (Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996). Mexico : G. agassizii sensu lato was considered widespread throughout most of Sonora, including on Tiburon Island in the Gulf of California; it was also reported from northwestern Sinaloa, reaching its southern distribution limit at El Fuerte, in the hills of the Sierra Madre (Fritts and Jennings, 1994; Grover and DeFalco, 1995). Smith et al. (2004) also recorded the species in the State of Chihuahua, southwest of Chínipas. The Sonoran and Sinaloan populations of G. agassizii sensu lato were considered to be discrete, based on ecological, physiological, morphological, behavioural and genetic differences (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). The species was reported to occur in desert habitats and in the thornscrub and deciduous forests of eastern Sonora and northern Sinaloa (Germano et al., 1994). Fritts and Jennings (1994) reported that the species was more abundant and had a less patchy distribution at intermediate elevations (300- 500 m) than at lower elevations and on coastal mountains, and Germano et al. (1994) noted that it was typically absent from valley floors in both the Sonoran Desert and the Sinaloan thornscrub, being found instead on steep, rocky slopes or hillsides. Surveys in northwestern Mexico recorded evidence of G. agassizii sensu lato in 60 per cent of timed searches, undertaken over 88.5 hours (Fritts and Jennings, 1994). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010), an assessment of the current status or population trends of the species in the Sonoran desert of Mexico could not be undertaken due to the lack of a structured, long-term monitoring programme. In a more recent assessment of G. morafkai in Mexico, which used the Environmental Vulnerability Score, Wilson et al. (2013) described the species distribution as limited. It was reported that tortoise populations which occurred close to urban areas were probably impacted by direct exploitation, habitat degradation, road kills, predation by domestic dogs and use as pets, and reports existed of tortoises being illegally collected and sold to foreign tourists or exported to the US and Europe (Fritts and Jennings, 1994). However, since much of their habitat remained inaccessible to humans, or in areas of low population density, these impacts were considered to be fairly limited (Fritts and Jennings, 1994). Wilson et al. (2013) noted that the species was commercially exploited and considered it highly vulnerable to environmental degradation. The main threats to the species within the Sonoran Desert of Mexico were considered to be the introduction of non-native species and the subsequent increase in wildfire risk and habitat modification due to overgrazing and harvest of ironwood and mesquite trees, with an estimated 98 per cent of G. agassizii sensu lato habitat predicted to be lost or modified in the near future (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). While the species was historically used for food in Mexico, this practice was considered to be comparatively rare in recent years (Gatica and Gatica, 2010; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Valdez et al. (2006) reported that illegal trade in reptiles was widespread in Mexico due to high demand and lucrative profits and that the federal agency responsible for enforcing wildlife law was lacking in staff and funding and was unable to adequately enforce the legislation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010) noted that the effect of illegal collection on G. agassizii sensu lato in the Sonoran

Gopherus morafkai

desert of Mexico was largely unknown and although it represented a potential threat, the prohibition of commercial sale and the reduction in human-tortoise interactions as more people moved into cites meant that the threat was probably not considerable. Fitzgerald et al. (2004) included G. agassizii sensu lato in a list of species which were known or expected to be taken for sale or personal use from the Chihuahuan desert ecoregion, which included the central and northern regions of Mexico. G. agassizii sensu lato was listed as a ‘Threatened’ species in Mexico, defined as a species which may be at risk of disappearing in the short or medium term if threats continue to operate, and which cannot be removed from the wild without authorisation (Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2013; Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2010). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010) were not aware of the enforcement of regulations relating to this listing and considered it unlikely that the legal protection of the species was adequate to ensure its conservation in Mexico. Reuter and Mosig (2010) also reported that the resources available to manage wildlife and ensure compliance with legal frameworks were limited, that deterrents for wildlife crimes were not sufficient and illegal wildlife trade occurred. The export of any native reptile species was reported to be prohibited in Mexico and therefore any trade in live specimens is illegal (Fitzgerald et al. , 2004). Several categories of protected areas in Mexico were reported to cover almost 13 per cent of the country (SEMARNAT, 2013); G. agassizii sensu lato was reported from the Gulf of California Islands protected area and the Biosphere Reserve of El Pinacate and Gran Desierto Altar (Gatica and Gatica, 2010). Figueroa and Sánchez-Cordero (2008) reported that El Pinacate and Gran Desierto Altar protected area had been effective in preventing land use change but that this was not the case for all protected areas; challenges still remained in terms of managing protected areas for conservation in Mexico. The Comisión Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) was reported to be responsible for the protection of fauna and flora within these areas and although management plans had been developed for some protected areas in Mexico, it was noted that their effective implementation was often compromised by a lack of information and conflicting land ownership interests due to the variety of land tenure types found within them (Valdez et al ., 2006). United States of America : G. agassizii sensu lato has been reported only from the state of Arizona, southwestern US, in the Mojave and Upper Sonoran deserts within the counties of Cochise, Graham, Maricopa, Mojave, Pima, Pinal and Yuma (Grover and DeFalco, 1995). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010) noted that the population in southeastern Cochise County was not a natural population, with animals probably consisting of released pets. In the Sonoran Desert, the species was found to typically occur on rocky slopes and alluvial fans and was largely absent from valley floors (Riedle et al ., 2008). In the 1980’s populations were reported to be fragmented and densities generally low, with the exception of a few small higher density sites, mostly in southern Arizona, where populations were considered to be greater than 300 tortoises/mi 2 [1.16 tortoises/ha] (Grover and DeFalco, 1995). In the Sonoran Desert area fewer than a dozen areas were identified with moderate to high density populations (50-250 tortoises/mi 2 [0.19-0.97 tortoises/ha]) (Grover and DeFalco, 1995). North of the Grand Canyon and in Yuma County, populations existed in low densities, generally less than 90 tortoises/mi 2 [0.35 tortoises/ha] (Grover and DeFalco, 1995). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010) considered densities of G. agassizii sensu lato to vary considerably among populations in Arizona, with estimates from 15–150 tortoises/mi 2 [0.06-0.58 tortoises/ha]. During intensive surveys within Saguaro National Park (Rincon Mountains, Pima County), Flesch et al. (2010) recorded a mean relative abundance of 0.07 G. agassizii sensu lato individuals/ha/h at low elevations (> 1218 m) while in extensive surveys recording mean relative abundances of 0.53 individuals/10h at low elevations and 0.35 at middle elevations (1219-1829 m) were recorded. Zylstra et al. (2010) undertook transect surveys of G. agassizii sensu lato in 2005 and 2006 in the Rincon Mountains and Tucson Mountains (Saguaro National Park) in southern Arizona and estimated the density of adult tortoises to be 0.3/ha.

Gopherus morafkai

G. agassizii sensu lato was reportedly a difficult species to monitor in the wild due to its cryptic nature, low densities and limited activity; furthermore, the complex topography of its preferred habitat in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona was noted to further inhibit detection and made population trend analysis and population viability estimates difficult, despite the fact that monitoring had been ongoing for several decades (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010; Zylstra et al. , 2010). Localised, periodic declines were reported in some of the monitored populations, most of which were attributed to localised, stochastic events such as drought and were not considered indicative of overall population trends (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). However the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010) were “reasonably certain” that there were fewer G. agassizii sensu lato in recent years than historically and that populations had become increasingly fragmented over time. Threats to G. agassizii sensu lato in Arizona included the introduction of non-native plant species and their impact on fire regimes, the loss or alteration of habitat due to urban development, road construction and agriculture, predation from feral domestic dogs and vandalism (shooting) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Edwards et al . (2004) considered habitat loss to be a major threat facing the species near big cities, with populations becoming increasingly fragmented. Furthermore, encroachment of humans into the species’ habitat was noted to increase its vulnerability to road mortality, attacks by dogs, illegal collection and exposure to disease from domestic tortoises; declines due to human-related threats were considered inevitable (Edwards et al ., 2004). In 2010, 75 per cent of potentially occupied G. agassizii sensu lato habitat in Arizona was reported to occur within 30 miles or less of an urban area, which, based on population growth projections was thought to increase to 100 per cent in the future (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Zylstra et al . (2013) considered climate change to pose a threat to G. morafkai in Arizona, as the species appeared to be close to its limit of drought tolerance, and they predicted that adult tortoise survival would decrease under likely climate change scenarios, which forecast increases in drought severity and frequency. Illegal collection from the wild was also considered to be a threat (Fitzgerald et al., 2004) and was evidenced by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (2013b), who used a live decoy tortoise to study the behaviour of motorists: between 1 and 3 per cent of motorists who saw the tortoise collected it, expressing ignorance of state laws. It was anticipated that the incidence of collection would further increase with human population growth (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Arizona law prohibited the removal of G. agassizii sensu lato from the wild since 1988, although lawfully obtained tortoises could be privately adopted subject to specific rules (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2013b). The species was reported to be a popular pet in Arizona, with a legal possession limit of one per person per household, although the actual number in captivity was unclear as no permit was required for possession or captive breeding (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). The export of live G. agassizii sensu lato from Arizona required written authorisation from the Game and Fish Department and export was only authorised to another jurisdiction where they could be legally possessed (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2013c). Information available from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (2013a) suggested that this legislation was also applied to G. morafkai . Populations of G. agassizii in the Mojave Desert (north and west of the Colorado River) were listed as ‘Threatened’ on the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013). The populations now considered to be G. morafkai were not included in this listing, although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that a listing for G. morafkai was warranted, but the threats to the species were considered to be non-imminent and the species remained a ‘Candidate for Listing’ (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010, 2012, 2013). It was reported that offspring of G. agassizii sensu lato bred in captivity in Arizona must be given away within 24 months of the date of hatching and concerns were expressed that difficulty in finding recipients within this period sometimes resulted in illegal release into the wild, genetically contaminating wild populations and placing them at risk from disease (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2013b; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Sonoran desert tortoise habitat was considered to range into Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Saguaro National Park, and the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and the possession or removal of wildlife from these areas was reported to be prohibited (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Furthermore, the range of G. agassizii sensu lato in Arizona was noted to cover land managed by many

Gopherus morafkai

Federal and State agencies, Native American tribes and private entities; where the species occurred on public or tribal lands, it was reported to commonly be considered in conservation planning, with activities that could threaten it often being prohibited (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). However, some management deficiencies were recognised, such as policies and procedures inconsistent with G. agassizii sensu lato conservation and a failure to address some threats to the species in land management (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). REFERENCES: Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2013a). Illegal Collection of Desert Tortoises in the Sonoran Desert. URL: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/Illegal_Collection_of_Desert_Tortoise.shtml Accessed: 07/10/2013. Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2013b). Sonoran Desert Tortoise ( Gopherus morafkai ). URL: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/deserttortoisemanagement.shtml Accessed: 07/10/2013. Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2013c). 2013 Fishing Regulations (p. 68). Phoenix, Arizona. Edwards, T., Schwalbe, C. R., Swann, D. E. and Goldberg, C. S. (2004). Implications of anthropogenic landscape change on inter-population movements of the desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii ). Conservation Genetics , 5, 485–499. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. (2013). Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente. Figueroa, F. and Sánchez-Cordero, V. (2008). Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation , 17 (13), 3223–3240. Fitzgerald, L. A., Painter, C. W., Reuter, A. and Hoover, C. (2004). Collection, trade, and regulation of reptiles and amphibians of the Chihuahuan Desert ecoregion (p. 113). Washington D.C.: TRAFFIC North America and World Wildlife Fund. Flesch, A., Swann, D., Turner, D. and Powell, B. (2010). Herpetofauna of the Rincon Mountains, Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist , 55 (2), 240–253. Fritts, T. H. and Jennings, R. D. (1994). Distribution, habitat use and status of the desert tortoise in Mexico. In R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano (Eds.), Biology of North American tortoises. Fish and Wildlife Research 13 (pp. 49–56). Washington D.C.: US Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. Gatica, C. A. and Gatica, C. A. (2010). Ficha técnica de Gopherus agassizii . In C. A. Gatica (Ed.), Diagnóstico de algunas especies de anfibios y reptiles del Norte de México (pp. 1–25). México, D.F.: Laboratorio de Ecologiá y Biodiversidad Animal, Instituto de Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez. Bases de datos SNIB-CONABIO. Proyecto No. CK007. Germano, D. J., Bury, R. B., Esque, T. C., Fritts, T. H. and Medica, P. A. (1994). Range and Habitats of the Desert Tortoise. In R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano (Eds.), Biology of North American tortoises. Fish and Wildlife Research 13 (pp. 73–84). Washington D.C.: US Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. Grover, M. C. and DeFalco, L. A. (1995). Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): status of knowledge outline with references (p. 134). Ogden, Utah: US Dept. of Agriculture. Murphy, R. W., Berry, K. H., Edwards, T., Leviton, A. E., Lathrop, A. and Riedle, J. D. (2011). The dazed and confused identity of Agassiz’s land tortoise, Gopherus agassizii (Testudines, Testudinidae) with the description of a new species, and its consequences for conservation. ZooKeys , 71 (113), 39–71. Reuter, A. and Mosig, P. (2010). Comercio y aprovechamiento de especies silvestres en México: observaciones sobre la gestión, tendencias y retos relacionados (p. 80). TRAFFIC. Riedle, J. D., Averill-Murray, R. C., Lutz, C. L., Bolen, D. K., Daren, J. and Lutz, L. (2008). Habitat use by desert tortoises ( Gopherus agassizii ) on alluvial fans in the Sonoran Desert, South-Central Arizona. Copeia , 2, 414–420. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (2010). NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059- SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental - especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres - categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio - lista de especies en riesgo . Diario Oficial, Secunda Sección, Jueves 30 de diciembre de 2010. SEMARNAT. (2013). Areas protegidas decretadas. SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. URL: http://www.conanp.gob.mx/que_hacemos/ Accessed: 16/10/2013.

Gopherus morafkai

Smith, H. M., Chiszar, D., Lemos-Espinal, A. and Woolrish-Piña, G. (2004). Gopherus agassizii (Desert Tortoise). Herpetological Review , 35 (3), 284. Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. (1996). Gopherus agassizii . In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.redlist.org Accessed: 07/10/2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding on a Petition to list the Sonoran Population of the Desert Tortoise as Endangered or Threatened. URL: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/12/14/2010- 31000/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-12-month-finding-on-a-petition-to- list-the-sonoran Accessed: 16/10/2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). Review of Native Species that are Candidates for Listing As Threatened or Endangered . Federal Register (p. 68). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013). Endangered Species. URL: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ Accessed 28/10/2013. Valdez, R., Guzmán-Aranda, J. C., Abarca, F. J., Tarango-Arámbula, L. A. and Clemente Sánchez, F. (2006). Wildlife Conservation and Management in Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 34 (2), 270– 282. Wilson, L. D., Mata-Silva, V. and Johnson, J. D. (2013). A conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico based on the EVS measure. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation , 7(1), 1–47. Zylstra, E. R., Steidl, R. J., Jones, C. A. and Averill-Murray, R. C. (2013). Spatial and temporal variation in survival of a rare reptile: a 22-year study of Sonoran desert tortoises. Oecologia , 173 (1), 107– 16. Zylstra, E. R., Steidl, R. J. and Swann, D. E. (2010). Evaluating Survey Methods for Monitoring a Rare Vertebrate, the Sonoran Desert Tortoise. Journal of Wildlife Management , 74 (6), 1311–1318.

Annex I: Key to purpose and source codes

Annex I: Key to purpose and source codes 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

Source of specimens

Code Description W Specimens taken from the wild R Ranched specimens: specimens of animals reared in a controlled environment, taken as eggs or juveniles from the wild, where they would otherwise have had a very low probability of surviving to adulthood D Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Appendix-I plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention A Plants that are artificially propagated in accordance with Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP15), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 (specimens of species included in Appendix I that have been propagated artificially for non-commercial purposes and specimens of species included in Appendices II and III) C Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 F Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that do not fulfil the definition of ‘bred in captivity’ in Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof U Source unknown ( must be justified ) I Confiscated or seized specimens (may be used with another code) O Pre-Convention specimens