Review of Oceanian Species/Country Combinations Subject to Long-Standing Import Suspensions

Review of Oceanian species/country combinations subject to long-standing import suspensions

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the European Commission Directorate General Environment ENV.E.2. – Environmental Agreements and Trade

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

May, 2011

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre PREPARED FOR 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium CB3 0DL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314 DISCLAIMER Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136 The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect Email: [email protected] the views or policies of UNEP or contributory Website: www.unep-wcmc.org organisations. The designations employed and the ABOUT UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION presentations do not imply the expressions of any MONITORING CENTRE opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, the European Commission or contributory The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre organisations concerning the legal status of any (UNEP-WCMC), based in Cambridge, UK, is the country, territory, city or area or its authority, or specialist biodiversity information and assessment concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or centre of the United Nations Environment boundaries. Programme (UNEP), run cooperatively with WCMC, a UK charity. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and highlight the many values of © Copyright: 2011, European Commission biodiversity and put authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre of decision-making. Through the analysis and synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely information for conventions, countries and organisations to use in the development and implementation of their policies and decisions.

The UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically 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. 2011. Review of Oceanian species/country combinations subject to long-standing import suspensions. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...... 4

2. Species reviews...... 4

Overview of the Status, Management and Trade of Tridacnidae (Giant Clams) in the Pacific Region...... 4 Tridacna derasa...... 13 Tridacna gigas ...... 19 Tridacna squamosa ...... 33

ANNEX. Key to Purpose and Source Codes...... 38

Overview

1. Introduction This is the last in a series of reports, which have reviewed species/country combinations subject to Article 4.6(b) import suspensions put in place since 2001 or earlier, and considers species with long- standing import suspensions from Oceania.

2. Species reviews Overview of the status, management and trade of Tridacnidae (Giant Clams) in the Pacific Region Much of the information for Tridacna species was reported at the genus or family level, including some trade data. This information is presented as an overview prior to the individual species reviews. TRADE PATTERNS: An analysis of direct trade from the range States under review 2000-2009 revealed that some trade in Tridacna species is still being reported at the family or genus levels (including many reported seizures), making it difficult to analyse trade patterns at the species level. Raymakers et al. (2003) also suggested that it was important to standardize the way of reporting quantities in trade, to record both kilograms and number of clams traded. Direct trade of Tridacna spp. and Tridacnidae spp. to the EU-27 2000-2009, mainly consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals from Vanuatu, live, captive-bred and captive-born individuals from Tonga and Palau and pre-Convention shells from Vanuatu (Table 1). The confiscation/seizure of shells from Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Tonga was also reported. There was no direct trade reported at the family or genus level from the Marshall Islands or the Federated States of Micronesia. Direct trade of Tridacna spp. and Tridacnidae spp. to countries other than the EU-27 2000-2009, mainly consisted of wild-sourced meat from Vanuatu, wild-sourced shells from Tonga, Fiji and Vanuatu, and the confiscation/seizure of meat and shells from all range States (particularly Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu) (Table 2). CONSERVATION STATUS Tridacnidae (Giant clams) are the largest marine bivalves found in the coastal waters of the Pacific Region (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). They all host symbiotic photosynthetic algae in their mantles, hence are found in relatively shallow and clear waters (Sutton and Hoegh-Guldberg, 1990; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Othman et al., 2010). All Tridacnidae are hermaphrodite – each clam shedding sperm and eggs as separate events during spawning (Lucas, 2003). Their lifecycle is typical of bivalves: eggs hatch into free swimming larvae when fertilised, which then show progressive development to reach maturity and continued growth (Lucas, 2003; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Growth rates were reported to be slow, with reproduction occurring at around 5-7 years of age (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Threats/uses: Tridacnidae were reported to be a highly-prized food source, with exports to Asian markets and subsistence harvesting reported to have been responsible for stock depletion across much of the Pacific (Wells, 1997; Lucas, 2003; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Othman et al., 2010; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). The adductor muscle, gonads and mantle were all reported to be used as food (Othman et al., 2010). Tridacnidae were also reported to be harvested for their shells and for live export for the global aquarium trade (Wells, 1997; Lucas, 2003; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Othman et al., 2010; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Over the 1960s-1980s, Tridacnidae stocks in the Pacific were reported to have been heavily depleted by illegal fishing vessels (mainly from Taiwan, Republic of China), whereas the main threat to Tridacnidae stocks in the 21st Century were reported to be from subsistence and semi-commercial fishers (Wells, 1997; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Stress-induced bleaching (Leggat et al., 2003; Othman et al., 2010) and habitat destruction (Othman et al., 2010) were also considered threats, and cases of mass mortality from unexplained causes were also reported (Wells, 1997). However, IUCN et al. (1996) considered ecological threats such as sedimentation as “minor in comparison with that posed by harvest for trade.” 4

Overview

Table 1. Summary of direct exports of Tridacna spp. and Tridacnidae spp. live individuals, shells and meat from Fiji, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Tonga and Vanuatu to the EU-27 2000-2009. (A small quantity of scientific specimens was also reported in trade but has been excluded from the table).

Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Fiji shells - I Importer 1 18 19 Exporter W Importer 3 3 Exporter 20 20 Palau live - C Importer 50 50 Exporter Papua New Guinea shells - I Importer 3 0.5 3.5 Exporter W & Importer unspecified Exporter 8 7 7 3 3 28 Tonga live - C Importer 74 74 Exporter shells - I Importer 1 1 Exporter W & U Importer 5 5 Exporter Vanuatu live - W Importer 9941 9941 Exporter 5 200 205 shells - O Importer Exporter 19 5 38 8 4 3 77 W & Importer 3 3 unspecified Exporter 8 20 5 4 18 55

Overview

Table 2. Summary of direct exports of Tridacna spp. and Tridacnidae spp. live individuals, shells and meat from Fiji, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Tonga and Vanuatu to countries other than the EU-27 2000-2009. (Small quantities of bodies, carvings, derivatives, raw corals, small leather products and scientific specimens were also reported in trade but have been excluded from the table).

Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Fiji live kg W Importer 13 13 Exporter - W Importer 75 3 45 123 Exporter meat kg I Importer 11.3 6 17.3 Exporter W Importer Exporter 110 110 - I Importer 15 103 16 10 10 25 12 191 Exporter W Importer 17 5 1 23 Exporter shells kg I Importer 0.39 0.39 Exporter - I Importer 751 1332 1393 1091 870 126 3 13 5579 Exporter W & Importer 5 8 22 1 11 190 unspecified Exporter 229 12 9 30 280 Marshall Islands live - C Importer 121 121 Exporter meat kg I Importer 5 2.5 4 11.5 Exporter shells kg I Importer 10 <0.1 10.0 Exporter - C Importer 9 9 Exporter I Importer 58 83 2 29 20 50 117 359 Exporter

Overview

Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Micronesia live - W Importer 2 1 3 Exporter meat kg I Importer 54 28.3 8.6 90.1 Exporter shells kg I Importer 7 7 Exporter - C Importer 8 2 10 Exporter I Importer 3 24 2 25 13 10 51 28 156 Exporter W Importer 4 4 Exporter Palau live - C Importer 10 10 Exporter meat kg I Importer 4 4 Exporter W Importer 6 6 Exporter - I Importer 1 1 Exporter shells - I Importer 3 35 14 57 102 21 31 263 Exporter W Importer 2 56 18 76 Exporter Papua New Guinea meat - I Importer 1 1 Exporter shells - I Importer 27 28 45 15 1 2 1 119 Exporter W Importer Exporter 6 9 4 9 36 12 29 2 107 Tonga live - C Importer 1 80 81 7

Overview

Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Exporter W Importer 274 100 52 426 Exporter meat cans - Importer 40 40 Exporter kg I Importer 2.8 75 40.5 13 4.5 135.8 Exporter O Importer 2 2 Exporter W Importer 5 25 5007 1463 963 7463 Exporter - I Importer 108 84 96 39 12 165 2 7 513 Exporter U Importer 3334 3334 Exporter W & Importer 3175 7855 7288 4507 2110 5729 8773 181 55 3 39676 unspecified Exporter shells kg W Importer 3 3 Exporter - I Importer 336 495 370 511 319 14 7 6 2058 Exporter W Importer 13 110 67 162 26 8 3 2 36 4 431 Exporter Vanuatu live - C Importer Exporter 50 15 65 W Importer 25 25 Exporter 9 826 200 1035 meat - I Importer 17 1 18 Exporter W Importer 12 12 Exporter 8

Overview

Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total shells - I Importer 190 195 256 172 252 29 4 1098 Exporter O Importer 16 2 15 4 37 Exporter 85 94 157 86 40 12 474 U, W & Importer 13 26 10 16 32 16 25 3 141 unspecified Exporter 4 46 128 2 1 22 203

Overview

As conspicuous, sessile organisms typically occupying shallow waters, Tridacnidae were considered particularly susceptible to opportunistic harvesting (Sant, 1995; Kinch, 2002; Raymakers et al., 2003; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), and it was reported that egg fertilization may not occur if adult densities are significantly decreased (Raymakers et al., 2003; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch, 2009; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Larger specimens were reported to be collected by free diving, with specimens located in deeper water brought to the surface using ropes, winches and chains or Hookah gear (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Shells were reported to be generally discarded once the flesh had been removed (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Management: The aquaculture of Tridacnidae was reported to be necessary to supply market and subsistence demands, as well as taking pressure off wild stocks and providing individuals to restock depleted populations (Lucas, 2003). Tridacnidae were reported not to be difficult or expensive to cultivate, only requiring light and good water quality for growth (Munro, 1989; Sant, 1995; Lucas, 2003). Juveniles were reported to be kept in sunlit outdoor tanks for several years until supplied to the aquarium trade, or placed in mesh cages on the ocean floor, where they grow with little maintenance until reaching a size where the protective mesh can be removed (Lucas, 2003). Aquaculture programmes of Tridacnidae were reported to have been established in many Pacific nations since the early 1980s (Wells, 1997; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008), with over 10 private ventures and 15 government-linked operations currently thought to be raising Tridacnidae for the global aquarium trade (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). The Pacific region was reported to be a major supplier of cultivated Tridacna spp. for the world market, with global demand estimated to have been 200 000 pieces per annum in 2007, of which the Pacific produced 69 000 pieces (Ponia, 2010). There were reported to have been numerous restocking and translocation programmes throughout the Pacific region, although most recent activities were reported to be focusing on the development of aquaculture for the global aquarium trade (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch, 2009; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Programmes to re-establish or supplement depleted populations were reported to focus on protecting and aggregating the remaining wild adults to facilitate spawning, and breeding and releasing hatchery-reared clams (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008). After more than 20 years of work, Teitelbaum and Friedman (2008) considered most restocking projects to have had only partial success, mainly due to the high costs and length of time needed to produce ‘seed’ clams, lack of funding for monitoring, and issues relating to community support/participation in the projects. Othman et al. (2010) reported that monitoring efforts were limited, and measures to protect reintroduced clams were often poorly enforced. Difficulties maintaining genetic differentiation between the wild subpopulations was also reported (Benzie, 1993; Benzie and Williams, 1996; Wells, 1997). Despite the need for restocking depleted reefs, mariculture production was reported to be mostly on a small or pilot scale (Lucas, 2003; SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2009; Othman et al., 2010). Community-based management was suggested by several authors to be a suitable method of sustainable management (Lewis et al., 1988; Adams et al., 1988; Chesher, 1993; Sant, 1995; Wells, 1997). A CITES Regional Workshop was held in the Pacific in 2009, to help ensure the longterm ecological, social and economic sustainability of Tridacna fisheries (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) were reported to face a number of challenges regarding ensuring sustainable Tridacnidae management, including the lack of capacity for i) conducting stock assessments, ii) promoting giant clam culture, iii) enforcing harvesting regulations and iv) managing and monitoring harvests (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Several suggested solutions were identified whereby CITES could be made more useful for the management of Tridacnidae (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), including:  Creating a networking system for PICTS to share information on CITES issues,  Strengthen/harmonise legislation at the national level to make compatible with CITES,  Develop guidelines on standard measures for monitoring or wild harvests  Develop a training manual for determining non-detriment findings  Produce National Giant Clam Management Plans in each PICT, where these are currently lacking. 10

Overview

The creation of marine protected areas was seen as an essential step towards re-establishment of depleted stocks and maintenance of genetically distinct subpopulations (Munro, 1989; Munro, 1993; Wells, 1997).

REFERENCES: Adams, T. J. H., Lewis, A. D., and Ledua, E. 1988. Natural population dynamics of Tridacna derasa in relation to reef reseeding and mariculture, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 78-81. Benzie, J. A. H. 1993. Review of the population genetics of Giant Clams, in Munro, P., (ed.), Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings no. 39. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. 1-5. Benzie, J. A. H. and Williams, S. T. 1996. Limitations in the genetic variation of hatchery produced batches of the giant clam, Tridacna gigas. Aquaculture, 139: 225-241. Chesher, R. 1993. Giant Clam sanctuaries in the Kingdom of Tonga. University of the South Pacific. Tellus Consultants Ltd. Marine Studies. Series Number 95/2. IUCN, TRAFFIC, and WCMC. 1996. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II - detailed reviews of 24 species. Final report to the CITES Animals Committee. IUCN Species Survival Commission, TRAFFIC Network, World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Kinch, J. 2002. Giant Clams: their status and trade in Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 19 (2): 67-75. Kinch, J. 2009. The importance of giant clam fisheries management and trade to the Pacific, Regional management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building workshop, CITES, Nadi, Fiji Islands (4th to 7th August 2009). Kinch, J. & Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridancidae) and CITES capacity building 4-7 August 2009. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, New Caledonia. Leggat, W., Buck, B. H., Grice, A., and Yellowlees, D. 2003. The impact of bleaching on the metabolic contribution of dinoflagellate symbionts to their giant clam host. Plant, Cell and Environment, 26: 1951-1961. Lewis, A. D., Adams, T. J. H., and Ledua, E. 1988. Fiji's Giant Clam stocks - A review of their distribution, abundance, exploitation and management, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 66-72. Lucas, J. 2003. Giant Clam mariculture. Global Aquaculture Advocate, June 2003: 52-54. Munro, J. L. 1989. Fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae: Bivalvia) and prospects for stock enhancement, in Caddy, J. F., (ed.), Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York/Chichester. 541-558. Munro, J. L. 1993. Strategies for re-establishment of wild Giant Clam stocks, in Munro, P., (ed.), Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings no. 39. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. 17-21. Othman, A. S., Goh, G. H. S., and Todd, P. A. 2010. The distribution and status of Giant Clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58 (1): 103-111. Ponia, B. 2010. A review of aquaculture in the Pacific Islands 1998-2007: tracking a decade of progress through official and provisional statistics. Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Aquaculture Technical Papers. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N. and Sant, G. 2003. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam. Draft report of a study co-funded by the European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe. Sant, G. 1995. Marine invertebrates of the South Pacific - an examination of the trade. TRAFFIC International. Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Overview

SPC Aquaculture Portal. 2009. Giant clam, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, URL: http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/images/commodities/pdf/GiantClam_page.pdf Accessed: 26th January 2011. Sutton, D. C. and Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 1990. Host-zooxanthella interactions in four temperate marine invertebrate symbioses: assessment of effect of host extracts on symbionts. Biological Bulletin, 178 (2): 175-186. Teitelbaum, A. and Friedman, K. 2008. Successes and failures in reintroducing giant clams in the Indo-Pacific region. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 14: 19-26. Wells, S. M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 77 pp.

Tridacna derasa

REVIEW OF OCEANIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG- STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

BIVALVIA TRIDACNIDAE

SPECIES: Tridacna derasa

COMMON NAMES: Derasa Clam (English), Southern Giant Clam (English)

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

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Tonga

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild species from Tonga first applied on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed 26/11/2010. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspensions for wild specimens from New Caledonia, Palau and the Philippines first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspensions for wild specimens from Fiji and Vanuatu first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Viet Nam first applied on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Solomon Islands formed on 12/03/2009. Positive opinion formed for all other countries on 22/07/1997. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Palau and the Philippines formed on 15/05/2002. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji, New Caledonia and Vanuatu formed on 22/05/2003. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Vietnam formed on 22/02/2006 and confirmed on 12/06/2006.

Tridacna derasa

TRADE PATTERNS: The Solomon Islands was the main global direct exporter of wild-sourced Tridacna derasa 1983-2009. The majority of global direct trade of the species from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live, captive-bred and captive-born individuals (totalling 103 031 individuals, of which 56 011 were imported by the EU-27, according to importer-reported figures) followed by live, wild-sourced individuals (totalling 60 048 individuals, of which 4566 were imported by the EU-27, according to importer-reported figures). Tonga is not a Party to CITES, hence it has not published any CITES annual export quotas and trade data are based on records from importing Parties only. Direct trade from Tonga to the EU-27 1983-2009 consisted mainly of live individuals exported for commercial purposes. According to importer-reported figures, a total of 9141 live T. derasa were imported to the EU-27 1983-2009 (Table 1), of which 520 were wild-sourced, with the majority being captive-bred. Indirect trade to the EU-27 of T. derasa originating in Tonga consisted entirely of live individuals exported for commercial purposes (Table 2). According to importer-reported figures, 42 per cent of this indirect trade involved wild-sourced individuals. Direct exports from Tonga to countries other than the EU-27 1983-2009 consisted of live individuals and shells, with the United States of America being the main importer (Table 3). Wild-sourced individuals made up 69 per cent of the 22 805 live exports reported by number, according to importer-reported figures, with most of the remainder being captive bred. Table 1. Direct trade of Tridacna derasa from Tonga to the EU-27, 1983-2009, as reported by the importers. (Tonga is not a Party to CITES).

Importer Term Purpose Source 1999 2000 2001 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 Total Denmark live T C 48 653 1600 2301 F 400 100 100 600 R 400 9 409 W 152 152 France live T C 1800 100 1900 Germany live T C 665 1003 16 565 50 2299 F 652 150 100 25 927 W 100 268 368 shells P U 4 4 Netherlands live T C 185 185 C & F 713 1656 1801 565 2902 350 200 25 8212 Subtotals (live only) R 400 9 409 W 252 268 520 Table 2. Indirect trade of Tridacna derasa originating in Tonga to the EU-27, 1983-2009. All trade involved live individuals exported for commercial purposes. (Tonga is not a Party to CITES).

Exporter Importer Source Reported by 1994 1998 1999 2001 Total Fiji United Kingdom F Importer 25 25 Exporter United States of America Austria C Importer 75 75 Exporter Germany W Importer Exporter 100 100 - Importer 100 100 Exporter

Tridacna derasa

Table 3. Direct trade of Tridacna derasa from Tonga to countries other than the EU-27, 1983-2009, as reported by the importers. All trade was for commercial purposes. (Tonga is not a Party to CITES).

Term Units Source 1992-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live kg C 48 66 114 W 43 75 54 24 196 - C 2806 223 169 199 340 205 50 100 50 194 120 4456 F 18 196 10 20 244 I 47 47 O 10 10 U 2408 2408 W 9960 1407 1255 1154 347 145 51 301 354 521 145 15640 shells kg W 11000 11000 - C 200 200 W 672 672

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Tridacna derasa was reported to be restricted to relatively shallow depths of up to 20-30 m, typically occurring on sandy bottoms or coral rubble, on the outer edge of coral reefs (Bell et al., 1994; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). It may grow to over 50 cm in shell length (Wells, 1997; Kinch, 2002; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Although initial fecundity was considered very high, T. derasa was reported to have low natural recruitment rates due to high rates of early mortality (Wells, 1997). Native range countries were reported to include Australia, Fiji, Indonesia, New Caledonia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Tonga (Wells, 1996). In addition, T. derasa was reported to have been introduced to many areas outside its original range, including American Samoa, Cook Islands, Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia (Wells, 1996; Kinch, 2009); however, Wells (1997) reported that the only successfully established wild populations were found in the state of Yap in Micronesia. Three genetically distinct groups, located around the Great Barrier Reef, and in the Eastern and Western Pacific regions, were identified by Benzie (1993). T. derasa was classified as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Wells, 1996), although it was noted that the assessment needed updating. Dance (1974) considered the species to be “frequent”, however Adams et al. (1988) described its geographical distribution as “peculiarly patchy”, stating that “although its nominal range extends from the Cocos Islands in the west to Tonga in the east, it is by no means common in many areas within its range.” Wild stocks were reported to have declined in the 1980s and 90s, with local extinctions occurring in many areas (IUCN et al., 1996; Wells, 1997). Wells (1997) reported that densities averaged at approximately five individuals per ha, but that densities of up to 100 individuals per ha had been recorded. The species was considered to have a decreasing population trend (Isamu, 2008). Exploitation was seen as the main cause of decline of T. derasa (IUCN et al., 1996; Wells, 1997; Othman et al., 2010; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). T. derasa over 15 cm in length were said to belong to the most expensive and least readily available specimens in the aquarium trade, reaching prices of up to USD 220 per individual (Lucas, 2003). Sant (1995) reported that the international commercial demand for T. derasa was increasingly met by the growing mariculture industry. T. derasa was regarded as a species well suited to meat production, due to its good survival and high meat gain (SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2009). Tonga: Tonga was reported to form the eastern limit of the range of T. derasa (Munro, 1989; IUCN et al., 1996), with occurrences reported on Minerva Reef, Tongatapu, Ha’apai and Vava’u islands (McKoy, 1980), and average densities of 7.25 individuals per ha recorded on Ha’apai (Manu et al., 1989 in: Bell et al., 1994). McKoy (1980) described T. derasa as “relatively uncommon” and

Tridacna derasa

Wells (1997) as “Overfished especially near population centres.” Langi and ‘Aloua (1988) reported that T. derasa was found in surveys conducted between 1978-79; however, in similar surveys conducted in 1987 (but covering fewer sites), the species was not found. A study conducted in six coastal communities in Tonga showed that Tridacnidae species belonged to the seven most commonly-used subsistence fishery resources in the country (FAO, 2010), and the Ministry of Fisheries estimated that 20-50 fishermen were engaged in domestic Tridacnidae harvest (Raymakers et al., 2003). Loto'ahea and Sone (1995) reported that T. derasa was the most exploited Tridacnidae species in Tonga, and that its stocks were facing “rapid depletion”. However, Raymakers et al. (2003) reported that the Ministry of Fisheries did not consider poaching to be a problem in Tonga. Chesher (1993) noted that the population of T. derasa vanished largely in the 1960s, as modern diving gear became available and the resource was commercialized. T. derasa was reported to be harvested for food, used for decorative purposes and exported live for the aquarium trade (Raymakers et al., 2003). Based on a one-week survey, Bell et al. (1994) estimated that the sales of Tridacnidae in Tongatapu between 1980-1990 consisted of 52.8 tonnes per year. Large specimens of T. derasa were reported to be sold individually in local markets (Bell et al., 1994). In addition, Bell et al. (1994) noted that some Giant clams sold in local markets were too small to have undergone natural reproduction. Sant (1995) reported that the price paid for exported Tridacnidae meat in Tonga was USD 8.49 per kg, more than twice the price of USD 3.86 per kg paid in the local market. Hatcheries were reported to have been established in Tonga since 1989, and T. derasa was reported to have been transplanted to nurseries in the Atata island and Kolonga in Tongatapu (Bell et al., 1994). Chesher (1993) reported that a community-based system of breeding T. derasa from wild-caught individuals in a sanctuary had significantly increased the number of juveniles in the wild. Lovell and Palaki (2002) reported that Tonga’s Giant clam project was currently focussing on the production of T. derasa, due to its faster growth rates, although Loto'ahea and Sone (1995) noted that Giant clams tended to grow slower in Tongan waters (compared with the same species in other tropical waters) and that hatchery-produced T. derasa were still immature at five years of age. Tonga’s Aquaculture Commodity Development Plan 2010-2014 recognised Tridacnidae as a priority candidate for aquaculture in Tonga, due to its low technology and cost, good export demand and suitability for family-based operations (Tonga Ministry of Fisheries, 2010). The following actions were identified (Tonga Ministry of Fisheries, 2010): Immediate action: Re-establish and maintain the central Giant clam hatchery at Fisheries, Within 2 years: Begin grow-out of Giant clam in communities for ornamental species and develop ecotourism in association with coral, Within 5 years: Investigate prospects for transferring technology and education to enable communities to breed and grow their own clams. The Fishery Regulations of 1993 prohibit the harvesting, sale, offer for sale, purchase or possession of any Tridacnidae species below a certain specified maximum shell length, which for T. derasa is 260 mm (Kingdom of Tonga, 1993), and the use of scuba and Hookah were reported to be prohibited (Raymakers et al., 2003). Bell et al. (1994) noted that it would be difficult to enforce the minimum size limits in cases where only the meat is sold. No harvest quotas or monitoring of wild Tridacnidae populations were reported to be in place in Tonga (Raymakers et al., 2003). However, Tridacnidae conservation programmes were reported to have been established (CITES Management Authority of Tonga, in litt. to TRAFFIC Oceania, November 2002, in: Raymakers et al., 2003). T. derasa was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade at the 20th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2004 (AC20 Summary Record). The Secretariat received no response from Tonga regarding possible problems with the implementation of Article IV of Resolution Conf. 12.8 (AC21 10.1.1), and following a review of the species, Tonga was classified as a country of Urgent Concern with the justification “Population over fished; wild export apparently banned in 1993, imports of wild specimens from Tonga recorded” (AC22 Doc. 10.2, Annex 8d). Tonga was then given various recommendations, including i) within 90 days, to establish cautious export quotas,

Tridacna derasa ii) within six months, to ensure specimens produced from captive production systems were distinguished in trade from wild specimens and ensure all trade is reported at the species level, with appropriate units recorded on permits, and iii) enforce any export ban on wild specimens, establish appropriate conversion factors to enable trade in meat and shells reported by weight to be converted to the number of adult specimens harvested, and to draft and adopt a fishery management plan (AC22 Summary Record). At the 57th meeting of the Standing Committee in 2008, it was reported that no response had been received from Tonga, and Parties were advised to reject any import applications until detailed information regarding implementation of the recommendations of the Animals Committee had been received (SC57 Doc. 29.1 [Rev. 2]). It was later reported that Tonga had responded to the recommendations within the extended deadline, and that the Review of Significant Trade had been concluded (AC24 Doc. 7.2, SC58 Doc 21.1).

REFERENCES: Adams, T. J. H., Lewis, A. D., and Ledua, E. 1988. Natural population dynamics of Tridacna derasa in relation to reef reseeding and mariculture, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 78-81. Bell, L. A. J., Fa'anunu, U., and Koloa, T. 1994. Fisheries resources profiles: Kingdom of Tonga. FFA Report 94/5. South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency. Honiara, Solomon Islands. Benzie, J. A. H. 1993. Review of the population genetics of Giant Clams, in Munro, P., (ed.), Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings no. 39. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. 1-5. Chesher, R. 1993. Giant Clam sanctuaries in the Kingdom of Tonga. University of the South Pacific. Tellus Consultants Ltd. Marine Studies. Series Number 95/2. Dance, S. P. 1974. The encyclopedia of shells. Blandford Press Ltd., London, United Kingdom. FAO. 2010. National fishery sector overview - Tonga. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. IUCN, TRAFFIC, and WCMC. 1996. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II - detailed reviews of 24 species. Final report to the CITES Animals Committee. IUCN Species Survival Commission, TRAFFIC Network, World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Isamu, T. 2008. Palau case study - Tridacnidae. International expert workshop on CITES non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, November 17-22, 2008. Kinch, J. 2002. Giant Clams: their status and trade in Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 19 (2): 67-75. Kinch, J. 2009. The importance of giant clam fisheries management and trade to the Pacific, Regional management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building workshop, CITES, Nadi, Fiji Islands (4th to 7th August 2009). Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridancidae) and CITES capacity building 4-7 August 2009. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, New Caledonia. Kingdom of Tonga. 1993. Fisheries Act 1989 - The fisheries (conservation and management) regulations 1993. Langi, V. and 'Aloua, H. 1988. Status of Giant Clams in Tonga, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 58-59. Loto'ahea, T. and Sone, S. 1995. Ocean culture of Giant Clam in Tonga: An aspect of managing giant clam resources. Fisheries Research Bulletin of Tonga, 4: 25-30. Lovell, E. R. & Palaki, A. 2002. National coral reef status report Tonga. Prepared by the International Ocean Institute (IOI), South Pacific and the Kiribati Fisheries Division for the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) and the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP). Lucas, J. 2003. Giant Clam mariculture. Global Aquaculture Advocate, June 2003: 52-54.

Tridacna derasa

McKoy, J. L. 1980. Biology, exploitation and management of Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) in the Kingdom of Tonga. Fisheries Bulletin, Fisheries Division, Tonga 1 Munro, J. L. 1989. Fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae: Bivalvia) and prospects for stock enhancement, in Caddy, J. F., (ed.), Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York/Chichester. 541-558. Othman, A. S., Goh, G. H. S., and Todd, P. A. 2010. The distribution and status of Giant Clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58 (1): 103-111. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N. and Sant, G. 2003. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam. Draft report of a study co-funded by the European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe. Sant, G. 1995. Marine invertebrates of the South Pacific - an examination of the trade. TRAFFIC International. Cambridge, United Kingdom. SPC Aquaculture Portal. 2009. Giant clam, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, URL: http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/images/commodities/pdf/GiantClam_page.pdf Accessed: 26th January 2011. Teitelbaum, A. and Friedman, K. 2008. Successes and failures in reintroducing giant clams in the Indo-Pacific region. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 14: 19-26. Tonga Ministry of Fisheries. 2010. Tonga aquaculture commodity development plan 2010-2014. Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Noumea, New Caledonia. Wells, S. 1996. Tridacna derasa. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 24-1-2011. Wells, S. M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 77 pp.

Tridacna gigas

REVIEW OF OCEANIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG- STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

BIVALVIA TRIDACNIDAE

SPECIES: Tridacna gigas

COMMON NAMES: Grote Doopvontschelp (Dutch), Giant Clam (English), Gigas Clam (English), Bénitier géant (French)

RANGE STATES: American Samoa (int), Australia, Cook Islands (int), Fiji (ex, reint), Guam (ex), Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of) (ex, reint), Myanmar, New Caledonia (ex), Northern Mariana Islands (ex, reint), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa (ex, int), Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China (ex?), Thailand, Tonga (ex, int), Tuvalu (?), United States of America (int), Vanuatu (ex), Viet Nam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Fiji, Marshall Islands, The Federated States of Micronesia (hereafter referred to as Micronesia), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspensions for wild specimens from Fiji, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federal States of), Palau, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu first applied on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspensions for wild specimens from Tonga and Viet Nam first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from the Solomon Islands first applied on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Current positive opinion formed for all other countries on 22/07/1997. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Guam first applied on 21/11/1998 and removed on 01/03/2003. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Indonesia first applied on 21/11/1998 and removed on 26/11/2010. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Tonga formed on 22/05/2003. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Viet Nam first formed on 22/05/2003 and last confirmed on 09/03/2006. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from the Solomon Islands first formed on 13/12/2004 and last confirmed on 13/06/2005. 19

Tridacna gigas

TRADE PATTERNS: Tonga and the Solomon Islands were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Tridacna gigas 1983-2009. The majority of global direct trade of the species from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals (totalling 9182 individuals, none of which were imported by the EU-27) and live, captive-bred and captive-born individuals (totalling 7612 individuals, of which 4590 were imported by the EU-27, according to importer-reported figures). Fiji: CITES annual exports quotas of zero wild T. gigas from Fiji have been established since 2009. With the exception of the confiscation/seizure of one shell reported by the United States of America in 2009, there was no trade reported in 2009. The only reported direct trade from Fiji to the EU-27 1983-2009 consisted of live individuals for commercial purposes, of which Belgium reported the import of 50 wild- sourced individuals in 1999 and Germany reported the import of 68 wild-sourced individuals in 1997 and 39 captive-bred individuals in 1999. This trade was not reported by Fiji, which became a Party to CITES in 1997. The only reported indirect trade of T. gigas originating in Fiji was the import by Germany of 11 live, wild-sourced individuals via the United States of America in 1997. The United States of America reported the re-export of seven live, captive-bred individuals to Germany in the same year, which corresponded to the same transaction, according to an analysis of permit numbers. Direct exports from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27 1983-2009 consisted mainly of live individuals exported for commercial purposes, with the United States of America being the main importer (Table 1). Wild-sourced specimens made up 21 per cent of exports of live and shells according to importer- reported figures, with most of the remainder being captive-bred or captive-born. In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of two shells in 1994 and one shell in 2009. Marshall Islands: The Marshall Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence it has not published any CITES annual export quotas and trade data are based on records from importing Parties only. Direct trade from the Marshall Islands to the EU-27 1983-2009 consisted entirely of live individuals exported for commercial purposes. According to importer-reported figures, a total of 374 live T. gigas were imported to the EU-27 (Table 2), of which 274 were captive-bred and 100 were captive-born. There was no reported indirect trade of T. gigas originating in the Marshall Islands to the EU-27, 1983- 2009. Direct trade from the Marshall Islands to countries other than the EU-27, 1983-2009 consisted mainly of live, captive-bred individuals, with the United States of America being the main importer (Table 3). Wild-sourced individuals made up 26 per cent of the 1594 live imports. Micronesia: Micronesia is not a Party to CITES, hence it has not published any CITES annual export quotas and trade data are based on records from importing Parties only. The only reported direct trade from Micronesia to the EU-27 1983-2009 consisted of eight captive-bred shells imported by Germany in 2004 for personal purposes. There was no reported indirect trade of T. gigas originating in Micronesia to the EU-27, 1983-2009. The only reported direct trade from Micronesia to countries other than the EU-27 1983-2009 consisted of six captive-bred shells imported by the United States of America in 2005 for personal purposes. Palau: Palau became a party to CITES in 2004. It has never published CITES annual export quotas for T. gigas and has only submitted an annual report in 2005, which reported “no trade.” All direct trade was reported by the importers only. The only direct trade from Palau to the EU-27 1983-2009 consisted of 50 live, captive-born individuals imported by Germany for commercial purposes in 2005. There was no reported indirect trade of T. gigas originating in Palau to the EU-27, 1983-2009. Direct trade from Palau to countries other than the EU-27, 1983 consisted of live individuals and shells, with Japan and the United States of America being the only importers (Table 4). Wild-sourced

Tridacna gigas individuals made up 38 per cent of live imports. In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of one shell in each of the years 1996 and 1999. Papua New Guinea: Direct trade from Papua New Guinea to the EU-27 1983-2009 consisted of small numbers of shells and specimens, with no reported exports since 1999 (Table 5). Indirect trade to the EU-27 of T. gigas originating in Papua New Guinea consisted mainly of captive-bred shells exported for commercial purposes (Table 6). Direct exports from Papua New Guinea to countries other than the EU-27, 1983-2009 consisted of meat and shells, with Singapore being the main importer (Table 7). The majority of trade was captive-born or source unspecified, with no reported trade since 2001. Vanuatu: Vanuatu became a party to CITES in 1989. It has never published CITES annual export quotas for T. gigas. Direct trade from Vanuatu to the EU-27 1983-2009 consisted of live individuals and shells exported to France and the United Kingdom, respectively, with no trade reported since 1999 (Table 8). Almost all trade was wild-sourced and reported by the exporter only. The only reported indirect trade to the EU-27 of T. gigas originating in Vanuatu was the re-export from New Caledonia to France of one wild-sourced shell in 2008. Direct exports from Vanuatu to countries other than the EU-27, 1983-2009 consisted mainly of wild- sourced shells, with Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America being the only importers (Table 9). Wild-sourced specimens made up 74 per cent of the 27 shells, according to exporter-reported figures. Table 1. Direct exports of Tridacna gigas from Fiji to countries other than the EU-27, 1983-2009.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2009 Total carvings T W Importer 7 7 Exporter live T C Importer 8 5 531 188 50 782 Exporter F Importer 181 181 Exporter W Importer 3 128 13 63 46 53 306 Exporter 233 233 shells P I Importer 1 1 Exporter T C Importer 100 100 Exporter F Importer 100 100 Exporter - I Importer 2 2 Exporter

Table 2. Direct trade of Tridacna gigas from the Marshall Islands to the EU-27, 1983-2009, as reported by the importers. All trade was in live individuals exported for commercial purposes. (The Marshall Islands are not a Party to CITES).

Importer Source 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 Total Germany C 1 7 10 36 220 274 United Kingdom F 100 100

Tridacna gigas

Table 3. Direct trade of Tridacna gigas from the Marshall Islands to countries other than the EU-27, 1983-2009, as reported by the importers. (The Marshall Islands are not a Party to CITES).

Term Purpose Source 1990-1994 1995 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live S W 2 2 T C 485 5 1 2 1 2 35 20 281 81 2 915 I 12 12 O 20 20 R 2 2 U 225 225 W 5 288 16 7 1 30 68 415 Z C 2 2 - U 1 1 shells P C 3 3 I 1 1 U 2 2 W 1 1 T C 107 3 1 111 - I 2 2

Table 4. Direct exports of Tridacna gigas from Palau to countries other than the EU-27, 1983-2009.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1992 1996 1999 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 Total live T C Importer 9 4 44 1 58 Exporter U Importer 30 30 Exporter W Importer 10 39 4 53 Exporter shells P C Importer 2 1 3 Exporter

S W Importer 2 2 Exporter T C Importer 49 49 Exporter - I Importer 1 1 2 Exporter

Tridacna gigas

Table 5. Direct exports of Tridacna gigas from Papua New Guinea to the EU-27, 1983-2009.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 1985 1992 1995 1999 Total Belgium bodies S - Importer Exporter 1 1 shells S W Importer Exporter 25 25 specimens S W Importer Exporter 33 33 Germany shells P - Importer 1 1 Exporter 6 6 T - Importer 1 1 Exporter specimens P W Importer Exporter 4 4 Netherlands shells S - Importer Exporter 1 1 W & Importer 2 2 Subtotals (shells only) unspecif ied Exporter 6 25 1 32

Table 6. Indirect exports of Tridacna gigas originating in Papua New Guinea to the EU-27, 1983-2009.

Exporter Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 1995 1997 1998 2001 2002 2003 2005 Total Australia Czech shells T C Importer 30 30 Republic Exporter 30 30 United shells T W Importer Kingdom Exporter 1 1 France France carvings T O Importer Exporter 3 3 South Africa Germany shells P - Importer 2 2 Exporter T - Importer 2 2 Exporter United States United carvings T O Importer of America Kingdom Exporter 16 2 18

Table 7. Direct exports of Tridacna gigas from Papua New Guinea to countries other than the EU-27, 1983-2009.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1988 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 Total

meat kg T - Importer Exporter 2000 2000 shells - P F Importer Exporter 2 2 W Importer 2 2 Exporter 6 1 7 - Importer Exporter 2 4 6 2 14 S - Importer Exporter 1 1

Tridacna gigas

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1988 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 Total

T F Importer Exporter 200 400 600 - Importer 382 382 Exporter 1 1 F Importer Exporter 202 400 602 W Importer 2 2 Subtotals (shells only) Exporter 6 1 7 - Importer 382 382 Exporter 2 5 6 3 16

Table 8. Direct exports of Tridacna gigas from Vanuatu to the EU-27, 1983-2009.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 1993 1997 1999 Total France live - W Importer Exporter 100 100 shells P - Importer Exporter 1 1 - W Importer Exporter 1 1 United Kingdom shells - W Importer Exporter 10 10

Total Importer Exporter 1 1 110 112

Table 9. Direct exports of Tridacna gigas from Vanuatu to countries other than the EU-27, 1983-2009.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1990 1993 1994 1997 1998 1999 2002 2008 Total carvings - W Importer Exporter 1 1 shells P O Importer Exporter 4 4 W Importer Exporter 6 6 - Importer 1 1 Exporter 2 2 - W Importer Exporter 1 10 1 2 14 - Importer Exporter 1 1

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Tridacna gigas was reported to be typically found on sandy substrates or coral rubble in shallow lagoons and coral reef flats (Tervo and Csomos, 2001; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), growing up to 137 cm in length (Kinch, 2002; Lucas, 2003; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Due to its symbiotic relationship with dinoflagellate algae (Tervo and Csomos, 2001), T. gigas was found to have poor tolerance for turbid water conditions, and even in clear waters, it was typically restricted to below 20 m (Lucas, 1988). 24

Tridacna gigas

Munro (1993) estimated that maturation occurred at 6-10 years of age or approximately 50 cm in length, however initial fecundity rates were considered to be low. The species turns hermaphrodite after initial development as a male, but self-fertilization was found to be rare due to different timing of the release of eggs and sperm (Lucas, 1988). Breeding was reported to take place during the summer season at higher latitudes, and throughout the year in lower latitudes (Lucas, 1988). In hatchery cultivation, T. gigas was found to release 40-240 million eggs several times per year (Munro, 1993), however larvae and juveniles were considered to have an “extraordinarily low natural rate of survival” (Munro, 1993). The range of T. gigas was defined as “Indo-Pacific, including South China Sea and Coral Sea, bounded by Myanmar to the west, across to Indonesia, Marshall Islands and Great Barrier Reef” (IUCN et al.,1996), with the most abundant populations considered to be restricted to Australia and the Solomon Islands (Wells, 1997). Kinch (2009) also reported that several introductions of T. gigas had been made mainly from Australia and Palau to the Pacific Islands. The populations in the Western Pacific region, Eastern Pacific region, and Great Barrier Reef, including Solomon Islands and Philippines, were considered to form three genetically distinct groups (Benzie, 1993). T. gigas was classified as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Wells, 1996), although it was noted that the assessment needed updating. Dance (1974) considered it to be “frequent”, and Wells (1997) reported that densities averaged at approximately five individuals per ha, but that densities up to 100 individuals per ha had been recorded. The species was found to have declined dramatically over the 1980s and 1990s (IUCN et al., 1996), being locally or nationally extinct over a considerable part of its original range (Lucas, 1988; CITES Animals Committee, 2006). It was considered to have a decreasing population trend (Isamu, 2008). Overexploitation for commercial and subsistence purposes was considered as the main threat to T. gigas (IUCN et al., 1996; Wells, 1997; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Othman et al., 2010). In addition to being used as food, live specimens were reported to be sold for aquaria, with shells being used for practical and decorative purposes (IUCN et al., 1996; Ellis, 1998). T. gigas was considered to be particularly suitable for aquaria due to its attractive colouring and easy care (Lukan and Brough, 2011). Human-induced environmental changes, such as increased water turbidity (Elfwing et al., 2003), bleaching due to global warming (Leggat et al., 2003), decreased salinity and copper pollution (Blidberg, 2004) were found to have a negative impact on the growth of T. gigas. Sant (1995) noted that the international commercial demand for T. gigas was increasingly met by the growing mariculture industry. T. gigas was considered to be particularly suitable to meat production due to its good survival and fast weight gain (SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2009). However, due to the higher profitability of smaller aquarium specimens and live individuals to the Japanese sashimi-grade market, less emphasis was reported to have been put on the meat production of T. gigas than originally intended (Wells, 1997; SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2009). T. gigas was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade at the 20th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2004 (AC20 Summary Record). The Secretariat received no response from Fiji, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu regarding possible problems with the implementation of Article IV of Resolution Conf. 12.8 (AC21 10.1.1), and following a review of the species, these range States were classified as Least Concern, due to minimal levels of trade (AC22 Doc. 10.2, Annex 8e). These range States were then given various recommendations, including i) within six months, to establish precautionary export quotas and ensure all trade is reported at the species level, with appropriate units recorded on permits, ii) within 18 months, to establish appropriate conversion factors to enable trade in meat and shells reported by weight to be converted to the number of adult specimens harvested, and iii) within two years, to draft and adopt a fishery management plan (AC22 Summary Record). At the 57th meeting of the Standing Committee in 2008, it was reported that no response had been received from the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu and Parties were advised to reject any import applications until detailed information regarding implementation of the recommendations of the Animals Committee had been received (SC57 Doc. 29.1 [Rev. 2]). A response was received from Fiji, who advised the Secretariat that no live specimens of Tridacnidae had been exported for commercial purposes since 2003, and that T. gigas had been extirpated from Fiji and reintroduced from Australia in 1987, with reseeding programmes in place to re-stock waters for local use (SC57 Doc. 29.1 [Rev. 2]). The 25

Tridacna gigas

Standing Committee also noted that Fiji’s zero export quota should be included on the CITES website (SC57 Doc. 29.1 [Rev. 2]). It was later reported that the Marshall Islands and Micronesia had responded to the recommendations within the extended deadline, and that Palau, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu had also complied with the recommendations to the satisfaction of the Secretariat, and that the Review of Significant Trade had been concluded (AC24 Doc. 7.2, SC58 Doc 21.1). Fiji: Several authors considered T. gigas to be extinct in the wild (Munro, 1989; Ledua, 1993; Wells, 1997; Raymakers et al., 2003; Kinch, 2009), with current populations reported to have been artificially re- established (CITES Animals Committee, 2006; Lukan and Brough, 2011). Lewis et al. (1988) reported that the species “appears to have become extinct in Fiji only in the last two decades, the last known live specimen having been collected in the mid 1970s”; however, they also noted that as Fiji represented the eastern edge of the range of T. gigas, the species may never have been common there. Sprung (1994, in: Lukan and Brough, 2011) suggested that Fiji may not belong to the natural range states at all, as no living individuals or fossil shells were reported to have been found during several years of observations. T. gigas was reported to be a highly valued food amongst indigenous Fijians, and also collected for commercial purposes (Ledua, 1993; CITES Animals Committee, 2006). Sant (1995) reported that Fiji exported substantial amounts of Tridacnidae meat in the 1980s and Wells (1997) estimated that 8- 47 tonnes of Tridacnidae meat were sold annually in the local markets in Fiji. Exploitation guidelines drafted by the Fiji Government in 1984 stated that the harvesting and marketing of Tridacnidae was to be restricted to Fiji nationals; that written authorization was needed for any harvesting from the custodians of the traditional fishing rights; that the details of catches had to be reported to the Fisheries Division; that exports of adductor muscle were discouraged unless the rest of the individual was also marketed; and that the traditional custodians of the resource should be paid a “fair price” for the produce (Adams, 1988). An insertion was made to the Fiji Fisheries Act (Cap 158) in 1988, banning exports of wild-caught T. derasa, T. squamosa and T. maxima flesh from Fiji (Fiji Ministry for Agriculture, 1997), however no mention was made of T. gigas. More recently, it was reported that management measures for the harvest of Tridacnidae in Fiji consisted of a ban on commercial harvest and export (except for aquaculture specimens) and a bag limit of three shells per person (weighing no more than 3 kg) for the tourist trade (Kinch, 2009; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Mariculture programmes were reported to be in place for the Tridacnidae species in Fiji (Lucas, 2003; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). A project was initiated in 2000 in the Tokoriki Island, with the aim of creating a breeding colony of T. gigas (Tokoriki Diving, 2009). It was reported that due to good success of nearly half the produced individuals reaching sexual maturity, the project had been expanded (Tokoriki Diving, 2009). Marshall Islands: The species was reported to be depleted in some areas, but still present (Wells, 1997). Munro (1989) considered the Marshall Islands to be one of the centres of abundance for T. gigas. Surveys showed that abundant populations of T. gigas were still found in the uninhabited Ailinginae Atoll, and some individuals were also recorded in Namu Atoll (Beger et al., 2008), and in Mili and Rongelap Atolls (Beger and Pinca, 2003). No T. gigas was however recorded in Majuro Atoll (Beger et al., 2008). Raymakers et al. (2003) reported that Tridacnidae were collected for subsistence purposes in Marshall Islands, and Beger et al. (2008) considered the main cause of the decline of T. gigas in the recent decades to be illegal harvesting. Three Tridacnidae hatcheries were reported to have been established, two of which were private and one government-owned (Lindsay, 1993). One private hatchery was reported to have 30 000 – 40 000 one- year old T. gigas, mainly aimed at Japanese restaurants (Lindsay, 1993). Berger et al. (2008) recorded hatcheries on the atolls of Majuro, Likiep, Mili and Arno. Wells (1997) reported that Marshall Islands was one of the major producers of Tridacnidae for the aquarium market. Teitelbaum and Friedman (2008) reported that restocking programmes of T. gigasa were initiated in 1985. T. gigas was not included in a list of protected species of the Marshall Islands, however it was included in a list of animals “deemed worthy of conservation considerations” (RMI OEPPC, 2008). The

Tridacna gigas

Fisheries Act from 1997 set a system of fishing permits and limitations to the use of fishing gear, however no specific regulations were established to protect T. gigas (Marshall Islands Consolidated Legislation, 2004). The Ordinance No. 1998-74 of Majuro was reported to ban the selling of any Tridacnidae species (RMI OEPPC, 2008). Micronesia: Wells (1997) considered T. gigas to be “Extinct in known areas, although it could be present on remote atolls.” Relict populations consisting of “a few individuals” were reported to remain in Lamotrek and West Fayu Atolls, with recent fossils abundant in Kosrae, Ponape, Truk and Yap (Munro, 1989). Price and Fagolimul (1988) noted that occasional shells could be found at dredge sites in the province of Yap, where the species used to be very common. More recently, Raymakers et al. (2003), Teitelbaum and Friedman (2008) and Kinch (2009) considered the species to be extinct in the whole of Micronesia. It was reported to have been reintroduced (Sant, 1995; CITES Animals Committee, 2006), but Raymakers et al. (2003) noted that the success of these reintroductions was unclear. The Micronesia Department of Economic Affairs stated that over-exploitation had affected all wild Tridacnidae populations in Micronesia (FSM Authority responsible for CITES matters, in litt. to TRAFFIC Oceania, November 2002, in: Raymakers et al., 2003), and poaching was regarded to be a problem in the country (Raymakers et al., 2003). The local extinction of T. gigas in Kosrae was considered to have been caused by over-exploitation (Killelea-Almonte, 1992). Teitelbaum and Friedman (2008) reported that restocking programmes of T. gigas had been initiated in 1984 from translocated individuals, and Lindsay (1993) stated that there were non-commercial government-owned hatcheries, with the aim of restocking populations. These were reported to generally use T. gigas to a lesser extent, with restocking mainly done using T. derasa and Hippopus hippopus (Lindsay, 1993); however, the state hatchery of Pohnpei was reported to hold 600 individuals of one-year-old T. gigas (Killelea-Almonte, 1992). Raymakers et al. (2003) reported that sanctuaries existed in the states of Yap, Pohnpei and Chuuk, and that government-established sanctuaries included the Utwe Walung Sanctuary in Kosrae. The commercial harvest and export of Tridacnidae species were reported to be banned in Micronesia (Raymakers et al., 2003; Kinch, 2009; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Kinch and Teitelbaum (2010) reported that some States were developing regulations, including size limits and marine managed areas, to control subsistence use of Tridacnidae species. The Yap State Code (Title 18, Section 1006) prohibits the commercial sale of any Tridacnidae species, with a maximum fine of USD 500, and gives authorization to the governor to declare a harvesting season and minimum size limits (Legal Information System of the Federated States of Micronesia, 2011). However, Raymakers et al. (2003) noted that the legislation regarding harvest season and size limits had not been confirmed. Palau: T. gigas was reported to be “locally rare” (IUCN et al., 1996; Wells, 1997) in Palau, although Munro (1989) considered Palau to be one of the centres of abundance for T. gigas. Heslinga (1993) stated that “our impressions are that while the numbers are not as high as they were historically, they are relatively high compared with some islands in the Pacific.” Significant decreases due to overfishing were reported to have occurred in two areas where initial densities had been high: Koror (Hardy and Hardy, 1969) and Helen Reef (Hirschberger, 1980). Isamu (2008) considered harvesting as the main threat to the species in Palau, but noted that illegal trade had never been documented. However, Nichols (1991) stated that “many incidences of commercial poaching of clams in Palau have been reported” and Munro (1989) noted that poaching was a continuing problem. Tridacnidae adductor muscle was reported to be worth approximately USD 15 per kg when sold locally to hotels and restaurants, and the shells were reported to be used for arts and crafts (Isamu, 2008). Isamu (2008) reported that local harvesting was not limited by seasonal quotas, however permits were needed for the collection of more than five specimens of marine animals per day. Nichols (1991) reported that aquaculture activities on Tridacnidae were initiated in the 1970s at the Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Centre, and Teitelbaum and Friedman (2008) reported that restocking programmes were established in the late 1970s. These efforts were reported to have led to the establishment of farms and sanctuaries in various parts of the country (Nichols, 1991). Heslinga (1993) reported that one project held approximately 10 000 individuals of T. gigas. There was also a programme 27

Tridacna gigas aimed at the dissemination of broodstock to farms, however T. gigas was not one of the main species of focus (Isamu, 2008). Raymakers et al. (2003) considered Palau to have the only viable Tridacnidae hatchery in the South Pacific region. The Marine Protection Act of 1994 prohibits the commercial export of T. gigas (except for cultured specimens), and a valid permit is required to take individuals for local aquarium use or research (Republic of Palau, 1994). It was reported that “all marine resources or parts thereof to be exported or taken out of Palau are required to be declared. Falsification of declaration document warrant a fine of USD 250 including each species failed to declare” (Isamu, 2008). However, Wells (1997) noted that the “legislation has proven difficult to enforce.” In the Non-Detriment Finding report of Tridacnidae from Palau, Isamu (2008) stated that “non- detriment is achieved by restricting exports to captive-produced specimens; this culturing activity supports the conservation of the wild population through reducing harvesting pressure and by providing a source of animals for re-stocking the wild population.” It was reported that 10 per cent of the farmed Tridacnidae were placed in 23 conservation areas, where all harvesting was prohibited (Isamu, 2008). Papua New Guinea: T. gigas was reported to be “Locally rare, especially on nearshore reefs or near main towns” (Wells, 1997). Average densities of 0.4 and 0.82 individuals per ha were recorded in surveys (Kinch, 2002; Allen et al., 2003), and Yaman (2009) reported that T. gigas abundances ranged from 0-1.32 ha. Ledua et al. (1996 in: Kinch, 2002) estimated that approximately 98 per cent of T. gigas in the Milne Bay Province in eastern Papua New Guinea had been lost between the early 1980s and 1996. Raymakers et al. (2003) reported that the National Fisheries Authority did not have estimates of the annual harvests or exports, but that the main domestic use of Tridacnidae was considered to be subsistence harvesting. A survey conducted in 1999 showed that in Brooker Island east of mainland Papua New Guinea, the local people were regularly harvesting T. gigas from the wild (Allen et al., 2003). It was reported that commercial fisheries were developed in the country during the 1980s, “following the depletion of stocks elsewhere in the south Pacific” (IUCN et al., 1996) and that exports of Tridacnidae meat from Papua New Guinea in the 1980s had been substantial (Sant, 1995). A local company was said to have exported 16 000 kg of Tridacnidae shells in 1997, and another company bought 697 kg of mostly T. gigas and T. derasa from the local villagers between January and December 1999 (Allen et al., 2003). Allen et al. (2003) suggested that, based on observations and stock assessments, the fishing pressure on Tridacnidae in Milne Bay was at maximum levels. Kinch (2002) reviewed data on illegal harvesting of Tridacnidae in Milne Bay, finding evidence that poaching had occurred since the 1920s. It was reported that small individuals were collected opportunistically, and free diving was practiced to collect larger specimens (Kinch, 2002; Allen et al., 2003). Kinch (2002) reported that Taiwanese fishing boats entered the area illegally frequently between 1967 and 1981, after which commercial fisheries were established. Raymakers et al. (2003) reported that significant quantities of meat reported as Tridacna spp. had been exported to Singapore between 1997-1999, and Sant (pers. comm. to TRAFFIC Oceania, September 2002, in: Raymakers et al., 2003) stated that anecdotal evidence existed of “substantial amounts” of illegal exports to the Indonesian market. In May 1998, the purchase and export of wild-caught Tridacnidae was reported to have been prohibited by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) – the CITES Management Authority of Papua New Guinea (Kinch; 2002; Yaman, 2009). The ban was lifted in 1995, due to the development of a management plan for sustainable harvest (Kinch, 2002). However, Kinch (2002) noted that “although the Milne Bay Province Giant Clam Fishery Management Plan had been drawn up by the NFA [National Fisheries Authority – the CITES Scientific Authority] it was never gazetted owing to confusion between the NFA and the DEC over responsibility for the enforcement of the plan and because of opposition from commercial and political interests.” The ban was reported to have been reinstated in 2000, when it was discovered that a local fishing company had exported wild specimens as captive-bred (Kinch; 2002; Yaman, 2009). Kinch (2002) advised that “the conflict and confusion between the fisheries and environmental legislation should be addressed and improvements made to the monitoring, recording, and reporting as a component of Papua New Guinea’s national CITES permit regulation and reporting”.

Tridacna gigas

The harvesting of Tridacnidae at night using underwater lights was also reported to be prohibited in Papua New Guinea (Kinch, 2009). In a CITES capacity-building workshop for the regional management of sustainable fisheries, suggested approaches to assist the recovery of overfished Tridacnidae were i) the establishment of Marine Managed Areas and ii) sea-ranching, by placing the remaining adult clams closer together to facilitate reproduction, and re-stocking with cultured clams (Yaman, 2009). It was also suggested that the resumptions of export of adductor muscles to Asian markets could be reconsidered, once community- based and managed farms were in place (Yaman, 2009). Although there was reported to be no commercial mariculture, some restocking from hatcheries was reported to have taken place (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008), mostly for the purposes of subsistence use (Kinch, 2002). Kinch (2002) saw the ongoing efforts of establishing community-based marine management and conservation areas as a potential step towards the recovery of Tridacnidae populations, suggesting that “once community-based and managed farms are in place, resumption of giant clam exports could be reconsidered.” Vanuatu: T. gigas was considered to be possibly extinct in Vanuatu (Bell and Amos, 1993; Wells, 1996; Raymakers et al., 2003; CITES Animals Committee, 2006; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008). Zann and Ayling (1988) conducted surveys on 29 sites on 13 islands, and found T. gigas to be “either very rare or absent”, and Bell and Amos (1993) reported similar results based on their surveys. More recently, in surveys conducted in the Paunangisu and Moso villages, in the Uri and Uripiv islands, and in the Maskelyne Archipelago, no live T. gigas were encountered, although it was noted that empty shells could still be found in the villages throughout the surveyed areas (Friedman et al., 2008). Tridacnidae were considered to be an important subsistence food item in Vanuatu, however there were no observations of T. gigas being sold in the local markets (Bell and Amos, 1993). On the islands of Uri and Uripiv, shells of T. gigas were reported to be used as troughs for livestock feeding (Friedman et al., 2008). Friedman et al. (2008) reported that although wild Tridacnidae species were traded from Vanuatu for the aquarium trade in the late 1990s, “due to uncontrolled harvesting, the fishery was banned in 2000.” Teitelbaum and Friedman (2008) reported that re-stocking programmes involving translocated T. gigas had been established in 1998, and Raymakers et al. (2003) reported that a private sanctuary was established in 1991. Kinch (2010) stated that commercial harvest and export of wild-sourced Tridacnidae was prohibited in Vanuatu. No size limits or special restrictions concerning the harvesting of Tridacnidae species were included in the Fisheries Act of 2005 (Republic of Vanuatu, 2005).

REFERENCES: Adams, T. 1988. The vanishing vasua, The Fiji Times 12/02/1988. Accessed 26th January 2011. Allen, G. R., Kinch, J. P., McKenna, S. A., & Seeto, P. 2003. A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea - Survey II (2000). RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment no. 29. Conservation International. Washington DC, The United States of America. Beger, M., Jacobson, D., Pinca, S., Richards, Z., Hess, D., Harriss, F., Page, C., Peterson, E., and Baker, N. 2008. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, in Waddell, J. E. & Clarke, A. M., (eds.), The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and Pacific. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 387-417. Beger, M. & Pinca, S. 2003. Coral reef biodiversity community-based assessment and conservation planning in the Marshall Islands: Baseline surveys, capacity building and natural protection and management of coral reefs of the atolls of Rongelap and Mili. College of the Marshall Islands - Natural resource assessment surveys. Bell, L. A. J. & Amos, M. J. 1993. Republic of Vanuatu fisheries resources profiles. Forum Fisheries Agency. Honiara, Solomon Islands. FFA Report 93/94. Benzie, J. A. H. 1993. Review of the population genetics of Giant Clams, in Munro, P., (ed.), Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings no. 39.

Tridacna gigas

International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. 1-5. Blidberg, E. 2004. Effects of copper and decreased salinity on survival rate and development of Tridacna gigas larvae. Marine Environmental Research, 58: 793-797. CITES Animals Committee. 2006. Review of Significant Trade - Tridacna gigas. Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix II species. AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8e. Dance, S. P. 1974. The encyclopedia of shells. Blandford Press Ltd., London, United Kingdom. Elfwing, T., Blidberg, E., Sison, M., and Tedengren, M. 2003. A comparison between sites of growth, physiological performance and stress responses in transplanted Tridacna gigas. Aquaculture, 219: 815-828. Ellis, S. 1998. Spawning and early larval rearing of Giant Clams (Bivalvia: Tridacnidae). Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture. Publication no. 130. Fiji Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests. 1997. Fisheries Act. Fiji consolidated legislation, chapter 158 URL: www.paclii.org Accessed: 26th January 2011. Friedman, K., Pakoa, K., Kronen, M., Chapman, L., Sauni, S., Vigliola, L., Boblin, P., & Magron, F. 2008. Vanuatu country report: profiles and results from survey work at Paunangisu village, Moso island, Uri and Uripiv islands and the Maskelyne archipelago. Pacific Regional Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries Development Programme/ Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Noumea, New Caledonia. Hardy, J. T. and Hardy, S. A. 1969. Ecology of Tridacna in Palau. Pacific Science, XXIII (October 1969): 467-472. Heslinga, G. 1993. Country reports - Palau, in Munro, P., (ed.), Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings no. 39. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. 38-40. Hirschberger, W. 1980. Tridacnid clam stocks on Helen Reef, Palau, Western Caroline Islands. Marine Fisheries Review, 42 (2): 8-15. Isamu, T. 2008. Palau case study - Tridacnidae. International expert workshop on CITES non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, November 17-22, 2008. IUCN, TRAFFIC, & WCMC. 1996. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II - detailed reviews of 24 species. Final report to the CITES Animals Committee. IUCN Species Survival Commission, TRAFFIC Network, World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Killelea-Almonte, P. 1992. CITES - Proceedings of a workshop held for those involved in the trade of giant clams. The Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, The Pacific Aquaculture Development Program, Pacific Aquaculture Association. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. Kinch, J. 2002. Giant Clams: their status and trade in Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 19 (2): 67-75. Kinch, J. 2009. The importance of giant clam fisheries management and trade to the Pacific, Regional management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building workshop, CITES, Nadi, Fiji Islands (4th to 7th August 2009). Kinch, J. & Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridancidae) and CITES capacity building 4-7 August 2009. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, New Caledonia. Ledua, E. 1993. Country reports - Fiji, in Munro, P., (ed.), Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings no. 39. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. 45- 47. Ledua, E., Matoto, S., Lokani, P. and Pomat, L. 1996. Giant Clams resource assessment in Milne Bay Province. Report prepared by the South Pacific Commission and the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Legal Information System of the Federated States of Micronesia. 2011. State codes for Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei and Yap URL: www.fsmlaw.org Accessed: 28-1-2011. Leggat, W., Buck, B. H., Grice, A., and Yellowlees, D. 2003. The impact of bleaching on the metabolic contribution of dinoflagellate symbionts to their giant clam host. Plant, Cell and Environment, 26: 1951-1961. 30

Tridacna gigas

Lewis, A. D., Adams, T. J. H., and Ledua, E. 1988. Fiji's Giant Clam stocks - A review of their distribution, abundance, exploitation and management, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 66-72. Lindsay, S. 1993. Country reports - Federated States of Micronesia, in Munro, P., (ed.), Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings no. 39. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. 33-34. Lucas, J. 2003. Giant Clam mariculture. Global Aquaculture Advocate, June 2003: 52-54. Lucas, J. S. 1988. Giant clams: Description, distribution and life history, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 21-32. Lukan, E. M. and Brough, C. 2011. Giant Clam - Tridacna gigas URL: http://animal- world.com/encyclo/reef/clams/TridacnaGigasClam.php Accessed: 24th January 2011. Marshall Islands Consolidated Legislation. 2004. Fisheries Act. Title 51 - Management of marine resources. Chapter 2. Fisheries. Munro, J. L. 1989. Fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae: Bivalvia) and prospects for stock enhancement, in Caddy, J. F., (ed.), Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York/Chichester. 541-558. Munro, J. L. 1993. Strategies for re-establishment of wild Giant Clam stocks, in Munro, P., (ed.), Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings no. 39. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. 17-21. Nichols, P. V. 1991. Republic of Palau marine resources profiles. Fisheries Development Section, Forum Fisheries Agency. FFA Report No. 91/59. Othman, A. S., Goh, G. H. S., and Todd, P. A. 2010. The distribution and status of Giant Clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58 (1): 103-111. Price, C. M. and Fagolimul, J. O. 1988. Reintroduction of Giant Clams to Yap State, Federated States of Micronesia, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 41-43. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N. and Sant, G. 2003. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam. Draft report of a study co-funded by the European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe. Republic of Palau. 1994. Marine Protection Act. Fourth Olbil Era Kelulau, April 1994, House Bill No. 40-60-4. Republic of Vanuatu. 2005. Fisheries Act no. 55 of 2005. RMI OEPPC. 2008. Republic of the Marshall Islands Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism, RMI Office of Environmental Planning and Policy Coordination, URL: http://biormi.org/index.shtml?en/protected_species.shtml Accessed: 26th January 2011. Sant, G. 1995. Marine invertebrates of the South Pacific - an examination of the trade. TRAFFIC International. Cambridge, United Kingdom. SPC Aquaculture Portal. 2009. Giant clam, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, URL: http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/images/commodities/pdf/GiantClam_page.pdf Accessed: 26th January 2011. Sprung, J. 1994. The reef aquarium, Volume 1. Ricordea Publishing. Teitelbaum, A. and Friedman, K. 2008. Successes and failures in reintroducing giant clams in the Indo-Pacific region. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 14: 19-26. Tervo, K. and Csomos, R. 2001. Tridacna gigas - giant clam URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Tridacna_gigas.html Accessed: 24th January 2011. Tokoriki Diving. 2009. Tokoriki receives 70 juvenile Giant Clams URL: http://tokorikidiving.com/tokoriki-receives-70-juvenile-giant-clams Accessed: 25th January 2011. Wells, S. 1996. Tridacna gigas. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 25th January 2011.

Tridacna gigas

Wells, S. M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 77 pp. Yaman, L. 2009. Status and trade of Giant Clams in Papua New Guinea. Regional management of sustainable fisheries for giant clams and CITES capacity building workshop, Nadi, Fiji Islands. Zann, L. P. and Ayling, A. M. 1988. Status of giant clams in Vanuatu, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 61-63.

Tridacna squamosa

REVIEW OF OCEANIAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG- STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

BIVALVIA TRIDACNIDAE

SPECIES: Tridacna squamosa

COMMON NAMES: Schilferige Doopvontschelp (Dutch), Fluted Clam (English), Fluted Giant Clam (English), Scaly Clam (English)

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

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Tonga

IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/conservation dependent

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Tonga first applied on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from New Caledonia and Viet Nam first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji, Mozambique and Vanuatu first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Solomon Islands formed on 12/03/2009. Current positive opinion formed for all other countries on 22/07/1997. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from New Caledonia formed on 05/09/2002. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Viet Nam formed on 30/01/2003. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji, Mozambique and Vanuatu formed on 22/05/2003.

Tridacna squamosa

TRADE PATTERNS: The Philippines and Viet Nam were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Tridacna squamosa 1985-2009. The majority of global direct trade of the species from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals (totalling 71 420 individuals, of which 19 166 were imported by the EU- 27, according to importer-reported figures), followed by live, captive-bred and captive-born individuals (totalling 46 967 individuals, of which 20 112 were imported by the EU-27, according to importer- reported figures). Tonga is not a Party to CITES, hence it has not published any CITES annual export quotas and trade data are based on records from importing Parties only. Direct trade from Tonga to the EU-27 1985-2009 consisted mainly of live individuals. According to importer-reported figures, a total of 6144 live T. squamosa were imported to the EU-27 1985-2009 (Table 1), of which 150 were wild-sourced, with the majority being captive-bred. In addition, the United Kingdom reported the confiscation/seizure of one shell in 1998. The only reported indirect trade to the EU-27 of T. squamosa originating in Tonga was the import to Austria of ten live individuals via the United States of America in 2002. These were reported as wild- sourced by the United States, and as captive-bred by Austria, although an analysis of permit numbers confirmed that they both referred to the same transaction. Direct exports from Tonga to countries other than the EU-27 1985-2009 consisted mainly of live individuals, with the United States of America being the main importer (Table 2). Wild-sourced individuals made up 63 per cent of exports according to importer-reported figures, with most of the remainder being captive-bred or captive-born. In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of a total of 107 live T. squamosa and ten shells during the years 1996, 2004 and 2008. Table 1. Direct trade of Tridacna squamosa from Tonga to the EU-27, 1985-2009, as reported by the importers. (Tonga is not a Party to CITES).

Importer Term Purpose Source 1998 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 Total Denmark live T C 100 850 950 F 200 200 R 200 52 252 W 50 50 France live T C 1700 100 1800 Germany live T C 200 1529 1729 F 506 200 200 906 W 100 100 Netherlands live T C 157 157 United Kingdom shells - I 1 1

Subtotals C & F 100 1007 200 1529 2406 100 200 200 5742 (live only) R 200 52 252 W 150 150

Tridacna squamosa

Table 2. Direct trade of Tridacna squamosa from Tonga to countries other than the EU-27, 1985-2009, as reported by the importers. (Tonga is not a Party to CITES).

Term Units Purpose Source 1992-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live kg T C 30 158 188 W 4 181 261 446 - T C 741 58 293 840 1014 1323 65 20 40 836 5230 F 147 531 100 400 1178 I 1 6 100 107 R 62 62 U 607 607 W 3166 1573 1513 2844 1236 1226 113 20 20 264 3 11978 shells kg T W 4500 4500 - P I 10 10 T C 200 200 W 511 511

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Tridacna squamosa was reported to reach up to 40 cm in shell length (Wells, 1997; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010; Lukan and Brough, 2011), typically occurring in sheltered areas at depths below 15-20 m, on sandy bottoms near coral reefs (Bell et al., 1994; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Its range was reported to reach across the Indo-Pacific region, from the Red Sea and East Africa to the Pitcairn islands (Wells, 1997; CITES Animals Committee, 2006b), and up to Japan in the north (Othman et al., 2010). Dance (1974) considered the species to be “common”, and Wells (1997) described it as “reasonably abundant”, although he noted that its status in the Indian Ocean was poorly known. T. squamosa was classified as Lower Risk/conservation dependent in the IUCN Red List (Wells, 1996), although it was noted that the assessment needed updating. The species was considered to have a decreasing population trend (Isamu, 2008). Overexploitation and habitat degradation were considered to form the main threats to the species (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Othman et al., 2010). T. squamosa was reported to be in particular demand for the shell trade, due to its attractive coloration, appearance and size (IUCN et al., 1996). It was also considered to be a “popular food item” (CITES Animals Committee, 2006b). Tonga: Tonga was reported to form the eastern border of the range of T. squamosa, with occurrences reported on the islands of Tongatapu and Niua fo’ou, and on the island groups of Ha’apai and Vava’u (McKoy, 1980). The species was reported to be abundant in the sheltered lagoons at Hunga and Talau in Vava’u, but it was considered to be “relatively uncommon” elsewhere and “Overfished especially near population centres” (Wells, 1997). Loto'ahea and Sone (1995) reported that the species was “scattered widely” and “common among live staghorns.” McKoy (1980) considered it to be “depleted” in shallow waters close to populated areas. McKoy (1980) found that in Tonga, T. squamosa reached maturity as a male at 50-100 mm in length, and that 50 per cent of the individuals were fully reproductive hermaphrodites at 200-250 mm and 100 per cent at 300 mm. The species was reported to be traditionally used for food (McKoy, 1980; Langi and 'Aloua, 1988; Bell et al., 1994; Wells, 1997; Raymakers et al., 2003) and decorative purposes (Raymakers et al., 2003; CITES Animals Committee, 2006b), as well as exported live for the aquarium trade (Raymakers et al., 2003). The Ministry of Fisheries estimated that 20-50 fishermen were engaged in domestic Tridacnidae harvest (Raymakers et al., 2003). Large specimens of T. squamosa were reported to be sold individually in local markets (Bell et al., 1994). In addition Bell et al. (1994) noted that some

Tridacna squamosa

Giant clams sold in local markets were too small to have undergone natural reproduction. A study conducted in six coastal communities showed that Tridacnidae species belonged to the seven most commonly used subsistence fishery resources in the country (FAO, 2010). However, Loto'ahea and Sone (1995) suggested that fishing pressure for T. squamosa may be relatively low, as the species typically occurred in sites where the other Tridacnidae species would not be harvested. Raymakers et al. (2003) stated that the Ministry of Fisheries did not consider poaching to be a problem in Tonga. Teitelbaum and Friedman (2008) reported that re-stocking programmes of T. squamosa had been initiated in Tonga in 1989. Chesher (1993) reported that a community sanctuary programme, where wild-caught individuals were bred on the Vava’u island shore, was successful in increasing the settlement rates of T. squamosa in the area, and that other similar programmes had been established elsewhere in Tonga. Tonga’s Aquaculture Commodity Development Plan 2010-2014 recognised Tridacnidae as a priority candidate for aquaculture in Tonga, due to its low technology and cost, good export demand and suitability for family-based operations (Tonga Ministry of Fisheries, 2010). The following actions were identified (Tonga Ministry of Fisheries, 2010): Immediate action: Re-establish and maintain the central giant clam hatchery at Fisheries, Within 2 years: Begin grow-out of giant clam in communities for ornamental species and develop ecotourism in association with coral, Within 5 years: Investigate prospects for transferring technology and education to enable communities to breed and grow their own clams. The Fishery Regulations of 1993 prohibit the harvesting, sale, offer for sale, purchase or possession of any Tridacnidae species below a certain specified maximum shell length, which for T. squamosa is 180 mm (Kingdom of Tonga, 1993), and the use of scuba and Hookah were reported to be prohibited (Raymakers et al., 2003). Bell et al. (1994) noted that it would be difficult to enforce the minimum size limits in cases where only the meat is sold. Tridacnidae conservation programmes were reported to have been established in Tonga (CITES Management Authority of Tonga, in litt. to TRAFFIC Oceania, November 2002, in: Raymakers et al., 2003), and the Ministry of Fisheries reported that adult Tridacnidae were collected from the wild and placed in a protected area to enhance reproduction (Raymakers et al., 2003). T. squamosa was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade at the 20th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2004 (AC20 Summary Record). The Secretariat received no response from Tonga regarding possible problems with the implementation of Article IV of Resolution Conf. 12.8 (AC21 10.1.1), and following a review of the species, Tonga was classified as a country of Possible Concern, with the justification “Exports of wild specimens banned since 1993 but reports by importing countries show continuing trade in significant large volumes of wild specimens. Considerable trade reported at generic level. No known population monitoring but overfished in areas” (AC22 Doc. 10.2, Annex 8g). Tonga was then given various recommendations, including i) within six months, to establish precautionary export quotas and ensure all trade is reported at the species level, with appropriate units recorded on permits, ii) within 18 months, to establish appropriate conversion factors to enable trade in meat and shells reported by weight to be converted to the number of adult specimens harvested, and iii) within two years, to draft and adopt a fishery management plan (AC22 Summary Record). At the 57th meeting of the Standing Committee in 2008, it was reported that no response had been received from Tonga, and Parties were advised to reject any import applications until detailed information regarding implementation of the recommendations of the Animals Committee had been received (SC57 Doc. 29.1 [Rev. 2]). It was later reported that Tonga had responded to the recommendations within the extended deadline, and that the Review of Significant Trade had been concluded (AC24 Doc. 7.2, SC58 Doc 21.1).

Tridacna squamosa

REFERENCES: Bell, L. A. J., Fa'anunu, U., and Koloa, T. 1994. Fisheries resources profiles: Kingdom of Tonga. FFA Report 94/5. South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency. Honiara, Solomon Islands. Chesher, R. 1993. Giant Clam sanctuaries in the Kingdom of Tonga. University of the South Pacific. Tellus Consultants Ltd. Marine Studies. Series Number 95/2. CITES Animals Committee. 2006a. Review of Significant Trade - Tridacna derasa. Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix II species. AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8d. CITES Animals Committee. 2006b. Review of Significant Trade - Tridacna squamosa. Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix II species. AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8g. Dance, S. P. 1974. The encyclopedia of shells. Blandford Press Ltd., London, United Kingdom. FAO. 2010. National fishery sector overview - Tonga. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Isamu, T. 2008. Palau case study - Tridacnidae. International expert workshop on CITES non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, November 17-22, 2008. IUCN, TRAFFIC, and WCMC. 1996. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II - detailed reviews of 24 species. Final report to the CITES Animals Committee. IUCN Species Survival Commission, TRAFFIC Network, World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridancidae) and CITES capacity building 4-7 August 2009. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, New Caledonia. Kingdom of Tonga. 1993. Fisheries Act 1989 - The fisheries (conservation and management) regulations 1993. Langi, V. and 'Aloua, H. 1988. Status of Giant Clams in Tonga, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 58-59. Loto'ahea, T. and Sone, S. 1995. Ocean culture of Giant Clam in Tonga: An aspect of managing giant clam resources. Fisheries Research Bulletin of Tonga, 4: 25-30. Lukan, E. M. and Brough, C. 2011. Squamosa Clam - Tridacna squamosa. Animal World. URL: http://animal-world.com/encyclo/reef/clams/TridacnaSquamosaClam.php Accessed: 7th February 2011. McKoy, J. L. 1980. Biology, exploitation and management of Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) in the Kingdom of Tonga. Fisheries Bulletin, Fisheries Division, Tonga 1 Munro, J. L. 1989. Fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae: Bivalvia) and prospects for stock enhancement, in Caddy, J. F., (ed.), Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York/Chichester. 541-558. Othman, A. S., Goh, G. H. S., and Todd, P. A. 2010. The distribution and status of Giant Clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58 (1): 103-111. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N. and Sant, G. 2003. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam. Draft report of a study co-funded by the European Commission and TRAFFIC Europe. Teitelbaum, A. and Friedman, K. 2008. Successes and failures in reintroducing giant clams in the Indo-Pacific region. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 14: 19-26. Tonga Ministry of Fisheries. 2010. Tonga aquaculture commodity development plan 2010-2014. Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Noumea, New Caledonia. Wells, S. 1996. Tridacna squamosa. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 11th February 2011. Wells, S. M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 77 pp.

Annex SRG58/12

ANNEX. Key to Purpose and Source Codes

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

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