The TRAFFIC Network is the world’s largest wildlife trade monitoring programme with offices covering most parts of the world. TRAFFIC is a programme of WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature and IUCN – The World Conservation Union established to monitor trade in wild plants and . It works in close co-operation with the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade In Endangered of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The Director TRAFFIC Europe Chaussée de Waterloosteenweg 608 B-1050 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: (32) 2 343 82 58 Fax: (32) 2 343 25 65 Email: [email protected]

Website: http://www.traffic.org MONITORING OF WILDLIFE TRADE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION:

ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EU CITES IMPORT POLICIES

GEORGIA VALAORAS

A TRAFFIC EUROPE REPORT

This project was supported by

and the European Commission

Published by TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium.

© 1998 TRAFFIC Europe All rights reserved.

All material appearing in this publication is copyrighted and may be reproduced with permission. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must credit TRAFFIC Europe as the copyright owner.

The views of the authors expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the TRAFFIC Network, WWF or IUCN.

The designation of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of TRAFFIC or its supporting organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The TRAFFIC Symbol copyright and Registered Trademark ownership is held by WWF. TRAFFIC Is a joint programme of WWF and IUCN.

Suggested citation: Valaoras, G. (1998). Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union: Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium. MONITORING OF WILDLIFE TRADE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION:

ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EU CITES IMPORT POLICIES

GEORGIA VALAORAS

A TRAFFIC EUROPE REPORT

This project was supported by

and the European Commission

Contents

Acknowledgement

Executive Summary

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 The European Union and international wildlife trade 1 1.3 Wildlife trade monitoring and support requirements in the European Union 2

2. History and operation of the C2 systems 3

3. Overview of measures taken under the C2 system, and of` general trade trends with C2 species during the system?s lifetime 4

4. Trade with targeted C2 species: an analysis of the impact of EU trade measures on international trade with selectedspecies 7 4.1 Psittacus erithacus 7 4.2 species 14 4.3 exanthematicus and Varanus niloticus 22 4.4 Cyclamen spp. from Turkey 29 4.5 Boa constrictor 36

5. Discussion 40

6. Conclusions and Recommendations 41

7. References 43

Annex Annex I Description of the Significant Trade Process Annex II Article 10.1(b) Text Annex III The Quota System Annex IV Figures 1-7 Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge the assistance of Jack Van Handenhove who designed and programmed all the graphs; Evy Noula who assisted me to assemble the statistics on C2 species and EU decisions, Teresa Mulliken of TRAFFIC International for reviewing the draft, and the director and staff of TRAFFIC Europe for guidance, advice and assistance, namely, Tom De Meulenaer, AnnVanden Bloock, Elizabeth Fleming, Stephanie Theile, Irène Bronlet, Nina Marshall and Caroline Raymakers. All errors of fact and judgment remain the responsibility of the writer. I would also like to thank the European Commission for providing financial support for this effort.

Dr. Georgia Valaoras, Research Consultant TRAFFIC Europe Athens, Greece December, 1998

Executive Summary Under the European Community Treaty which first came into effect in 1958 and was recently developed (1993) as the Maastricht Treaty, the European Commission takes the initiative to suggest Community-wide environmental measures. In several cases Community regulations provide for more protection of the environment than do International Conventions. One example is the implementation of CITES, the 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The European Union goes beyond the requirements of CITES by requiring import permits for all CITES specimens, and by issuing a number of ad hoc measures such as prohibitions of species from certain countries of origin or temporary restrictions on import of all species from a certain country.

European Union CITES regulations dating from 1984 were revised and improved in 1997; these now apply to a larger number of species listed in CITES and incorporate many measures designed to enhance the monitoring of trade entering the borders of the European Union. In order to assess the effectiveness of past EU trade decisions on Appendix II CITES species, this review is based on a selection of five case studies: 1) restrictions on trade in African Grey parrots, Psittacus erithacus, 2) a temporary, total ban on Indonesia’s species from 1991-1995, 3) trade measures for skins of two African , Varanus exanthematicus and Varanus niloticus, 4) controls on trade of Cyclamen species from Turkey, and 5) for Boa constrictor from the Americas supplying the live pet market. The goal was to assess the relevance of past EU trade restrictions for species conservation and for in situ management and protection of the species; to evaluate the consequences for international markets, trade patterns and routes; and to determine which policies under which circumstances can achieve the best results in terms of long term conservation.

The review highlights some of the problems encountered in the course of thirteen years of EU decisions on wildlife trade, 1984-1996, and provides examples of successful initiatives which substantially improved the management of wild species in countries of origin. Recommendations are presented which address certain gaps in the monitoring of trade measures, and the institutional inadequacies which continue to exist in exporting countries to adequately control wildlife trade. Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

1. Introduction

1.1 Background The European Union, since the coming together of fifteen nations in 1994, has become one of the largest and most diverse markets for wildlife and wildlife products in the world. The trade, which involves many thousands of species, changes constantly in response to factors such as fashion, value, and availability, or in response to regulations or restrictive measures taken in favour of certain species.

New Markets for Wildlife Trade Russia, central Asia and central Europe all export significant numbers of wild animals and plants to the EU, and serve as major suppliers of specimens entering this affluent market. In several central Asian CIS countries and in much of Russia, this trade continues to threaten native species, including some of the rarest in the world. New markets for wildlife are developing in neighbouring central andeastern Europe.

A large number of wild species that are or may become threatened by trade are subject to or require regulatory mechanisms, such as those provided under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). As ofNovember, 2000, there are 152 Parties to CITES. Most, but not all countries on the European continent are long- standing Parties to CITES. Recent additions to CITES include: Latvia, Uzbekistan, Mauritania, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Slovenia, Croatia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia These countries became Parties to CITES during the period 1997 to 2000 and are listed above in chronological order. The level at which CITES is implemented in Europe ranges from the comprehensive and sophisticated to the virtually non- existent, and in general relates to the degree of economic wealth and stability. Enforcement of CITES and effectively controlling trade in wild species remains problematic in many European countries.

However, there is genuine interest in both undertaking and supporting model projects, as well as devising innovative approaches for CITES and other wildlife trade regulation mechanisms in Europe. Perhaps the most interesting is the way in which the EU has decided to protect species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein under its new EU legislation, applicable since June 1997.

1.2 The European Union and international wildlife trade CITES has been implemented in the EU since 1 January 1984 through Council Regulation (EEC) NE3626/82. It had long been recognised that a revised regulation was needed to improve the control of the Community’s wildlife trade. On 9 December 1996, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) 338/97 on the Protection of Species of Wild Fauna and Flora by Regulating Trade Therein, which became applicable as of 1 June 1997. At the same time, Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 3418/83, containing detailed implementation provisions, particularly on the use of permits and certificates, was replaced by Commission regulation (EC) No 939/97. These two new Regulations fully implement the provisions of CITES and include provisions to implement the bulk of currently applicable recommendations of the Conference of the Parties. The new Regulations also providemechanisms to ensure that the European Union is kept up-to-date on future CITES measures and decisions.

1 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

1.3 Wildlife trade monitoring and support requirements in the European Union There are several hundreds of species listed in Appendices II and III of CITES, included in the present EU regulations, that were subjected to specific trade measures under the previous EU regulation- (EEC) NE3626/82. Under the old regulation, CITES Appendix II and III species were listed under Annex II. Hence, these species were referred to as “C2 species”. The trade measures that the EU decided upon for these species focused mainly on species/country of origin combinations for which it was believed that imports into the EU could have a detrimental effect on the of the species in the country of origin. Decisions included: bans on further imports into the EU; limitations in quantity or time for further imports; and the imposition of quotas. In certain instances, all C2 trade with a particular country was halted. It is important to note that these measures, in theory, were temporary and could be revoked when deemed appropriate. The “C2 system” served as a model for the Significant Trade Review process that was adopted by all CITES parties during the Eighth Conference of the Parties to CITES (see Annex I).This process, much slower and more bureaucratic than the C2 system, addressed the same concerns as those which lay at the heart of the EU Regulation, i.e., the need to ensure that when international trade in a CITES Appendix II species takes place, Article IV of the Convention is fully respected (see Annex II).

Under the previous EU CITES Regulations, a series of measures were taken to ban the import of species listed in Annex C2 from certain countries of origin. The impact on the conservation status of the species concerned, on their management in the range states, or the effects on international trade (supply and demand) remain to a large extent unknown.

Under the new EU wildlife trade regulations, similar measures will be implemented for many more species. It is, therefore, valuable to review the results of the decisions taken thus far under the old C2 system. The total cost of the system must have been significant - not only in terms of socio-economic losses, but also in terms of decision making, communicating and policing. Despite this, the decisions have not been tested on their relative merits or flaws.

Under the new Regulations, the possibility to take restrictive measures at the point of import was extended to include all species listed under Annex B of the new regulation, thereby increasing the number from approximately 800 C2 species under the old regulation to over 20,000 under the new.

The decision making process and subsequent monitoring, as well as policing of the new regulation system requires significant resources. The decisions and subsequent controls should be justified from a scientific point of view, should not prevent the legal and sustained use of a species, and should contribute to the long-term conservation of the species involved. Ineffective or unjustified import restrictions should of course be avoided. If acceptable utilisation of wild fauna and flora is prevented, rural development, through the impairing of incentives to manage wildlife resources, could be jeopardised. Such measures could also weaken CITES practices, and ultimately be counterproductive from a conservation point of view. It is therefore necessary to evaluate which measures are or have been the most effective in contributing to improved conservation, protection and management of the species in the countries of origin, and which had negative effects. This evaluation should help to guide the Commission and Member States in taking measures that genuinely enhance the conservation of wild species, thus contributing to the effectiveness of the new Regulations. The European Commission and the relevant European authorities, institutions and enforcement agencies need reliable and current information on the conservation and trade status of wild

2 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report species to enable the elaboration of appropriate policies. These policies should provide necessary protection for some species whilst permitting sustainable trade in others. Such information is researched, analysed and disseminated by TRAFFIC Europe, the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Programme of WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and IUCN (the World Conservation Union). TRAFFIC Europe works closely with European wildlife trade enforcement agencies, and conducts inspections to aid enforcement, formulating practical and realistic recommendations. TRAFFIC Europe has extensive experience in investigating the legality of wildlife trade in the EU, in analysing and acting upon intelligence information gathered from all over the world, and in assisting responsible CITES enforcement agencies in taking remedial measures. When necessary, particular illegal trade routes or mechanisms are investigated and exposed so that authorities may take enforcement action.

In this study, the effectiveness of past EUtrade restrictions for C2 species are reviewed. The goal is to assess their relevance in species conservation and forin situ management and protection of the species; to evaluate the consequences for international markets, trade patterns and routes; and to determine which policies under certain circumstances can achieve the best results in terms of long term conservation.

2. History and operation of the C2 system CITES came into effect in 1975, regulating the international commerce of some 25,000 species of wild animals and plants. Species are listed in three appendices according to their conservation status. Appendix Iincludes species which are threatened with extinction, and for which trade could adversely affect the present populations levels. Only under exceptional circumstances, such as scientific research, is it permitted to trade such species internationally. Appendix II includes species that could be threatened with extinction unless their trade levels are monitored and regulated so as to prevent utilisation “incompatible with their survival.” Appendix III includes species requiring protection only in certain countries.

As stated previously, CITES was originally implemented in the EU (1984) through old Council Regulation (EEC) NE3626/82. This regulation allowed for stricter controls on trade than those laid out in the text of the Convention. For example, CITES requires an import permit only for Appendix I species. The EU however, additionally requires that an import permit be presented for species in Appendices II and III1. The import permits could not be issued unless certain conditions, specified by Article 10.1.b of Regulation 3626/82, were fulfilled. For example, evidence had to be presented that the capture and confinement of the specimen in the wild would not influence the conservation of the species, nor the range or distribution of the population concerned. The importer must also guarantee, using official documents provided by the competent authorities in the country of origin, that the specimen has been acquired according to the country’s species protection legislation. In the case of a living specimen, the importer must demonstrate that it is destined for a facility with adequate means to guarantee its survival. These prerequisites are indispensable for the import of a C2 species in the EU2. 3. Overview of measures taken under the C2 system, and general trade trends with C2 species during the system’s lifetime In 1992, the European Commission contracted WWF Belgium to develop and maintain a database of species of wild fauna and flora in international trade of particular relevance to the

1 Import permits (for CITES Appendix II) and import notifications (for CITES Appendix III) are still required under Article 4 of new Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97. 2 The pre-requisites for the granting of an import permit remain in place under the new Regulation (Article 4).

3 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

European Union. The main purpose of the database was to provide CITES EU Management authorities, the bodies responsible for issuing CITES documents, with updated information concerning decisions taken at the Union level for the import of specimens of species contained in Annex C part Two of Council Regulation (EEC) no. 3626/823. As previously described, CITES Appendix II and III species were listed under Annex C2, and for all C2 species an import permit was required and only issued when the conditions set out in Article 10.1.b of Regulation (EEC) 3626/82, were met.

Since the entry into force of Regulation 3626/82 on 1 January 1984, a systematic review of the conservation status of Annex C2 species in all their distribution areas has been carried out by the EU Scientific Working Group on CITES (SWG). The Scientific Working Group (representatives of all EU Scientific Authorities) enacts recommendations based on all of the available scientific data: whether to allow, prohibit or restrict the importation of specimens of C2 species from a specific country of origin. The recommendations are usually, but not always, endorsed by the EU CITES Committee (representatives of all EU Management Authorities), whose responsibility it is to formulate the final decisions. Both the EU Scientific Working Group and the EU CITES Committee met in Brussels every three to four months. In 1988, realising the difficulty in keeping track of the increasing number of decisions taken for Annex C2 species, the European Commission initiated a project to establish a database for recording the decisions and related information. In 1992, the management of the database was entrusted to WWF Belgium.

The C2 database contained the scientific and English common names of approximately 700 species of fauna and flora that were listed in Annex C2 of the Regulation, the countries of origin (range states), and decisions taken at the EU CITES meetings concerning their import into the European Union. For those species whose status in the range state had been reviewed by the Scientific Working Group, the file records whether a decision had been taken to restrict imports (on the basis of Article 10.1.b) and if so, the details. Decisions made by any other relevant body (Council, the Conference of the Parties etc.) were also recorded. Where appropriate, conditions relating to decisions were documented, for example in cases where a quota has been accepted or where a temporary position has been taken.

The C2 System The C2 database records a total of 1,709 decisions for CITES Appendix II species taken by the Scientific Working Group (SWG), the EU CITES Committee, and the Commission over the period 1984 to 1996. Most of the decisions are referenced to the two authorities: the SWG and the EU CITES Committee. The majority of decisions (63%) were made by the EU CITES Committee and included 472 decisions on 168 species of , 354 decisions on 318 species of , and 256 decisions on 165 species of . In some cases, the European Commission was the responsible body making the final decision. The Council of Ministers made 70 decisions on the import of C2 birdwing butterflies and these are listed accordingly as Council decisions. The first meeting of the SWG took place on the 9 October 1986. From 1986 to 1996, a total of 38 SWG meetings took place to formulate recommendations to the EU CITES Committee, which met 41 times during the same period, an average of three to four meetings per year for each (Fig. 1).

3 The EU Wildlife Trade Reference Databases are currently managed by WCMC-UNEP and are accessed through the internet at www.wcmc.org.UK/species/trade/eu

4 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

The decisions relate to restrictions or prohibitions at the EU level on the import of Annex C2 species, from one or more of their range states. Generally, these decisions are made in relation to Article 10.1(b) first or third indent of Council Regulation No. 3626/82. A number of additional cases have been added, such as temporary import restrictions, quotas, or removal of import restrictions. Where available, information is summarised on the export controls established in each country of origin. Two types of controls can occur: prohibitions on exports (whether temporary or not) and export quotas. This information relates to the relevant internal control in the range state, e.g. regarding prohibition of hunting. In the case of export quotas, the EU CITES Committee may decide whether any export quotas are accepted at the European Union level as meeting the conditions of Article 10.1 (b) first indent. Thus, in spite of an export quota, an EU import ban may exist, and would be recorded in the decisions. For some species in CITES Appendix II, the Conference of the Parties has agreed on an export quota relating to specified countries of origin and to specific calendar years.

The following types of decisions were taken during this period:

Import ban article 10.1 (b) 1st indent This decision is taken to ban all commercial imports of the specimens of the species concerned because there is “no trustworthy evidence that the capture or collection of the specimens in the wild will not have a harmful effect on the conservation of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the population in question.”

Import ban article 10.1 (b) 1st indent for all range states refers to the same decision as the previous one, applied to all range states of a particular species.

Import ban article 10.1 (b) 3rd indent This decision relates to the name of the species.It is made by the Committee on the basis of a recommendation by the SWG and generally means that no imports of living specimens of the species concerned should be authorised on the grounds that “adequate facilities suitable for accommodating the species and suited to its behaviour” and assurance “that the will be properly cared for” cannot normally be provided. Import of living specimens of the species concerned might however be authorised on a case-by-case basis if there is a certainty that the final recipient (a zoo, a scientific institution, or a specialised private person) would meet the above requirements.

Import ban article 10.1 (b) 4th indent This decision means that no commercial imports of the specimens of the species concerned should be authorised from the country concerned because there are other requirements relating to the conservation of the species, for example the non compliance of the country with the conditions laid out in Article IV of the Convention, which militate against the issue of an import permit.

No import, population is in Appendix I This decision applies to cases when the populations or subspecies that are listed in Appendix I of CITES when no other populations or subspecies of a species are in Annex C2.

No import This decision is taken when it has been decided to impose an import ban for reasons other than those covered by Article 10.1 (b).

Import restricted In these cases special conditions apply to the import.

Import restricted (export quota set) Import is allowed upon proof that the export quota set

5 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report either by the exporting country or by the Conference of the Parties will not be exceeded.

Import ban or import restriction removed This decision lifts any import ban or any import restriction previously imposed. From a specified date onwards, trade is permitted subject only to the usual provisions of Regulation 3636/82.

Not yet reviewed according to Article 10.1(b) This may occur if a population has not yet been discussed by the SWG in relation to the import conditions specified in Article 10.1(b).

Under review; need of a final decision in accordance with Article 10.1 (b) In some cases, an inconclusive review of the population was carried out by the SWG in relation to the criteria specified in Article 10.1(b) and further discussion is foreseen. Pending an EU decision, national Scientific Authorities must evaluate import applications on a case-by-case basis or consult with the SWG.

Reviewed; imports allowed in accordance with Article 10.1(b) This comment identifies a population which has been discussed by the SWG in relation to the criteria specified in Article 10.1(b) 1st indent and the status of which has been found sufficiently satisfactory to allow its import into the EU to continue, subject only to the usual provisions of Regulation 3626/82. A modification of the situation, for example, a dramatic increase in imports, would however lead to a review of this “positive” decision by the SWG.

In order to focus on the effectiveness of these trade measures, a number of specific case studies were analysed in more detail. Since the new EU Regulation for wildlife trade came into force in 1997, these case studies are only concerned with trade conducted up until 1996. The studies reflect a variety of trade situations, which may serve as a representative sample of the entire body of decisions:

· In the first case study, the trade of the African Grey parrot,Psittacus erithacus and Psittacus erithacus timneh, which originate in several range states in equatorial Africa, is examined. This popular pet species has been traded in very large volumes during the period 1984 to 1996, particularly to European Union countries. Concerns for the sustainability of trade led to trade restrictions for several range states such as Ghana, which subsequently led to a change in trade routes, and an eventual drop in trade levels during the 1990s.

· The second example demonstrates the effects of a complete ban on 152 C2 species from one country, Indonesia. A large number of species originate from Indonesia, many being endemic and thus representing the total world population of the species. In late 1991, the lack of reliable controls on the capture and trade of many of these species led the European Union to impose a unilateral ban on all C2 species originating from Indonesia. In 1995, after a number of missions to Indonesia by conservationists from IUCN and other organisations, the ban was lifted for many of the species.

· The third case study examines two species, traded principally as skins to supply the leather industry. The two lizards,Varanus exanthematicus and Varanus niloticus originate in Africa, and in particular from the range states of Cameroon, Mali, Togo, Ghana and Sudan. Concerns for the impacts of over-exploitation of these two species led to trade restrictions. Subsequent to the restrictions on trade, efforts were made by the range states to breed and farm these species. Since CITES has strict criteria for accepting so-called

6 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

ranched animals, this case illustrates how trade restrictions effected the shift from wild- capture to sustainable farming.

· The fourth study is a one country - one range state combination: the import ofCyclamen species from Turkey to supply the flower market in the Netherlands. In this case, its is found that certain trade measures led to more responsible and sustainable harvesting of wild specimens, as well as encouraging the development of in situ cultivation to manage the increasing demand for these species.

· The fifth and final case study looks at another , the Boa constrictor, which is highly valued as a pet species and originates in the Americas. The increase in the reptile pet trade during the 1990s has been partially attributed to measures taken by the US, as well as the European Union, to restrict the wild pet tradeworld wide. This case study illustrates the impact that trade restrictions on one species or group of species can have on another.

4. Trade with targeted C2 species: an analysis of the impact of EU trade measures on international trade with selected species. Trade levels for C2 species were analysed using CITES annual report data compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). All reported trade in mammals, birds, and reptiles listed in Appendix II during the years 1984-1996 was reviewed, as well as all Cyclamen spp. Three data subsets were analysed:

1. Total net reported trade by species and product for the entire period. 2. Gross exports to the EU by species, product and country of export for each year in the reporting period. 3. Gross imports into the EU by species, product and country of import for each year in the reporting period.

4.1 Psittacus erithacus

General trade background There are 23 range states for this species. The main exporting countries are the central and western African states of Cameroon, Central African Republic,Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, and South Africa. The latter two are not range states. Togo has often been cited as having very few individual birds left, or none that have been confirmed. Senegal, a steady re-exporter of high numbers of birds of this species, has never been cited as having natural populations. South Africa is also becoming an important re-exporter of these birds, as shown by increasing exports to the European Union (Mulliken, 1997). Reported trade levels from the main countries exporting to the EU are shown in Figure 3 (in Annex IV).

The other range states include Angola, Benin, Burundi, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. After the mid-1980s none of these countries exported more than 100 individual birds per year.

Since 1990, world trade in wild birds has been at a level of 2.0 million annually,Mulliken, ( 1994) down from 7.5 million in the mid 1970s (Inskipp, 1979). Psittacines are extremely popular, 500-600,000 per year being reported in international trade during the period 1982 to 1988 (Broad, 1990). Of these, the African Grey parrot, Psittacus erithacus, from Central

7 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Africa, and Psittacus erithacus timneh occurring in western Africa, were the second most heavily traded, with levels of approximately 55,000 birds per year throughout the 1980s (WCMC-UNEP, 1998). Annual report data indicate that in the thirteen years from 1984 to 1996, over 630,000 African Grey parrots have been documented as being in international trade, exceeding a recent estimate of the total wild population of 600,000 birds (Lambert,et al, unpublished, quoted in Mulliken, 1995). It is important to note that these officially recorded numbers in trade indicate minimum levels: the actual mortality caused by domestic trade, capture and pre-export confinement is much higher. Mortality estimates for African Grey parrots in Ghana, Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), and Cameroon are between 15 and 40% (Dandliker, 1993; Fotso, 1994). The number of birds smuggled in illegal transactions may also be significant and are not recorded.

The European Union and the US have been the main importers of the African Grey parrot, with the European Union importing an average of 26,395 per year over the period 1984-1996, or 41% of net world trade. In the period 1984 to 1992, EU imports averaged 27,067 per year, equating to 48.5% of world net trade in these two species (Fig.3, Annex V). After European Union imports experienced a peak in 1991 of 32,760, the level dropped to an annual average of 24,885. The last reported EU import peak prior to 1991 was in 1989 when 32,359 specimens were recorded. World net trade peaked in 1988 (65,025) and in 1992 (66,361). By 1996 this figure had declined to 30,676.

Trade restrictions and range state details In 1992, the US restricted imports of African greys for one year at the levels of the preceding year’s imports. Between 23 October 1992 and 22 October 1993, nearly 15,000 birds were imported into the US. After that date, imports ofPsittacus erithacus ceased. Due to the overall drop in net world trade, mainly a function of the closure of the US market for live birds, the EU trade in African Grey parrots over the period 1993-1996 grew to represent an average of 77% of world trade (see Fig.3). For 1996, EU imports represented 84% of world trade.

EU decisions in the form of bans on imports, restrictions on exports, such as quotas, as well as suspensions of bans, have been implemented during the study period from 1984-1996 (see Table 1).

8 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Table 1. Summary of EU Decisions and Effects on Trade for Psittacus erithacus and P. e. timneh EU policy affecting the Trade pattern for Psittacus Trade patterns after decision was Range states action following countries. erithacus before a decision was taken by the EU taken by the EU Angola Prior to the ban, a minimal Since 1987, a slight increase in Fully protected 1987 import ban number of exports to the EU trade was noted, increasing to 24 species were recorded (11 individuals) specimens in 1996 Benin No specimens were recorded to be Exports increased slightly after 1987 import ban exported into the EU until 1987 1990 s (< 10) Burundi Fewer than 10 specimens were Exports continued with very few Suspension of issue 1987 import ban exported to the EU specimens (<10) of export and re- export document Cameroon Trade figures before 1991 Exports declined after 1991 National quotas 1991 import restricted increased steadily with a high of Average trade for 1992-1996 was 1991: 12,000 export quota 18,355 in 1991. The average was 12,614 1992: 23,000 1993 import ban 9,748 for the period 1984-1991 Export quota was exceeded in 1992 1994: 12,000 1994 import restricted and 1995 1995: 12,000 export quota 1996: 12,000 1996 import ban 1997: 12,000 Central African Republic Average annual trade was 252 Exports continued one year 1987 import ban specimens for 1984-1987 following the ban, at a level of 462 specimens. 1993: 5 1994: 28 1995: 28 Democratic Republic of Prior to 1992, levels of trade were Exports increase in levels of export Annual national Congo (formerly Zaire) relatively low, but increased after 1991, exceeding export quota quota 10,000: 1993 1992 export quota set sharply in 1991. 1984-1991: 783 of 10,000 in the years 1994. 1992- 1993 import ban annual average 1996: 10,175 annual average EU policy affecting the Trade pattern for Psittacus Trade patterns after decision was Range states action

9 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

following countries. erithacus before a decision was taken by the EU taken by the EU Equatorial Guinea No exports have been recorded for Low numbers of birds have been 1986 import ban this country as entering the EU exported since 1994, an average (<10) Ghana Annual average of 3,198 birds Exports continued with over 600 Export ban 1986; 1987 import ban exported through 1987 specimens in 1989 and 1990, then National quotas: dropped to minimal numbers after 1995: 5,000 1995 import restricted 1991 1996: 5,000 export quota set (<10)

Guinea 1984-1990: 2,011 annual average Exports continued at lower levels National quotas 1990 import ban after 1990. The 450 export quota 1994: 450 for P. e. timneh was exceeded in 1996 by 54 1995: 450 specimens 1996: 450

Ivory Coast Exports were low until 1988, with After the ban: numbers dropped to 1990 import ban 204 specimens in 1985. In 1990, low levels (average of 7.2 for the 1,677 specimens were recorded as period 1991-96) exports to the EU Liberia 1984-1990: 5,519 annual average Exports dropped to zero after 1990 Export of specimens 1990 import ban and trophies for P. e. timneh prohibited since 10/05/95

10 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

EU policy affecting the Trade pattern for Psittacus Trade patterns after decision was Range states action following countries. erithacus before a decision was taken by the EU taken by the EU Mali 1984-1988; 184 annual average Exports dropped to minimal levels General hunting ban 1987 import ban 1988 : 100 after 1988, with 70 traded in 1990 since 06/11/78 for P. e. timneh Rwanda Minimal levels of exports were Exports levels continued to be very 1987 import ban recorded until 1987 low or zero Sierra Leone No exports were recorded until 1991: 550 1997: quota 2000 1990 import ban 1990, 1996: 900 for P. e. timneh 1990: 300 to EU

1991 export quota for P. e. timneh, followed by a complete ban in the same year.

Sao Tome & Principe Zero exports were recorded until 1996: 70 1996 import ban 1996 Tanzania Exports recorded at minimal levels Exports continued at minimal levels Protected species 1986 import ban (<10) (<10)

Togo 1984-1988: 1,519 annual average Exports declined after 1988, 1989- 1992: Agreement of 1987 and 1988 import ban 1996: 413 annual average the MA not to 1991: 1,396 authorise any exports

11 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Discernable effects of EU import restrictions for Psittacus erithacus on world trade and on the conservation of the species From Figures 2 and 3, it is possible to discern some of the effects of the decisions taken by the EU (see Table 1). No doubt these effects are in combination with other actions, such as the US 1992 import ban on all wild specimens of the species, applicable from October 1993 onwards (1992, US Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA), only allowing the importation of wild-caught birds meeting certain criteria for sustainable use).

· Overall world trade levels dropped by 40%, from an average annual level of 55,773 during the period 1984-1992 to 32,378 for the period 1993-1996.

· Trade shifted from one country to another:

- After the export bans in Ghana (1987), the Central African Republic (1987), Guinea (1989), and Liberia (1990), exports from these countries were minimal (in some cases trade continued into the following year). However, exports from Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Ivory Coast, which had been minimal prior to 1991, and Sierra Leone, for which no exports were reported prior to 1990, showed sudden increases. EU import bans for countries to which the trade inPsittacus erithacus had shifted were implemented in 1990 (Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone) and 1993 (DRC). In 1991, an export quota for the species was set for Sierra Leone, thus imports to the EU were restricted, however, in the same year the EU re-instated the import ban.

- Re-exports from Senegal (non-range state) to the EU increased significantly from 1987 to 1991, the period when most of the bans were introduced on the range states. After 1991, exports from Senegal to the EU declined by over 50%.

Senegal : is a major re-exporting country, since it is not reported to have native populations. Exports to the EU peaked in 1988, with 11,017 forP. erithacus, and in 1989 with 10,245 for P. e. timneh. Average annual exports from Senegal to Europe for the species during the reporting period (1984-1996) was 4,338.

- South African imports and corresponding re-exports to the EU increased dramatically from 1993 to 1995.

South Africa has been identified as a significant re-exporter ofPsittacus spp. Imports to the EU from South Africa increased steadily during the years 1984-1996, with an annual average of 228 birds. However, trade data analysed by Mulliken in the early 1990s showed that approximately 20,000 African Grey parrots were imported by South Africa during the 1980s and 23,000 from 1990-1993. The increase was related to import restrictions in some major consuming markets, particularly Europe, and the refusal of certain airlines to carry shipments of wild-caught birdsMulliken, ( 1995).

In the same study, Mulliken documents the shift in reported of origin of African Grey parrots imported into South Africa, from one exporting country to another:

· From 1982 to 1987, provincial import permits were issued for over 10,000 African Grey parrots from Togo, a country with a very small population of this species and

12 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

where the CITES Management Authority had reached an agreement not to authorise any exports (1992).

· From 1987 to 1990, 10,700 African Grey parrots were imported from Ghana despite the fact that a domestic export ban was instituted in 1986.

· From 1990 to 1993, Guinea was reported to be the source of over 8,000 African Grey parrots. The national export quota for Guinea, for 1994-1996, was 450 per year. In 1991, the total population of Guinea was estimated to be between 5,000 and 10,000 birds only (Dandliker, 1993).

· From 1987 to 1992, nearly 6,000 African Grey parrots were reported as imported from Ivory Coast. In 1993, the CITES Secretariat requested South Africa to refuse further imports as there were indications that African Grey parrots were being smuggled into that country for re-export. Mulliken,( 1995).

Summary of observed effects of trade bans and/or restrictions on Psittacus erithacus · Reduction of overall world trade levels. Exports from some states (Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea and Togo) to the EU did not cease entirely after the imposition of importbans.

· The shifting of trade to other exporting countries: this can be postulated from the significant increases in trade in certain countries, especially non-range states such as Senegal and South Africa. The implication here is that African Grey parrots were illegally exported from range states to these two countries, which re-exported them without specifying their country of origin.

· Shift of imports to other non-EU destinations: this is difficult to determine without a complete set of import data for the species during the period under analysis (not all importing countries are Parties to CITES, not all CITES annual reports are available). Given that gross export and import figures to the EU represent 84% of world trade in 1996, the shifting of trade to other (non-EU) destinations cannot be that substantial.

· Shift to trade of other species. This phenomenon has not yet been thoroughly investigated.

· Some countries may be importing African Grey parrots without reporting the country of origin (Senegal and South Africa).

· Some restrictions seemed unnecessary given the level of trade, specifically for Angola, Benin, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, and Tanzania.

13 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

4.2 Indonesia species

General trade background Indonesia ’s biodiversity is considered to be amongst the highest in the world. The country is an archipelago consisting of 13,667 islands covering 1,909,569 square kilometres. Although this represents only 1.3% of the earth’s land surface, Indonesia contains 10% of the world’s forests and almost 40% of all the forests in Asia. The country has 515 species (12% of the world total); 165 of these are endemic. It also accounts for 16% of the world’s total bird species, numbering 1,519 species, of which 258 are endemic; and 511 reptile species, representing 10% of the world’s total, of which 150 are endemic. Finally, 7% of the world’s amphibian species are located in Indonesia, numbering 270 species, all of which are endemic (Nash, 1993).

As a result of this abundant natural wealth, coupled with a developing economy and a growing population, Indonesia has become one of the world’s largest exporters of wild animal and plant specimens in the international market. It has long been involved in large-scale wildlife trade, particularly in primates, birds,swiftlet nests, reptiles, reptile skins, aquarium and corals. It also exports tropical timber and non-timber wild plant products, such as rattan and some wild- collected orchids (Broad, 1994).

Trade restrictions and species details The country joined CITES in 1978 and has been the subject of numerous reviews regarding its wildlife trade and the impact this has on native populations. Problems in CITES implementation in Indonesia were identified in the late 1980s, and reports on specifictaxa, such as primates, marine turtles, pythons, monitor lizards, , and parrots have been published. The majority of C2 species in trade from Indonesia are wild birds.

Problems which were identified in the implementation of CITES included: · Non-compliance with nationalexport quotas. · The lack of proper trade reviews by the Scientific Authority. · Weak legislation for the implementation of the Convention. · Non-compliance with primary and secondary recommendations of the CITES Animals Committee concerning significant trade in animal species included in Appendix II. · Trade in other species identified by the CITES Animals Committee as being subjected to significant levels of trade (non-priority species). · Trade in some specimens of other CITES listed species (Nash, 1993).

Indonesia also has a thriving domestic trade in wild animals, particularly birds, both domestic and imported, which is largely undocumented. Markets for birds are found in almost every city and town of Indonesia. According to a study conducted in the early 1990s, a minimum of 1.3 million wild caught non-CITES birds are sold in these domestic markets each year (Nash, 1994). In addition, primates, reptiles and a variety of other animals and animal parts are regularly on sale (Broad, 1994).

Indonesia is the largest exporter ofPsittacines in , especially cockatoos and lories, which are exported in large numbers. As with other wildlife, the trade inPsittacines is regulated via the quota system, which sets numerical limits to the number of specimens that can be caught in the wild and is adjusted each year. In 1989, a decision to ban the import 42 species of Psittacines was taken by the EU CITES Committee on the grounds of Article

14 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

10.1.b, because of concerns that declines in populations of certain species were occurring. However, these species continued to enter the EU, and the export quotas imposed by Indonesia’s Management Authority were judged to be too high and unjustified by scientific data.

On the 24 September 1991, the European Union decided not to accept any further C2 species being traded out of Indonesia, on the grounds that it had been impossible up to that point to establish a dialogue on how export quotas were determined. Both the CITES Animals Committee and the EU Scientific Working Group noted that the conditions laid out under Article IV of the Convention were not being complied with.

A total of 152 C2 species from Indonesia were subject to EU trade decisions during the period 1984-1996 (Annex 4, see Fig. 4, No.1-43). According to the data provided by CITES annual reports (compiled by WCMC-UNEP), only 66 of these (43%) were reported in trade internationally and specifically with EU countries. At the time of the EU decision in 1991 to ban all imports of Indonesian C2 species, imports of 33 species in trade werealready banned by prior EU decisions (see Table 2). These 33 species included 6 species of mammals, 23 species of birds, and 4 species of reptiles. Until the ban of 1991 was imposed, trade levels of the species for which bans were already implemented were not affected. According to CITES annual reports, for 16 bird species with prior import restrictions placed upon them, exports to the EU eventually dropped to zero between 1991 and 1994. ForCacatua alba and Eclectus roratus, two endemic parrots from theMoluccan Islands, trade levels never abated, despite the fact that EU bans remained inforce after 1991.

Table 2. Indonesia C2 species in trade for which the import of specimens into the EU was banned prior to 24/09/91 and continue to be banned Mammals Date of ban 1. Zaglossus bruijni 19/10/88 2. Macaca maura 05/05/88 3. Macaca nemestrina pagensis 05/05/88 4. Macaca nigra 05/05/88 5. Macaca ochreata 05/05/88 6. Macaca tonkeana 05/05/88 Birds Year Exports to EU Stopped 7. Aprosmictus erythropterus 23/01/87 1991 8. alba 06/05/87 never 9. Cacatua galerita 23/10/86 1994 10. Cacatua sanguinea 07/07/87 1994 11. Cacatua sulphurea 14/12/89 1994 12. Eclectus roratus 23/10/86 never 13. Eos cyanogenia 14/12/89 1992 14. Eos reticulata 07/07/87 1992 15. Loriculus flosculus 07/07/87 1992 16. Lorius domicella 07/07/87 1992 17. Lorius garrulus 16/03/88 1992 18. Lorius lory 07/07/87 1992 19. Psittaculirostris desmerastii 16/03/88 1992

15 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

20. Psittaculirostris edwardsii 16/03/88 1994 21. Psittaculirostris salvadorii 14/12/89 1991 22. Psitteuteles goldiei 14/12/89 1991 Reptiles 23. Indotestudo forstenii 16/03/88 never 24. Manouria emys 23/07/89 never 25. Varanus beccarii 14/12/89 26. Varanus karlschmidti 24/04/89

Discernable effects of EU import restrictions for Indonesian C2 species on world trade and on the conservation of the species Of the 66 Indonesia species documented to have been in trade (1984-1996), half of which were banned in the 1980s and the rest in 1991, 33 continued to be exported to the EU from Indonesia after 1991. The majority (22) are those species that were banned in 1991, although mostly at considerably reduced levels. Details are given in Table 3.

Table 3. Indonesian C2 species that were traded into the EU after the 1991 ban according to WCMC-UNEP data sets: “Gross Exports of C2 Mammals and Birds; Reptiles to EU”

Indonesia C2 species banned in 1991 by 1984-1991 1992-1995 Ratio: pre- the EU annual av. annual av. 91/post-91 1. Macaca fascicularis 1565 809 2 2. Alisterus amboinensis 421 29 15 3. Alisterus chloropterus 198 5 40 4. Chalcopsitta atra 160 13 12 5. Chalcopsitta duivenbodei 143 10 14 6. Charmosyna sintillata 131 5 26 7. Charmosyna papou 252 5 50 8. Eos bornea 1207 25 48 9. Eos 354 10 35 10. Geoffroyus geoffroyi 26 3 10 11. Pseudeus fuscata 337 15 22 12. Psittacula alexandrei 228 1.5 152 13. Tanygnathus megalorynchos 555 8 69 14. Varanus dumerilii 37 39 0.9 15. Varanus prasinus 46 2 23 16. Varanus rudicollis 51 20 2.5 17. Varanus salvator 123 59 2 18. Morelia amethistina 142 96 1.5 19. Morelia boeleni 14 15 0.9 20. Morelia spilota 0 9 0 21. Python curtus 159 77 2 22. Python reticulates 379 100 4

16 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Species banned before 1991: 23. Cacatua alba 67 68 1 24. Cacatua galerita 70 0.4 176 25. Cacatua sanguinea 52 2.5 21 26. Cacatua sulphurea 2428 20 121 27. Eclectus roratus 1.5 52 0.02 28. Psitteuteles goldiei 146 13 11 29. Trichoglossus haematodus 810 21 39 30. Indotestudo forstenii 63 6.3 10 31. Manouria emys 1 2.5 0.4 32. Varanus salvadorii 7 2 3.5 33. Crocodylus n. novaeguineae 2979 167 18

For the remaining 33 species, trade from Indonesia to the EU stopped altogether, but trade continued into the EU from other range states or from re-exporting countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines.

In 1995, the EU decided to lift the blanket ban on all C2 species in Indonesia. For 66 species found to be in trade, the EU accepted Indonesia’s export quotas for 21 species (one mammal species, 11 bird species, and 9 reptile species) (see Table 4). The remaining 47 species in trade were decided upon as follows:

· 24 species were no longer banned for import into the EU, nor were export quotas set or imposed by Indonesia (Table 5). · 18 species, whose import of specimens to the EU was banned prior to 1991, continued to be banned from import (Table 6). · 5 species not banned from import, for which there is a ban on exports (Table 7). (This also lists 10 species that are not found in trade for which there is a ban on exports).

Table 4. Indonesia species for which import of specimens into the EU is restricted (export quota accepted by EU). (*see Fig. 4, No.1-43, Annex IV).

Mammals See Fig. 4* 1. Presbytis cristatua Silvered Leaf monkey Birds 2. Alisterus chloropterus Papuan king parrot 3. Charmosyna placentis Red flanked lorikeet No. 11 4. Charmosyna pulchella Little red lorikeet No. 12 5. Cyclopsitta diophthalma Double eyed fig parrot No. 14 6. Geoffroyus geoffroyi Red cheeked parrot No. 18 7. Geoffroyus simplex Blue collared parrot 8. Loriculus galgulus Blue crowned hanging parrotNo. 19 9. Loriculus pusillus Yellow throated hanging parrot 10. Psittacula longicauda Long tailed parakeet 11. Trichoglossus haematodus Rainbow lorikeet Reptiles

17 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

12. Varanus dumerili Dumeril?s monitor No. 29 13. Varanus indicus Pacific monitor No. 30 14. Varanus rudicollis Rough necked monitor No. 32 15. Varanus salvadorii Papuan monitor No. 33 16. Varanus salvator Reticulated python No. 34 17. Morelia amethistina Rock python No. 36 18. Morelia spilota No. 38 19. Python curtus Short-tailed python No. 39 20. Python reticulatus Reticulated python No. 63

Table 5. Indonesia C2 species in trade for which the import of specimens into the EU is no longer banned (no 1995 export quotas were established, no export ban was imposed) Mammals 21. Macaca fascicularis 22. Macaca nemestrina Birds 1. Alisterus amboinensis 2. Asprosmictus jonquillaceus 3. Chalcopsitta atra 4. Chalcopsitta duivenbodei 5. Chalcopsitta sintillata 6. Charmosyna josefinae 7. Charmosyna multistriata 8. Charmosyna papou 9. Charmosyna rubronotata 10. Cyclospsitta guliemiterti 11. Eos bornea 12. Eos semilarvata 13. Loriculus pusillus 14. Loriculus stigmatus 15. Neopsittacus musschenbroekki 16. Neopsittacus pullicauda 17. Oreopsittacus arfaki 18. Pseudeos fuscata 19. Psittacula alexandri 20. Tanygrnatuhs megalorynchos 21. Trichoglossus flavoviridis Reptiles 1. Morelia boeleni

18 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Table 6. Indonesia C2 species in trade for which the import of specimens into the EU was banned prior to 24.09.91 and continue to be banned. Birds Year Exports to EU Stopped 1. Aprosmictus erythropterus 23/01/87 1991 2. Cacatua alba 06/05/87 never 3. Cacatua galerita 23/10/86 1994 4. Cacatua sanguinea 07/07/87 1994 5. Cacatua sulphurea 14/12/89 1994 6. Eclectus roratus 23/10/86 never 7. Eos cyanogenia 14/12/89 1992 8. Eos reticulata 07/07/87 1992 9. Loriculus flosculus 07/07/87 1992 10. Lorius domicella 07/07/87 1992 11. Lorius garrulus 16/03/88 1992 12. Lorius lory 07/07/87 1992 13. Psittaculirostris desmerastii 16/03/88 1992 14. Psittaculirostris edwardsii 16/03/88 1994 15. Psittaculirostris salvadorii 14/12/89 1991 16. Psitteuteles goldiei 14/12/89 1991

Reptiles 17. Indotestudo forstenii 16/03/88 never 18. Manouria emys 23/07/89 never

Table 7. Species not banned from import for which there is a ban on exports Species for which the import of specimens is no longer banned into the EU but for which, according to Indonesian law, the export of specimens is prohibited (protected species) *Graphs indicate that species are in trade Mammals Common name graph

Dendrolagus inustus Grizzled tree kangaroo Dendrolagus ursinus Black tree kangaroo Nycticebus coucang Slow lory Tarsius bancanus Western tarsia Presbytis frontata White fronted leaf monkey Presbytis rubicunda Maroon leaf monkey Presbytis thomasi Thomas ?s leaf monkey Felis bengalensis Leopard cat Birds Loriculus exilis Red billed hanging parrot Reptiles Varanus prasinus Emerald monitor Fig. 4, No. 31 Varanus timorensis Timor tree monitor Fig. 4, No. 35 Python molurus Burmese python Fig. 4, No. 40 Python timoriensis Timor python Fig. 4, No. 42 Species for which the import of specimens is not banned into the EU but for which, according to Indonesia law, there is a moratorium on the export of specimens Reptiles Common name Crocodylus n. novaeguineae Fig. 4 No. 43 Crocodylus porosus Estuarine crocodile = Crocodylus raninus

19 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

The effects of the European Union ban on Indonesian C2 species should be seen in the light of a series of subsequent actions and recommendations of the CITES Standing Committee, IUCN and TRAFFIC, aimed at helping to resolve some of Indonesia’s wildlife trade problems. In July 1993, a consultative meeting was held in Jakarta between the CITES Standing Committee, the Directorate General for Forest Protection and Conservation (PHPA), the Indonesia Management Authority, and the agency with direct responsibility for wildlife conservation and wildlife trade control. The discussions were based upon the review of wildlife trade in Indonesia, carried out by IUCN in December 1992 (Edwards and Jenkins, 1993), which made a series of recommendations. The Minister of Forestry adopted the results of that meeting in 1994 and a timetable was set for remedial action. A second review process, under the auspices of the CITES Standing Committee, was prompted by a September 1993 report on wildlife trade problems in Indonesia prepared by the CITES Secretariat Doc( 30.8). The report, drawing upon a review of CITES Article IV implementation, carried out by TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (Nash, 1993), documented a serious abuse of the country’s export quota system. The quotas, which should be designed to limit harvests to sustainable levels, had almost no demonstrable biological justification, and were therefore in conflict with the requirements of CITES Article IV. As a result, the CITES Standing Committee endorsed a series of recommendations for remedial action. Indonesia was asked to report on its progress by 1 January 1994. Further examination of the situation in March 1994 prompted additional requirements to be implemented by the end of that year. If satisfactory progress had not been made by February 1995, the CITES Secretariat was empowered to recommend to all CITES Parties that they cease all trade in CITES- listed wildlife specimens with Indonesia (Broad, 1994).

Summary of observed effects of trade bans and/or restrictions on Indonesian C2 species - On examination of the overall trends in trade of Indonesia C2 species one finds several trade patterns reflecting the impact of the 1991 EU ban, as well as general world trade shifts which occurred during the reporting period

Birds In general, world net trade in wild Indonesian bird species are higher than the levels of export to the EU, but almost invariably the pattern of trade (peaks and troughs) mirrors the EU trade levels during the years 1984-1991. Reported world net trade levels dropped considerably after 1991 according to two general patterns:

- Fifteen species of birds showed a drop in net world trade almost immediately after the ban was imposed, some dropping sharply to very low levels and others gradually declining through the subsequent years of 1992 and 1993 (e.g. Fig. 4, No. 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 26).

- Another 30 species of birds had high levels of world trade during the years 1992 to 1994, eventually dropping to low levels. This high level of trade possibly indicates that substantial numbers of wild birds from Indonesia were still ‘in stock’ or continued to be caught and traded, most probably from countries other than Indonesia and to destinations other than the EU, for a further three years after the ban, (e.g. Fig 4, No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25). - For the majority of Indonesia’s wild bird species in trade, levels dropped substantially in the years following the ban (1992-1995), demonstrating a clear response to the

20 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

restrictions, consultations, and recommendations made by the EU in combination with the CITES Standing Committee, IUCN and TRAFFIC. This drop is reflected both in European Union imports and in world net trade levels.

- Imports continued for bird species endemic to Indonesia after the EU 1991 import ban, suggesting that they were either illegally exported to other exporting nations (who then re-exported them) or they had already been exported to these countries before the ban.

- For many species trade levels continued at the same general levels, despite restrictions in the late 1980 (see Table 2), until the overall EU ban on all of Indonesia’s C2 species was imposed.

Reptiles Observed effects of trade restrictions for world trade in reptiles show an entirely different pattern. The ban seems to have had little impact on Indonesia exports of reptiles.

- In almost all cases, world trade continued at the same levels or increased in the years following the 1991 ban.

- For some species, previously low world net trade levels appeared to increase specifically after 1991 and continue to manifest the same trend through 1996 (Fig. 4, No. 27-43). This may suggest a deliberate switch from wild birds to reptiles, a trend that has already been noted to have occurred world wide as a result of a combination of factors restricting wild birds in trade (Hoover, 1998).

General comments In conclusion, there are at least four incidents that are in clear contravention to the EU bans as manifested in the trade statistics:

1. Species banned prior to the EU 1991 ban (import ban on all Indonesian C2 species) continued to be exported to the EU from Indonesia. 2. One half of the species (33 of 66 in trade) banned in 1991 continued to be exported to the EU from Indonesia, although most of them at reduced levels. 3. Reptile species continued to be exported to the EU. In most cases trade levels increased after the 1991 ban. 4. Species endemic to Indonesia continued to enter the EU after the ban, indicating that Indonesia exported these to other countries,who then re-exported them illegally to the EU (by not showing the true country of origin on export permits). Such cases show a failure of EU Member States importing authorities to recognise firstly that the particular species was being imported from a non-range state, and secondly, that it was endemic to Indonesia, whose species were prohibited from import.

21 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

4.3 Varanus exanthematicus and Varanus niloticus

General trade background Both the Savannah monitor Varanus exanthematicus, and the Nile monitor Varanus niloticus have been traded extensively for their skins.

The Savannah monitor is widespread in sub-Saharan Africa, where it is also used locally for food and leather goods. At the time of EU decision-making,Varanus exanthematicus was reported to be native to 37 African countries. Following taxonomic revision, the species is now regarded as occurring in 22 range states only. However, this discussion focuses on the distribution as it was known when EU decisions were made. The 37 range states include: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad,Cote d´Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

The annual mean trade for skins during the period 1980 to 1985 was estimated to be 88,138, ranging from 14,010 to 215,952 (Luxmoore & Groombridge et al, 1988). However, annual average levels of net world fell to 27,443 (total skins numbered 356,757) for the reporting period 1984 to 1996. Net world trade figures for the Savannah monitor show a steadily declining after the late 1980s, with two peak years, 1985 and 1988, of 144,351 and 76,431 skins respectively (see Fig 5, Annex 4) over the thirteen year period.

Most of the skins originate from Nigeria, while Mali, Sudan, and South Africa also show large numbers of exports in different years. Most Savannah monitors are found in Ghana, Kenya and Togo. No evidence exists that the species as a whole is threatened, but the scale of exploitation in addition to local utilisation and persecution is thought likely to lead to local depletions. It is not known whether skins from Nigeria are collected in that country or in other parts of western Africa.

The Nile monitor, Varanus niloticus occurs throughout sub-Saharan Africa with the exception of the arid southwest. It is reported to be found in the following 44 African range states: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d?Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Utilisation for food and skins is widespread; the latter poses a threat to local populations.

Also characterised by a substantial skin trade, the annual mean was 408,292 between 1980 and 1985 (Luxmoore & Groombridge, 1988). In contrast to the Savannah monitor, world trade in the Nile monitor remained high throughout the period under analysis, although since its peak of 991,958 skins in 1991, there has been a noticeable decline. World trade in Varanus niloticus totalled 6,962,762 over the thirteen-year period, with an annual average net trade of 535,597 (Fig. 5). Most of the skins in trade originate from Cameroon, Mali, Nigeria, and Sudan.

France was the dominant world importer ofV. niloticus until 1991, to be replaced by Egypt as the number one importer (see Table 8, which covers trade from 1985-1991). Skins are

22 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report imported to Italy, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland to supply the leather market for bags and shoes. Direct exports to the EU (over 100 specimens per year) were documented by only seven countries (Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Switzerland, Togo, and the US); five being range states.

Exporting and re-exporting countries to the EU, with significant trade (over 100 specimens per year), include several non-African, non-range states such as Argentina, Austria, Canada, Switzerland, Indonesia, Panama, and the US, and the following African countries: Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Senegal, Togo, and Zimbabwe.

Taking a closer look at the distribution of trade, it is worth noting the differences in the destination countries and the exporting countries for the Nile monitor and the Savannah monitor. A study written by Vivian deBuffrenil for the CITES Secretariat in 1993,Les Varans Africains (de Buffrenil 1993b), details the top importing and exporting countries. Information has been extracted and presented in Table 8 below. Between 1985 and 1991, one notes important differences between the trade patterns of these two species. The Nile monitor is exported steadily by three African countries- Cameroon, Mali, and Sudan, with the main importer being France, whose share of the import trade declined steadily during these years, to be replaced by Egypt as the number one importer of skins of the species. By contrast, the patterns of trade of the Savannah monitor shows a higher variety in exporting states, and also a larger percentage of live specimens destined mainly for the United States. The second most important importing country for the Savannah monitor during this period is Spain, primarily importing skins for the leather goods market. Five African states are shown to be the main exporting countries, Mali, Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria and Togo.

Table 8. Top exporters and importers of African monitor lizards, Varanus exanthematicus and Varanus niloticus skins for leather products from 1985- 1991 Year Savannah , Nile monitor lizard, Varanus exanthematicus Varanus niloticus IMPORTERS EXPORTERS IMPORTERS EXPORTERS 1985 USA 78.86% Ghana, Togo France 98.52% Mali, Cameroon, Sudan (98% live) (98% skins) 1986 France 53.84% Mali, Nigeria, France 85.93% Mali, Cameroon, Niger 30.17% Ghana, Togo Sudan USA 8.79% (99.5% skins) (88.4% skins) 1987 USA 93.44% Mali, Ghana, France 87.35% Mali, Cameroon, Togo Chad (64% live) (99.7% skins) 1988 USA 52.63% Togo, Ghana, France 82.59% Mali, Cameroon, Spain 36.19% Mali Sudan (63.2% live) (99.7% skins) 1989 Spain 53.73% Togo, Guinea, France 73.8% Mali, Sudan, USA 35.42% Mali, Ghana Cameroon (58% skins) (99.3% skins) 1990 USA 85.93% Togo, Ghana France 66.56% Sudan, (99.6% live) Egypt 16.61% Mali, Cameroon (99% skins) 1991 USA 56.19% Guinea, Togo, Egypt 39.3% Sudan, Mali, Spain 37.34% Ghana France 27.53% Chad, Cameroon

23 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

(63% live) (99% skins)

The report, Les Varans Africains (de Buffrenil 1993b), highlighted the massive exploitation of African varanids, and prompted further investigations by CITES and EU management authorities. Some of the main conclusions regarding international trade were:

· Skins traded represent 50% of actual capture, since only good-quality skins are selected for export. · Production capacity for Varanus niloticus from Chad was estimated at 80,000 skins, the maximum number recommended as an export quota. · For Mali, the study proposed an export quota of 180,000 skins per year based both on the level of trade of Varanus niloticus between 1985 and 1990, and the structure of the population · A certain proportion of skins exported from Cameroon, estimated at 25-33%, originated from Nigeria or Chad. · The potential production of Varanus niloticus in Cameroon was judged inferior to that of Chad, and on that basis, a quota of 70,000 skins per year was proposed. · Benin appeared to be making an insignificant contribution to trade and the authorities ceased authorising exports of skins of both species. Smuggling of live reptiles from Benin to Togo could be a potential problem if not adequately dealt with. · Nigeria appears to be an important producer ofVaranus skins, despite the legal prohibition on export. - Total production estimates for Varanus niloticus for the Sahelian and Sudano-tropical region of Africa were as follows: 1. Cameroon: 70,000 skins (+5,000?) 2. Chad: 80,000 skins (+10,000?) 3. Mali: 150,000 skins 4. Nigeria: 50-60,000 skins

Trade restrictions and range state details EU decisions on the two monitor lizards date back to December 1989, when the Scientific Working Group discussed a Study on the Distribution, Status, Trade and Protection of Monitors (), a working document drawn up by Dr. Schouten of the Netherlands in November 1989. On the basis of this report, a number of African states were “underlined” on the hypothesis that they had populations of the two monitor lizards that needed to be monitored in trade. Underlining meant that exports of the two monitor lizards from these countries should be subject to restrictions.

For Varanus exanthematicus, the following range states have been the subject to some form of recommendation or decision regarding importation of the species to the EUduring the period 1984-1996. The main exporters of this species are Nigeria, Mali, Togo, South Africa, and Sudan. Imports from Togo were restricted in respect of the national quota.

24 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

COUNTRY Year of EU decision or recommendation 1. ANGOLA 1995, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 2. BENIN 1989, 1995, 1996 import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) (for wild specimens) 3. BURKINA FASO 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 4. BURUNDI 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 5. DJIBOUTI 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 6. ERITREA 1996, SWG reviewed; imports allowed in accordance with art. 10.1.b 7. ETHIOPIA 1996, SWG reviewed; imports allowed in accordance with art. 10.1.b 8. KENYA 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 9. LIBERIA 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 10. MALAWI 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 11. NIGER 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 12. NIGERIA 1985, Check validity of permits with Secretariat 13. RWANDA 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 14.SWAZILAND 1989, population included with a ‘?’, as underlined. 15.TOGO 1988, 1995, import restricted (export quota set) 16. YEMEN 1988, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 17. ZAIRE Party since 1976: Comments: Ask confirmation by the Sec. For all export permits, (Not. 762)this sentence is not dated in the database.

For Varanus niloticus the states underlined in 1989 were Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho, Mauritania, Rwanda, Swaziland (SWG Minutes, December, 1989). Subsequent decisions are included in the table below. The main exporters are Cameroon, Chad, Mali, and Sudan. For Cameroon Mali, and Sudan, imports are restricted in respect of export quotas.

COUNTRY Year of EU decision or recommendation 1. BENIN 1996, import restricted (quota set) 2. BURKINA FASO 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 3. BURUNDI 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 4. CAMEROON 1995, import restricted (quota set) 5. CHAD 1989, 1991 import restriction removed 6. DJIBOUTI 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 7. EGYPT 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 8. EQUATORIAL GUINEA 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 9. LESOTHO 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 10.LIBERIA 1985, export of specimens &trophies prohibited since 10/04/85 11. MALI 1995, import restricted (quota set) 12. MAURITANIA 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 13. MOZAMBIQUE 1996, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 14. NIGERIA 1985, exports prohibited since 1985, check validity of permits with CITES Secretariat. 15. RWANDA 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 16. SUDAN 1995, import restricted (quota set) 17. SWAZILAND 1989, import ban (10.1.b 1st indent) 18. TANZANIA 1996, Export quota set, check validity of permits. 19. TOGO 1995, import restricted (quota set) 20.ZAIRE Ask confirmation of the Sec. for all export permits (Not. 762)

25 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

High trading volumes and the demand for monitor skins had led to the establishment of ranching and captive-breeding of lizards; harvesting them specifically to supply the leather goods markets in Europe and elsewhere. Vivian deBuffrenil undertook a survey mission on behalf of the CITES Secretariat to look specifically at ranching practices in the African states of Benin, Togo and Ghana. The objective of the mission was to establish the conditions under which the reptiles were bred, and to estimate their production capacity. On the basis of the study, Les Elevages de Reptiles du Benin, du Togo et du Ghana (de Buffrenil, 1993a), preliminary estimates were made to support export quotas, although a cautious 20% error margin was included in the report. In fact, Dr. deBuffrenil describes the estimates as tentative, since the breeders themselves provided the numbers proposed, and there was no opportunity to check on their validity. In the conclusions, it is stated that all the ranches visited were relying heavily on wild caught specimens to keep their breeding stock at the right level, or to augment it. This was causing a constant drain on the wild populations.

Several issues regarding the sustainability of ranched specimens were raised in Dr. de Buffrenil’s report:

· Origin of breeding stocks: there is a constant drain on wild populations for all the species maintained on ranches. The great majority of the animals produced were not visibly of F2 generation (CITES allows ranched specimens defined as originating from the second generation of bred animals, designated as F2 by biologists).

· Release of young “captive born” animals to nature: it was unclear how many were returned each year, or whether they were healthy and genetically compatible with the local population. There was obviously no control of the consequences of these releases (Netherlands Scientific Authority, 1996).

· Setting quotas: the report raised the subject of the questionable scientific basis on which export quotas were recommended.

The Nile monitor was also subject to a Significant Trade Review by the Animals Committee of CITES. The following export quota recommendations forVaranus niloticus were made as so- called “Primary Action”, to be effective by September 1993: The recommendations are detailed below.

Export quotas for V. niloticus as recommended by CITES Benin Suspend issuance of export permits pending status assessment Chad Impose annual export quota of 80,000 Cameroon Impose annual export quota of 70,000 Mali Impose annual export quota of 180,000 Mali Prohibit harvesting during nesting season (Oct/Nov) Sudan Impose annual export quota of 100,000; advise on (re-)exports in 90-93

In a November 1995 meeting, the Scientific Working Group recommended accepting the export quota of 180,000 skins of Varanus niloticus. As a result, the import restriction was removed. In de Buffrenil’s report, Les Varans Africains (1993b), the author states that the quota estimate of 180,000 for Mali was both preliminary and tentative, since the numbers proposed were largely based on the wishes of the exporters rather than on a scientifically based

26 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report estimate of the size of the population. In the absence of reliable estimates of population size, quotas are necessarily arbitrary. For example, the quota proposed for Mali (180,000 skins of Varanus niloticus per year) represents approximately 75% of the average annual exports of this species for the years 1985-1992. See Table 9 below for quota figures and Annex III for a summary of the quota system as applied in the EU.

Table 9. National export quotas and EU decisions and recommendations for Varanus niloticus and Varanus exanthematicus 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 Benin 11,300 8,000 18,800 Varanus niloticus EU rec.8000 import ban 11/03/97 19,500 EU rec. 9000 10,000 19,500 V. exanthematicus import ban 11/03/97 Chad 100,000 100,000 80,000 80,000 skins 80,000 80,000 Varanus niloticus skins skins skins Cameroon 70,000 skins annual capture quota since July, 1994 Varanus niloticus Mali 180,000 180,000 180,000 Varanus niloticus skins skins skins Mozambique 300 3000 10,000 V.exanthematicus skins/live V. albigularis import ban 17/04/96

Varanus niloticus 500 3000 10,000 import ban 17/04/96 skins/live Sudan 100,000 100,000 100,000 Varanus niloticus skins skins skins Tanzania 100 3000 3000 Varanus niloticus Togo 3000 3000 3000 V.exanthematicus (wild) import ban lifted since 06/07/95 4000 4000 8000 V.exanthematicus (ranched) import ban 11/03/97 3000 3000 3000

Varanus niloticus (wild) 4000 4000 7000

Varanus niloticus (ranched) import ban 11/03/97

Summary of EU trade restrictions and comments thereon EU policy on the two Varanus species from Africa during the years 1984-1996 can be summarised as follows:

27 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

· Very little scientific information was available for the species in the countries exporting skins to EU Member States. As a result, a number of bans or restrictions were placed on countries that did not engage in trade according toCITES annual report statistics compiled by WCMC-UNEP.

· Conversely, some states responsible for large volumes of trade to the EU were not monitored nor subject to any restrictions by the EU

· The export quotas appear to be set above the estimated production capacity of native populations; however, many questions remain on the level of harvesting of wildspecies, and the validity of ranching and/or captive-bred.

· Significant numbers ofVaranus skins enter the EU from non-range states. If these states are not reporting the country of origin, it may be difficult to effectively control trade through export quotas.

· Information only became available after 1993 as a result of the field surveys conducted by de Buffrenil. The conditions described in these reports were the basis for EU restrictions and export quotas set up in subsequent years

There is evidence that the tendency is to increasecaptive-breeding in order to supply the leather trade. If conducted properly, this would enhance the sustainability of the trade in the future. Technical know-how and funding would need to come from outside the African countries to support and further develop this practice.

Discernable effects of EU import restrictions for Varanids on world trade and on the conservation of the species The EU is an important market for the Nile monitor, representing approximately 75% of total world, yet main exporting countries: Mali, Cameroon, Togo and Sudan, were not subject to trade measures by the EU until 1995. For another large exporter to the EU, Guinea, the EU has taken no trade control measures.

For EU imports to have a discernable effect on world trade and on the conservation of the species, the EU would have to be a significant destination of the species concerned. From 1984-1996, France and Spain have been important importers of V. niloticus and V. exanthematicus, respectively, though these levels reduced during the period. In addition, trade restrictions would have to have been implemented for the main exporters of the species. However, import restrictions in the form of bans, were placed on species with limited trade to Europe in 1989. For those states exporting significant quantities, the EU restricted imports in respect of the national export quotas in 1995. For another country, Benin, the EU recommended a lower export quota.

As regards to the effects of EU import restrictions on the conservation of the species, the EU accepted national quotas for main exporting countries, though evidence was presented though the work of de Buffrenil in 1993, that national quotas were being unscientifically determined. In addition, de Buffrenil raised several issues over the sustainability of ranched specimens. 4.4 Cyclamen spp. from Turkey

28 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

General trade background Turkey has a rich and varied flora and approximately 9,000 species of plants, with around 3,000 being endemic. The geophyte species, and in particular the bulb flora, have been cultivated for a long time. The large-scale collection and export of a range of Turkish geophytes has been in operation for the past 30 years.

The trade in flowers has been flourishing in Europe for many years, with the main importing countries being the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany. In this case study, the trade in Cyclamen species is examined in more detail. Virtually the entire net world trade is accounted for by one importing country: the Netherlands, and one exporting country: Turkey. Turkey became a member of CITES as recently as 1996, but has nevertheless been subject to European Union import bans and other trade restrictions because of concerns for the over- exploitation of its wild bulb exports.

There are 17 species of Cyclamen, most originating from the Mediterranean. Some of these were traded as wild-collected specimens, although an increasingly large number are raised from seed under nursery conditions. Wild-collected plants, since they grow amongst rocks and tubers, are somewhat misshapen and are less likely to be uniform in size. The most popular species in trade include the following:

Cyclamen hederifolium is fairly widespread throughout southern Europe and Turkey. Some populations are declining as a result of destruction and the uprooting of tubers to supply the high demand in trade.

Cyclamen cilicium occurs in southern and western Turkey in the rocky ground of pinewoods. Some populations have declined in recent years, mainly through collection to supply the high demand in supermarkets and garden centres.

Cyclamen coum is a fairly hardy species that is useful to gardeners; it produces early flowers. Although not threatened as a species, some populations in Turkey, largely through the collection of tubers, are believed to be declining. Their occurrence in the wild is confined to the Pontus Mountains of northeast Turkey.

Whilst international trade has existed for hundreds of years, gardening has only become a major pastime in the United Kingdom and in other parts of Europe and North America in the last 40 years. The British horticultural trade involves some 55,000 species,a significant proportion of which are wild-collected. International trade in wild-collected bulbs exceeded 50 million specimens a year. This has had a severe effect on wild populations. The most significant volumes originate from Turkey, who in the 1980s exported 50 to60 million bulbs annually. At the height of the trade, inthe mid to late 1980s, some 71 million bulbs were exported from Turkey. The bulbs were collected from areas in the Taurus Mountains and near the Black Sea and exported to the Netherlands. In the Netherlands they were repackaged, labelled “Grown in Holland”, and re-exported.

As can be seen from Table 10, during the period 1984 to 1996, net world trade averaged nearly 20 million specimens for four species ofCyclamen: C. hederifolium, which accounted for nearly 73% of the trade, C. cilicium, C. coum, and C. purpurascens whose trade dwindled to zero in 1988. Details of the trade, for the three most heavily traded species are given in Figure 6.

29 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Table 10. Trade levels of Cyclamen species from Turkey, 1984-1996 Species Exports (Turkey) Imports (Netherlands) Net World Trade TOTAL Average TOTAL Average TOTAL Average C. hederifolium 14,349,276 1,103,791 14,613,626 1,124,125 14,714,477 1,131,906 C. cilicium 2,573,420 197,955 2,907,120 223,625 2,919,090 224,545 C. coum 1,619,170 124,552 1,742,170 134,013 1,799,259 138,405 C. purpurascens 58,465 758,550 58,350 62,616 760,050 814,002 TOTALS 19,301,916 1,484,763 20,021,466 1,540,113 20,247,128 1,557,471

Rises in exports of these species from 1960 onwards began to raise concern in Turkey and overseas over the status of some of these plants in the wild. This prompted a series of actions to monitor and restrict the trade by non-governmental bodies, trade organisations, and the governments of both Europe and Turkey.

Trade restrictions and species details (ordered chronologically and by responsible body)

CITES actions In 1973, in response to the growing concern over the quantity ofCyclamen bulbs appearing in trade and threats to the species in the wild,Cyclamen became the first to be protected under CITES; listed under Appendix II. The concern with regard to the exports ofgeophytes from Turkey was based on the lack of scientific data (the exact status of the species in the wild and possible effects of collection on the long-term survival of native populations). Furthermore, little or no data was available on the cultivation ofgeophytes in Turkey.

EU actions Enforcement was initially hampered owing to the fact that the main importer, the Netherlands, and the main exporter, Turkey, did not accede toCITES until 1984 and 1996, respectively. In 1985, in response to the need for improved export documentation from Turkey, the EEC temporarily banned all imports of Cyclamen from Turkey. The ban was later replaced by a yearly EEC import quota of one million wild-collected bulbs, which was exceeded in both 1986 and 1987. To justify this, Turkish exporters claimed that exports included cultivated stock, which were not subject to a quota. In 1988, a team of scientists went to Turkey to meet Turkish scientists, officials, and growers to establish lines of communication and to assess the overall situation. Their journey revealed that all of theCyclamen exported as cultivated specimens, were in fact, stocks transplanted from the wild.

During this trip, the first artificially propagatedCyclamen species in Turkey were seen. All of the 200,000 seedlings were of C. hederifolium. No other artificially propagated Cyclamen species were seen. Large stocks of wild-collected and transplantedCyclamen were observed, with numbers estimated to be over 2.5 million. The report of these scientists to the EC SWG and CITES Committee on 2 May 1988 included the following recommendations:

1. Artificially propagated Cyclamen species would not be available from Turkey until 1990. (Accepted by EC CITES Committee)

2. For Cyclamen species, import into the EC should be restricted to the following: Cyclamen hederifolium

30 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Cyclamen coum Cyclamen cilicium Cyclamen parviflorum ( Accepted by the EC CITES Committee)

3. The import quota for Cyclamen species for 1988 and 1989 should match the Turkish export quota, up to a maximum of 1,500,000 per year. (Accepted by EC CITES Committee)

4. From 1990 onwards, the EC import quota should be progressively reduced to encourage further artificial propagation. Suggested figures were given.

The EC SWG accepted all four recommendations, but the EC CITES committee accepted only the first three recommendations. However, it was agreed that artificially propagatedCyclamen should not be subject to export quotas. It was also agreed to carry out a second investigation in 1992.

National legislation in Turkey Turkey´s response to international concern on the levels of trade was very positive; legislation was put in place, and reviews were conducted by scientific committees, aimed at phasing out the unsustainable collection of bulbs from the wild. There were no controls for the export of Cyclamen bulbs before 1989. Since then, and long before Turkey joined CITES in 1996, a very strict and well-prepared statute has been implemented.

National legislation in Turkey to protect native Cyclamen species was enacted in 1983; however, at this time the legislation did not include controls on the export of bulbs. These regulations include the assessment of plant populations, the setting ofcollection quotas, and yearly field surveys. The trade in bulbs has been controlled by a Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs regulation since 1989, there being three lists: bulbs for which export is permitted for propagation, bulbs exported under a quota system, and bulbs prohibited from trade. Each year, a committee composed of scientists and government staff updates the lists using information gathered from on the spot appraisals.

In particular, Turkish Regulations outline the mechanisms, based on a point system, by which quotas are divided amongst the traders. Exporters gain points according to the quality of housing facilities, the standard of production equipment, the number of personnel, marketing, and membership of any trade or professional organisations. The Technical Committee, based on the recommendations of the Advisory Council, which are as follows, fixes quotas each year:

Local control mechanism for collection from the wild: Following the fixing of annual quotas, the Provincial Directorates of the Ministry supply the export firms in their region with certificates outlining the numbers and details of bulbs that can be collected from the wild. The calendar for harvesting is determined by the Ministry of Agriculture and is supervised by the Forestry Department. The latter supplies the certificates of origin for wild species. According to Turkish regulations, the collection of geophytes is strictly prohibited within the National Parks and other protected areas.

Local control on cultivation:

31 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Companies apply to the Provincial Directorates once the Technical Committee has approved cultivation areas. The Provincial Directorate of the Agriculture Ministry, who then supply a harvesting certificate, supervises harvesting.

Permission to export: Exporters apply to the Minister of Agriculture for an export certificate, supplying, in the application, both a certificate of origin and a harvesting certificate.

NGO action In 1991, the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (now re-named Flora and Fauna International, (FFI)) undertook its first field project in Turkey, with the co-operation of existing trade organisations in Turkey and in the Netherlands. The aim of the project was to promote the transition from wild-collection to artificial propagation on a local basis. The project revealed that a large percentage of the total volume of wild bulbs in trade was passing through the major bulb houses of the Netherlands. Trade in Europe had expanded to such large proportions that thousands of people were involved. Suspicions were confirmed by the quality of the wild bulbs sold to the public for which failure rates of 30-50% were not uncommon. Deceptive labelling -“Grown in Holland” appeared on packages of wild-collected bulbs.

National legislation in the Netherlands By end of July, 1992, a statutory agreement with the Dutch Bulb Exporters Association determined that all wild-collected bulbs leaving Holland would be labelled: “Bulbs from a wild source”, while others would be labelled “Bulbs grown from cultivated stock”(conforming to CITES definition of artificial propagation). According to this definition, parental stock must be established and maintained in a manner not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild, and managed in such a way that the long-termsurvival of the parent stock is guaranteed. In other words, the propagation must be closed, i.e., demonstrably requiring no replenishment from the wild.

EU action In 1992, a second EU mission to Turkey was undertaken to assess the bulb situation and to identify problems in the implementation of national regulations. The onlyCyclamen production that could be said to meet the requirements of artificial propagation, as defined by CITES Resolution Conf. 8.17, was material found at sites inIzmir and Bornova under the control of a grower named Yasemin. Here, approximately four million seeds had been sown in separate areas of cultivation in polythene houses. The source of the seed was from wild-collected and wild trans-planted stocks. About 80% of the plants were C. hederifolium; the remainder was C. hederifolium and C. persicum. Tubers of the latter were being grown from seed supplied by RBG Kew and the Cyclamen Society in the United Kingdom. The tubers were expected to be at a size suitable for export in 2 to 3 years, i.e.,1994-1995. Yasemin had 200,000 seedlings of propagated Cyclamen in 1988, but their fate is unknown. In addition,Bilgin (Trabzon) was reported to have 10 kg of Cyclamen coum seed.

As for wild-transplanted stocks, all the major traders had stocks of wild-collectedCyclamen . The stocks varied, depending on the numbers exported the previous year and the use of wild- transplanted stocks for propagation. Details of stocks based on information supplied by the traders and/or field estimates by the group are summarised in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Status of Cyclamen production in Turkey

32 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Species Firm Cultivation Site Area Estimated number Cyclamen coum Bilgin Trabzon 123 Ha 84,980 Sumene 1,136 kg Cyclamen Tezel Manisa, Turgutlu O.1 Ha 25,000 hederifolium Izmir, Urla 0.2 Ha 120,000 Cyclamen Tezel Antalya 0.1 Ha 12,000 cilicium Alanya Cyclamen (mixed Veliagagil Kocaeli, 5.3 kg. species) Karamursel Cyclamen Yasemin Balikesir 432 sq. m 2,300,000 hederifolium 100 sq m. 100,000 1,100 sq. m. 4,000,000 NB. Yasemin?s plants originate from seeds of wild and wild-transplanted stocks. All the others are wild transplants

Established Turkish export quotas are assessed by the EU CITES Committee based on inputs, in the main, from representatives of Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and

EU Export quotas for Turkish Cyclamen spp. 1985 1986 1987 Cyclamen spp. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

1988 1989 1990 C. hederifolium} C. cilicium }> 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 C . coum }

1991 1992 1993 C. hederifolium 1,500,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 (1,651000) C. cilicium 350,000 350,000 350,000 C. coum 150,000 150,000 150,000 (230,500) 1994 1995 1996 C. hederifolium 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 (1,496750) C . cilicium 350,000 350,000 100,000 C. coum 150,000 150,000 150,000

Numbers in parentheses show actual exports to the EU from Turkey which exceeded the designated export quotas. (Source: TRAFFIC Europe, 1998) Turkey. The EU CITES Committee can decide to accept the quota and allow the equivalent imports, reject them, or revise them lower. In general, the tendency has been to accept fewer wild specimens and to encourage the import of cultivated species, which would not be available in sufficient quantities until after the mid-1990s. EU export quotas (the number therefore permitted as imports) have been set as follows. The quotas were exceeded in only three instances during the twelve-year period, as one can see from the table above.

33 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

National legislation in Turkey Since 1992, Turkish legislation prohibits the collection ofCyclamen from the area of Isparta, Mugla, but allows C. coum, C. cilicium and C. hederifolium to be collected there in accordance with established quotas. Collection ofCyclamen mirabile is prohibited in Turkey.

In 1993, collection for export was prohibited for allCyclamen species, with the exception of C. cilicium, C. coum, and C. hederifolium. Ministry supervision and quotas control the cultivation and collection of these species. A list of species and quotas is published annually in the official journal of the Government.

Artificial propagation produces a high quality bulb, or tuber, for the international market - a horticultural product. Wild-collected material does not make a good quality product due to malformations and size variability. A management decision was therefore made for the long- term transfer to artificial propagation. Since certain groups of Turkishgeophytes are more suitable for sustainable use, a long-term plan was prepared outlining:

- Those that could be exported from the wild; - Those that could be exported from cultivated fields; - Those which are truly propagated; - Quotas for the wild and wild-transplanted material (where necessary, a planned reduction of quotas for wild-collected species was also to be established. Afive year plan would enable stabilisation of the cultivation and propagation process, which is the key to the long- term conservation of Turkishgeophytes).

An umbrella association has been formed in Turkey to reduce or eliminate the competition between exporting companies. The Association of Growers and Exporters of Botanical Flower-Bulbs was established in 1989, when it began to monitor and discipline its operations. It was however, not initially successful in controlling the collection of bulbs from the wild. After two years, the Association decided to ban independent collections of flowers in the wild and to establish one main storage area inSerik (in the Taurus mountains). During the 1992 season, all collected material was brought to the central store and after basic treatment, such as cleaning and drying; the bulbs were sent to the exporting companies. Thus, all interested parties are informed of the number of bulbs collected from both wild and cultivated areas. It is important to be able to determine the origin of the various collections; in the past there was no opportunity. In addition, this method of control results in more uniform material being sent out to the exporting companies, thus discouraging the competition between firms to try and secure better bulbs.

A management and scientific structure is now in place to license andadvise on the export of these species. It is essential that such management be based on sound scientific advice, and that the national management and scientific structure continues to develop. The long-term conservation of Cyclamen is dependent on the management of the wild, cultivated, and artificially propagated plants. Wild and propagated material must be identified, as must their sources. Labelling of Dutch exports and re-exports is also proving successful and should be applied to all geophyte exports.

The Association benefits the exporters; enabling inputs to the committees, more beneficial export quotas, and access to advice from a scientific advisory committee. The Association has

34 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report also set up a foundation to fund scientific work: two projects have been funded to date. One is a co-operative project with Dutch traders; the other concerns the restoration and conservation of natural populations. The fund also provides for the production of educational literature for distribution to villagers.

Summary of actions taken and their effects on trade In conclusion, the trade inCyclamen spp. from one major exporting country (Turkey) to one major importing European country (the Netherlands) illustrates a number of successful actions which promoted the regulation of trade in wild species towards a sustainable basis.

· In 1985, following the alert on over-exploitation of wild species, the EU imposed an overall temporary ban on imports until further scientific information became available. An import quota of one million wild-collectedCyclamen bulbs later replaced the ban.

· In 1988 and 1992, the EU dispatched scientific missions to Turkey. These missions were complemented by efforts to control the trade on the part of non-governmental organisations and trade associations.

· By the end of 1992, all wild-collected bulbs leaving the Netherlands were to be labelled as either coming from the wild or grown from cultivated stock.

· Imports (by the Netherlands) were also controlled to determine if the labels correctly referred to material, i.e., wild or cultivated.

· Through regulations introduced in 1983 and 1989, Turkey made serious efforts to set up a regulatory mechanism for the collection, transplantation and cultivation of the species, in order to encourage sustainable use.

· Partnerships between non-governmental organisations, such as Flora and Fauna International (FFI), TRAFFIC and WWF, professional trade associations (in the Netherlands and in Turkey), and government agencies, ensured the transition from unregulated trade towards the sustainable harvesting and the evolution to artificial propagation.

35 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

4.5 Boa constrictor

General trade background Boa constrictor originates in central Mexico, and Central and South America, as far as south as Argentina. It lives mainly in treetops, descending to the ground only to forage, inhabiting rain forests, watercourses and coastal areas, as well assemi-arid regions. The genus consists of at least nine subspecies, the most common in trade beingBoa constrictor constrictor and Boa constrictor imperator. Another subspecies, Boa constrictor occidentalis, is listed in CITES Appendix I and is not permitted in trade for commercial purposes.

The skin trade was significant in the early 1980s and accounted for the main drain on the population in the wild. The most important importing countries were the US, and Mexico, and European countries such as Italy, Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom. In 1985 for example, 13,000 skins were imported into France and Italy. Since the decline in the skin trade, the most important market forBoa constrictor is the pet market.

The United States is by far the largest importer of liveBoa constrictor, with imports increasing since 1991. In the US there is a significant amount ofcaptive-breeding, and it is therefore possible that a significant proportion of US exports/re-exports represent captive-bred animals. However, this proportion is difficult to determine as it is more difficult to acquire a permit for direct exports of captive-bred animals than it is to acquire re-export certificates (Craig Hoover, pers. comm., 1998).

Net world trade in live Boas peaked in 1993 with over 50,000 specimens. European Union imports have been steadily increasing since 1991, when imports fell to a level of 535 live specimens (see Fig. 7, Annex 4). The major European importing countries forBoa constrictor (1984-1966) are Germany, Italy and France, with Germany dominating the import trade. Gross European imports (1984-1996) represent just 10% of world imports.

Trade Levels of Live Boa constrictor 1984-1996 Totals Average over 13 US trade total to year period Europe Gross Imports to EU 26,186 2,014 Gross Exports to EU 27,576 2,121 6,412 Net World Trade 273,958 21,074

In 1996, exports of boas from the US to the EU represented 40% of all US exports, compared to an average of 23% from the period 1984-1996. This is consistent with a recent report documenting the role of the US as a significant and growing supplier of live reptiles to the world pet market. Other countries with considerable trade ofBoa constrictor to the EU include Guatemala and the Czech Republic, the latter showing increases in the 1990s, with 979 specimens re-exported to the EU in 1996. During the years 1991-1995, the USimported 137,851 live Boa constrictor, representing 85.5% of net world trade (161,190). Export and re- export of the Boa constrictor by the US totalled 8,320 specimens during the years 1983-1995 (Hoover, 1998). The US is clearly therefore a net importer of liveBoa constrictor, despite the fact that the second largest importer, Europe, imported 40% of live boas from the US in 1996, a percentage that has been steadily climbing since 1991.

Contribution of US Trade of Boa constrictor into the EU

36 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Years 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 US 249 334 216 37 118 21 27 93 487 580 1367 1418 exports to EU* US total 530 654 432 182 247 72 184 517 1127 1339 1263 1709 exports & re- exports Total 2518 3321 1159 953 1294 1765 834 534 1865 2896 2401 2525 exports to EU* Sources: Data from WCMC-UNEP (*) and the US Fish & Wildlife Service, reported by Hoover, 1998

Trade restrictions and range state details Of the range states, eleven South and Central American countries have exportedBoa constrictor to the EU: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Suriname, El Salvador, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. Another fourteen states are re- exporters of the species into the EU: Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, former east Germany, South Africa, Hungary, Israel, Norway, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and the US.

The EU has imposed import restrictions on the following eight range states:

1. Bolivia import ban imposed and later removed in 1985. 2. Colombia import ban in 1995, replaced by restrictions is respect of national export quotas of 30,000 for 1995 and 1996. 3. El Salvador import ban in 1986, removed in 1987 and re-imposed in 1988. 4. Guyana import ban imposed in 1986, replaced by restrictions in respect of the national export quota for live specimens and skins in 1987. 5. Honduras import ban in 1988. 6. Nicaragua import restrictions in respect of national export quota in 1997. 7. Peru import ban in 1988. 8. Suriname import restrictions in respect of national export quota in 1990; ban in 1997.

Discernable effects of EU import restrictions for Boa constrictor on world trade and on the conservation of the species The effects of the EU import restriction should be seen in the following light:

EU imports represent only one-tenth of the overall imports of liveBoa constrictor. The impact of import restrictions on 8 states would therefore not likely have a significant impact on world trade. The US is by far the largest importer of liveBoa constrictor, importing increasing numbers since 1991, and accounting for 85.5% of world imports (1991-1995).

In 1996, EU imports of Boas from the US represented 40% of all US exports, compared to an average of 23% from the period 1984-1996. This percentage has been steadily increasing since 1991. There is a significant amount of captive-breeding in the US, so it is possible that a significant number of US exports/re-exports are captive-bred animals. However, since US imports have also been increasing from 1991 onwards, the actual number of live boas imported

37 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report by the EU (from the US) that might originally have come from range states is difficult to determine.

When considering the rise in EU imports, one should note that out of the range states for which import bans were implemented, for 4 states the restrictions were removed in respect of national export quotas (Colombia (1996), Guyana (1987), and Suriname (1990). Bans remained in place for (El Salvador (1986), Honduras (1988), and Peru (1988).

Whilst there were no discernable impacts on world trade, the import restrictions should have affected EU imports:

- EU restrictions placed in the form of bans or export quotas have been honoured for the most part, and trade levels are being maintained at relatively low numbers. EU import restrictions were only violated in three cases:

- Honduras - 771 specimens to the EU after the 1988 import ban, - El Salvador- 300 and 192 specimens to the EU in 1993 and 1994 respectively, despite the 1988 EU import ban, - Nicaragua exported 474 and 1,693 specimens in 1995 and 1996 respectively although a zero export quota was designated for these years.

These cases do not take into account exports of specimens to other countries, which then re- exported them to the EU. While there exists a mechanism to check country of origin on the import certificates, these may not always be harmonised with exporting restrictions. In other words, re-exporting countries may be exceeding the designated export quotas when the total number is added together.

Table 12: Effects of EU policies on trade levels (gross exports to EU) of live Boa constrictors 1984-1996 from Range states Country EU policy Trade levels Trade levels Export quota before ban after ban Bolivia Import ban 1985, zero trade zero trade lifted in same year Colombia Import ban 1995, 1984-1995: 196 1996: 30 1995: 30,000 export quota for 95, annual average 1996: 30,000 96 El Salvador Import ban 1986 zero trade until 1989-1996: 62 Removed 1987 1993 annual average Import ban 1988 Guyana Import ban 1986 1984-1986: 155 1987-1996: 76 1987/88: 600 Quota 1987 annual average annual average 1989: 600 1990: 600 1991:1000 1992: 1000 95/96: 400 Honduras Import ban 1988 1984-1988: 240 1989-1996: 96 annual average annual average Nicaragua Quota 1997 zero levels until No data for 1997 1995: 0 wild taken 1992 sp. 1996: 0 wild taken sp.

38 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Peru Import ban 1988 zero trade zero trade Suriname Quota 1990 1984-1990: 37 1991-1996: 172 1991: 562 Import ban 1997 annual average annual average 1992: 562 1993: 804 1994: 1010 1995: 1010 1996: 1010

General comments

- The trade in live Boa constrictor is increasing in the EU, though this represents only one- tenth of the overall trade for this species.

- Of the range states, Nicaragua and Suriname have reported increased exports during the 1990s, exceeding the export quotas during 1995 and 1996.

- The other increases have been observed in the re-exporting of live reptiles from non-range states.

- In recent years, exports from the Czech Republic appear to be increasing rapidly, as are those from the US.

- EU restrictions placed in the form of bans or export quotas have been honoured for the most part, and trade levels are being maintained at relatively low numbers.

39 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

5. Discussion As a result of this review of EU decisions for five case studies, which includes trade overviews (1984-1996), the impact of the C2 system on international trade with target species can be briefly summarised. In most cases, trade levels diminished or stopped completely after the bans were imposed, and only recovered after exporting states begun dialogs, with the EU and other bodies such as IUCN and the CITES Secretariat, to institute control mechanisms for the regulation of harvesting and/or capture and exports.

The five case studies examined can illuminate the extent to which the C2 system achieved its stated objectives, and whether these objectives were valid. It is evident that a great deal of progress was made towards obtaining the objective of sustainable wildlife trade. When decisions were backed up by an in situ assessment of the conditions in the range state, these were more effective in modifying illegal or arbitrary trade levels, and were successful in reducing poor conditions for capture and shipment for the species concerned. The ultimate success of modifications made to harvesting and trade is tied to follow up assistance provided in the form of scientific and technical information and expertise, as well as with the willingness of the importing state to incorporate monitoring and regulatory mechanisms in their handling of wildlife trade.

The successful example of Turkey, with respect to the harvesting of wildgeophytes, and the eventual establishment of cultivated varieties to supply international markets, demonstrates that even without accession to CITES, the political willingness of a government can produce the desired results.

The review of the C2 system also highlighted certain factors and circumstances that determine the failure or success of unilateral EU trade measures. The lack of current scientific data and the inability to monitor the conditions of capture and export in the range states, led to decisions which may not have targeted the actual? bad actors? and may have unjustifiably limited the trade in countries whose wildlife commerce was not being conducted in an unsustainable manner. The impact, if any, on states for which trade was banned but which did not actually export any wildlife, is not known. In many cases, it is clearly beyond the capacity for several range states to institute legal and regulatory controls for the harvesting and export of wildlife. The example in Turkey, which was substantially assisted by non-governmental organisations in partnership with government and trade associations, could be a model for other trade situations that clearly lack control.

Monitoring of trade from re-exporting countries, such as Senegal and South Africa in the case of the African Grey parrot, or the US in the case of theBoa constrictor, has proven difficult. Often the trade restrictions imposed by the EU led to the trade switching to other destination countries, and the “laundering” of specimens through intermediate countries to reach the same EU market.

Finally, some lessons can be learned from past experiences that are relevant to the new EU regulations:

· There is a need for in situ studies to effectively evaluate a situation before placing any regulations on trade.

40 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

· There is a need for capacity building and institutional development in the countries of origin in order to establish the preconditions for sustainable wildlife management.

· Total country bans may be easier to enforce than one-species, one-country combinations, provided they are temporary and are backed up by monitoring studies.

· Extensive consultation with as many partners as possible is beneficial. These should be conducted first and foremost with the governments of the exporting countries, as well as with trade associations and non-governmental bodies such as Flora and Fauna International and TRAFFIC. These partnerships can also assist in the implementation of improved monitoring and control systems, both in the exporting state and in the EU.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations This review, Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union, has been conducted for a number of case studies for species characterised by high volumes of world trade, with one example of trade being dominated by a single exporting country and a single importing country. The capability to impose stricter regulations on the part of the EU, as a single economic entity, has proven effective in improving the management of trade for certain species. The best examples of such improvement are those wherein situ field studies preceded the measures that were taken. These field studies provided a sound scientific basis for subsequent decisions. This scientific basis, when supplemented with extensive consultation with the management authorities in the exporting country, along with follow-up missions, has proven beneficial. Knowledge of the situation in the destination countries can also lead to improvements in import regulations.

One of the key problems with trade policies is the lack of monitoring of the effects of trade bans. There is a need to develop adaptive management strategies for cases where trade bans have caused a shift in the trade routes of species to other destinations, or shifts in trade to other species which may prove problematic. Needless to say, the sheer volume of species in trade and the multiplicity of range states make it difficult to accurately determine the conservation status of a species, or the way in which international trade may endanger that status. The Significant Trade Review is one mechanism that can alert regulators to particular cases that need special scrutiny.

Some recommendations that follow from this review of the impacts of EU policy on wildlife trade are listed below:

· Decisions are most successful when based on sound, scientifically conducted field studies of the species in trade in the range states. More reports on the effects of captive-breeding or cultivation programmes on wild populations are needed. Resources must be committed by the European Union to undertake such field studies at regular intervals.

· Once priorities for species under special review are decided upon in consultation with CITES, the list could be disseminated to universities, research centres, organisations that fund research, conservation organisations and development aid agencies, in order to mobilise resources and pool information.

· A survey of the role played by new wildlife trade markets in central and eastern European countries should be undertaken. These new markets are apparently playing an increasingly important role.

41 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

· The effect of trade measures should be monitored on both sides of the trade equation: the exporters and the importers.

· Professional trade associations should be enlisted to assist in the monitoring of trade and to establish self-regulatory mechanisms in their industry.

· Extensive consultation should take place with the management authority of the exporting country, in collaboration with the CITES Secretariat, IUCN, scientists, professional trade associations, and non-governmental organisations before, during, and after the imposition of trade restrictions.

· In some cases it may be wise to identify species (at the time of deliberations to restrict trade in a given species) that are likely to become candidates for an increased demand in trade as a result of a decision to restrict trade in one or more similar species or populations. For species identified (where the EU is a major importer) quotas could be discussed, for example, to lessen the impact. This would be a proactive approach to reducing conservation problems caused by trade shifts in species or populations, and would be preferable to acting after the fact. To demonstrate this, the following extract from the case study ofPsittacus erithacus is included:

- After the export bans in Ghana (1987), the Central African Republic (1987), Guinea (1989), and Liberia (1990), exports from these countries were minimal (in some cases trade continued into the following year). However, exports from DRC (formerly Zaire) and the Ivory Coast, which had been minimal prior to 1991, and Sierra Leone, for which no exports were reported prior to 1990, showed sudden increases.EU import bans for countries to which the trade inPsittacus erithacus had shifted were implemented in 1990 (Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone) and 1993 (DRC). In 1991, an export quota for the species was set for Sierra Leone, thus imports to the EU were restricted. However, in the same year the EU re-instated the import ban.

- A set of criteria for the identification of species at risk from the shifting of trade, thus an increase that could possibly threaten the species, should be developed. At the EU level, the criteria should include species where the EU is a major importer and where, in the range state, no form of ban, restriction or quota is in place.

- Similarly, the risk of trade shifting and thus threatening other species exists where no EU import restrictions are in place for species banned or restricted in trade by the range states. Where the EU was previously a major importer, increases in EU imports of the species from other range states should be monitored; in particular, close attention should be paid to the monitoring of species not restricted by any means in trade.

· The capacity and know-how to effectively manage trade in wild species is often lacking in exporting countries. The EU must provide technical, legal and managerial assistance. Obviously, the additional skills and knowledge imparted would need to be implemented in order to improve wildlife management and trade controls in these countries.

42 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

References

Association of Botanical Flowerbulbs, (1998). The Turkish Flower Bulbs Evaluation System.? Report sent to Bruno Julien of the EU CITES Committee, D.G. XI Yalova , Turkey.

Broad, S. (1990). Trade in Psittacines. Paper presented at the Symposium on Trade in Wild Birds, Twentieth World Conference of the International Council for Bird Preservation, Hamilton,New Zealand.

Byfield , A. (date unknown). “Where have all the FlowersGone ”. In Cornucopia, pp. 82-105.

Dandliker , G. (1993). The Grey Parrot in Ghana, CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. de Buffrenil, V. (1993a). Les Elevages de Reptiles du Benin, du Togo et du Ghana. de Buffrenil, V. (1993b). Les Varans Africains (Varanus niloticus et Varanus exanthematicus). Donnees de synthese du biologie et leur exploitation, CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland

Edwards, S. R., and Jenkins, W. G. (1993). Wildlife trade in Indonesia: a background brief. IUCN Sustainable Use of Wildlife Programme and the CITES Animals Committee.

Fotso , R. C. (1996a) Status Survey Distribution and Utilisation of the African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus) in Cameroon. CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.

Fotso , R. C. (1996b). Examen du Statut, Etude de la Distribution et de l?Utilisation du Perroquet Gris (Psittacus erithacus) au Zaire. CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.

Hoover, C. (1998). The U.S. Role in the International Live Reptile Trade: Amazon Tree Boas to Zululand Dwarf Chameleons. TRAFFIC North America, Washington, D.C.

Indigenous Propagation Project (IPP).( no date). Sponsored by WWF International Dutch/Turkish co-operative project on the propagation of indigenous bulbs in Turkey.

Inskipp , T. P. (1979). “The Extent of World Trade and the Mortality Involved”, in,Thirteenth Bulletin of the International Council for Bird Preservation. Barclay-Smith, P. and Chancellor R. D. Eds( ). International Council for Bird Preservation, London. Inskipp , T. P. (1990). Overview of the numbers and value of birds in trade. Paper presented at the Symposium on Trade in Wild Birds, Twentieth World Conference of the International Council for Bird Preservation, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Karakurum , E. (1998). Correspondence with BrunoJulien of the European Commission, Ministry of Environment, General Directorate of Environmental Protection, Republic of Turkey, Ankara, Turkey.

Jenkins, M. and Broad, S. (1994).International Trade in Reptile Skins: A Review and Analysis of the Main Consumer Markets, 1983-1991, TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK..

Lambert, F. R. (1993). The status and trade in North Moluccan Parrots with particular emphasis on Cacatua alba, Lorius garrulus, and Eos squamata. IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.

Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B., and Broad, S. (eds) (1988). Significant Trade in Wildlife: A Review of Selected Species in CITES App. II. Vol 2. Reptiles and Invertebrates. IUCN, Cambridge, UK.

Marshall, N.T. (1993). The Gardener?s Guide to Plant Conservation. WWF and The Garden Club of America, Washington, D.C.

Matthew, B. (ed.) (1994). CITES Guide to Plants in Trade. CITES and the Department of Environment, Geneva, Switzerland.

43 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

McGough , H. N, et al. (1993). The Conservation and Cultivation of Geophytes in Turkey. A report of the Second European Community Fact Finding Mission to Turkey.

Mulliken , T. A. (1994). Response to questions posed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, regarding the international trade in wild birds, TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.

Mulliken , T. A. (1995). South Africa?s Trade in African Grey Parrots, TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa.

Nash, S. V. (1993). Problems with Implementation of Article IV in Southeast Asia. Review No. 1: Indonesia, TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.

Nash, S. V. (1994a). Sold for a song. The trade in Southeast Asian non-CITES birds. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.

Nash, S. V. (1994b). Making CITES Work, TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.

Netherlands Scientific Authority (1996). Correspondence with V. deBuffrenil, 12 February 1996.

Read, M. I., (1989). Propagation not Collection. Fauna and Flora Preservation Society, London, UK.

Schouten, C. Working documents provided to the EU CITES committee, on theBoa constrictor and the Varanids, V. exanthematicus and V. niloticus.

Thomsen , J. B., Edwards, S. R., andMullikan , T.A. Eds. (1991). Perceptions, Conservation and Management of Wild Birds in Trade. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.

TRAFFIC Europe C2 Database and unpublished files.

WCMC-UNEP. CITES trade statistics derived from the WCMCCITES Trade Database, 1984-1998. The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.

44 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

ANNEXES

Annex I Description of the Significant Trade Process

Annex II Article 10.1(b) Text

Annex III The Quota System

Annex IV Figure 1 EU Decisions on C2 Species Figure 2 Exports of P. erithacus for range and non-range countries Figure 3 World Net Trade: Psittacus erithacus and Psittacus erithacus timneh Figure 4 Indonesian Species (No.1-43) Figure 5 Varanus exanthematicus and Varanus niloticus skins in trade Figure 6 Cyclamen species in trade Figure 7 Boa constrictor in trade

45 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

46 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Annex I

Description of the Significant Trade Process

Concern that trade was occurring which might detrimental to wild populations led CITES Parties in 1983 to call for a review of trade in Appendix II species to identify those which were likely to be adversely affected by levels of international trade. This led to a review of trade in all Appendix II-listed animal species in 1984. The results of the original Significant Trade Review, based on an analysis of reported trade during 1980-1982 were published in 1988 by the CITES Secretariat and the IUCN. In 1990, the Animals Committee of CITES decided to continue the Significant Trade process and examine trade subsequent to 1982, completing a report in 1991. The results were circulated to all Parties at the 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties in 1992. As a result, the Parties adopted ResolutionConf. 8.9 which provides a mechanism for enforcement of Article IV. Under this article, the Animals Committee makes primary and secondary recommendations for Parties to implement remedial measures (within certain time limits) for species traded at levels that are likely to significantly impact them. The review is limited to species having over 100 specimens in trade annually. The Animals Committee consults IUCN, who in turn consults species specialist groups and relevant experts to make recommendations to the Committee:

Primary recommendations These give an allowance of 90 days for the party concerned to act. They might include the implementation of administrative procedures, specific quotas, zero quotas or temporary restrictions on exports for the species concerned.

Secondary recommendations These give an allowance of 12 months for the party concerned to act. These include administrative procedures, field studies, evaluation of threats to populations,plus other relevant factors such as: illegal trade, habitat destruction, and domestic or other uses.

The CITES Secretariat determines whether these recommendations have been met, and if they have not, recommends to the Standing Committee that certain measures be taken. The Standing Committee can recommend that trade in the species concerned be suspended (or that other restrictions be applied) until such time as the Animals Committee recommendations are met (Nash, 1994).

47 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Annex II

Article 10.1 (b) Text

The import permit referred to in Article 3 (2) shall be issued only where: · it is clear, or where the applicant presents trustworthy evidence, that the capture or collection of the specimen in the wild will not have a harmful effect on the conservation of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the populations in question of the species, · the applicant provides proof by means of documents issued by the competent authorities of the country of origin, that the specimen has been obtained in accordance with the legislation on protection of the species in question, · in the case of the importation of a living animal, the applicant provides evidence that the intended recipient possesses adequate facilities suitable for accommodating the species and suited to its behaviour and that the animal will be properly cared for, · there are no other requirements relating to conservation of the species which militate against issue.

The permits shall, if need be, contain additional stipulations to ensure compliance with these conditions.

48 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Annex III

The Quota System

National export quotas were set for many Annex C2 Species. Underlining means that the commercial import of wild specimens and/or ranched/captive bred specimens into the EU from a particular country of origin is prohibited on the basis of Article 10.1(b) 1st or th4 indent. Thus, Annex C species cannot be commercially imported into the EU from the date provided despite the fact that an existing national export quota for the species is indicated.

To implement the quota system, EU Member States have established a system toavoid exceeding quotas, whereby the acceptance of export permits should include the following:

· The permit should state the total number of specimens already exported in the current year (including those covered by the permit in question) and the quota for the species concerned.

· Each export permit should indicate the year for which the quota was established.

49 Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union – Assessing the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. TRAFFIC Europe Report

Annex IV

Figure 1 EU Decisions on C2 Species Figure 2 Exports of P. erithacus for range and non-range countries Figure 3 World Net Trade: Psittacus erithacus and Psittacus erithacus timneh Figure 4 Indonesian Species (No.1-43) Figure 5 Varanus exanthematicus and Varanus niloticus skins in trade Figure 6 Cyclamen species in trade Figure 7 Boa constrictor in trade

50 Fig.1: EU Decisions on C2 Species Total: 1,709 Decisions

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Fig. 2: Exports of P. erithacus for range and non-range countries

EXPORTS FROM IVORY COAST, CAMEROON, GHANA, LIBERIA AND MALI

30000

25000

20000

15000 CI CM AMOUNTS 10000 GN LR 5000 ML

0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 YEARS

EXPORTS FROM GUINEA, TOGO, ZAIRE AND SENEGAL

30000

25000

20000

15000 AMOUNTS 10000 GN TG 5000 ZR 0 SN 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 YEARS Fig. 3: World Net Trade: Psittacus erithacus and Psittacus erithacus timneh

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 P. erithacus 46977 44578 43127 47126 56840 35391 43208 37352 50598 31972 27268 28410 24271 P.e.timneh 0 0 8548 9590 8185 20140 17107 17427 15763 4518 1358 5309 6405 Net world 46977 44578 51675 56716 65025 55531 60315 54779 66361 36490 28626 33719 30676

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Percent 38 47 42 53 47 58 51 60 41 58 79 90 84

Net Trade to EU of Psittacus erithacus and Psittacus EU trade in Psittacus erithacus as a Percentage of erithacus timneh Net World Trade

70.000 100 P.e.timneh 90 60.000 P. erithacus 80 50.000 70

40.000 60 50 30.000 40 20.000 30 20 10.000 10 0 0 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Fig. 4, No. 2. Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Macaca nemestrina

Exports to EU Imports to EU 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 3. Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Alisterus amboinensis

Exports to EU 1200 Imports to EU 1200 1000 1000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 4: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Aprosmictus jonquillaceus

Exports to EU Imports to EU 200 200 180 180 160 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 5: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Chalcopsitta atra

Gross Imports to EU Gross exports to EU 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 6: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Chalcopsitta duivenbodei

Gross exports to EU Gross Imports to EU 700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

2500 Net World Trade

2000

1500

1000

500

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 7: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Chalcopsitta sintillata

Exports to EU Imports to EU 600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

1000 Net World Trade 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 8: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Charmosyna josefinae

Exports to EU Imports to EU 500 500 450 450 400 400 350 350 300 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 9: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Charmosyna multistriata

Gross exports to EU Gross Imports to EU 200 200 180 180 160 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

600 Net World Trade

500

400

300

200

100

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No.10: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Charmosyna papou

Exports to EU Imports to EU 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 11: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Charmosyna wilhelminae

Gross exports to EU Gross Imports to EU 100 10050 50 90 4590 45 80 4080 40 3570 3570 3060 3060 2550 2550 2040 2040 1530 1530 1020 1020 105 105 00 00 8484 8585 8686 8787 8888 8989 9090 9191 9292 9393 9494 9595 9696 I84I84 I85I85 I86I86 I87I87 I88I88 I89I89 I90I90 I91I91 I92I92 I93I93 I94I94 I95I95 I96I96

Net World Trade 20050 18045 16040 14035 12030 10025 2080 1560 1040 205 00 T84T84 T85T85 T86T86 T87T87 T88T88 T89T89 T90T90 T91T91 T92T92 T93T93 T94T94 T95T95 T96T96 Fig. 4, No. 12: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Charmosyna placentis

Gross exports to EU 600 Gross Imports to EU 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

2000 Net World Trade 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 13: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Charmosyna rubronotata

Gross exports to EU Gross Imports to EU 250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 14: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Cyclopsitta diophthalma

Gross exports to EU 600 Gross Imports to EU 600 500 500

400 400

300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

1000 Net World Trade 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 15: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Eos bornea

Gross exports to EU Gross Imports to EU 3500 3500 3000 3000 2500 2500 2000 2000 1500 1500 1000 1000 500 500 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 16. Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Eos semilarvata

Exports to EU 50 Imports to EU 50 45 45 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 17. Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Eos squamata

Exports to EU 1200 Imports to EU 1200 1000 1000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 18. Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Geoffroyus geoffroyi

Exports to EU Imports to EU 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 19: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Loriculus galgulus

Exports to EU Imports to EU 6000 6000

5000 5000

4000 4000

3000 3000

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 20: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Loriculus stigmatus

Exports to EU Imports to EU 250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 21: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Neopsittacus musschenbroekii

Exports to EU Imports to EU 500 500 450 450 400 400 350 350 300 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 22: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Neopsittacus pullicauda

Exports to EU Imports to EU 200 200 180 180 160 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 23: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Oreopsittacus arfaki

Exports to EU Imports to EU 350 350 300 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 24: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Pseudeos fuscata

Exports to EU Imports to EU 1400 1400 1200 1200 1000 1000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 25: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Psittacula alexandri

Exports to EU Imports to EU 3500 3500 3000 3000 2500 2500 2000 2000 1500 1500 1000 1000 500 500 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

25000 Net World Trade

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 26: Indonesian Exports, Imports and World Trade for: Live Psittacula longicauda

Exports to EU Imports to EU 2500 2500

2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 27: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Indotestudo forstenii

Exports to EU 250 Imports to EU 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 28: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Manouria emys

Exports to EU Imports to EU 500 200 180 450 160 400 140 350 120 300 100 250 80 200 60 150 40 100 20 50 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 29: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Varanus dumerilii

Exports to EU Imports to EU 300 300

250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 30 Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Varanus indicus

Exports to EU Imports to EU 250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 31: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Varanus prasinus

Exports to EU Imports to EU 200 200 180 180 160 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

200 Net World Trade 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 32: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Varanus rudicollis

Exports to EU 450 450 Imports to EU 400 400 350 350 300 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 33: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Varanus salvadorii

Gross Imports to EU 100 Gross exports to EU 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 34: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Varanus salvator

Exports to EU Imports to EU 3000 3000

2500 2500 2000 2000 1500 1500 1000 1000 500 500 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 0 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 35: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Varanus timorensis

Exports to EU Imports to EU 25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

250 Net World Trade

200

150

100

50

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 36 Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Morelia amethistina

Exports to EU Imports to EU 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 37: Indoneisan Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Morelia boeleni

Exports to EU Imports to EU 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 250

200

150

100

50

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 38: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Morelia spilota

Exports to EU Imports to EU 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 39: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Python curtus

Exports to EU Imports to EU 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 40: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Python molurus (remark: indonesia data mentions Python molurus bivitatus )

600 Exports to EU 6000 Imports to EU

500 5000

400 4000

300 3000

200 2000

100 1000

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 41: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Python reticulatus

5000 Exports to EU 5000 Imports to EU 4500 4500 4000 4000 3500 3500 3000 3000 2500 2500 2000 2000 1500 1500 1000 1000 500 500 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

20000 Net World Trade 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 41: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Python reticulatus skins

Exports to EU - skins Imports to EU - skins 350000 350000 300000 300000

250000 250000

200000 200000

150000 150000

100000 100000

50000 50000

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade - skins 1000000 900000 800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 42: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Live Python timoriensis

Exports to EU 25 Imports to EU 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 250

200

150

100

50

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 4, No. 43: Indonesian Export, Import and World Trade for: Crocodylus novaeguineae - skins

Exports to EU Imports to EU 400 4000 350 3500 300 3000 250 2500 200 2000 150 1500 100 1000 50 500 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 5a: Varanus exanthematicus exports and imports from all exporting countries

Exports to EU 50000 Imports to EU 50000 45000 45000 40000 40000 35000 35000 30000 30000 25000 25000 20000 20000 15000 15000 10000 10000 5000 5000 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96 I96

Net World Trade

140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 5b: Varanus niloticus exports and imports for all exporting countries

Exports to EU 1000000 1000000 Imports to EU 900000 900000 800000 800000 700000 700000 600000 600000 500000 500000 400000 400000 300000 300000 200000 200000 100000 100000 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96 I96

Net World Trade 1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 6b: Export, Import and World Trade for: Cyclamen hederifolium from Turkey

Exports to EU Imports to EU 2000000 2000000 1800000 1800000 1600000 1600000 1400000 1400000 1200000 1200000 1000000 1000000 800000 800000 600000 600000 400000 400000 200000 200000 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

2000000 Net World Trade 1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 6b: Export, Import and World Trade for: Cyclamen coum from Turkey

Imports to EU 350000 Exports to EU 350000

300000 300000

250000 250000

200000 200000 150000 150000

100000 100000

50000 50000

0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig6c Chart 1

Net World Trade 1.000.000

900.000

800.000

700.000

600.000

500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96

Page 1 Fig. 6d: Export, Import and World Trade for: Cyclamen purpurascens from Turkey

Exports to EU Imports to EU 700000 700000 600000 600000 500000 500000 400000 400000 300000 300000 200000 200000 100000 100000 0 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 I84 I85 I86 I87 I88 I89 I90 I91 I92 I93 I94 I95 I96

Net World Trade

700000

600000

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

0 T84 T85 T86 T87 T88 T89 T90 T91 T92 T93 T94 T95 T96 Fig. 7: Boa constrictor and Boa constrictor imperator in trade

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 US exports & re-exports 530 654 432 182 247 72 184 517 1127 1339 1263 1709 US exports to EU 249 334 216 37 118 21 27 93 487 580 1367 1418 All EU imports 2518 3321 1159 953 1294 1765 834 534 1865 2896 2401 2525 Net world trade 11107 29280 9218 4421 6071 7403 13135 13785 39689 50717 25819 31180 US imports 6285 17429 3680 3191 4549 5554 12497 12578 34135 44665 26020 20453

World trade and US trade of Boa constrictor Boa constrictor trade

60000 3500

50000 3000

40000 2500

30000 2000

1500 20000

1000 10000

500 0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 US exports & re-exports US exports to EU All EU imports Net world trade US exports & re-exports US exports to EU All EU imports US imports Fig. 7: Boa constrictor Exports from various range countries

Colombia exports of Boa constrictor

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

El Salvador exports of Boa constrictor

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Guyana exports of Boa constrictor

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Honduras exports of Boa constrictor

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Nicaragua exports of Boa constrictor

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Surinam exports of Boa constrictor

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996