Review of selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES 2011

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the

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

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

November, 2013

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

219 Huntingdon Road

Cambridge

CB3 0DL

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314

Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.unep-wcmc.org

The United Nations Environment Programme PREPARED FOR World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP- WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost DISCLAIMER intergovernmental environmental organisation. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, the views or policies of UNEP, contributory combining scientific research with practical policy organisations or editors. The designations advice. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and employed and the presentations do not imply the highlight the many values of biodiversity and put expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre of UNEP, the European Commission or of decision-making. Through the analysis and contributory organisations, editors or publishers synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the concerning the legal status of any country, territory, Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely city area or its authorities, or concerning the information for conventions, countries and delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The organisations to use in the development and mention of a commercial entity or product in this implementation of their policies and decisions. publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP. UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically rigorous procedures and services. These include © Copyright: 2013, European Commission ecosystem assessments, support for the implementation of environmental agreements, global and regional biodiversity information, research on threats and impacts, and the development of future scenarios.

CITATION

UNEP-WCMC. 2013. Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES 2011 . UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

Table of Contents

Introduction to the species sheets ...... 4 SPECIES: Python regius ...... 5 SPECIES: croesus ...... 11 SPECIES: Ornithoptera rothschildi ...... 15 Annex I: Introduction to the Analysis of the European Union Annual Reports to CITES ...... 19 Annex II: Key to purpose and source codes ...... 20

Introduction

Introduction to the species sheets On the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual report to CITES 2011, three taxa were originally selected for review on the basis of noteworthy trends in trade (see Annex I for methodology). An additional species was recommended for review by a Member State. One Annex B taxon, Gonystylus bancanus from Malaysia, was initially considered as a candidate for review. This species was selected on the basis of high volume of trade and a sharp increase (12-fold) in trade in 2011. However, it was later confirmed that trade figures reported by the main importer contained an error and that actual trade was 1000-fold lower than reported, which resulted in the species no longer qualifying under the sharp increase of trade criterion, and a review was therefore no longer considered to be required. Two taxa from , Ornithoptera croesus and O. rothschildi , were also selected, but it was recommended that previous reviews be revisited, due to outstanding answers from the range state. In addition, Python regius from Ghana was selected at SRG 65 upon request from one of the Member states as the had not been assessed recently, and quotas appeared to been consistently exceeded. In total, three species were selected by the SRG for review.

Python regius

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE 2011 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

REPTILIA PYTHONIDAE

SPECIES: Python regius

SYNONYMS: Boa regia, Cenchris regia, Enygrus regius, Hortulia regia, Python bellii

COMMON NAMES: Koningspython (Dutch), Ball Python (English), Royal Python (English), Python royal (French), Pitón real (Spanish), Kungspyton (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, South Sudan, Togo, Uganda

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Ghana

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for ranched specimens from Benin first formed on 20/12/2005 and last confirmed on 03/12/2010. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Benin first formed on 20/12/2005 and confirmed on 12/06/2006. Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Benin first applied on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 11/07/2013. Previous Article 4.6 (b) import restriction for ranched specimens from Benin first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 21/11/1998. Current positive opinion for Cameroon formed on 25/10/2005. Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Ghana was formed on 12/03/2009 and current positive position for ranched specimens from Ghana was formed on 29/02/2008 and confirmed on 15/09/2008. Previous positive opinion for wild specimens from Ghana was formed on 27/03/2007 and removed on 14/09/2007. Previous positive opinion for ranched specimens from Ghana was formed on 02/09/1997 and removed on 14/09/2007. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Guinea formed on 20/03/2002. Current Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Guinea first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 11/07/2013.

Python regius

Current positive opinion for ranched specimens from Togo first formed on 20/12/2005 and last confirmed on 15/09/2008. Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Togo first formed on 12/06/2006 and last confirmed on 15/09/2008. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Togo formed on 20/12/2005. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Central African Republic, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Liberia first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 24/09/2000. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for ranched/captive-bred specimens from Togo first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 21/11/1998.

TRADE PATTERNS: Ghana : Ghana published CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced Python regius every year 2003- 2012; additional quotas were published for live, ranched specimens every year with the exception of 2006 and 2007, and for live, captive-bred specimens every year 2008-2012 (Table 1). No quotas were published in 2013. The export quota for wild-sourced specimens appears to have been exceeded in 2005 and 2011 according to data reported by Ghana only, in 2006 according to data reported by importers only and in 2008 according to data reported by Ghana and by importers. Analysis of permits revealed that of the 8075 wild-sourced specimens reported by importers in 2006, 898 were imported with export permits that were reported by Ghana in its annual report for 2005, suggesting that the 2006 quota may not have been exceeded; however, Ghana’s annual report for 2006 has not yet been received. Permit analysis suggested that the apparent wild-sourced quota excess in 2008 could not be explained by the export permits reported by importers having been issued the previous year. The quota for ranched specimens was exceeded in every year 2003-2005 and in 2008 according to both exporter- and importer-reported data, and in 2009-2010 according to data reported by Ghana only. The quota for captive-bred specimens was exceeded in every year 2008-2011 according to importer- reported data only. Table 1. CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced, ranched and captive-bred Python regius from Ghana and global direct exports by source, as reported by the importers and exporter, 2003-2012. (No quotas were published in 2013; Ghana’s annual report for 2006 has not yet been received. Source 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 W Quota 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 7000 Reported by Importer 5628 5705 6982 8075 4060 15212 5466 2668 3218 163 Exporter 5041 6151 11482 3087 8532 6070 5377 8010 1575 R Quota 40000 40000 40000 50000 60000 60000 60000 60000 Reported by Importer 45660 47357 95111 90785 87691 71781 51231 38151 44986 12820 Exporter 48010 55530 137952 61314 77830 65769 61557 59682 39290 C Quota 200 200 200 200 200 Reported by Importer 510 960 1320 420 770 150 Exporter 130 140 50 200 150

Direct exports of P. regius from Ghana 2003-2012 consisted principally of live specimens traded for commercial purposes, the majority of which were ranched and a notable proportion wild-sourced (Table 2). Smaller numbers of captive-bred, live specimens were also reported, with importers consistently reporting greater quantities than Ghana. In addition, a total of 2583 live specimens and small quantities of derivatives were reported as seizures/confiscations by importers. Trade data by EU Member State is available here: https://db.tt/2E3u3WCH . Total trade in live specimens peaked in 2005 and subsequently declined; the proportion of wild- sourced specimens decreased every year from 2009 onwards according to importer-reported data. Overall, EU imports accounted for 31 per cent of total global imports of live P. regius from Ghana 2003-2011.

Python regius

Table 2. Global direct exports of Python regius from Ghana to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Ghana’s annual report for 2006 has not yet been received.) Importer Term Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU live W T Importer 2471 2579 1438 2748 1584 697 777 150 149 163 12756 Exporter 2569 2411 4455 1390 3210 815 1780 275 345 17250 R T Importer 13519 16165 29315 24731 24539 25893 23363 14190 13085 12820 197620 Exporter 12510 16562 45646 23522 27514 26514 26595 19347 12580 210790 C T Importer 130 120 70 120 150 590 Exporter 130 140 50 160 150 630 I - Importer 500 500 Exporter skins I - Importer 1 1 Exporter RoW live W P Importer Exporter 1 1 T Importer 3157 3126 5544 5327 2476 14515 4689 2518 3069 44421 Exporter 2472 3740 7026 1697 5322 5255 3597 7735 1230 38074 R P Importer 300 300 Exporter T Importer 32141 31192 65796 66054 63152 45888 27568 23961 31901 387653 Exporter 35500 38968 92306 37792 50316 39255 34962 40335 26710 396144 C B Importer 510 510 Exporter T Importer 830 1200 350 650 3030 Exporter 40 40 I T Importer 83 2000 2083 Exporter skin pieces I P Importer 1 1 Exporter small leather products I P Importer 1 1 Exporter specimens W S Importer 2 2 Exporter 2 2 Subtotals W Importer 5628 5705 6982 8075 4060 15212 5466 2668 3218 163 57177 (live only) Exporter 5041 6151 11482 3087 8532 6070 5377 8010 1575 55325 R Importer 45660 47357 95111 90785 87691 71781 51231 38151 44986 12820 585573 Exporter 48010 55530 1E+05 61314 77830 65769 61557 59682 39290 606934 C Importer 510 960 1320 420 770 150 4130 Exporter 130 140 50 200 150 670 I Importer 500 83 2000 2583 Exporter

Python regius

Indirect trade in P. regius to the EU-28 originating in Ghana 2003-2012 consisted of live specimens, of which the majority were ranched and traded for commercial purposes (Table 3). Relatively small quantities of wild-sourced and captive-bred trade were reported prior to 2010. Trade in ranched specimens decreased between 2003 and 2005 and subsequently remained relatively constant. Table 3. Indirect exports of Python regius to the EU-28 originating in Ghana, 2003-2012. All trade was in live specimens. Source Purpose Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total W Q Importer Exporter 1 1 T Importer 140 78 177 20 415 Exporter 30 79 102 59 270 R B Importer Exporter 2 2 P Importer 1 1 2 Exporter 1 1 2 T Importer 945 776 189 226 257 232 247 526 177 275 3850 Exporter 925 476 133 216 236 221 243 142 119 2711 - Importer Exporter 1 1 C P Importer 1 1 Exporter T Importer 100 20 120 Exporter 14 20 34

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Python regius is a small, slow moving python species, reported to reach a maximum length of 1-1.5 m and to inhabit grasslands, wet or dry savanna, savanna-woodland and open forests (Auliya & Schmitz, 2010; O’Shea, 2011; Spawls et al., 2002). The species has a wide distribution, from Senegal in West Africa to Uganda in the east and into the Republic of Sudan (O’Shea, 2011; Spawls et al., 2002). It lays a clutch of 4-10 eggs in February-April (Spawls et al., 2002). The species was reported to be in high demand for the pet trade due to its small size and docile nature (Auliya & Schmitz, 2010; Luiselli et al., 2012; O’Shea, 2011). O’Shea (2011) noted that this trade posed a serious threat to the survival of the species and that snakes often arrived in poor condition, with many dying later. O’Shea (2011) also noted that increasing demand for selectively-bred colour phases had led to a decline in the market for wild-caught, normal-patterned specimens (O’Shea, 2011). While the pet trade was considered to represent the largest threat to the species, they were also reported to be exploited for their skins, killed out of fear and poached for meat (Auliya & Schmitz, 2010; O’Shea, 2011; Spawls et al., 2002). P. regius was classified as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List, based on the fact that the suspected population decline was not large enough to warrant threatened status and the species had a large range and could be found in a variety of natural and altered habitats (Auliya & Schmitz, 2010). However, exploitation of the species for the pet trade was noted and it was recommended that trade should be carefully monitored and the numbers exploited reduced (Auliya & Schmitz, 2010). Its population trend was unknown as no population data were available for the species (Auliya & Schmitz, 2010). Ghana : Gorzula et al. (1997) surveyed P. regius in the four regions in the south of Ghana where commercial trapping took place (Central, Eastern, Greater Accra and Volta) and the results suggested that the population was stable and consisted mostly of adults, with low levels of recruitment. An observed density of 2.34 P. regius per hectare of farmland and pasture was recorded for the survey areas and it was estimated that wild population numbers were in the millions (Gorzula et al ., 1997). Gorzula et al . (1997) also noted that the species could be found in the drier and more open areas of the rainforests of southwest Ghana and that the conversion of forest to crop lands and pasture was favouring an increase in P. regius populations which was predicted to be faster than the current level of extraction. Densities of P. regius in protected and non-intervened areas were considered likely to be lower (Gorzula et al ., 1997). Leaché (2005) recorded P. regius in savannah woodland in the northern

Python regius

region of Ghana and Raxworthy & Attuquayefio (2000) recorded the species near Muni Lagoon, on the southern coast of Ghana. Gorzula et al. (1997) noted that P. regius in Ghana is often killed by farmers out of fear, but that the numbers killed for this reason appeared to be insignificant. In some areas (centred around Afife in the Volta region and Somanya in the eastern region) P. regius was considered sacred and traditions forbade killing of the species (Gorzula et al ., 1997). The species also played an important role in pest control within rural communities and there was found to be a certain degree of awareness of this role and its economic importance (Gorzula et al ., 1997). P. regius was listed in the Second Schedule of the Wildlife Conservation Regulations of Ghana (1971), which meant that the hunting, capturing or destruction of any adult specimens was prohibited between 1 st August and 1 st December. There were reported to be 14 wildlife protected areas in Ghana, covering 12 979 km 2, all of which were thought to harbour populations of P. regius (Gorzula et al ., 1997). Ghana developed a ranching programme for P. regius between 1991 and 1997 which involved male and female specimens being kept together in captivity for mating, with females being released back into the wild after laying (Gorzula et al ., 1997). Concerns were raised in the 1990s by CITES about the lack of scientific information available for proper conservation measures regarding the trade in P. regius and by the Game and Wildlife Department of Ghana that high levels of P. regius exports being reported by Togo may have originated in part from Ghana (Gorzula et al ., 1997). On the basis of a report by de Buffrenil (1995) and subsequent correspondence with the Management Authority of Ghana, the CITES Secretariat concluded that the country had satisfied the Resolution Conf 8.9 recommendations formulated by the CITES Committee for the species and accepted more conservative annual export quotas proposed by the country, in consultation with the CITES Secretariat. The measures put in place by Ghana included allocating the number of gravid females that each ranching company would be allowed to collect from the wild each year, ensuring that all females would be returned to the area of capture after they had completed laying and releasing 10 per cent of all surviving hatchlings from each company back into the wild (Gorzula et al ., 1997). Gorzula et al. (1997) reported that P. regius were almost certainly being smuggled from Ghana to Benin and Togo and that this activity might be two-way. Ineich (2006) also indicated that Ghana apparently received juvenile P. regius specimens from Benin, both legally and illegally. Gorzula et al . (1997) identified the need for collaboration between the three major exporting countries (Benin, Ghana and Togo) to develop a common policy regarding the ranching of this species. Following inclusion of the species in the CITES Review of Significant Trade process in 1992 and the subsequent formation of secondary recommendations by the CITES Committee, it became apparent that the export of live specimens of P. regius from Ghana involved a mixture of captive-bred, ranched and wild-harvested specimens (Jenkins, 1998). Ineich (2006) expressed concerns over the unreliable use of source codes for reptiles exported from Ghana, noting that exporters and local CITES authorities were unable to determine whether P. regius juveniles traded as source R from West Africa were actually source W. In 2009, Ghana reported that the ranching of P. regius involved collecting pregnant females from the wild at the start of the dry season, keeping them in captivity until they had laid and incubated their eggs and then releasing them back into the wild - often in different locations to the collection sites (AC24 Doc. 8.1). According to Ghana, the impact of ranching on wild populations had not been monitored and the sustainability of the harvest and potential conservation benefits for the species had not been investigated (AC24 Doc. 8.1). The country considered the distinction between ranched, wild and captive-bred specimens to be difficult to make and that ranching could provide opportunities for laundering specimens from one range state using permits from a different range state, resulting in reports of exports being distorted (AC24 Doc. 8.1). A positive opinion for ranched specimens was formed and member states were requested to monitor all imports for W and R sources by permit to track compliance with quotas (SRG 45).

Python regius

REFERENCES: Auliya, M., & Schmitz, A. (2010). Python regius . In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. Retrieved from www.redlist.org. Accessed 24-10-2013. Buffrenil, M. V. (1995). Les elevages de reptiles du Benin, du Ghana et du Togo . Geneva, Switzerland: CITES Secretariat. Ghana. (1971). Wildlife Conservation Regulations (L.I. 685) . Gorzula, S., Nsiah, W. O., & Oduro, W. (1997). Survey of the status and management of the royal python (Python regius) in Ghana (p. 55). Report to UNEP-CITES. Ineich, I. (2006). Les élevages de reptiles et de scorpions au Benin, Togo et Ghana, plus particulièrement la gestion des quotas d’exportation et la definition des codes “source” des specimens exportés . Paris, France: Rapport d’étude réalisée pour le Secrétariat de la CITES. Jenkins, R. W. G. (1998). Management and use of Python regius in Benin and Togo (p. 11). Report prepared for Directorate General XI The Commission of the European Union. Leaché, A. D. (2005). Results of a Herpetological Survey in Ghana and a New Country Record. Herpetological Review , 36 (1), 16–19. Luiselli, L., Bonnet, X., Rocco, M., & Amori, G. (2012). Conservation implications of rapid shifts in the trade of wild African and Asian pythons. Biotropica , 44 , 569–573. O’Shea, M. (2011). Boas and pythons of the world (p. 160). London, UK: New Holland. Raxworthy, C. J., & Attuquayefio, D. K. (2000). Herpetofaunal communities at Muni Lagoon in Ghana. Biodiversity and Conservation , 9, 501–510. Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R., & Ashe, J. (2002). A field guide to the reptiles of east Africa . New York, USA: Academic Press.

Ornithoptera croesus

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE 2011 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

LEPIDOPTERA PAPILIONIDAE

SPECIES: Ornithoptera croesus

COMMON NAMES: Wallace's golden (English)

SYNONYMS: Priamoptera croesus, Priamuspterus croesus

RANGE STATES: Indonesia

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

IUCN RED LIST: Endangered

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6b import suspensions for all wild-sourced specimens from Indonesia first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 11/07/2013. Previous negative opinion for wild- sourced specimens from Indonesia formed on 11/02/1998.

TAXONOMIC NOTE Ohya (2001, CITES Standard Reference for birdwing ) recognised three subspecies: Ornithoptera croesus croesus, O. c. lydius and O. c. toeante. TRADE PATTERNS Indonesia : Ornithoptera croesus was listed in CITES Appendix II on 16/02/1979. Indonesia has not published any CITES export quotas for Ornithoptera croesus . Direct exports of O. croesus from Indonesia 2003-2012 consisted primarily of ranched bodies traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). Small numbers of captive-produced bodies and ranched trophies were also exported for commercial purposes. In addition, the import of three wild sourced specimens and 10 wild-sourced bodies was reported in 2008 and 2009, respectively, by importers only. Trade data by EU Member State is available here: https://db.tt/xqCOfN8v . Trade in bodies reported by importers peaked in 2006 and subsequently declined over the period 2007-2012 overall, while exports of bodies reported by Indonesia has increased every year 2008-2011. Imports by the EU accounted for 40 per cent of total global imports of O. croesus bodies from Indonesia 2003-2012.Indonesia’s annual report for 2012 has not yet been received. Table 1. Global direct exports of Ornithoptera croesus from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. (Indonesia’s annual report for 2012 has not yet been received.) Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU bodies P R Importer 4 20 20 18 11 73 Exporter S R Importer 20 60 80 Exporter T R Importer 150 325 588 905 660 274 1021 811 617 1181 6432 Exporter 100 630 694 1335 1288 1068 1193 1726 980 9014

Ornithoptera croesus

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total RoW bodies P R Importer 5 5 Exporter T F Importer 456 17 104 577 Exporter W Importer 10 10 Exporter R Importer 404 1133 1782 1608 1224 502 810 1119 648 9230 Exporter 774 2040 3236 2914 1725 2422 2392 4354 5133 24990 C Importer 82 40 120 242 Exporter live T R Importer 30 30 Exporter specimens P W Importer 3 3 Exporter T R Importer 10 10 Exporter trophies T R Importer 260 260 Exporter

Subtotals F Importer 456 17 104 577 (bodies only) Exporter W Importer 10 10 Exporter R Importer 554 1458 2390 2522 1904 856 1849 1941 1265 1081 15920 Exporter 874 2670 3930 4249 3013 3490 3585 6080 6113 34004 C Importer 82 40 120 242 Exporter

Indirect trade in O. croesus to the EU-28 originating in Indonesia comprised mainly ranched bodies, the majority of which were traded for commercial purposes and the remainder as personal possessions; small numbers of ranched and captive-produced bodies were also reported (Table 2). Total trade in bodies peaked in 2005 and subsequently declined, with very little trade reported 2010- 2011 and no trade reported in 2012. Table 2. Indirect exports of Ornithoptera croesus originating in Indonesia to the EU-28, 2003-2011. (No trade were reported in 2012). Term Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total bodies P F Importer Exporter 8 1 9 R Importer 2 5 4 4 2 17 Exporter 8 6 16 6 7 43 C Importer Exporter 18 18 T R Importer 2 6 100 4 2 114 Exporter 2 10 100 9 18 40 22 4 205 trophies T R Importer Exporter 2 2 4

According to Nijman (2010), the proportion of ranched or captive-bred birdwing butterflies in trade from Southeast Asia had increased significantly from the figure of under 10 per cent of total trade reported in 1980s by Collins and Morris (1985). Morris (1986) noted that the price of O. croesus was initially very high due to the rarity of the species, but subsequently fell to a lower level due to improved availability. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Ornithoptera croesus is an endemic Indonesian birdwing with a restricted distribution range in the Moluccas islands (Collins and Morris, 1985; Vane-Wright and de Jong, 2003). Ohya (2001) reported O. c. croesus to inhabit Bacan and outlying islands , O. c. lydius to occur on and

Ornithoptera croesus

outlying islands and O. c. toeante on the island. O. croesus was considered to be a typical lowland species often found in swampy areas (Nagypal, 2008). The species was categorised in the IUCN Red List as Endangered (Gimenez Dixon, 1996) , but the listing was subsequently annotated to reflect the need for a species re-assessment. T. New (1991, in: WCMC et al. , 1993) considered the species (particularly the subspecies lydius and croesus ) to be rare and highly localised, occurring in small populations. Deforestation was regarded as the principal threat to O. croesus (Collins and Morris, 1985; New and Collins, 1991), although WCMC et al. (1993) noted that it was not known whether it was able to persist in logged forest habitats. Nagypal (2008) reported that “at least subspecies croesus and lydius - are more numerous in nature than early collectors reported, there is no doubt that croesus is under continued threat from human activities”. Collins and Morris (1985) described O. croesus as a sought-after species in trade, although noting that there were no reports to show that O. c. lydius was threatened by trade. WCMC et al. (1993) considered trade as a significant threat in conjunction with the impacts of habitat loss. O. croesus is not protected in Indonesia under Regulation No. 7 (1999) (Republic of Indonesia, 1999). Trade in specimens of CITES Appendix II butterfly species was reportedly only permitted for captive- bred individuals [it is unclear whether this includes ranched specimens], with harvest of wild specimens restricted to research and educational (including scientific collections in museums) purposes (Peggie, 2011). New (1997) considered much of the Indonesian butterfly trade to be “poorly controlled”. Export quotas and quotas for breeding stocks were reportedly set annually by the Indonesian CITES MA, SA and other stakeholders (AC22 Doc. 13.1), although export quotas do not appear to have been published on the CITES website. In 2008, a catch quota of 150 individuals from the wild for breeding and/or research purposes and a zero export quota for wild-sourced individuals were published under Decree SK.06/IV-KKH/2008 (PHKA, 2008). Butterfly ranching was described by Slone et al. (1997) as the “planting of butterfly larval food plants in or near natural habitat to attract butterflies from nearby forests”, whereas in butterfly farming, species were usually reared in greenhouse environments. Several authors considered ranching as a favorable means of conservation, reducing the pressure on natural populations and preventing habitat destruction through creating alternative incomes to local inhabitants (Collins and Morris, 1985; Parsons, 1995; Cranston, 2010; Schütz, 2000). It was reported that the Indonesian CITES SA conducted monitoring visits to butterfly farms and ranches, and presented suggestions to improve the facilities (AC22 Doc. 13.1). Parsons (1995) reported that in the 1980s, there had been attempts and plans to establish large-scale butterfly farming in Irian Jaya, but O. croesus appears not to have been included in these activities (WCMC et al. , 1999). In Bali, butterfly farming was reportedly organised through the distribution of larvae to local farmers, who kept them in captivity and sold the pupae back to the manager for export preparation (AC22 Doc. 13.1). REFERENCES: CITES. 2013. CITES national export quotas for 2013 (excluding quotas for Acipenseriformes) . [Online]. Available at: http://www.cites.org/common/quotas/2013/ExportQuotas2013.pdf. Collins, M. and Morris, M. G. 1985. Threatened Swallowtail butterflies of the world. The IUCN Red Data Book . Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, IUCN, United Kingdom. Cranston, P. S. 2010. biodiversity and conservation in Australasia. Annual review of entomology , 55, p.55–75. [Online]. Gimenez Dixon, M. 1996. Ornithoptera croesus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. [Accessed: 7/10/2013] Morris, M. G. 1986. Irian Jaya butterfly consultancy - A butterfly farming and trading agency in Irian Jaya. Report on a consultancy undertaken in Indonesia from 12 January to 30 April 1985 .

Ornithoptera croesus

Nagypal, T. 2008. An introduction to the world of birdwing butterflies . [Online]. Available at: http://www.nagypal.net/. [Accessed: 7/10/2013] New, T. 1991. T. New, in litt. to TSG, 1991. New, T. R. 1997. Exploitation and conservation of butterflies in the Indo-Australian region . In: Bolton, M. (ed.). Conservation and the use of wildlife resourcesChapman & Hall, London. Pp.97–110. New, T. R. and Collins, N. M. 1991. Swallowtail butterflies - an action plan for their conservation . IUCN/SSC Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. Nijman, V. 2010. An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity Conservation , 19, p.1101–1114. Ohya, T. 2001. Checklist of birdwing butterflies . Matsuka, H. (ed.). Tokyo: Matsuka Shuppan, p.346–349. Parsons, M. J. 1995. Butterfly farming and trading in the Indo-Australian region and its benefits in the conservation of Swallowtails and their tropical forest habitats . Scriber, J. M., Tsubaki, Y. and Lederhouse, R. C. (eds.). (Chapter 31). Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, USA. Pp.371–391. Peggie, D. 2011. Precious and protected Indonesian Butterflies . Bidang Zoologi, Indonesia. PHKA, D. G. 2008. Kuota pengambilan tumbuhan alam dan penangkapan satwa liar yang termasuk appendix CITES untuk periode tahun 2008. PHKA SK.06/IV-KKH/2008 . Republic of Indonesia. 1999. Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7 concerning the Preservation of Wild Plants and Animals . Indonesia. Schütz, P. 2000. Flügel hinter Glas - Der Insektenhandel in Deutschland unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schmetterlinge (Lepidoptera) . TRAFFIC-Europe/Umweltstiftung WWF-Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main. Slone, T. H., Orsak, L. J. and Malver, O. 1997. A comparison of price, rarity and cost of butterfly specimens: Implications for the insect trade and for habitat conservation. Ecological Economics , 21, p.77–85. Vane-Wright, R. I. and de Jong, R. 2003. The butterflies of Sulawesi: annotated checklist for a critical island fauna . Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, p.267. WCMC, IUCN/SSC and TRAFFIC. 1993. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of selected animal species in CITES Appendix II . Cambridge, UK: Draft report to the CITES Animals Committee. WCMC, IUCN/SSC and TRAFFIC. 1999. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II: Detailed reviews of 37 species . Doc. AC 15, Cambridge, UK: World Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN Species Survival Commission and TRAFFIC Network.

Ornithoptera rothschildi

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE 2011 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

LEPIDOPTERA PAPILIONIDAE

SPECIES: Ornithoptera rothschildi

COMMON NAMES: Rothschild’s birdwing (English)

SYNONYMS: Schoenbergia rothschildi

RANGE STATES: Indonesia

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for ranched specimens formed on 11/02/1998.

TAXONOMIC NOTE A hybrid between poseidon x O. rothschildi was reported to be referred to as O. akakeae (Ohya, 2001, the CITES Standard Reference for Birdwing butterflies). TRADE PATTERNS Indonesia : Ornithoptera rothschildi was listed in CITES Appendix II on 16/02/1979. Indonesia has not published any CITES export quotas for Ornithoptera rothschildi . Direct exports of O. rothschildi from Indonesia 2003-2012 consisted primarily of bodies, the majority of which were ranched and traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). In addition, low levels of trade were recorded in captive-produced bodies traded for commercial purposes, ranched bodies traded for personal and scientific purposes, and commercially traded, ranched trophies. Trade data by EU Member State is available here: https://db.tt/qtZeX26e . Direct exports of O. rothschildi bodies declined over the period 2010-2012 according to importer- reported data, with trade reported by Indonesia greatly exceeding that reported by importers in both 2010 and 2011; Indonesia’s annual report for 2012 has not yet been received. Based on importer- reported data, the EU accounted for 34 per cent of total global imports of O. rothschildi bodies. Table 1. Global direct exports of Ornithoptera rothschildi from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2003-2012. Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total EU bodies P R Importer 10 10 26 26 23 14 8 117 Exporter S R Importer 50 50 100 Exporter T R Importer 222 412 272 302 84 226 270 282 509 2579 Exporter 20 328 472 392 408 440 450 460 519 3489 RoW bodies T F Importer 28 28 Exporter R Importer 660 235 878 524 986 395 370 736 411 5195

Ornithoptera rothschildi

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Exporter 960 672 1078 1070 1494 1051 816 2805 2112 12058 C Importer 40 40 100 180 Exporter trophies T R Importer 135 135 Exporter

Subtotal F Importer 28 28 (bodies only) Exporter R Importer 660 457 1340 806 1298 555 622 1029 707 517 7991 Exporter 980 1000 1550 1462 1902 1491 1266 3265 2631 15547 C Importer 40 40 100 180 Exporter

Indirect trade in O. rothschildi to the EU-28 originating in Indonesia again mainly consisted of ranched bodies, most of which were traded for commercial purposes and a small number traded as personal possessions (Table 2). Indirect trade in O. rothschildi peaked in 2005; trade in subsequent years was considerably lower. Table 2. Indirect exports of Ornithoptera rothschildi to the EU-28 originating in Indonesia, 2003-2012. (No trade was reported in 2007.) Term Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total bodies P R Importer 4 2 1 7 Exporter 3 6 4 6 5 24 T F Importer Exporter 1 1 R Importer 6 100 6 2 2 116 Exporter 22 107 2 18 6 2 157 trophies T R Importer Exporter 1 1

O. rothschildi was included in the CITES Review of Significant Trade in 1999, when it was noted that over a quarter of trade in 1995-1996 was reported by the countries of import under source code W, but all exports reported by Indonesia were reported under source codes C or R (WCMC et al., 1999). According to Nijman (2010), the proportion of ranched or captive-bred birdwing butterflies in trade from Southeast Asia had increased significantly from the figure of under 10 per cent reported in 1980s by Collins and Morris (1985). Morris (1986) noted that the price of O. croesus was initially very high due to the rarity of the species, but subsequently fell to a lower level due to improved availability. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Ornithoptera rothschildi is endemic to Indonesia (Parsons, 1995b, 1996), where it occurs on the Arfak Mountains of the northwestern part of the West Papua Province (Collins and Morris, 1985; Kondo et al. , 2003). Nagypal (2008) considered it to have the narrowest distribution of any Birdwing butterfly species. It was described as a montane species, generally found at altitudes between 1800 m and 2450 m above sea level (Collins and Morris, 1985). O. rothschildi was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Gimenez Dixon, 1996), but the listing was subsequently annotated to reflect the need for a species re-assessment. In spite of its restricted distribution, it was not considered rare and was reported to be abundant in some areas (Haugum and Low, 1978, in Collins and Morris, 1985). Collins and Morris (1985) noted that its conservation status was poorly known. Collins and Morris (1985) considered habitat disturbance as a potential threat to the species. Haugum (1984, in litt. to Collins and Morris, 1985) reported that the species was under heavy pressure of commercial exploitation in Indonesia. Collins and Morris (1985) also regarded commercial collection as a possible threat, but noted that its impacts were unknown and recommended an assessment of the conservation status of the species and the impacts of commercial trade. O. rothschildi is protected in Indonesia under Regulation No. 7 (1999) (Republic of Indonesia, 1999), and the status and restricted distribution of this species were considered to require close monitoring of trade (Peggie, 2011). Trade in specimens of butterfly species included in CITES Appendix II was

Ornithoptera rothschildi reportedly only permitted if of captive bred origin, with harvest of wild specimens restricted to research and educational (including scientific collections in museums) purposes (Peggie, 2011). New (1997) considered much of the Indonesian butterfly trade to be “poorly controlled”. Export quotas and quotas for breeding stocks were reportedly set annually by the Indonesian CITES MA, SA and other stakeholders (AC22 Doc. 13.1), although export quotas do not appear to have been published on the CITES website. In 2008, a catch quota of 150 individuals of O. rothschildi from the wild for breeding and/or research purposes and a zero export quota for wild-sourced individuals were published under Decree SK.06/IV-KKH/2008 (PHKA, 2008). Butterfly ranching was described by Slone et al . (1997) as the “planting of butterfly larval food plants in or near natural habitat to attract butterflies from nearby forests”, whereas in butterfly farming, species were usually reared in greenhouse environments. Several authors considered ranching as a favorable means of conservation, reducing the pressure on natural populations and preventing habitat destruction through creating alternative incomes to local inhabitants (Collins and Morris, 1985; Parsons, 1995a; Cranston, 2010; Schütz, 2000). It was reported that the Indonesian CITES SA conducted monitoring visits to butterfly farms and ranches, and presented suggestions to improve the facilities (AC22 Doc. 13.1). Ranching was regarded particularly important in Irian Jaya (Provinces of Papua and West Papua, comprising Indonesian New Guinea) (Collins and Morris, 1985). Parsons (1995a) reported that in the 1980s, there had been attempts and plans to establish large-scale butterfly farming in Irian Jaya, with particular focus on O. rothschildi , but it was noted that due to the lack of funding, these activities were eventually developed at a much smaller scale. However, habitat enrichment with Aristolochia spp. had reportedly been carried out in some villages inside the Arfak Mountains National Park with the aim to produce ranched Ornithoptera spp. (Parsons, 1995a), including O. rothschildi and five other species (WCMC et al. , 1999). WCMC et al. (1999) reported that O. rothschildi population increased in some areas following habitat enrichment. The Director General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation of Indonesia (1993, in WCMC et al. 1999) reported that captive breeding had also been initiated in the country, but further details were not available. According to Wells et al. (1999), approximately 1400 people living in the adjacent area to Arfak Nature Reserve were involved in ranching activities, and in 1996, pupae worth USD 100 000 were exported. They also noted that the collection of live butterflies within the reserve was strongly discouraged, and that local butterfly populations had “apparently” not been negatively affected by ranching (Wells et al. , 1999). REFERENCES: Collins, M. and Morris, M. G. 1985. Threatened Swallowtail butterflies of the world. The IUCN Red Data Book . IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Cranston, P. S. 2010. Insect biodiversity and conservation in Australasia. Annual review of entomology , 55, p.55–75. Director General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation of Indonesia. 1993. Keynote address at the International Butterfly Conference, Ujung Pandang, August 24-27 1993 . Gimenez Dixon, M. 1996. Ornithoptera rothschildi. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. [Online]. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed: 16/10/2013]. Haugum, J. 1984. In litt. to Collins, N. M., and Morris, M. G., IUCN. Haugum, J. and Low, A. M. 1978. A monograph of the Birdwing butterflies . Klampenborg: Scandinavian Science Press. Kondo, K., Shinkawa, T. and Matsuka, H. 2003. Molecular systematics of birdwing butterflies (Papilionidae) inferred from mitochondrial ND5 gene. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society , 57 (1), p.17–24. Morris, M. G. 1986. Irian Jaya butterfly consultancy - A butterfly farming and trading agency in Irian Jaya. Report on a consultancy undertaken in Indonesia from 12 January to 30 April 1985. Nagypal, T. 2008. An introduction to the world of birdwing butterflies . [Online]. Available at: http://www.nagypal.net/ [Accessed 07/10/2013]

Ornithoptera rothschildi

New, T. R. 1997. Exploitation and conservation of butterflies in the Indo-Australian region. In: Bolton, M. (ed.), Conservation and the use of wildlife resources , Chapman & Hall, London, UK. Pp.97– 110. Nijman, V. 2010. An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity Conservation , 19, pp.1101–1114. Ohya, T. 2001. Checklist of birdwing butterflies . Matsuka, H. (ed.). Tokyo: Matsuka Shuppan, p.346–349. Parsons, M. J. 1995a. Butterfly farming and trading in the Indo-Australian region and its benefits in the conservation of Swallowtails and their tropical forest habitats . Scriber, J. M., Tsubaki, Y. and Lederhouse, R. C. (eds.). (Chapter 31), Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, USA pp.371–391. Parsons, M. J. 1995b. The early stages and ecology of Ornithoptera tithonus De Haan . Scriber, J. M., Tsubaki, Y. and Lederhouse, R. C. (eds.). (Chapter 33), Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, USA, pp.401–404. Parsons, M. J. 1996. Gondwanan evolution of the Troidine swallowtails (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae): Cladistic reappraisals using mainly immature stage characters, with focus on the Ornithoptera Boisduval. Bulletin of the Kitakyushu Museum of Natural History , 15, pp.43–118. Peggie, D. 2011. Precious and protected Indonesian Butterflies . Bidang Zoologi, Indonesia. PHKA, D. G. 2008. Kuota pengambilan tumbuhan alam dan penangkapan satwa liar yang termasuk appendix CITES untuk periode tahun 2008. PHKA SK.06/IV-KKH/2008. Republic of Indonesia. 1999. Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7 concerning the Preservation of Wild Plants and Animals . Indonesia. Schütz, P. 2000. Flügel hinter Glas - Der Insektenhandel in Deutschland unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schmetterlinge (Lepidoptera) . TRAFFIC-Europe/Umweltstiftung WWF-Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main Slone, T. H., Orsak, L. J. and Malver, O. 1997. A comparison of price, rarity and cost of butterfly specimens: Implications for the insect trade and for habitat conservation. Ecological Economics , 21, pp.77–85. WCMC, IUCN/SSC and TRAFFIC. 1999. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II: Detailed reviews of 37 species . Doc. AC 15, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN Species Survival Commission and TRAFFIC Network, Cambridge, UK. Wells, M., Guggenheim, S., Khan, A., Wardojo, W. and Jepson, P. 1999. Investing in biodiversity - A review of Indonesia’s integrated conservation and development projects . The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Annex I: Introduction to the Analysis of the European Union Annual Reports for CITES

Annex I: Introduction to the Analysis of the European Union Annual Reports to CITES UNEP-WCMC undertakes an annual Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES . The Analysis examines patterns of trade into the European Union and candidate countries, trade in groups of particular note, possible transgressions of suspensions and negative opinions, exports of native species, etc . As part of the 2011 Analysis , imports reported by the EU (and candidate countries) as wild-sourced, ranched, source ‘unknown’ or source ‘blank’ were analysed to identify noteworthy patterns of trade according to five criteria. These criteria were designed to identify: 1. High volume trade in 2011

2. Globally threatened and near threatened species traded at relatively high volumes in 2011 3. Sharp increase in trade in 2011

4. General long term increases or decreases in trade between 2002 and 2011

5. Long term variability in trade between 2002 and 2011.

Imports were considered to be ‘high volume’ according to thresholds which were determined by taxonomic group and CITES Appendix (Table 1). In order to account for threat status, the Appendix I threshold was also applied to Appendix II and III species considered to be threatened or near threatened by the IUCN (Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List). Table 1. Minimum number of wild, ranched, source ‘unknown’ and source ‘blank’ individuals imported in 2011 needed to qualify for selection on the basis of high trade volume. Taxonomic group CITES Appendix I II II III III CR, EN, VU, NT* CR, EN, VU, NT* Mammals 50 50 5000 50 25000

Birds 50 50 5000 50 25000

Reptiles 50 50 25000 50 50000

Amphibians 50 50 25000 50 —

Fish 50 50 25000 50 —

Invertebrates (non -corals) 250 250 25000 250 50000

Corals — 10000 25000 10000 50000

Plants (non -tree) 250 250 25000 250 50000

Plants (trees) 250 m³ 250 m³ 500 m³ 250 m³ 2500 m³

* CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened in 2011 IUCN Red List The ‘sharp increase’ criterion was designed to determine if there was a sharp increase in importer- reported wild-sourced imports in 2011, compared with the average level of imports between 2006 and 2010. Species that, despite a sharp increase in trade in 2011, were still only traded in very low volumes (i.e. less than 5 per cent of the levels listed in Table 1) were omitted from the chapter. The ‘overall increase’ criteria took into account more general trends over the period 2002-2011 by calculating the slope of a best-fit linear function to the trade data, with a large positive slope indicating a significant increase in trade levels over time. To account for highly variable trade that may not be picked up by the other criteria, the coefficient of variation was calculated for imports over a ten-year period (2002-2011) and species showing high variation over this period were selected.

Annex II: Key to purpose and source codes

Annex II: Key to purpose and source codes Purpose of trade

Code Description T Commercial Z Zoo G Botanical garden Q Circus or travelling exhibition S Scientific H Hunting trophy P Personal M Medical (including biomedical research) E Educational N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation L Law enforcement / judicial / forensic

Source of specimens

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