Review of species subject to long-standing positive opinions: species other than corals and butterflies from Asia and Oceania
(Version edited for public release)
Prepared for the
European Commission Directorate General E - Environment ENV.E.2. – Development and Environment
by the
United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre
August, 2012
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre PREPARED FOR 219 Huntingdon Road The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium Cambridge CB3 0DL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314 DISCLAIMER Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136 The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect Email: [email protected] the views or policies of UNEP or contributory Website: www.unep-wcmc.org organisations. The designations employed and the
presentations do not imply the expressions of any The United Nations Environment Programme opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP- European Commission or contributory WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment organisations concerning the legal status of any centre of the United Nations Environment country, territory, city or area or its authority, or Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or intergovernmental environmental organisation. boundaries. The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, combining scientific research with practical policy advice. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and © Copyright: 2012, European Commission highlight the many values of biodiversity and put authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre of decision-making. Through the analysis and synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely information for conventions, countries and organisations to use in the development and implementation of their policies and decisions.
UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically rigorous procedures and services. These include ecosystem assessments, support for the implementation of environmental agreements, global and regional biodiversity information, research on threats and impacts, and the development of future scenarios.
CITATION
UNEP-WCMC. 2012. Review of species subject to long- standing positive opinions: species other than corals and butterflies from Asia and Oceania. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
Contents
Introduction ...... 1 SPECIES: Capra falconeri ...... 2 SPECIES: Chalcopsitta cardinalis ...... 10 SPECIES: Candoia carinata ...... 14 SPECIES: Ptyas mucosus ...... 19 SPECIES: Hirudo medicinalis ...... 27
Overview of the status, management and trade of Hippopus hippopus, Tridacna spp. and Tridacnidae spp. in Asia and Oceania ...... 31 SPECIES: Hippopus hippopus ...... 39 SPECIES: Tridacna crocea ...... 44 SPECIES: Tridacna derasa ...... 50 SPECIES: Tridacna gigas ...... 55 SPECIES: Tridacna maxima ...... 58 SPECIES: Tridacna squamosa ...... 68 SPECIES: Dicksonia antarctica ...... 80 SPECIES: Dendrobium chrysotoxum ...... 82 SPECIES: Dendrobium delacourii ...... 85
ANNEX. Key to Purpose and Source Codes ...... 87
Introduction
Introduction
The Scientific Review Group may form ‘positive opinions’ for species/country combinations, indicating to Member States that, given current and anticipated levels of trade, introduction into the European Union would not be considered to have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the species (Council Regulation EC No. 338/97). Positive opinions for some species/country combinations have been in place for a relatively long time. For example, in May 2011, 300 positive opinions had been in place since 2001 or earlier (representing 1923 species/country combinations), and these had not been updated or replaced by any subsequent opinions or EU suspensions (SRG 58 document). At SRG 58, there was agreement to remove long- standing positive opinions for 1701 species/country combinations for which there was no or virtually no trade in wild or ranched individuals either globally or to the EU-27. Furthermore, for species-country combinations for which trade in wild or ranched specimens may be anticipated in future, there was agreement to produce in-depth species reviews, in order to determine whether the current longstanding positive opinions may still be warranted. This review of species other than corals and butterflies from Asia and Oceania is the third in a series of reports providing material to inform SRG decision-making on long-standing positive opinions. Trade data for this report were extracted on 28th May 2012 for the ten year period 2001-2010; furthermore, information from 2011 EU annual reports was included where available.
1 Capra falconeri
REVIEW OF SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS: SPECIES OTHER THAN CORALS AND BUTTERFLIES FROM ASIA AND OCEANIA
MAMMALIA BOVIDAE
SPECIES: Capra falconeri
SYNONYMS: Capra falconeri cashmiriensis, C. falconeri chitralensis, C. falconeri gilgitensis, C. falconeri cashmiriensis, C. falconeri jerdoni.
COMMON NAMES: Markhor eller skrueged (Danish), Schroefhoorngeit (Dutch), Markhor (English), Kierteissarvikauris (Finnish), Markhor (French), Schraubenziege (German), Capra di Falconer (Italian), Markor (Italian), Markhor (Spanish), Markhor (Swedish), Skruvget (Swedish), Skruvhornsget (Swedish)
RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Pakistan
IUCN RED LIST: Endangered
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Pakistan formed on 11/11/1997. Current 4.6(a) import suspension for hunting trophies from Uzbekistan first applied on 01/10/2007 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for hunting trophies from Uzbekistan formed on 12/06/2006.
TRADE PATTERNS: Annual export quotas for Capra falconeri hunting trophies from Pakistan have been established since 1998. Quotas appear to have been exceeded in 2006 and 2008, according to the importers (Table 1). It is plausible that this could occur through imports in one year relating to permits issued in the previous year, or where items from one ‘trophy’ (i.e. skin, skull and horns from a single individual) are traded on different permits. An analysis of available permit numbers indicated that two imports by Germany and one import by France in 2006 were from export permits issued by Pakistan in 2005, and that two imports by Mexico and one import by the United States in 2008 were from export permits issued by Pakistan in 2007. In addition, whereas Pakistan recorded all its exports as ‘trophies’, there were examples in most years (including 2006 and 2008) where importers recorded the same shipment as ‘1 skull and 1 skin’ or ‘2 horns and 1 skin’, hence importer-reported data may overestimate the actual number of individuals in trade.
2 Capra falconeri
Table 1. CITES export quotas for Capra falconeri hunting trophies from Pakistan and global exports, reported by importers and by the exporter. (Hunting trophies include all trade reported under the terms ‘trophy’, ‘skull’, ‘skin’ and ‘horn’. (Pakistan’s 2009 and 2010 annual reports have not yet been received). 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Quota 6 6 6 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Reported by the importers 6 5 6 5 6 9 9 14 11 15 12 6
Reported by Pakistan 3 4 6 2 5 10 8 8 12 6
Imports of Capra falconeri (including trade reported as the subspecies C. falconeri jerdoni1) to the EU-27 directly from Pakistan over the period 2001-2010 consisted primarily of wild-sourced hunting trophies (Table 2). The main importers were Spain, Demark and Germany. There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of C. falconeri originating in Pakistan 2001-2010. Direct exports of C. falconeri from Pakistan to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of wild-sourced hunting trophies traded under various terms (Table 3). Canada, Mexico and the United States were the main importers. In 2002, the CITES Secretariat noted that there was no evidence to suggest that there is any significant illegal trade in C. falconeri from Pakistan (CITES COP 12 Doc 12.23.2).
1 See taxonomic note
3 Capra falconeri
Table 2. Direct exports of Capra falconeri and C. falconeri jerdoni from Pakistan to the EU-27, 2001-2010. (Pakistan’s 2009 and 2010 annual reports have not yet been received). Taxon Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Capra falconeri Austria trophies H W Importer 1 1
Exporter 1 1 2
P W Importer 1 1
Exporter
Belgium trophies H W Importer 1 1
Exporter
Denmark trophies H W Importer 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 12
Exporter 2 2 1 1 1 7
P W Importer 1 1
Exporter 2 2
T W Importer 1 1
Exporter
France specimens S W Importer
Exporter 1 1 2
trophies H W Importer 1 1
Exporter 1 1
Germany skins H W Importer 1 1 2
Exporter
skulls H W Importer 1 1 2
Exporter
trophies H W Importer 1 2 2 2 7
Exporter 1 2 2 2 1 8
P W Importer 1 1
Exporter 2 2
Italy trophies H W Importer 1 1
Exporter 1 1
4 Capra falconeri
Taxon Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total P W Importer
Exporter 1 1
Spain trophies H W Importer 4 3 1 1 9
Exporter 1 2 3 2 1 9
P W Importer 1 1 2
Exporter
United Kingdom garments - I Importer 2 2
Exporter
skins H W Importer 1 1
Exporter
skulls H W Importer 1 1
Exporter
trophies H W Importer 1 1
Exporter 1 2 1 4
Capra falconeri jerdoni Belgium trophies H W Importer
Exporter 1 1
Denmark trophies H W Importer
Exporter 1 1 2
Germany trophies H W Importer
Exporter 1 1
Spain trophies H W Importer 1 2 2 5
Exporter 2 2 4
United Kingdom skins H W Importer 1 1
Exporter
skulls H W Importer 1 1
Exporter
trophies H W Importer
Exporter 1 1
5 Capra falconeri
Taxon Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Subtotals Capra falconeri W Importer 5 2 3 5 8 8 6 3 4 1 45
(skins, skulls and trophies only) Exporter 5 1 4 8 8 3 6 2 37
Capra falconeri jerdoni W Importer 2 1 2 2 7
Exporter 3 4 2 9
Table 3. Direct exports of Capra falconeri and C. falconeri jerdoni from Pakistan to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. Trade was all wild-sourced, primarily for hunting trophies. (Pakistan’s 2009 and 2010 annual reports have not yet been received). Taxon Term Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Capra falconeri horns Importer 2 2
Exporter
skins Importer 1 1 2
Exporter
skulls Importer 1 1
Exporter
trophies Importer 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 22
Exporter 1 1 1 2 1 2 8
Capra falconeri jerdoni horns Importer 1 2 3
Exporter
skins Importer 1 3 4
Exporter
skulls Importer 3 3
Exporter
trophies Importer 1 1 2 4
Exporter 1 2 3
Subtotals Capra falconeri Importer 1 1 2 5 3 4 4 5 25 (skins, skulls & trophies only) Exporter 1 1 1 2 1 2 8 Capra falconeri jerdoni Importer 2 1 6 2 11
Exporter 1 2 3
6 Capra falconeri
TAXONOMIC NOTE: Three subspecies are generally recognised: Capra falconeri heptneri, C. falconeri falconeri and C. falconeri megaceros (Shackleton and the IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, 1997; Grubb, 2005; Valdez, 2008), with the latter two occurring in Pakistan (Schaller and Kahn, 1975). Other authors recognised additional subspecies as occurring in Pakistan, including the Suleiman markhor C. falconeri jerdoni (e.g. Frisna, 2000; Shafique, 2006) which is considered a junior synonym of C. falconeri megaceros (Schaller and Kahn, 1975; Grubb, 2005). CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Capra falconeri occurs in northeastern Afghanistan, northern India, northern and central Pakistan, southern Tajikistan and southern Uzbekistan (Grubb, 2005). It is adapted to mountainous terrain 600- 3600 m above sea level and is typically found in scrub forests (Valdez, 2008). C. falconeri was categorised as Endangered in the IUCN Red List due to there being fewer than 2500 mature individuals, a continuing population decline estimated at 20 per cent over two generations and due to its subpopulations being severely fragmented (Valdez, 2008). The largest numbers of the species were reported to occur in Pakistan (Schaller and Kahn, 1975), although recent data are lacking across the majority of the species’ range (Valdez, 2008). Wild Caprinae were reported to be particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation due to their use of open habitats, conspicuous rump patches, high site fidelity and low reproductive rates compared to other ungulates of similar body size (Hess et al., 1997). Pakistan: The most comprehensive information on the distribution of C. falconeri in Pakistan was considered to be that provided by Schaller and Kahn (1975). The distribution of C. falconeri falconeri reported by Schaller and Kahn (1975) was considered still valid (Hess et al., 1997; Valdez 2008), although populations along the Indus have likely decreased (Hess et al., 1997): the subspecies was reported to be mainly concentrated along the Indus river and its tributaries (including the Gilgit, Hunza and Astor rivers) and along the Kunar (Chitral) river and its tributaries in northern Pakistan. Occurrence on the right side of the Yasin valley (Gilgit District) was also reported by Schaller and Kahn (1975) but could not be confirmed (Hess et al., 1997). The largest population was thought to occur in the Chitral Gol National Park (Hess et al., 1997). Schaller and Kahn (1975) presented a wide recent-past range for C. falconeri megaceros, with the present range consisting of small isolated areas in Baluchistan, a small area in North West Frontier Province and an unconfirmed occurrence in Dera Ghazi Khan District (Punjab Province) in central Pakistan (Hess et al., 1997; Valdez 2008). Virk (1991) summarised the information for Baluchistan Province, confirming the presence of C. falconeri megaceros in the Koh-i-Sulaiman region and the Torghar hills of the Toba Kakar range (Zhob District) and in the Takatu hills (Quetta District). From their studies undertaken between 1972 and 1974, Schaller and Kahn (1975) estimated the number of C. falconeri falconeri living in Pakistan and around the border with Afghanistan to be around 5000 individuals, while the total number of C. falconeri megaceros was estimated at around 2000 individuals across its entire range in Pakistan. Chitral Gol National Park was reported to be inhabited by possibly the largest remaining population of C. falconeri falconeri, nevertheless, this population was still estimated to number less than 200 individuals (Hess et al., 1997). Based on surveys conducted by provincial staff in 2002, the CITES Management Authority of Pakistan reported that the total population size of C. falconeri in Pakistan was 4599, comprising 1684 individuals in the Torghar Conservation Area/Baluchistan Province, 1570 animals in North West Frontier Province and 1345 individuals in northern areas (CITES COP 12 Doc 12.23.2). Most recently, Valdez (2008) estimated the current population size of C. falconeri falconeri in Pakistan to be no more than 3000 individuals. All subpopulations were thought to comprise less than 250 mature individuals (Valdez, 2008), with subpopulations of C. falconeri falconeri generally numbering less than 100 individuals (Hess et al., 1997).
7 Capra falconeri
Hunting was considered to be the principal factor contributing to the decline in numbers of C. falconeri in Pakistan from the early to mid-20th century onwards (Schaller and Kahn, 1975; Hess et al., 1997). Poaching was thought to have intensified during the 1980s due to the influx of arms and refugees into the region during the Soviet-Afghanistan war (Frisina and Tareen, 2009). Poaching was reported to present a continuing problem at certain sites in 2001 (Shackleton), however more recent information as to the extent of illegal hunting was unavailable. Other threats to C. falconeri populations were reported to include competition with livestock, risk of disease transmission from livestock (Woodford et al., 2004), habitat degradation and habitat loss (Sheikh and Molur, 2004). Habitat loss was reported to be a particular threat in the Suleiman range, where the largest subpopulations of C. falconeri megaceros occur (Hess et al., 1997). It was estimated that between 1994 and 2004, the area of C. falconeri megaceros habitat decreased by >20%, with a further decline of >10% predicted over the following decade (Sheikh and Molur, 2004). C. falconeri is protected by Pakistani federal law (Rao, 1986), and is also included in legislation adopted by provincial governments; for example, the species is listed as a ‘protected animal’ in the Third Schedule of the Balochistan Wildlife Protection Act of 1974 and as a result cannot be hunted, killed or captured (Government of Baluchistan, 1974); and the species is listed in the First Schedule of the North Western Frontier Province Wild-Life (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act 1975, hence can only be hunted under the terms of a game shooting or capture licence, together with purchase of a shooting permit per each animal (N.W.F.P., 1975). Pakistan adopted conservation legislation in the early 1970s that led to the establishment of several protected areas aimed at protecting C. falconeri, amongst other wildlife. However, protection measures were considered poorly implemented (Shackleton and the IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, 1997). Hess et al. (1997) listed 19 protected areas in which C. falconeri falconeri occurs and one protected area (Sheikh Buddin National Park) in which C. falconeri megaceros occurs. In response to the decline in numbers of C. falconeri megaceros in the Torghar hills (Baluchistan Province), local leaders established the Torghar Conservation Plan (now managed by the Society for Torghar Environmental Protection) (Johnson, 1997), covering an area of 642 km2 (Woodford et al., 2004). As a result of the Plan, the population of C. falconeri megaceros in the Torghar hills increased from an estimated 56 individuals in 1985 to 1680 individuals in 1999 (Frisina, 2000) and 2541 individuals in 2005 (Shafique, 2006), attributed to the virtual elimination of unauthorised hunting (Johnson, 1997). On the basis of population increases observed following implementation of the Torghar Conservation Plan, Pakistan successfully requested a CITES export quota for C. falconeri in 1997, on the condition that the trophy hunts would be beneficial both for conservation of C. falconeri and for local communities (CITES COP 10 Doc 10.84). Pakistan was required to implement a programme for monitoring community-based management plans, including regular surveys of wild C. falconeri populations (CITES Res. Conf. 10.15 (Rev. CoP14)). The current annual export quota of hunting trophies from 12 individuals is based on population surveys provided to the CITES Secretariat in 2002 (CITES COP 12 Doc 12.23.2), and was judged to be conservative based on the most recent population size estimates (Rosser et al., 2005; Frisina and Tareen, 2009).
REFERENCES: Frisina, M. R. 2000. Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri jerdoni) and Afghan urial (Ovis orientalis cycloceros): population status in Torghar hills, Balochistan Province, Pakistan. Report to STEP and USFWS. Frisina, M. R. and Tareen, S. N. A. 2009. Exploitation prevents extinction: Case study of endangered Himalayan sheep and goats, in Dickson, B., Hutton, J., & Adams, W. M., (eds.), Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods. Wiley-Blackwell, 141-156. Government of Baluchistan, 1974. The Baluchistan Wildlife Protection Act 1974, and rules notified thereunder (as amended up to December 13, 1977). Government of Baluchistan Agriculture Department.
8 Capra falconeri
Grubb, P. 2005. Artiodactyla, in Wilson, D. E. & Reeder, D. M., (eds.), Mammal species of the world- a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd Ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA. 637-722. Hess, R., Bollman, K., Rasool, G., Chaudhry, A. A., Virk, A. T., and Ahmad, A. 1997. Pakistan, in Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 239-260. Johnson, K. A. 1997. Trophy hunting as a conservation tool for caprinae in Pakistan, in Freese, C. H., (ed.), Harvesting wild species: implications for biodiversity. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. 393-423. N.W.F.P. 1975. The North Western Frontier Province Wild-Life (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 1975. 1st August 1975. N.-W.F.P. Act No. V of 1975. Rao, A. L. 1986. Legislation, in Carwardine, M., (ed.), The Nature of Pakistan: a guide to conservation and development issues. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 27-29. Rosser, A., Tareen, N., and Leader-Williams, N. 2005. The precautionary principle, uncertainty and trophy hunting: a review of the Torghar population of Central Asian markhor Capra falconeri, in Cooney, R. & Dickson, B., (eds.), Biodiversity and the precautionary principle: risk and uncertainty in conservation and sustainable use. Earthscan, London, UK. 55-72. Schaller, G. B. and Kahn, S. A. 1975. Distribution and status of markhor (Capra falconeri). Biological Conservation, 7: 185-198. Shackleton, D. M. 2001. A review of community-based trophy hunting programs in Pakistan. Prepared for the Mountain Areas Conservancy Project with the collaboration of the World Conservation Union (IUCN-Pakistan), and the National Council for the Conservation of Wildlife, Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development, Pakistan. Shackleton, D. M. and the IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group 1997. Wild sheep and goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 390 pp. Shafique, C. M. 2006. Status of Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri jerdoni) and Afghan Urial (Ovis vignei cycloceros) with relation to community-based trophy hunting in Torghar Conservancy, Balochistan Province, Pakistan. A report to the Society for Torghar Environmental Protection, Quetta, Pakistan. Sheikh, K. M. and Molur, S. 2004. Status and red list of Pakistan's mammals. Based on the Pakistan Mammal Conservation Assessment and Management Plan Workshop. IUCN Pakistan. 312 pp. Valdez, R. 2008. Capra falconeri. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 26-6-2012. Virk, A. T. 1991, Management plan for wild ungulates in Baluchistan, Pakistan., M. S. Thesis, University of Montana. Woodford, M. H., Frisina, M. R., and Awan, G. A. 2004. The Torghar Conservation Project: management of the livestock, Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri) and Afghan urial (Ovis orientalis) in the Torghar hills, Pakistan. Game and Wildlife Science, 21 (3): 177-187.
9 Chalcopsitta cardinalis
REVIEW OF SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS: SPECIES OTHER THAN CORALS AND BUTTERFLIES FROM ASIA AND OCEANIA
AVES LORIIDAE
SPECIES: Chalcopsitta cardinalis
SYNONYMS: Lorius cardinalis
COMMON NAMES: Kardinaallori (Dutch), Cardinal Lory (English), Lori cardinal (French), Lori cardenal (Spanish), Kardinallori (Swedish)
RANGE STATES: Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands
RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Solomon Islands
IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion formed for the Solomon Islands on 23/06/1999.
TRADE PATTERNS: Imports of Chalcopsitta cardinalis to the EU-27 directly from the Solomon Islands over the period 2001- 2010 consisted of 110 live, wild-sourced individuals, according to importers, with no reported trade since 2005. The Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007, but has not yet submitted any annual reports (Table 1). Indirect trade into the EU-27 originating in the Solomon Islands 2001-2010 consisted of live wild-sourced and captive-bred individuals, re-exported via Singapore and Malaysia (Table 2). Direct exports of C. cardinalis from the Solomon Islands to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 primarily consisted of live individuals, of which only captive-bred specimens were traded from 2004 onwards. Of the 5603 live individuals reported by importers 2001-2010, 83 per cent were imported by Singapore.
10 Chalcopsitta cardinalis
Table 1. Direct exports of Chalcopsitta cardinalis from the Solomon Islands to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was in live, wild-sourced individuals traded for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2003-2004 or 2006-2010; the Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007 but has not yet submitted any annual reports). Importer Reported by 2001 2002 2005 Total France Importer 20 20
Exporter
Hungary Importer 70 70 Exporter
Spain Importer 20 20
Exporter
Subtotals Importer 20 20 70 110 Exporter
Table 2. Indirect exports of Chalcopsitta cardinalis to the EU-27 originating in the Solomon Islands, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals for commercial or personal purposes. (No trade was reported in 2001, 2004, 2006-2010). Importer Source Reported by 2002 2003 2005 Total Czech Republic C Importer 10 10
Exporter
W Importer Exporter 20 70 90
Denmark C Importer 91 91
Exporter 51 51
W Importer 4 4
Exporter 4 4
Germany C Importer Exporter 40 40
Hungary W Importer
Exporter 6 6
Italy C Importer
Exporter 60 60
W Importer 39 39 Exporter 255 255
Netherlands C Importer
Exporter 20 20
W Importer 60 60
Exporter 170 40 210
Portugal C Importer Exporter 30 30
W Importer
Exporter 20 20
Spain C Importer
Exporter 140 140
Subtotals C Importer 10 91 101 Exporter 341 341
W Importer 39 64 103
11 Chalcopsitta cardinalis
Importer Source Reported by 2002 2003 2005 Total Exporter 451 24 110 585
Table 3. Direct exports of Chalcopsitta cardinalis from the Solomon Islands to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. All live trade was for commercial purposes, with specimens traded for scientific purposes. (The Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007 but has not yet submitted any annual reports). Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total live C Importer 86 486 450 1760 300 830 200 200 100 4412
Exporter
W Importer 60 1071 60 1191 Exporter
specimens W Importer 2 5 7
Exporter
CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Chalcopsitta cardinalis is endemic to the Bismarck Archipelago of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, where it inhabits woodland, mangrove, coastal coconut palm plantations and humid primary and secondary forest up to altitudes of 1200 m (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Although the population size of C. cardinalis has not been quantified, the species is categorised as ‘Least Concern’ in the IUCN Red List since the population was considered to number over 10 000 mature individuals, the population trend appears to be stable and its extent of occurrence was thought to be over 20 000 km2 (BirdLife International, 2012). According to Juniper and Parr (1998), the global population numbers over 100 000 individuals; Dutson (2011) described the species as “common” and Forshaw (2010) as “very common”. Solomon Islands: C. cardinalis occurs throughout the Solomon Islands to San Cristobal in the south (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The species relatively recently colonised Ontong Java atoll, which lies approximately 300 km to the north-east of the main Solomon Island group (Bayliss-Smith, 1974), where there were reports of a widespread breeding population in 1986 and a more restricted population in 2008 (Bayliss-Smith and Christensen, 2008). The highest densities of the species were reported to be found in lowland habitats (Buckingham et al., 1990). C. cardinalis was described as “generally common to abundant” in the Solomon Islands (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Kratter et al. (2001) reported that C. cardinalis was reported daily in large numbers during surveys on Isabel Island between 1997 and 1998. According to Buckingham et al. (1990), C. cardinalis on the island of Gizo have been captured and kept as pets. On Luangina Island in Ontong Java Atoll, there were reports that the C. cardinalis population recently became extinct due to deforestation and shooting for sport (Bayliss-Smith and Christensen, 2008). C. cardinalis is listed in Schedule II (Regulated and Controlled Species) of the Wildlife Protection and Management Act (National Parliament of Solomon Islands, 1998), denoting that a valid permit issued to an approved person or institution is required for import and export.
REFERENCES: Bayliss-Smith, T. and Christensen, A. E. 2008. Birds and people on Ontong Java Atoll, Solomon Islands, 1906-2008: continunity and change. Atoll Research Bulletin, 562. Bayliss-Smith, T. P. 1974. A recent immigrant to Ontong Java atoll, Solomon Islands. Bulletin of the British Ornithological Club, 93: 52-53. BirdLife International. 2012. Chalcopsitta cardinalis, In: IUCN 2012.IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.1., URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 28-6-2012.
12 Chalcopsitta cardinalis
Buckingham, D. L., Dutson, G. C. L., and Newman, J. L. 1990. Birds of Manus, Kolombangara and Makira (San Cristobal) with notes on mammals and records from other Solomon Islands. Report of the Cambridge Solomons Rainforest Project 1990. Dutson, G. 2011. Birds of Melanesia - Bismarcks, Solomons, Vanuatu and New Caledonia. Christopher Helm, London, UK. Forshaw, J. M. 2010. Parrots of the World. Christopher Helm, London. Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots - a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Sussex. Kratter, A. W., Steadman, D. W., Smith, C. E., Filardi, C. E., and Webb, H. P. 2001. Avifauna of a lowland forest site on Isabel, Solomon Islands. The Auk, 118 (2): 472-483. National Parliament of Solomon Islands. 1998. Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998 (No. 10 of 1998).
REVIEW OF SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS: SPECIES OTHER THAN CORALS AND BUTTERFLIES FROM ASIA AND OCEANIA
REPTILIA BOIDAE
SPECIES: Candoia carinata
SYNONYMS: Boa carinata, Candoia paulsoni, Candoia superciliosa, Enygrus carinatus, Enygrus superciliosus
COMMON NAMES: Bevel-nosed Boa (English), New Guinea Bevel-nosed Boa (English), Solomon Ground Boa (English), Tree Boa (English), Boa nain à carènes (French), Boa nain des Salomon (French), Boa del Pacífico (Spanish), Celebesboa (Swedish), Sulawesiboa (Swedish)
RANGE STATES: Indonesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands,
RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia
IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinion for all countries formed on 09/10/1997 and removed for Palau and Papua New Guinea on 02/12/2011. Current positive opinion for Solomon Islands formed on 12/06/2006. Previous negative opinion formed for captive- bred specimens originating from the Solomon Islands on 02/12/2002, which was replaced by a 4.6(b) import suspension on 30/04/2004 and removed on 18/02/2005.
TRADE PATTERNS: Indonesia published an annual export quota of 1080 live individuals from 2001-2012 (Table 1). The quota was exceeded by 24 individuals in 2004, according to Indonesia.
14 Candoia carinata
Table 1. CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced Candoia carinata from Indonesia and global exports, reported by importers and by the exporter.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Quota 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 Reported by the importers 798 642 432 681 427 735 688 700 281 339
Reported by Indonesia 1012 932 961 1104 1041 967 1077 1080 1030
Imports of Candoia carinata to the EU-27 directly from Indonesia over the period 2001-2010 consisted of 1579 and 2179 live individuals, according to importers and the exporter respectively, the majority of which were wild-sourced, and traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). The main importers were Germany and the United Kingdom. An annual report for 2010 was submitted by Indonesia; however no exports of C. carinata were reported. It is possible that imports reported in 2010 may have been exported from Indonesia in 2009, but an analysis of permit numbers was unable to verify this. Indirect trade into the EU-27 originating in Indonesia 2001-2010 consisted entirely of live, wild-sourced individuals, mainly re-exported via the United States (Table 3). Direct exports of C. carinata from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live individuals, primarily wild-sourced, traded for commercial purposes (Table 4). Of the 7242 wild-sourced individuals reported as exports by Indonesia, 73 per cent were exported to the United States, 11 per cent to Japan and 9 per cent to Canada. Table 2. Direct exports of Candoia carinata from Indonesia to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals. Importer Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Austria T W Importer 15 15
Exporter 10 15 25
Belgium T W Importer 10 10
Exporter 20 20
Czech Republic B W Importer 3 3
Exporter
T W Importer 9 32 8 15 64
Exporter 12 10 10 41 8 81
Denmark T W Importer 25 40 65
Exporter 25 45 3 73
France T F Importer 39 73 112
Exporter 17 41 39 100 197
W Importer 16 24 30 10 20 20 45 6 171
Exporter 20 39 43 10 20 20 45 197
Germany P W Importer 4 6 10
Exporter
T F Importer 7 7
Exporter
W Importer 5 30 78 119 90 104 107 20 25 578
Exporter 33 39 21 94 107 192 150 143 6 785
Italy T W Importer 10 10
Exporter 6 4 10 20
Netherlands T W Importer 4 18 38 13 15 24 112
Exporter 12 12 18 12 54
Spain T W Importer 36 10 10 3 59
15 Candoia carinata
Importer Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Exporter 36 20 10 10 20 96
Sweden T W Importer Exporter 47 47
United Kingdom T F Importer
Exporter 20 20
W Importer 8 20 34 1 47 80 156 16 362
Exporter 22 27 44 82 136 228 25 564
- I Importer 1 1 Exporter
Subtotals F Importer 39 80 119
Exporter 37 41 39 100 217
W Importer 70 52 62 167 129 229 249 331 97 73 1459
Exporter 113 93 125 226 164 345 366 424 106 1962
I Importer 1 1 Exporter
Table 3. Indirect exports of Candoia carinata to the EU-27 originating in Indonesia, 2001-2010. All trade was in live, wild-sourced individuals traded for commercial or personal purposes. (No trade was reported 2009-2010). Importer Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Denmark Importer 2 5 4 11
Exporter 10 2 12
France Importer 6 6 Exporter
Germany Importer 3 3
Exporter 3 3
Italy Importer
Exporter 2 2
Netherlands Importer 6 6 Exporter 4 6 10
United Kingdom Importer 10 10
Exporter 3 10 13
Subtotals Importer 3 6 2 5 4 10 6 36
Exporter 3 10 5 14 6 2 40
Table 4. Direct exports of Candoia carinata from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals. Trade was primarily for commercial purposes. Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total C Importer 10 30 40 80
Exporter
F Importer 88 66 55 37 149 76 93 564
Exporter 61 124 117 197 163 51 66 779
W Importer 728 590 370 514 298 506 439 369 184 266 4264 Exporter 899 839 836 878 877 622 711 656 924 7242
16 Candoia carinata
TAXONOMIC NOTE:
On the basis of observations of captive and museum specimens Candoia carinata was regarded as a complex of three species (C. carinata, C. superciliosa and C. paulsoni) by Smith et al. (2001). New subspecies for each of these species were recognised (Smith et al., 2001). CONSERVATION STATUS in range states: Candoia carinata is a slender bodied, moderate sized snake (snout-vent length 1200 mm) of the islands of the Southwest Pacific (Wynn and Zug, 1985). Predominantly occurring in lowland forest, it is mainly arboreal where sympatric with the terrestrial C. aspera, and it is terrestrial where it is sympatric with the arboreal C. bibroni (McDowell, 1979). The species is distributed from Indonesia in the west to the Solomon Islands to the south-east, with the large island of Papua (Indonesia) and Papua New Guinea being at the centre of its distribution (McDiarmid et al., 1999). The species was reported to be abundant in many places (Smith et al., 2001). Some representatives of the species complex have been reported to adapt well to anthropogenic habitat degradation (Smith et al., 2001). C. carinata has not been assessed by the IUCN. Candoia spp. are viviparous, with average litter sizes of 15-18 young (Harlow and Shine, 1992). Following examination of museum specimens, it was suggested that reproduction may not occur in every year in every female for all Candoia spp. (Harlow and Shine, 1992). Indonesia: The species was reported to range from the northern peninsula of Sulawesi (Minahassa), Kepulauan Sangihe [a group of islands in northern Sulawesi], and Kepulauan Talaud [a remote island group in the northern Molucca Sea] eastwards through the Moluccas (In den Bosch, 1985; McDiarmid et al., 1999). Distribution for the Moluccas was reported as: northern Maluku (Ternate, Halmahera, Morotai, Batjan) and southern Maluku (Ceram, Ambon, Haruku, Separua, Banda, Goram, Tanimbar) (McDiarmid et al., 1999; Smith et al., 2001). The species was also reported to occur in Misool, Batanta, and Salawatti [three of the four major Raja Ampat islands in West Papua] and Papua [formerly known as Irian Jaya] (McDiarmid et al., 1999; Smith et al., 2001). McDowell (1979) reported that the species occurred on the Tanimbar Islands east of the Lesser Sunder chain. How and Kitchener (1997) reported C. carinata to occur on Bandanaira (Banda) Island. According to the Management Authority of Indonesia (2011), the species was reported to occur within the country in Sulawesi, the Sangir-Talaud islands (North Sulawesi), the Moluccas (including Tanimbar islands of the Maluku province), Misool, Batanta and Salawati and Papua. The subspecies C. carinata carinata was included in a checklist of snakes of Sulawesi that were known to occur with certainty, by reference to earlier literature and personal records of the authors (de Lang and Vogel, 2006). It was the impression of the authors that the subspecies was relatively rare or was a potential victim of human activities, and a more systematic survey of the island was considered a priority for the subspecies (de Lang and Vogel, 2006). C. carinata was reported to occur in the Talaud Archipelago by de Rooij (1915; 1917 in: Koch). However, the species was not included in a checklist of the Talaud Archipelago following surveys of the east coast of one of the main islands (Salibabu Island) in 2005, and by reference to other distribution records (Koch et al., 2009). It was concluded that the earlier record of C. carinata in the Talaud Islands should be attributed to C. paulsoni tasmai. Historical reports of C. carinata reaching Sangihe Island in North Sulawesi were also reported as dubious (Koch et al., 2009), as the subspecies C. p. tasmai was recorded on the adjacent arm of Sulawesi from Sangihe (McDowell, 1979). No status information for C. carinata in the Moluccas or Papua province could be located. Status information for Indonesian snakes is generally lacking (Iskandar and Erdelen, 2006). Prior to the taxonomic split of C. carinata into three species, it had formerly been known as a “very variable” species (Iskandar and Erdelen, 2006), although whether this refers to the species distribution, status or otherwise, is unclear. The main threat to reptile species in Indonesia is habitat destruction (Iskandar and Erdelen, 2006).
17 Candoia carinata
Harvest and export quotas for 2008 (SRG 46) indicated that the total harvest quota for live C. carinata was 1200 individuals, comprising 500 specimens originating from Maluku (Moluccas), 350 from West Papua and 350 from Jayapura (in the north of Papua province). It is unclear if the location of harvests has remained consistent; however the export quota of 1080 has remained unchanged since 2008. According to Iskandar and Erdelen (2006), C. carinata is not a protected species in Indonesia. A number of terrestrial national parks occur in the Moluccas and Papua which could potentially harbour this species: Aketajawe-Lolobata on the island of Halmahera in the north Maluku province, and two in Papua province, Lorentz and Manusela. However, species lists for these national parks could not be located. In a country report on snake trade and conservation submitted by Indonesia to the CITES Asian Snake Trade Workshop (Management Authority of Indonesia, 2011), it was noted that wild harvest is allowed for abundant species, taking into account population size and trends, geographic range, harvest location and age or size class, and as much as possible these factors are considered when setting quotas. However, conservation status of the wild population of C. carinata in Indonesia was not provided.
REFERENCES: de Lang, R. and Vogel, G. 2006. The snakes of Sulawesi, M. Vences, T. Köhler, & W. Böhme, eds., pp. 35- 38. Harlow, P. and Shine, R. 1992. Food habits and reproductive biology of the Pacific Island Boas (Candoia). Journal of Herpetology 26(1), 60-66. How, R. A. and Kitchener, D. J. 1997. Biogeography of Indonesian snakes. Journal of Biogeography 24, 725-735. In den Bosch, H. A. J. 1985. Snakes of Sulawesi: Checklist, key and additional biogeographical remarks. Zoologische Verhandelingen 217, 1-50. Iskandar, D. T. and Erdelen, W. R. 2006. Conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Indonesia: issues and problems. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 4 (1): 60-87. Koch, A., Arida, E., Riyanto, A., and Böhme, W. 2009. Islands between the realms: A revised checklist of the Herpetofauna of the Talaud Archipelago, Indonesia, with a discussion about its biogeographic affinities. Bonner Zoologische Beitraege 56, 107-129. Management Authority of Indonesia. 2011. Country Report of Indonesia. Snake trade and conservation. Submitted to the CITES Asian Snake Trade Workshop, Guangzhou, China, April 11-14, 2011. Ministry of Forestry, Jakarta. McDiarmid, R. W., Campbell, J. A., and T'Shaka, A. T. 1999. Snake species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Herpetologists' League, Washington, DC. McDowell, S. 1979. A catalogue of the snakes of New Guinea and the Solomons, with special reference to those in the Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Part III. Boinae and Acrochordoidea (Reptilia, Serpentes). Journal of Herpetology 13(1), 1-92. Smith, H. M., Chiszar, D., Tepedelen, K., and van Breukelen, F. 2001. A revision of the bevel-nosed Boas (Candoia carinata complex) (Reptilia: Serpentes). Hamadryad 26(2), 283-315. Wynn, A. H. and Zug, G. R. 1985. Observations on the reproductive biology of Candoia carinata. The Snake 17, 15-24.
18 Ptyas mucosus
REVIEW OF SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS: SPECIES OTHER THAN CORALS AND BUTTERFLIES FROM ASIA AND OCEANIA
REPTILIA COLUBRIDAE
SPECIES: Ptyas mucosus
SYNONYMS: Coluber mucosus
COMMON NAMES: Indisk rottesnog (Danish), Oosterse rattenslang (Dutch), Common Rat Snake (English), Dhaman (English), Oriental Rat Snake (English), Elaphe de I'Inde (French), Grand serpent ratier de I'Indie (French), Serpent ratier (French), Serpent ratier indien (French), Serpent ratier oriental (French), Rattennatter (German), Rattenschlange (German), Dhaman (Italian), Serpente dei natti indiano (Italian), Serpenti dei ratti (Italian), Culebra ratera oriental (Spanish), orientalisk råttsnok (Swedish)
RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam
RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Lao People's Democratic Republic (hereafter referred to as Lao PDR), Thailand
IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997 and removed for Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Hong Kong SAR, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam on 02/12/2011. Current positive opinion for China formed on 31/08/2001. Previous 4.6(b) import suspension for China applied on 19/09/1999 and removed on 29/10/2001. Previous positive opinion for Indonesia formed on 22/04/1999 and replaced by a 4.6(b) import suspension, first applied on 19/09/1999 and removed on 10/05/2006.
19 Ptyas mucosus
TRADE PATTERNS: Lao People's Democratic Republic: There were no reported direct or indirect imports of Ptyas mucosus to the EU-27 from Lao PDR over the period 2001-2010. Direct exports of P. mucosus from Lao PDR to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live individuals from a variety of sources, imported by Viet Nam and China (Table 1). Table 1. Direct exports of Ptyas mucosus from Lao PDR to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals for commercial purposes. (Lao PDR became a Party to CITES in 2004. Annual reports for 2005 and 2010 have not yet been received). Units Source Reported by 2001 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total kg W Importer 6000 6000
Exporter
- C Importer 3500 3500 7000
Exporter 10000 10000
R Importer
Exporter 4000 10000 14000
W Importer 8000 1200 9200
Exporter
Thailand: There were no imports of P. mucosus to the EU-27 directly from Thailand over the period 2001-2010. However, there were high volumes of indirect trade into the EU-27 originating in Thailand 2001-2010, consisting of skins and various leather products re-exported via Singapore, Switzerland, the United States, Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan POC, amongst others (Table 2). Direct exports of P. mucosus from Thailand to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted primarily of wild-sourced leather products, the majority of which were imported by Malaysia and the Republic of Korea (Table 3). Given the apparent discrepancy between the very low level of direct exports from Thailand 2001-2010 (Table 3) and the many thousands of wild-sourced skins originating in Thailand that were imported indirectly into the EU-27 over this period (Table 2), an analysis of permit numbers was conducted. The vast majority of wild-sourced skins were imported by Germany via Singapore (171 250 of the 192 533 skins reported by EU importers). These were traced back to nine original permit numbers: 1.7% of the trade was on a permit number first reported by Thailand as a direct export to the EU in 1987, 1.3% of the trade was on a permit number first reported as an import to the EU in 1987, 56% of the trade was on three permits numbers first reported as imports to Singapore and Hong Kong in 1997, 3% of the trade was on a single permit number first reported as a re-export from the EU in 2002, 4% of the trade was on two permit numbers first reported as indirect imports to the EU in 2002, and 29% of the trade was from a single permit number first reported as an indirect import to the EU in 2004. Whilst only one of the nine permits was originally reported as an export by Thailand, the dates these permit numbers were first recoded in trade indicates that the majority of wild-sourced skins were originally exported from Thailand prior to the period 2001-2010. Table 3. Direct exports of Ptyas mucosus from Thailand to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. Trade was primarily for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2002-2003, 2005-2006 or 2009-2010). Term Source Reported by 2001 2004 2007 2008 Total large leather products C Importer 1 1
Exporter
W Importer 17 17
Exporter
shoes W Importer 2 2 Exporter
skins I Importer 1 1
Exporter
20 Ptyas mucosus
Term Source Reported by 2001 2004 2007 2008 Total small leather products W Importer 8 18 26
Exporter
CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Ptyas mucosus is widely distributed in South Asia from Iran and Afghanistan in the west to southern China in the east and Indonesia in the southeast (Daniel, 1983; Cox et al., 1998; Ananjeva et al., 2006; TRAFFIC, 2008; Das, 2010). It is a medium-sized, diurnal snake associated with a variety of habitats including agricultural systems (Daniel, 1983; Cox et al., 1998; TRAFFIC, 2008). Das (2010) reported its occurrence in forested and agricultural areas, parks and gardens, from sea level up to 4000 m. Females were reported to reach maturation at around nine months (with average body lengths of ~120 cm) (TRAFFIC, 2008; Auliya, 2010), producing clutch sizes ranging from six to 18 eggs (Cox et al., 1998). Incubation was reported to last 60-95 days, with hatchlings measuring 300-472 mm (Das, 2010). The global conservation status of P. mucosus has not yet been assessed by the IUCN (IUCN, 2010), and there is a lack of information on global population size, trends and threats (TRAFFIC, 2008). Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Duckworth et al. (1999) reported the species’ occurrence in the centre and south of Lao PDR; Teynié and David (2007) reported the species’ occurrence in Champasak Province, southern Lao PDR. P. mucosus was reported to be ‘Potentially at Risk in Lao PDR’ (Duckworth et al., 1999) Members of this genus were reported to be hunted for food and regularly sold in markets (Baird, 1993 in: Duckworth et al., 1999). The greatest threat to herpetofauna in Lao PDR was reported to be harvest for domestic consumption, internal trade and unregulated export; snakes including P. mucosus and P. korros were reported to be exported, with large volumes of reptiles passing northwards through Viet Nam to China (Duckworth et al., 1999). The Wildlife and Aquatic Law (Lao PDR National Assembly, 2007) contains regulations relating to the hunting, capture, use, trade and management of wildlife, divided into three categories – prohibited, managed and general wildlife. However, P. mucosus is not listed in any of the categories. Thailand: P. mucosus was reported to occur in all provinces of Thailand (from agricultural areas to hill forests), and was categorised as ‘Least Concern’ in the country’s Red Data Book (Nabhitabhata and Chan-ard, 2005). Pauwels et al. (2003) reported that P. mucosus was “much less common than P. korros” in Phetchaburi Province, western Thailand. An updated list reported the species’ occurrence in Ban Lat, Muang and Tha Yang Districts of Phetchaburi Province (Pauwels et al., 2009). P. mucosus was listed as a protected species in 1994 under the Wild Animal Reservation and Protection Act (Government of Thailand, 1992). Under this Act, hunting, propagation, possession and trade of preserved and protected species is not permitted. The TRAFFIC Bulletin included numerous instances of seizures of P. mucosus thought to originate in Thailand, many numbering several thousand specimens and thought to be destined for consumption in China or Viet Nam (TRAFFIC, 2012).
21 Ptyas mucosus
Table 2. Indirect exports of Ptyas mucosus to the EU-27 originating in Thailand, 2001-2010. Trade was primarily for commercial purposes. Importer Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Austria large leather products - W Importer 1 1
Exporter 1 1
small leather products - W Importer 1 1
Exporter
Belgium small leather products pairs W Importer Exporter 10 10
- W Importer
Exporter 3 1 2 6
- Importer 3 1 4
Exporter
Bulgaria small leather products pairs W Importer Exporter 11 11
Cyprus small leather products pairs W Importer 10 10
Exporter 44 44
- W Importer 10 10
Exporter
Denmark large leather products pairs W Importer 7 7 Exporter
small leather products pairs W Importer 14 14
Exporter 21 21
France large leather products - W Importer 29 29
Exporter
small leather products pairs W Importer 8 8 Exporter 8349 8 1 186 8544
- W Importer 7639 90 1 49 188 461 310 8738
Exporter 69 1 49 37 744 900
22 Ptyas mucosus
Importer Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Germany large leather products pairs W Importer 77 73 150
Exporter - W Importer 10 1 11
Exporter 1 1
shoes - W Importer
Exporter 88 88
skin pieces - W Importer
Exporter 2 2 skins - W Importer 16282 36283 98210 7000 8375 5100 171250
Exporter 16282 48857 89560 10000 8375 5100 178174
small leather products pairs W Importer
Exporter 77 77
- W Importer 1 5 6
Exporter 1 1 Greece small leather products pairs W Importer
Exporter 136 136
Hungary large leather products - W Importer 8 8
Exporter
small leather products pairs W Importer
Exporter 18 18 Italy garments - W Importer 11 1 2 14
Exporter 9 5 2 16
large leather products - W Importer 5 2 7
Exporter 1 10 2 13
shoes pairs W Importer 208 52 260
Exporter - C Importer
Exporter 20 20
23 Ptyas mucosus
Importer Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total W Importer 132 211 343
Exporter 20 110 54 189 109 197 679 skin pieces - W Importer 630 630
Exporter 21 630 27 678
skins - W Importer 932 1485 15 30 15821 18283
Exporter 645 12 30 3 15821 16511
small leather products pairs W Importer 49 6 7 62
Exporter 4 6 32 17 3 8 1 71 - W Importer 1 12 1 40 274 44 98 1591 76 2137
Exporter 8 798 42 238 100 152 87 1425
Latvia small leather products - W Importer
Exporter 1 1
Spain skins - W Importer 3000 3000
Exporter 3000 3000 small leather products pairs W Importer
Exporter 6 6 12
- W Importer 2 1 1 4
Exporter 1 1
Sweden small leather products pairs W Importer
Exporter 38 38 United Kingdom large leather products - W Importer
Exporter 1 1
shoes - W Importer
Exporter 4 2 6
small leather products - W Importer 1 2 3
Exporter 1 1 Subtotals skins - W Importer 19282 37215 99695 7015 8405 5100 15821 192533
(main terms only) Exporter 19282 48857 90205 10012 8405 5103 15821 197685
24 Ptyas mucosus
Importer Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total small leather products pairs W Importer 57 6 24 7 94
Exporter 4 6 8742 25 4 8 193 8982 - W & unspecified Importer 1 15 7650 130 275 93 288 2055 395 10902
Exporter 8 3 69 799 42 287 139 901 87 2335
25 Ptyas mucosus
REFERENCES: Ananjeva, N. B., Orlov, N. L., Khalikov, R. G., Darevsky, I. S., Ryabov, S. A., and Barabanov, A. V. 2006. The reptiles of northern Eurasia: taxonomic diversity, distribution, conservation status. Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. Auliya, M. 2010. Conservation status and impact of trade on the oriental rat snake Ptyas mucosa in Java, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia. Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Baird, I. 1993. Wildlife trade between the southern Lao PDR provinces of Champasak, Sekong, and Attapeu, and Thailand, Cambodia and Viet Nam. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (Field report 3). Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J., and Thirakhupt, K. 1998. A photographic guide to snakes and other reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland, London, UK. 144 pp. Daniel, J. C. 1983. The book of Indian reptiles. Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford University Press. Das, I. 2010. Field guide to the reptiles of South-East Asia. New Holland Publishers Ltd. London. Duckworth, J. W., Salter, R. E., and Khounboline, K. 1999. Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 status report. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Wildlife Conservation Society and Centre for Protected areas and Watershed Management. Vientiane. Government of Thailand. 1992. Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2535 (1992). IUCN. 2010. IUCN Red List URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Accessed: 23-07-2012. Lao PDR National Assembly. 2007. Wildlife and aquatic law No 07/NA. Vientiane Capital, dated 24 December 2007. Nabhitabhata, J. and Chan-ard, T. 2005. Thailand Red Data: Mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Bangkok, Thailand. 234 pp. Pauwels, O. S. G., Chan-ard, T., Wanchai, P., Kheowyoo, B., and Bauer, A. M. 2009. Reptile diversity of Phetchaburi province, western Thailand: an update. Hamadryad, 34 (1): 9-21. Pauwels, O. S. G., David, P., Chimsunchart, C., and Thirakhupt, K. 2003. Reptiles of Phetchaburi Province, Western Thailand: a list of species, with natural history notes, and a discussion on the biogeography at the Isthmus of Kra. The Natural History Journal of Chulalongkorn University, 3 (1): 23-53. Teynié, A. and David, P. 2007. Additions to the snake fauna of Southern Laos, with the second laotian specimen of Naja siamensis (Laurenti, 1768) and the first country record of Oligodon taeniatus (Gunther, 1861) (Squamata, serpentes). Russian Journal of Herpetology, 14 (1): 39-44. TRAFFIC. 2008. Case study on Ptyas mucosus - a proposed NDF method for Indonesia (Java). NDF Workshop case studies, WG7 Reptiles and Amphibians, Case Study 4. International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings, Cancun, Mexico, November 17th to 22nd, 2008. TRAFFIC. 2012. TRAFFIC Bulletin seizures and prosecutions March 1997-April 2012. Voris, Harold. 17-1-2008. E-mail correspondence with Harold Voris (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago). 17th January 2008.
26 Hirudo medicinalis
REVIEW OF SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS: SPECIES OTHER THAN CORALS AND BUTTERFLIES FROM ASIA AND OCEANIA
HIRUDINOIDEA HIRUDINIDAE
SPECIES: Hirudo medicinalis
SYNONYMS: Hirudo officinalis
COMMON NAMES: Lægeigle (Danish), Medicinale bloedzuiger (Dutch), Medicinal Leech (English), Verijuotikas (Finnish), Sangsue médicinale (French), Sangsue officinale (French), Medizinischer Blutegel (German), Sanguisuga comune (Italian), Sanguisughe (Italian), Blodigle (Norwegian), Sanguijuela (Spanish), Medicinsk blodigel (Swedish)
RANGE STATES: Austria, Belarus, Belgium (?), Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark (?), Estonia (?), Finland (?), France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland (ex), Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg (?), Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovakia (?), Slovenia, Spain (?), Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey (?), Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Ukraine
IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/near threatened
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997 and removed for Belarus, Croatia, Norway and the Russian Federation on 02/12/2011. Positive opinion for Turkey formed on 23/06/1999 and last confirmed on 11/03/2011.
TRADE PATTERNS: Imports of Hirudo medicinalis to the EU-27 directly from the Ukraine over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live individuals, extract, derivatives and medicine, primarily captive-bred (Table 1). The main importers were Latvia and France. There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of H. medicinalis originating in the Ukraine 2001-2010. Direct exports of H. medicinalis from the Ukraine to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001- 2010 consisted of live, primarily captive-bred individuals, imported by the United States and Israel (Table 2).
27 Hirudo medicinalis
Table 1. Direct exports of Hirudo medicinalis from the Ukraine to the EU-27, 2001-2010. (No trade was reported 2002-2006). Importer Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Czech Republic extract - T C Importer 1740 1740
Exporter medicine l - I Importer 13.125 13.125
Exporter
Estonia derivatives - T C Importer 5000 35000 40000
Exporter 5000
extract - T C Importer 4000 4000
Exporter France extract kg M R Importer 1.5 1.5
Exporter
live - M C Importer 45000 45000
Exporter
T C Importer
Exporter 50000 50000 Latvia derivatives - T C Importer 157496 157496
Exporter 115370 61205 162000 338575
- - Importer
Exporter 600 600
medicine - T C Importer 180000 180000
Exporter - - Importer 30456 30456
Exporter
Lithuania derivatives - T C Importer
Exporter 64000 64000
Poland live - - I Importer 800 800
Exporter Subtotals (main derivatives C Importer 162496 35000 197496
terms only) Exporter 115370 61205 231000 407575
- Importer
Exporter 600 600
live C Importer 45000 45000
Exporter 50000 30000 80000 I Importer 800 800
Exporter
28 Hirudo medicinalis
Table 2. Direct exports of Hirudo medicinalis from the Ukraine to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals for commercial, breeding and medicinal purposes. (No trade was reported in 2001 or 2010). Units Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total kg C Importer 3 3
Exporter
- C Importer 10500 18500 19500 12000 13000 7500 7600 88600
Exporter 19000 32000 18000 19000 30000 21000 12000 151000
- Importer 2000 4000 6000 12000
Exporter
TAXONOMIC NOTE: Scientific understanding of the taxonomy and distribution of medicinal leech species in Europe has changed considerably over recent years. Whilst the independent status of Hirudo verbana was formally re-established by Nesemann and Neubert (1999 - the CITES standard nomenclatural reference), and the genetic differentiation between H. medicinalis and H. verbana has been demonstrated in recent studies (Trontelj et al., 2004; 2005), much of the scientific literature continues to use H. medicinalis to denote any Hirudo species in the western Palaearctic (Utevsky et al., 2010). CONSERVATION STATUS in range states H. medicinalis is a parasitic invertebrate distributed from Norway and Sweden in the north, to Britain in the west, the Urals and probably as far as the Altai Mountains (Russian Federation) in the east and south to Slovenia and Croatia (Utevsky et al., 2010). It was reported to have become rare throughout western Europe (Elliott and Kutschera, 2011), although Utevsky et al. (2010) considered this to be mainly a consequence of sampling inadequacy in countries such as France and Spain. H. medicinalis typically has a sporadic occurrence in isolated habitats, requiring warm-water ponds or stagnant shallow waters with an abundance of animal hosts (Utevsky et al., 2010; Elliott and Kutschera, 2011). It was reported to be able to persist with a low minimum viable population size, which may be typical of rare freshwater invertebrates in isolated habitats (Elliott and Kutschera, 2011). Medicinal leeches are hermaphrodites, with mating occurring in summer; sperm can be stored for 1 to 9 months between copulation and cocoon deposition, chiefly in July and August (Elliott and Kutschera, 2011). In laboratory conditions, adult H. medicinalis were found to lay 1 to 7 cocoons with 3 to 30 eggs per cocoon, producing 2 broods per year under optimum conditions (Zapkuviene, 1972a; 1972b in: Elliott and Kutschera, 2011) H. medicinalis was categorised as Lower Risk/near threatened in a 1996 global Red List assessment (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1996). More recently, (Utevsky et al., 2010) considered H. medicinalis (and H. verbana and H. orientalis) to likely qualify for the global IUCN category of Near Threatened. There have long been concerns regarding the over-collection of medicinal leeches throughout Europe, due to their use since historical times in phlebotomy (blood-letting) and more recent uses in neurobiology and medicine (Siddall et al., 2007; Elliott and Kutschera, 2011). However, a recent study using mitochondrial sequences and nuclear microsatellites demonstrated that the species most often in commercial trade was actually H. verbana (Siddall et al., 2007). Nevertheless, Utevsky et al. (2010) acknowledged that Hirudo species could be endangered locally by collecting pressure. Other reported threats to H. medicinalis included loss of wetlands, especially eutrophic ponds and marshes, the isolation of remaining ponds and a reduction in the availability of suitable amphibian and mammalian hosts (Utevsky et al., 2010; Elliott and Kutschera, 2011). H. medicinalis was selected for the CITES Periodic Review process at the 21st meeting of the CITES Animals Committee (AC21 Summary Record). It was reviewed by Spain, who recommended retaining it in Appendix II as regulation of trade is required to ensure harvest from the wild is not detrimental to the species (AC22 Doc. 11.3 [Rev. 1] Annex 2).
29 Hirudo medicinalis
Ukraine: Whilst H. medicinalis was reported to occur within the Ukraine (Lukin, 1976 in: Utevsky and Trontelj, 2005), there was little available information on its distribution and status within the country; specimens used in recent genetic analyses have all been collected from the Kharkiv Region, northeastern Ukraine (Trontelj and Utevsky, 2005; Siddall et al., 2007; Utevsky et al., 2010). During their recent collecting trips in the Kharkiv Region, Utevsky et al. (2010) noted that “drained and agriculturally ameliorated stretches of alluvial plains were devoid of medicinal leeches. Although more research is needed to estimate the true impact on habitat alteration, this adds to the array of real or potential threats.” No information could be located on the management of wild leeches in the Ukraine or on national captive-breeding operations.
REFERENCES: Elliott, J. M. and Kutschera, U. 2011. Medicinal leeches: historical use, ecology, genetics and conservation. Freshwater Reviews, 4: 21-41. Lukin, E. I. 1976. Piyavki [Leeches]. Fauna SSSR. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, vol. 1. Nauka, Leningrad. Nesemann, H. and Neubert, E. 1999. Annelida: Clitellata: Branchiobdellida, Acanthobdellea, Hirudinea. Süßwasserfauna von Mitteleuropa, vol. 6/2. Berlin (Spektrum Akad. Verlag). Siddall, M. E., Trontelj, P., Utevsky, S. Y., Nkamany, M., and Macdonald, K. S. 2007. Diverse molecular data demonstrate that commercially available medicinal leeches are not Hirudo medicinalis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274 (1617): 1481. Trontelj, P., Sotler, M., and Verovnik, R. 2004. Genetic differentiation between two species of the medicinal leech, Hirudo medicinalis and the neglected H. verbana, based on random-amplified polymorphic DNA. Parasitology research, 94 (2): 118-124. Trontelj, P. and Utevsky, S. Y. 2005. Celebrity with a neglected taxonomy: molecular systematics of the medicinal leech (genus Hirudo). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 34 (3): 616-624. Utevsky, S., Zagmajster, M., Atemasov, A., Zinenko, O., Utevska, O., Utevsky, A., and Trontelj, P. 2010. Distribution and status of medicinal leeches (genus Hirudo) in the Western Palaearctic: anthropogenic, ecological, or historical effects? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 20 (2): 198-210. Utevsky, S. Y. and Trontelj, P. 2005. A new species of the medicinal leech (Oligochaeta, Hirudinida, Hirudo) from Transcaucasia and an identification key for the genus Hirudo. Parasitology research, 98 (1): 61-66. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1996. Hirudo medicinalis. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 6-6-2012. Zapkuviene, D. V. 1972a. Breeding and growing of medicinal leeches under laboratory conditions. I. Breeding of Hirudo medicinalis f. serpentina and H. medicinalis f. officinalis. [In Russian]. Lietuvos TSR Mokseu Akademijos Darbai Serija C, 59: 71-76. Zapkuviene, D. V. 1972b. Breeding and growing of medicinal leeches under laboratory conditions. II. Growing of Hirudo medicinalis f. serpentina. [In Russian]. Lietuvos TSR Mokseu Akademijos Darbai Serija C, 59: 77-84.
30 Overview of Tridacnidae
REVIEW OF SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS: SPECIES OTHER THAN CORALS AND BUTTERFLIES FROM ASIA AND OCEANIA
Overview of the status, management and trade of Hippopus hippopus, Tridacna spp. and Tridacnidae spp. in Asia and Oceania Much of the information for Hippopus hippopus and the Tridacna species under review was reported at the genus or family level, including some trade data. This information is presented as an overview prior to the individual species reviews. TRADE PATTERNS: An analysis of direct trade from the range States under review 2001-2010 revealed that some trade in giant clams is still being reported at the family or genus levels (including many reported seizures), making it difficult to analyse trade patterns at the species level. Raymakers et al. (2003) also suggested that it was important to standardize the way of reporting quantities in trade, to record both kilograms and number of clams traded. Direct trade reported as Tridacna spp. and Tridacnidae spp. to the EU-27 2001-2010, mainly consisted of live, captive-born individuals from Palau and wild-sourced shells from the Cook Islands and New Caledonia (Table 1). The confiscation/seizure of shells from Thailand, the Seychelles, French Polynesia and the Solomon Islands was also reported. There was no direct trade reported at the family or genus level from Japan, the Marshall Islands or the Federated States of Micronesia. Direct trade reported as Tridacna spp. and Tridacnidae spp. to countries other than the EU-27 2001-2010, mainly consisted of wild-sourced meat and shells from the Cook Islands and the confiscation/seizure of meat and shells from all range States (particularly the Cook Islands and French Polynesia) (Table 2). Live, captive-bred individuals were exported from the Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Palau and live, wild-sourced individuals were exported from French Polynesia and the Federated States of Micronesia. Table 1. Summary of direct exports reported as Tridacna spp. and Tridacnidae spp. live individuals and shells from Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Japan, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, New Caledonia, Palau, Seychelles, Solomon Islands and Thailand to the EU-27 2001-2010. (A small quantity of scientific specimens was also reported in trade but has been excluded from the table). Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Cook Islands shells - W Importer 12 15 4 31
Exporter
French Polynesia shells - I Importer 3 4 7
Exporter
W Importer 4 4
Exporter
New Caledonia shells kg W Importer 0.5 0.5
Exporter
- W Importer
Exporter 6 3 3 12
Palau live - F Importer 50 50
Exporter
Seychelles shells - I Importer 4 7 4 2 17
Exporter
W Importer 1 1
Exporter 2 2
Solomon Islands shells - I Importer 3 3
Exporter
31 Overview of Tridacnidae
Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Thailand shells - I Importer 5 2 3 19 5 8 8 6 56
Exporter
Subtotals live - F Importer 50 50
Exporter
shells kg W Importer 0.5 0.5
Exporter
- I Importer 8 2 11 26 9 10 8 9 83
Exporter
W Importer 13 4 15 4 36
Exporter 6 3 2 3 14
CONSERVATION STATUS Taxonomic Note: No CITES standard references have been adopted for Tridacnidae; Othman et al. (2010) considered the family Tridacnidae to include ten species: Hippopus hippopus, H. porcellanus, Tridacna costata, T. crocea, T. derasa, T. gigas, T. maxima, T. rosewateri, T. squamosa and T. tevoroa. T. costata, a recently described species from the Red Sea, is not recognized in older sources (Richter et al., 2008). Some authors did not recognise T. rosewateri as a full species (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010) but rather concluded it to be likely closely related to, or an ecotype of T. squamosa (Newman and Gomez, 2000). Biology: The family Tridacnidae (giant clams) includes the largest marine bivalves in the world (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). They are all filter feeders, which get a significant proportion of nutrients through symbiosis with photosynthetic algae (Lucas, 1988; Ellis, 1998), for which they require relatively shallow and clear waters (Sutton and Hoegh-Guldberg, 1990; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008a; Othman et al., 2010). All giant clams are hermaphrodite – each clam shedding sperm and eggs as separate events during spawning (Lucas, 2003). Their lifecycle is typical of bivalves: eggs hatch into free-swimming larvae when fertilised, which then show progressive development to reach maturity and continued growth (Lucas, 2003; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Fecundity was found to increase with the age and size of individuals (Apte et al., 2004), with the largest individuals of T. derasa and T. gigas reported to produce 500 million eggs in a single spawning event (Gervis, 1993). Spawning patterns among Tridacnidae were reported to be similar, with pheromones inducing synchronous spawning (Kinch, 2009) and initial release of sperm being followed by release of eggs (Apte et al., 2004). This spawning pattern was found to lead to unsuccessful reproduction at low densities of mature individuals (Kinch, 2009). Furthermore, the development from fertilization to a juvenile clam, lasting about 10-14 days (Ellis, 1998), was considered to limit the distribution abilities of Tridacnidae (Apte et al., 2004) and despite their high fecundity, high rates of early mortality were reported to lead to low overall natural recruitment rates (Munro, 1993; Wells, 1997). Tridacnidae were estimated to mature at 5- 7 years (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), with life spans of over 100 years recorded (Apte et al., 2004). Use/Threats: Giant clams are highly-prized for their meat, particularly in Asia, and are also harvested for their shells and for live export for the global aquarium trade (Wells, 1997; Lucas, 2003; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008a; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010; Othman et al., 2010). A sharp increase in illegal fishing in the Pacific by foreign vessels 1960s-1980s was reported to have been met with international pressure, leading to a reduction of such activities and improved surveillance (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). The main threat to Tridacnidae stocks in the 21st Century was reported to be from subsistence and semi-commercial fishers (Wells, 1997; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), with many populations considered to be in decline globally (Isamu, 2008; Othman et al., 2010) due to overfishing for export and subsistence use (Friedman and Teitelbaum, 2008). Further threats included habitat degradation/destruction, pollution, disease and stress-induced bleaching (often associated with increased sea surface temperatures) (Mingoa-Licuanan and Gomez, 2002; Raymakers et al., 2003; Othman et al., 2010).
32 Overview of Tridacnidae
Table 2. Summary of direct exports of Tridacna spp. and Tridacnidae spp. live individuals, shells (g converted to kg) and meat from Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Japan, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, New Caledonia, Palau, Seychelles, Solomon Islands and Thailand to countries other than the EU-27 2001-2010. (Small quantities of carvings, derivatives, small leather products, soup and scientific specimens were also reported in trade but have been excluded from the table). Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Cook Islands meat kg I Importer 7.1 1 10 18.1
Exporter
W Importer 174.4 65 941.3 508.5 1689.2
Exporter
l W Importer 14 14
Exporter
- I Importer 89 35 580 27 23 3 4 2 763
Exporter
W Importer 214 1023 1503 1058 3971 3980 4134 708 1182.5 505 18278.5
Exporter
shells kg I Importer 2 2.5 4.5
Exporter
W Importer 25.3 4.8 30.1
Exporter
- I Importer 676 789 637 710 105 3 9 2929
Exporter
W Importer 76 188 230 182 280 122 110 118 158 23 1487
Exporter
French Polynesia live - W Importer 104 104
Exporter
meat kg I Importer 24 24
Exporter
- I Importer 15 1 1 8 1 26
Exporter
shells kg I Importer 2.2 2.2
Exporter
33 Overview of Tridacnidae
Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total - I Importer 162 350 258 114 13 30 2 1 930
Exporter
W Importer 6 6
Exporter
Japan shells kg W Importer 1 1
Exporter
- I Importer 4 1 2 1 1 1 10
Exporter
Marshall Islands live - C Importer 121 121
Exporter
meat kg I Importer 2.5 4 20 26.5
Exporter
- I Importer 70 70
Exporter
shells kg I Importer 10.001 0.01 10.0
Exporter
- C Importer 9 9
Exporter
I Importer 83 2 29 20 50 117 39 340
Exporter
Micronesia, Federated States of live - W Importer 2 1 3
Exporter
meat kg I Importer 54 28.2 8.6 25 115.9
Exporter
shells kg I Importer 7 7
Exporter
- C Importer 8 2 10
Exporter
I Importer 24 2 25 13 10 51 28 75 228
34 Overview of Tridacnidae
Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Exporter
W Importer 4 4
Exporter
New Caledonia meat kg W Importer 2 2
Exporter
- I Importer 4 6 5 15
Exporter
W Importer 1 1
Exporter
shells kg I Importer 0.32 0.32
Exporter
- I Importer 46 57 105 142 8 2 360
Exporter
W Importer 2 2
Exporter
Palau live - C Importer 10 10
Exporter
meat - I Importer 1 1
Exporter
shells - I Importer 35 14 57 102 21 31 11 271
Exporter
W Importer 56 18 74
Exporter
Seychelles shells - I Importer 1 2 3
Exporter
W Importer 1 1
Exporter
Solomon Islands live - C Importer 39 39
Exporter
35 Overview of Tridacnidae
Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total meat kg W Importer 20 20
Exporter
- I Importer 33 33
Exporter
W Importer 5 5
Exporter
shells - I Importer 21 11 32
Exporter
W Importer 30 30
Exporter
Thailand meat - I Importer 2 28 8 38
Exporter
shells kg I Importer 0.09 0.09
Exporter
- I Importer 6 21 34 15 2 1 79
Exporter
W Importer 1 1
Exporter
Subtotals live - C Importer 39 121 10 170
Exporter
W Importer 2 1 104 107
Exporter
meat kg I Importer 61.1 31.7 22.6 69 184.4
Exporter
W Importer 174.4 67 961.3 508.5 1711.2
Exporter
l W Importer 14 14
Exporter
- I Importer 110 70 589 73 24 4 4 72 946
36 Overview of Tridacnidae
Exporter Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Exporter
W Importer 215 1023 1508 1058 3971 3980 4134 708 1182.5 505 18284.5
Exporter
shells kg I Importer 10.0 2.0 2.6 7.0 2.5 24.2
Exporter
W Importer 1.0 25.3 4.8 31.1
Exporter
- C Importer 8 2 9 19
Exporter
I Importer 1057 1232 1038 984 167 100 165 125 188 126 5182
Exporter
W Importer 76 189 236 184 314 122 167 118 176 23 1605
Exporter
37 Overview of Tridacnidae
Giant clams were considered particularly susceptible to opportunistic harvesting due to their ease of detection in shallow waters and dependence of reproduction on zones of high density (Raymakers et al., 2003; Gilbert et al., 2006b, Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Management: The depletion of natural populations and the consequent need to produce seed for re- stocking purposes was noted to have driven the development of now widespread technology for the production of giant clams in hatcheries (FAO, 2011). The production of giant clams in hatcheries was considered necessary to take pressure off wild stocks and to meet market and subsistence demands (Lucas, 2003), with most of the recent activities reported to be focusing on production for the global aquarium trade (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008a; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Since the early 1980s, many Pacific nations were reported to have established aquaculture programmes for Tridacnidae (Wells, 1997; Friedman and Teitelbaum, 2008), taking advantage of the relatively simple and inexpensive techniques required for breeding and rearing and the clams’ minimal requirements of light and good water quality (Wells, 1997; Munro, 1989; Sant, 1995; Lucas, 2003). Juveniles, after being kept in outdoor tanks for several years, were reported to then either be supplied to the aquarium trade or placed in mesh cages on the ocean floor, in order to grow to a size no longer requiring the protective mesh (Lucas, 2003). Teitelbaum and Friedman (2008a) reported that more than 10 private ventures and 15 operations linked to governments were cultivating giant clams for the global aquarium trade, with the Pacific region being a major supplier for the world market (Ponia, 2010). However, most giant clam mariculture projects were reported to operate on a small or pilot scale (Lucas, 2003; SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2009; Othman et al., 2010). Further intensification of mollusc culture was considered potentially economically unviable and restricted by the availability of suitable sites (FAO, 2011). Lindsay et al. (2004) noted that the majority of exported specimens were nevertheless wild-caught. Re-seeding projects aiming towards the restoration of depleted populations using hatchery-reared specimens were thought to have limited success, as monitoring and production efforts, costs of production and local participation were limited (Friedman and Teitelbaum, 2008; Othman et al., 2010). Numerous restocking and translocation programmes were reported to exist throughout the Pacific region (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), particularly focussing on the protection and aggregating of remaining wild adults to facilitate spawning, as well as breeding and releasing hatchery-reared clams (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b). However, most re-stocking projects were thought to have only partial success, due to time and investment required for production, costs of monitoring and issues with community support (Friedman and Teitelbaum, 2008; Othman et al., 2010). Concerns with regard to genetic differentiation between the wild subpopulations (Benzie, 1993; Benzie and Williams, 1996; Wells, 1997) and the introduction of parasites, diseases and predators through translocations of specimens were also raised (Eldredge, 1993). Othman et al. (2010) noted poor enforcement of protection for reintroduced clams. The creation of marine protected areas was considered essential for the re-establishment of depleted stocks and maintenance of genetically distinct subpopulations (Munro, 1989; 1993; Wells, 1997). A CITES Regional Workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for giant clams, held in the Pacific in 2009, identified a number of challenges in ensuring sustainable Tridacnidae management, including lack of capacity for: conducting stock assessments, promoting giant clam culture, enforcing harvesting regulations and managing and monitoring harvests (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). REFERENCES:
See pages 73-89.
38 Hippopus hippopus
BIVALVIA TRIDACNIDAE
SPECIES: Hippopus hippopus
COMMON NAMES: Bear Paw Clam (English), Horse's Hoof Clam (English), Strawberry Clam (English)
RANGE STATES: American Samoa (ex, reint), Australia, Cook Islands (int), Fiji (ex, reint), Guam (ex) , India (?), Indonesia, Japan (ex?), Kiribati, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of) (ex, reint), Myanmar, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands (ex, reint), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa (ex, reint), Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China (ex?), Thailand (?), Tonga (ex, reint), Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam
RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Thailand
IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/conservation dependent
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinions for wild specimens from all countries formed on 22/07/1997; these were removed on 02/12/2011 for American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Guam, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Myanmar, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, and Taiwan, Province of China. Previous 4.6(b) import suspension first applied for wild specimens from the Federated States of Micronesia on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 29/10/2001. Previous negative opinion for New Caledonia formed on 18/07/2001 and confirmed on 29/10/2001. A current 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens was then applied on 01/03/2003 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for Tonga formed on 22/05/2003. A current 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens was then applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous 4.6(b) import suspension first applied for wild specimens from Vanuatu on 21/11/1998 then replaced by a negative opinion formed on 22/015/2003. A 4.6(b) import suspension was again applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for Viet Nam formed on 22/05/2003 and confirmed on 09/03/2006. A current 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens was then applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011.
39 Hippopus hippopus
TRADE PATTERNS: Marshall Islands: Imports of Hippopus hippopus to the EU-27 directly from the Marshall Islands over the period 2001-2010 consisted primarily of live, captive-bred and captive-born clams, with no imports reported since 2006 (Table 1). There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of H. hippopus originating in the Marshall Islands 2001-2010. Direct imports of H. hippopus from the Marshall Islands to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 mainly consisted of live clams (various sources including wild), with small quantities of shells (Table 2). Of the 4527 live clams reported as imports, 87 per cent were imported by the United States and 13 per cent by Canada. Table 1. Direct imports of Hippopus hippopus from the Marshall Islands to the EU-27, 2001-2010. (No trade was reported 2007-2010; the Marshall Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Denmark live T R Importer 25 25
France live T C Importer 200 200
F Importer 200 200
Germany live T C Importer 22 20 111 240 393
F Importer 100 100
United Kingdom live T C Importer 35 24 150 209 F Importer 162 223 720 1105
shells - I Importer 15 15
Subtotals live C Importer 22 35 44 261 440 802
F Importer 162 223 1020 1405
R Importer 25 25
shells I Importer 15 15
Table 2. Direct imports of Hippopus hippopus from the Marshall Islands to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. Trade was primarily for commercial purposes, with shells imported as personal possessions. (No trade was reported in 2010; the Marshall Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total live C Importer 2 162 1070 1279 353 200 3066
F Importer 213 200 413
R Importer 20 25 45
W Importer 20 225 28 330 400 1003 shells C Importer 1 1 I Importer 3 1 1 5
W Importer 3 1 4
Solomon Islands: The only imports of H. hippopus to the EU-27 directly from the Solomon Islands over the period 2001-2010 consisted of 150 live, captive-bred clams imported by France in 2001 and 100 live, captive-born clams imported by the United Kingdom in 2001, all for commercial purposes. The Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007 but has not yet submitted any annual reports. There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of H. hippopus originating in the Solomon Islands 2001-2010. Direct exports of H. hippopus from the Solomon Islands to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live clams (various sources including wild) and wild-sourced shells (Table 3). The United States and Canada imported most of the live clams, with the Republic of Korea importing the shells.
40 Hippopus hippopus
Table 3. Direct exports of Hippopus hippopus from the Solomon Islands to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2006-2008 or 2010; the Solomon Islands became a Party to CITES in 2007 but has not yet submitted any annual reports). Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2009 Total live C Importer 45 229 171 43 100 588
Exporter
F Importer 44 268 312
Exporter
W Importer 325 177 5 4 511
Exporter shells W Importer 100 100
Exporter
Thailand: There were no direct or indirect imports of H. hippopus to the EU-27 from Thailand over the period 2001-2010. The only reported direct export of H. hippopus from Thailand to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of one carving seized/confiscated by the United States in 2006. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Hippopus hippopus was reported to occur from Myanmar, east to the Marshall Islands and south to New Caledonia (Munro, 1992; Wells, 1997; Othman et al., 2010), found on sandy bottoms of coral reefs in shallow water up to 6 m depth (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). It has a maximum shell length of 40 cm and is commonly found up to 20 cm in length (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). The size of H. hippopus shells were reported to make them particularly suitable for decorative purposes (Wells, 1997). H. hippopus was categorised as Lower Risk/least concern in the IUCN Red List in 1996, although this assessment now needs updating (Wells, 1996a). The species was reported to have been greatly reduced in abundance and extinguished from parts of its range (Munro, 1992). Marshall Islands: Wells (1997) considered H. hippopus to be widespread but to vary in abundance in the Marshall Islands; likewise Smith (1992) reported that wild stocks were present throughout the Marshall Islands, but that they varied considerably in status. In a 1988 survey of the northern atolls, H. hippopus was reported to be abundant in Taongi Atoll, very abundant in Bikar Atoll and common in Erikub Atoll (Thomas, 1989 in: Smith, 1992). Furthermore, a survey in the 1990s found the giant clam populations at Bok-ak Atoll to be very large, especially H. hippopus, Tridacna maxima and T. squamosa (Maragos, 1994), and more recently, Beger et al. (2008) reported H. hippopus to be abundant in Ailinginae Atoll, present in Rongelap Atoll and present in Namu Atoll. Coral reefs of the Marshall Islands were reported to be in good condition and among the most pristine in the Indo-Pacific, although with signs of unsustainable resource exploitation, including earlier extirpation of the largest giant clams (Pinca et al., 2005). Kinch and Teitelbaum (2010) reported that giant clam stocks remained relatively healthy in the Outer Islands but had been severely depleted from over-harvesting, pollution, and poor water quality in populated areas. Giant clams were reported to be collected for subsistence purposes as food in the Marshall Islands (Raymakers et al., 2003). H. hippopus was not included in a list of protected species of the Marshall Islands, however it was included in a list of animals “deemed worthy of conservation considerations” (RMI OEPPC, 2008). There appears to be no national legislation concerning giant clams in the Marshall Islands (Smith, 1992; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), although Raymakers et al. (2003) report that commercial harvest was prohibited. The Fisheries Act of 1997 set a system of fishing permits and limitations to the use of fishing gear, however no specific regulations were established to protect H. hippopus (Marshall Islands Consolidated Legislation, 2004). The Ordinance No. 1998-74 of Majuro was reported to ban the selling of any Tridacnidae species (RMI OEPPC, 2008).
41 Hippopus hippopus
Raymakers et al. (2003) reported there to be two government-owned hatcheries (on Likiep and Arno Atolls) producing giant clams for the aquarium trade and for re-seeding depleted areas. Kinch and Teitelbaum (2010) listed H. hippopus among the species used for giant clam aquaculture and/or restocking programmes. The Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA) operates a giant clam hatchery on Loto Island at Likiep Atoll, which was reported to have an annual spat production of 5000-10 000 H. hippopus; this hatchery was reported to provide clams of several species (T. maxima, T. squamosa, and T. gigas) for restocking purposes, as well as supplying local farmers for grow-out and reselling, and for direct marketing to the Marshall Islands Mariculture Farm (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). The privately-owned Robert Reimers Enterprises (Mili Atoll) was also reported to produce H. hippopus for re-seeding (Wells, 1997). Kinch and Teitelbaum (2010) considered the main challenges facing the Marshall Islands in relation to sustainable clam management to be the lack of capacity for conducting stock assessments and analysis, promoting giant clam culture and enforcing harvesting regulations, and a lack of adequate education and awareness on sustainable giant clam harvesting. H. hippopus was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade process following CoP12 (AC20 Summary Record), with the Marshall Islands included among the 19 countries and territories selected for review. The species was reviewed for the 22nd meeting of the Animals Committee (AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8b), following which the Marshall Islands were categorised as Least Concern (AC22 Summary Record). Solomon Islands: Hviding (1993) reported H. hippopus to be found in reasonable numbers in most parts of the Solomon Islands, whereas Richards et al. (1994) reported that H. hippopus had a limited distribution within the Main Group Archipelago and Wells (1997; based on Munro, 1989) and Skewes (1990) considered H. hippopus to have a restricted distribution. Kinch et al. (2006) reported that previous surveys of Marovo Lagoon found H. hippopus to be present in low numbers. Richards et al. (1994) reported that there had been no quantitative surveys of giant clam abundances in the Solomon Islands, although it was evident that stock densities varied widely between islands. Likewise, Kinch and Teitelbaum (2010) reported the stock status of giant clams to be unknown. All species of giant clam were reported to be harvested by rural people for food and sold in local markets, their meat being highly-favoured by many coastal communities (Hviding, 1993; Richards et al., 1994). Giant clams were reported to be targeted heavily for subsistence purposes (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010) and even communities that are prohibited from consuming clam meat were reported to exploit it commercially (Kinch et al., 2006). H. hippopus was reported to be the second most important giant clam in terms of food in rural areas and was described as “a favourite delicacy” (Hviding, 1993). It was reported to be harvested from nearshore reefs for both immediate consumption and transplantation to nearshore ‘clam gardens’ (Hviding, 1993). A mass die-off of H. hippopus and T. gigas was reported in 1992 around several islands due to an unknown cause, coinciding with a pronounced ‘El Niño’ event (Richards et al., 1994). Systems of customary marine tenure were reported to provide some protection to the commercial exploitation of marine areas of the Solomon Islands through regulating use and access to coastal seas, reefs and lagoons (Hviding, 1993). H. hippopus is listed under Schedule II of the Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998 (National Parliament of Solomon Islands, 1998), denoting ‘Regulated and Controlled Species’ which require permits for export. Furthermore, the harvesting of wild giant clams for commercial sale was reported to be currently banned under the Fisheries Regulation 1998, “as a precautionary approach to avoid stock collapse” (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Kinch and Teitelbaum (2010) listed H. hippopus among the species used for giant clam aquaculture and/or restocking programmes, carried out by the WorldFish Centre at Nusa Tupe, Western Province. In 2005 a giant clam hatchery was reported to have been built, working with villager farmers to grow out giant clams for the international aquarium trade through the project ‘Creating Rural Livelihoods in Solomon Islands through Environmentally-Friendly Aquaculture and Trade of Marine Ornamentals’ (WorldFish
42 Hippopus hippopus
Center, 2012a). However, the broodstock (parent) clams were reported to consist primarily of T. derasa, at this stage (WorldFish Center, 2012b). Thailand: Little information was available on the occurrence and status of H. hippopus in Thailand. Wells (1997) reported that the species “may occur in Thailand”, based on Munro (1989). Chantrapornsyl et al. (1996) reported that only three species of giant clam were commonly found in Thai waters: T. squamosa, T. maxima and T. crocea. H. hippopus was reported to be considered extinct in the Mu Ko Surin Marine National Park in Thailand (Thamrongnavasawat et al., 2001 in: Dolorosa and Schoppe, 2007). In a recent review of the distribution of giant clams, H. hippopus was not listed as occurring in Thailand (Othman et al., 2010). H. hippopus does not appear to be a protected species under the Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2535 (1992) of Thailand (Government of Thailand, 1992).
REFERENCES:
See pages 73-89.
43 Tridacna crocea
BIVALVIA TRIDACNIDAE
SPECIES: Tridacna crocea
COMMON NAMES: Gele doopvontschelp (Dutch), Boring Clam (English), Crocea Clam (English), Crocus Clam (English), Saffron-coloured Clam (English)
RANGE STATES: Australia, Fiji (int), Guam (ex?), India (?), Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands (ex?), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tuvalu (?), United States of America (ex, int), Vanuatu, Viet Nam
RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Japan, New Caledonia, Palau
IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/least concern
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinions for wild specimens from all countries formed on 22/07/1997; these were removed on 02/12/2011 for Australia, Guam, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tuvalu and the United States of America. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Cambodia formed on 11/03/2011. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu formed on 22/05/2003. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Solomon Islands first formed on 12/03/2009 and confirmed on 02/12/2011. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Viet Nam first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji formed on 30/01/2003.
TRADE PATTERNS: Japan: Imports of Tridacna crocea to the EU-27 directly from Japan over the period 2001-2010 consisted of 500 live, wild-sourced clams imported by France in 2006 (reported by France only) and 200 live, wild- sourced clams imported by Germany in 2008 (reported by Germany and Japan). All trade was for
44 Tridacna crocea commercial purposes. There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of T. crocea originating in Japan 2001-2010. The only direct exports of T. crocea from Japan to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001- 2010 consisted of 500 live, wild-sourced clams exported to Canada and the United States for commercial purposes in 2010 (reported by Japan only). The United States also reported the confiscation/seizure of 15 shells from Japan in 2005. New Caledonia: Imports of T. crocea to the EU-27 directly from New Caledonia over the period 2001- 2010 primarily consisted of wild-sourced shells imported for personal purposes (Table 1). The main importers were France (including its dependent territories). There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of T. crocea originating in New Caledonia 2001-2010. Direct exports of T. crocea from New Caledonia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001- 2010 consisted primarily of wild-sourced shells traded for personal purposes (Table 2). Importers included French Polynesia, Canada and Australia. Table 1. Direct exports of Tridacna crocea from New Caledonia to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was wild- sourced. (No trade was reported 2009-2010). Importer Term Purpose Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Austria shells P Importer Exporter 2 2
Belgium shells P Importer
Exporter 1 1
France (including carvings P Importer dependent territories of Exporter 3 3
French Guiana, shells P Importer 8 5 13 Martinique and Reunion) Exporter 338 245 160 183 269 262 284 96 1837
S Importer
Exporter 1 1
Germany shells P Importer
Exporter 2 2
Italy shells P Importer Exporter 4 4
Spain shells P Importer
Exporter 2 2
United Kingdom shells P Importer
Exporter 4 4
Subtotals carvings Importer Exporter 3 3
shells Importer 8 5 13
Exporter 338 245 162 183 273 263 289 100 1853
45 Tridacna crocea
Table 2. Direct exports of Tridacna crocea from New Caledonia to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was wild-sourced, primarily traded for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2009-2010). Term Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total carvings Importer
Exporter 2 2 shells Importer
Exporter 7 12 1 4 2 4 4 5 39
specimens Importer
Exporter 3 3
Palau: Imports of T. crocea to the EU-27 directly from Palau over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live clams, primarily captive-born, with no wild-sourced trade reported since 2004 (Table 3). Indirect trade into the EU-27 originating in Palau 2001-2010 consisted of live, captive-born clams re-exported via the Federated States of Micronesia and Hong Kong SAR (Table 4). Direct exports of T. crocea from Palau to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live clams and shells, primarily captive-bred and captive-born (Table 5). The main importers were the United States, the Republic of Korea and Singapore. Table 3. Direct exports of Tridacna crocea from Palau to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2002; Palau became a Party to CITES in 2004, annual reports have not yet been received for 2006, 2009 or 2010). Importer Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total France C Importer 350 350
Exporter
W Importer 250 250
Exporter
Germany C Importer 156 156
Exporter
F Importer 500 850 606 1350 250 437 962 4955
Exporter
Subtotals C Importer 156 350 506
Exporter
F Importer 500 850 606 1350 250 437 962 4955
Exporter
W Importer 250 250
Exporter
Table 4. Indirect exports of Tridacna crocea to the EU-27 originating in Palau, 2001-2010. All trade was in live, captive-born individuals traded for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2005 or 2007-2009). Importer Reported by 2006 2010 Germany Importer 10
Exporter 10
United Kingdom Importer 900
Exporter
46 Tridacna crocea
Table 5. Direct exports of Tridacna crocea from Palau to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. Trade was for commercial and personal purposes. (No trade was reported in 2001; Palau became a Party to CITES in 2004, annual reports have not yet been received for 2006, 2009 or 2010). Term Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total live C Importer 280 3 317 600
Exporter
F Importer 25 250 275
Exporter
I Importer 6 6
Exporter W Importer 130 130
Exporter shells C Importer 35 70 40 2 1 4 152
Exporter
F Importer 7 1 8
Exporter I Importer 6 6
Exporter
W Importer 1 9 10
Exporter
CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Tridacna crocea was reported to range from Japan in the north to Australia in the south and from Indonesia to Vanuatu (Mollusc Specialist Group, 1996; Othman et al., 2010). The species was reported to occur in lagoons that experience runoff of fresh water, where it is typically found deeply burrowed in coral substrate (Hamner and Jones, 1976; Hart et al., 1998; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). T. crocea, the smallest Tridacna species (Rosewater, 1965), was reported to reach maximum lengths of 15 cm, although not often found to exceed 11 cm (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Growth rates of 2 cm in the first year and 1.5 cm in the second and third year were recorded, with growth rates declining in consecutive years (Hamner and Jones, 1976). T. crocea was categorised as Lower Risk/least concern in the IUCN Red List, although the assessment was noted to require updating (Mollusc Specialist Group, 1996). Wells (1997) considered the species to be “reasonably abundant” throughout its range, although many populations in Southeast Asia were thought to be in decline. While overfishing was considered to be the main threat to T. crocea, its small size and burrowing habit was thought to render it less prone to overfishing than other Tridacna species (Allen et al., 2003; Othman et al., 2010). However, its desirable colouring was reported to have led to a high demand for the aquarium trade (Wabnitz et al., 2003; Hean and Cacho, 2003; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). T. crocea was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade process following CoP12 (AC20 Summary Record), with Japan, New Caledonia and Palau initially included among the 10 countries and territories selected for review. All three countries were then excluded from a more detailed analysis and categorised as Least Concern, based on an initial analysis of trade data (AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8c; AC22 Summary Record). Japan: T. crocea was reported to occur in the far southern islands of Japan (Othman et al., 2010). The species was reported to be harvested domestically, mainly for food, but also for the aquarium trade and for its shell (Okada, 1997). The Japanese sashimi and sushi market was reported to favour this species, with a consumption of 500 tons in the early 1990s (Shang et al., 1991). Particularly Ishigaki
47 Tridacna crocea
Island, but also other southern islands of Okinawa, were reported to supply the majority of giant clams for the Japanese market, with 90% of the landings consisting of T. crocea (Okada, 1997). In the mid 1990s, the main market for giant clam meat in Japan was reported to be in Okinawa, with giant clams being almost unknown in most of the mainland (Tisdell et al., 1994). The Japanese aquarium market was also found to focus on T. crocea, with about 90% of the corresponding trade in specimens of this species produced in Okinawa and Amami-ohshima (Okada, 1997). The catch of giant clams was, however, reported to have decreased, indicating depletion of stocks (Okada, 1997; Othman et al., 2010). Japanese fishery management within coastal waters was reported to be based on fishery cooperatives, whereby territorial fishing rights are granted for capture fisheries or for aquaculture, with the cooperatives deciding “who, how, where and when to fish” (Uchida and Wilen, 2004). The government in Okinawa was reported to prohibit the harvest of giant clams during the spawning season and capture of T. crocea below a shell length of 8 cm (Okada, 1997; Wells, 1997). Further measures, such as a prohibition of the use of diving equipment for fishing, closure of certain areas for fishing, and restriction of daily catch numbers to 50 pieces per person were reported to have been adopted by some fishermen's cooperatives to protect giant clam stocks (Okada, 1997). The Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production was reported to have been established in 1999, in order to maintain environmental conditions (Takeda, 2010). T. crocea was reported to be the main subject of a restocking programme (Okada, 1997), carried out by the Okinawa Prefectural Fisheries Experimental Station and a private company, Okinawa Kuruma-ebi Co. Ltd (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b). The mass produced clam seeds were reported to be distributed annually to fishermen’s cooperatives, in order for them to be cultured for later release into the sea (Okada, 1997). Survival rates of restocked T. crocea ranged between 0.3% and 56% three years following their release (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b). However, an overall levelling-off or decline in production of cultured molluscs was reported to have been observed in Japan since 2008, as the limited availability of suitable sites was restricting further intensification (FAO, 2011). New Caledonia: T. crocea was reported from the Northern (McKenna et al., 2009) and Southern Province of the main island, and from Maré Island, Loyalty Island Province (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). This species and T. maxima were considered to be the two most abundant Tridacna spp. in New Caledonia (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010) and T. crocea was the most frequently recorded species on transects at Poum and Koumac, with densities ranging from 3.3x10-4 ind./m2 to 0.13 ind./m2 (McKenna et al., 2009). Dumas and Andréfouët (2010) however considered the species’ density to be significant only in two of their seven focal areas, with 1.75x10-3 ind./m2 and 5.9x10-3 ind./m2. A sharp decrease in giant clam landings despite increased fishing efforts was thought to indicate that the populations of giant clams had decreased in New Caledonian waters since the 1980s (Raymakers et al., 2003). Giant clams were reported to be harvested both for local commercial and for subsistence/leisure purposes, the latter not being subject to any licences or reporting, although part of it was suspected to fall into a semi-professional category (Raymakers et al., 2003). In the early 2000s it was estimated that fewer than 10 professional fishermen collected clams regularly (Raymakers et al., 2003), with Hippopus hippopus, T. crocea, T. maxima and T. derasa being the main species harvested (N. Baillon, D. Coatanea, R. Farman, A. Rubin, New Caledonian provincial authorities, in litt. to TRAFFIC Europe, December 2002 in: Raymakers et al., 2003), and T. crocea and T. maxima considered least affected by collection, due to their size and burrowing habit (Dumas and Andréfouët, 2010). Knowledge of the abundance and status of wild populations of Tridacnidae in New Caledonia was considered to be very limited and an insufficient basis for non-detriment-findings or for the establishment of adequate management measures (B. Richer de Forges, IRD, pers. com. to TRAFFIC Europe, 13 December 2002 in: Raymakers et al., 2003). The collection of live giant clams using artificial air supply was reported to be prohibited (Raymakers et al., 2003). Bag limits of 5 giant clams/vessel/trip for professional fishers and two giant clams/vessel/trip for others were reported to have been established in the Northern Province, with similar regulations in the Southern Province, although allowing maximum bag limits of 40 kg (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Since 1999, in an attempt to reduce the trade, a maximum of 6 shells
48 Tridacna crocea
(3 bivalves) of giant clams per export permit was permitted (Raymakers et al., 2003), with permits only granted for fossils, personal or scientific purposes since 2008 (SMMPM, undated). A number of species (H. hippopus, Tridacna maxima, T. derasa and T. squamosa) were reported to have been experimentally bred since the 1990s (Raymakers et al., 2003). However, the economic viability of giant clam breeding was considered poor, with the exception of the production of aquarium specimens (Raymakers et al., 2003). The species was reported to have been restocked in 1993 by IFREMER [Institut français de recherche pour l’exploitation de la mer] (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b). Palau: The species was reported to occur in the Western Caroline Islands (Hardy and Hardy, 1969), where it was reported from the states of Aimelii[k], Airai, Ngaraard, Ngardmau, Ngatpang and Ngeremlengui [all on Babeldaob, the largest island of Palau] (Nichols, 1991). Population densities of 0.14 ind./m2 were reported from a survey south of Koror in the late 1960s and T. crocea was considered to be the most abundant of the Tridacna spp. (Hardy and Hardy, 1969). In the early 1980s, Hirschberger (1980) considered the species to be abundant at Helen Reef in the Western Caroline Islands. Substantial levels of poaching were reported to have led to a declining population trend of giant clams in Palau (Raymakers et al., 2003) and in the 1970s, significant reductions of Tridacna spp. densities at Helen Reef, Southwest Palau, were thought to have been caused by harvesting by foreign vessels (Bryan and McConnell, 1976 in: Apte et al., 2004). Collection was considered to be the main threat to the species (Isamu, 2008), with T. crocea being targeted in particular (Nichols, 1991), for both subsistence use and for local restaurants (Isamu, 2008). Furthermore, exports of wild specimens to islander’s relatives were considered to be frequent (Nichols, 1991), but giant clams were said not to be subject to illegal trade in Palau (Isamu, 2008). The reduction in wild stocks was reported to have led to the establishment of the Palau Maricultural Demonstration Center Program by the Palau Government in 2005 (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), leading to the establishment of 40 clam farms by 2008, which received mainly T. crocea, T. maxima, T. derasa and H. hippopus from the programme (Isamu, 2008). The founder stock was reported to have been collected in the early 1980s and the broodstock placed and monitored in designated areas in the sea, close to the hatchery (Isamu, 2008). These specimens were then (re-)collected for spawning within the hatchery before being returned to the same area in the sea, with the eggs being manually fertilized in the hatchery. The clam aquaculture and farmers receiving stock were reported to be monitored regularly and a minimum of 10% of the clams per farm were to be used as broodstock, thereby re-seeding nearby areas (Isamu, 2008). Conservation areas were also reported to be re-stocked with cultured clams to enhance species diversity and sustainability of harvest (Isamu, 2008) and the hatchery was reported to include the production of seeds of T. crocea, T. derasa, T. gigas and T. maxima for other countries’ enhancement programmes (e.g. Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands), specimens for the aquarium trade and food for restaurants (Anon., 1998 in: Raymakers et al., 2003). The giant clam hatchery in Palau was considered to be the only viable commercial facility of its kind in the South Pacific (Raymakers et al., 2003). Isamu (2008) reported that no management measures were in place to regulate clam offtake. However, the Palau National Code (Palau, 1985) and the Marine Protection Act (Palau, 1994) and its amendments prohibit the export of clams, unless of cultured origin; it also prohibits the use of underwater breathing apparatus other than snorkel. Exports were therefore considered to only consist of specimens reared in hatcheries (Isamu, 2008).
REFERENCES:
See pages 73-89.
49 Tridacna derasa
BIVALVIA TRIDACNIDAE
SPECIES: Tridacna derasa
COMMON NAMES: Derasa Clam (English), Southern Giant Clam (English)
RANGE STATES: American Samoa (int), Australia, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands (int), Fiji, Guam (ex, reint), Indonesia, Malaysia, Marshall Islands (int?), Federated States of Micronesia (int), New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands (ex, reint), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa (int), Solomon Islands, Tonga (?), Tuvalu (int?), United States of America (int?), Vanuatu (ex), Viet Nam
RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (hereafter referred to as Micronesia)
IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinions for wild specimens from all countries apart from Tonga were formed on 22/07/1997; these were removed on 02/12/2011 for American Samoa, Australia, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Guam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tuvalu and the United States of America. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji and Vanuatu first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji and Vanuatu formed on 22/05/2003. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from New Caledonia, Palau and Philippines first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from New Caledonia formed on 22/05/2003 and for Palau and Philippines on 15/05/2002. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from the Solomon Islands first formed on 12/03/2009 and last confirmed on 02/12/2011. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Tonga first applied on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Tonga formed on 22/07/1997. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Viet Nam first applied on 03/09/2008 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens
50 Tridacna derasa
from Viet Nam first applied on 12/06/2006 and confirmed on 22/02/2006.
TRADE PATTERNS: Cook Islands: Imports of Tridacna derasa to the EU-27 directly from the Cook Islands over the period 2001-2010 consisted entirely of live clams, primarily captive-bred and captive-born (Table 1). There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of T. derasa originating in the Cook Islands 2001-2010. Direct imports of T. derasa from the Cook Islands to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001- 2010 consisted of live clams (mainly captive-bred) and a small number of carvings (Table 2). The United States was the main importer. Table 1. Direct imports of Tridacna derasa from the Cook Islands to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2002 or 2006-2008; the Cook Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Importer Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2009 2010 Total Germany C Importer 1599 2000 500 4099
Netherlands C Importer 1500 500 2000
F Importer 410 1800 2210
W Importer 1000 1000
United Kingdom F Importer 300 400 700
Table 2. Direct imports of Tridacna derasa from the Cook Islands to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. The majority of trade was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2002 or 2009; the Cook Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Term Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 Total carvings C Importer 200 200
live C Importer 4352 6834 7053 100 400 1337 451 20527 F Importer 317 317
W Importer 319 200 597 1116
Marshall Islands: Imports of T. derasa to the EU-27 directly from the Marshall Islands over the period 2001-2010 consisted entirely of live clams, primarily captive-bred and captive-born (Table 3). There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of T. derasa originating in the Marshall Islands 2001-2010. Direct imports of T. derasa from the Marshall Islands to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live clams (mainly captive-bred) and a small number of shells (Table 4). The United States was the main importer. Table 3. Direct imports of Tridacna derasa from the Marshall Islands to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2003-2004 or 2009-2010; the Marshall Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Importer Source Reported by 2001 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Denmark R Importer 25 25
France C Importer 1000 226 1226
Germany C Importer 75 59 200 334
F Importer 200 200 United Kingdom C Importer 49 49
F Importer 600 100 50 750
Subtotals C Importer 75 108 1200 226 1609
F Importer 800 100 50 950
R Importer 25 25
51 Tridacna derasa
Table 4. Direct imports of Tridacna derasa from the Marshall Islands to countries other than the EU-27, 2001- 2010. The majority of trade was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2003-2004; the Marshall Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total live C Importer 40 54 2770 898 1598 1899 8563 15822
F Importer 200 200
I Importer 60 60
R Importer 2 2
U Importer 100 100
W Importer 124 132 150 220 626 shells C Importer 6 6
Federated States of Micronesia: Imports of T. derasa to the EU-27 directly from Micronesia over the period 2001-2010 consisted entirely of live clams, primarily captive-born (Table 5). There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of T. derasa originating in Micronesia 2001-2010. Direct exports of T. derasa from Micronesia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live clams (predominantly wild-sourced and captive-bred) with a small number of seized/confiscated bodies and shells (Table 6). The United States was the only importer. Table 5. Direct imports of Tridacna derasa from the Federated States of Micronesia to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2004; the Federated States of Micronesia is not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Importer Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total France F Importer 600 305 1890 2795
R Importer 100 100
W Importer 150 150
Germany F Importer 4062 1403 3106 1027 154 9752 Netherlands C Importer 560 560
F Importer 656 1108 1546 1417 1400 6127
United Kingdom F Importer 1 4076 4594 1903 450 11024
Subtotals C Importer 560 560
F Importer 4063 6135 8808 5076 2326 3290 29698
R Importer 100 100 W Importer 150 150
Table 6. Direct imports of Tridacna derasa from the Federated States of Micronesia to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. The majority of trade was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2002-2004 or 2010; the Federated States of Micronesia is not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total bodies - I Importer 288 288
live - C Importer 1170 1000 376 2546
F Importer 29 84 113
I Importer 62 62 W Importer 4294 4198 2401 571 345 11809
shells kg I Importer 4 4
52 Tridacna derasa
CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Tridacna derasa was reported to occur in Australia, Fiji, Indonesia, New Caledonia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Tonga (Wells, 1996b). The species was also reported to have been introduced to many areas, including American Samoa, the Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia (Wells, 1996b; Kinch, 2009). Benzie (1993) identified three genetically distinct groups, located around the Great Barrier Reef, and in the Eastern and Western Pacific regions. T. derasa was reported to prefer sandy bottoms or coral rubble on the outer edge of coral reefs (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Shell lengths of over 50 cm were reported (Wells, 1997; Kinch, 2002; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). The species was reported to reach maturity at 5 years as a male and at 10-11 years as a hermaphrodite (Raymakers et al., 2003). T. derasa was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List, although the assessment was noted to need updating (Wells, 1996b). In the 1970s, the species was considered to be “frequent” (Dance, 1974), while in the 1980s its geographical distribution was described as “peculiarly patchy”, as it was found to not be common in many areas within its range (Adams et al., 1988). Wild stocks were reported to have declined in the 1980s and 90s, with local extinctions occurring in many areas (IUCN et al., 1996; Wells, 1997). The population trend of the species was considered to be decreasing (Isamu, 2008). The main cause of decline of T. derasa was considered to be exploitation (IUCN et al., 1996; Wells, 1997; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010; Othman et al., 2010). However, the international commercial demand for T. derasa was reported to be increasingly met by the growing mariculture industry (Sant, 1995), with T. derasa regarded to be well suited for meat production, due to its good survival and high meat gain (SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2009). T. derasa specimens of over 15 cm in length were reported to be some of the least readily available and most expensive specimens in the aquarium trade (Lucas, 2003). T. derasa was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade process following CoP12 (AC20 Summary Record), with the Marshall Islands and Micronesia initially included among the 11 countries and territories selected for review. Both countries were then excluded from a more detailed analysis and categorised as Least Concern, based on an initial analysis of trade data (AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8d; AC22 Summary Record). Cook Islands: T. derasa was reported to have been introduced to the Cook Islands (Wells, 1996b; Kinch, 2009; Raumea, 2009), in particular to the island of Aitutaki (Pinca et al., 2007). The Cook Island Ministry of Marine Resources was reported to have established a giant clam hatchery (Araura Marine Research Station, SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2011a) on Aitutaki in 1990 in order to restock clams in the lagoon (Chambers, 2007), although the Ministry was reported to focus on the management of wild stocks to support natural regeneration (Pinca et al., 2007). T. derasa was reported to be held at the hatchery and associated reserve (a no-take-zone), with the stock estimated at approximately 380 adults (these specimens were originally imported from Palau) and 20 000 juveniles in 2007 (Pinca et al., 2007). All giant clam exports were confirmed to consist of hatchery-reared specimens only, with numbers exported (approximately 30 000 specimens from 2003 to 2006) considered to be relatively small (Raumea, 2009). Marshall Islands: T. derasa was reported to have been introduced (Wells, 1996b; Kinch, 2009) for mariculture purposes, although anecdotal evidence was reported to suggest that natural populations existed at Arno and Milli Atolls (Beger et al., 2008). The species was also reported from Rongelap Atoll (Beger and Pinca, 2003). Several small-scale commercial hatcheries were reported to produce T. derasa for the aquarium trade (Foyle et al., 1997; Hart et al., 1998 in: Adams et al., 2000). A government-owned giant clam hatchery was reported to be based at the Likiep Atoll, with specimens sold on to a private hatchery on Majuro (SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2011b). The Marshall Islands Mariculture Farm on Majuro was reported to produce T. maxima, T. squamosa, T. derasa and T. gigas (ORA, 2012). Despite considering aquaculture ventures in the Marshall Islands a “boom and bust business”, Beger et al. (2008) noted that the Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority-operated tridacnid clam hatcheries on Majuro, Likiep, Mili and Arno Atolls
53 Tridacna derasa were amongst the successful operations. The government of the Marshall Islands was reported to be planning to establish a new giant clam hatchery on the Arno Atoll, in cooperation with the Japanese Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation (SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2011c). T. derasa does not appear to be protected in the Marshall Islands, however was considered a species “worthy of conservation considerations” (RMI OEPPC, 2008) and giant clams were reported to be among the species conservation targets of the Marshall Islands (Reimaan National Planning Team, 2008). Giant clams are collected for subsistence use, while their commercial harvest was reported to be prohibited (Raymakers et al., 2003). Giant clams were reported to be subject to unreported, illegal and unregulated trade in the Marshall Islands (Reimaan National Planning Team, 2008), however Pinca et al. (2005) noted that a clam farm was exporting sustainably-produced specimens. Federated States of Micronesia: T. derasa was reported to have been introduced (Wells, 1996b; Kinch, 2009) to all four Micronesian states: Chuuk, Pohnpei, Kosrae and Yap (Eldredge, 1993; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010); Yap was considered to be the only successfully established population (Munro, 1993; Lindsay, 1994; 1995; Wells, 1997). T. derasa was also reported to have been “reintroduced after extinction in [...] the Federated States of Micronesia” (CITES Animals Committee, 2006). However, no further evidence was found of the species having naturally occurred in Micronesia; Munro (1993) considered the natural range of T. derasa not to extend east of Palau in the Northern tropical Pacific. Giant clams were considered to be under high harvest pressure throughout Micronesia and were thought to be potentially threatened (Edward, 2002). In the 1990s, the species was reported to be held in the National Aquaculture Centre on Kosrae and in the Marine Resources Division hatchery on Pohnpei, the latter having successfully spawned the species in 1992 for stocking of ocean nurseries (Wells, 1997). Wells (1997) reported that the T. derasa re-seeding programme on Yap had been in place since 1984 and low numbers of offspring from the introduced stock were found to have settled on reefs. Tobey et al. (2004) reported that the National Aquaculture Centre had been providing training on giant clam cultivation techniques across Micronesia since 1991, whereby farmers were being taught how to maintain ocean nurseries and were given clams and equipment free of charge. While national legislation specific to aquaculture was reported to be absent, as were environmental impact assessment requirements, the National Fisheries Section was reported to have been assisting the states as and when such assessments were required (Tobey et al., 2004). Yap State was reported to prohibit the commercial sale of clam meat, as per State Code, unless authorized by the Governor (Wells, 1997). Inshore resources, such as coral reefs, lagoons and coastal ecosystems within twelve nautical miles were reported to be managed by the individual state governments (Tobey et al., 2004).
REFERENCES:
See pages 73-89.
54 Tridacna maxima
BIVALVIA TRIDACNIDAE
SPECIES: Tridacna gigas
COMMON NAMES: Grote doopvontschelp (Dutch), Giant Clam (English), Gigas Clam (English), Bénitier géant (French)
RANGE STATES: American Samoa (int), Australia, Cook Islands (int), Fiji (ex, reint), Guam (ex), Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of) (ex, reint), Myanmar, New Caledonia (ex), Northern Mariana Islands (ex, reint), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa (ex, int), Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Province of China (ex?), Thailand, Tonga (ex, int), Tuvalu (?), United States of America (int), Vanuatu (ex), Viet Nam
RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: New Caledonia
IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinions for wild specimens from all remaining countries formed on 09/10/1997; these were removed on 02/12/2011 for American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Myanmar, Northern Mariana Islands, Philippines, Samoa, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tuvalu and the United States of America. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu first applied on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu formed on 09/10/1997. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Guam and Indonesia first applied on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 29/10/2001 and 26/11/2010, respectively. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Solomon Islands first applied on 03/08/2008 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Solomon Islands first formed on 13/12/2004 and confirmed on 13/06/2005. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Tonga and Viet Nam first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Tonga and Viet Nam formed on 22/05/2003
55 Tridacna maxima
and confirmed for Viet Nam on 09/03/2006.
TRADE PATTERNS: New Caledonia: Imports of Tridacna gigas to the EU-27 directly from New Caledonia over the period 2001-2010 included shells, carvings and derivatives, the majority of which were wild-sourced (Table 1). There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of T. gigas originating in New Caledonia 2001- 2010. The only direct exports of T. gigas from New Caledonia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of one wild-sourced carving exported to Japan in 2008 for personal purposes, reported by New Caledonia only. Table 1. Direct exports of Tridacna gigas from New Caledonia to the EU-27, 2001-2010. (No trade was reported 2004-2007 or 2010). Importer Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2008 2009 Total Belgium shells - P W Importer
Exporter 1 1
France (including carvings - P W Importer
dependent territories of Exporter 1 31 32
French Guiana derivatives kg P O Importer and Reunion) Exporter 116.2 116.2
W Importer
Exporter 144.1 144.1
shells - P W Importer
Exporter 6 10 5 21
T W Importer Exporter 300 300
specimens - S W Importer
Exporter 4 4
CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Tridacna gigas was reported to be widespread, ranging from the Indo-Pacific, including the South China Sea and Coral Sea, to Indonesia, the Marshall Islands and the Australian Great Barrier Reef (IUCN et al., 1996). Several introduced populations were reported to exist in the Pacific Islands, with specimens mainly originating from Australia and Palau (Kinch, 2009). Populations in the Western Pacific region, Eastern Pacific region, and Great Barrier Reef (including Solomon Islands and the Philippines), were considered to form three genetically distinct groups (Benzie, 1993). The species was reported to occur on sandy substrates or coral rubble in shallow lagoons and coral reef flats (Tervo and Csomos, 2001; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). T. gigas, the largest Tridacna species, was reported to commonly grow to a length of 80 cm, although lengths of 137 cm have also been reported (Kinch, 2002; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). The species was considered to be the fastest growing Tridacna species (Pernetta, 1987), with monthly growth rates averaging 4.1 mm (Bell et al., 1997). Raymakers et al. (2003) reported sexual maturity to be reached at 37 cm shell length (as males), with consequent maturation into hermaphrodites at 48.5 cm and at the age of 9-10 years. T. gigas was found to release 40-240 million eggs several times per year in hatcheries (Munro, 1993). T. gigas was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List, although the assessment was noted to need updating (Wells, 1996c). In the 1970s, Dance (1974) considered the species to be “frequent” globally. However, T. gigas was found to have declined dramatically over the 1980s and 1990s (IUCN et al., 1996), with local or national extinctions over a considerable part of its original range (Lucas, 1988; Wells, 1997).
56 Tridacna maxima
The population trend was considered to continue to be declining (Isamu, 2008) and the most abundant populations of this species were considered to be restricted to Australia and the Solomon Islands (Wells, 1997). Overexploitation for commercial and subsistence purposes was considered the main threat to T. gigas (IUCN et al., 1996; Wells, 1997; Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b; Othman et al., 2010). Specimens were reported to be used as food and sold for aquaria, with shells being used for practical and decorative purposes (IUCN et al., 1996; Ellis, 1998). The species’ attractive colouring and easy care were considered to make it highly desirable for aquaria (Lukan and Brough, 2011a). T. gigas was considered to be particularly suitable for meat production due to its good survival and fast weight gain (SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2009) but the higher profitability of smaller species for the aquarium and Japanese sashimi market had reduced the emphasis on this species (Wells, 1997). New Caledonia: T. gigas, considered to be extinct in New Caledonia (Wells, 1997; Raymakers et al., 2003), is only known from fossil records in the country (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010; McKenna et al., 2009). In the early 2000s it was estimated that fewer than 10 professional fishermen collected clams regularly (Raymakers, 2003). Hippopus hippopus, Tridacna crocea, T. maxima and T. derasa were reported to be the main species harvested (N. Baillon, D. Coatanea, R. Farman, A. Rubin, New Caledonian provincial authorities, in litt. to TRAFFIC Europe, December 2002 in: Raymakers et al., 2003). Fossil shells of T. gigas were reported to be sold to tourists in either unworked form or as various decorative goods (Raymakers et al., 2003). Knowledge of the abundance and status of wild populations of Tridacnidae in New Caledonia was considered to be very limited and an insufficient basis for non-detriment-findings or for the establishment of adequate management measures (B. Richer de Forges, IRD, pers. com. to TRAFFIC Europe, 13 December 2002 in: Raymakers et al., 2003). However, bag limits of 5 giant clams/vessel/trip for professional fishers and two giant clams/vessel/trip for others were reported to have been established in the Northern Province, with similar regulations in the Southern Province, although allowing maximum bag limits of 40 kg (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Since 1999, in an attempt to reduce the trade, a maximum of 6 shells (3 bivalves) of giant clams per export permit were permitted (Raymakers et al., 2003), with permits only granted for fossils or for scientific purposes since 2008 (SMMPM, undated).
REFERENCES:
See pages 73-89.
57 Tridacna maxima
BIVALVIA TRIDACNIDAE
SPECIES: Tridacna maxima
COMMON NAMES: Kleine doopvontschel (Dutch), Maxima Clam (English), Small Giant Clam (English)
RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory (?), China, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Comoros, Cook Islands, Egypt, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Hong Kong SAR (ex), India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Myanmar, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia (?), South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America (int), Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Wallis and Futuna Islands
RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Japan, Palau, Seychelles
IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/conservation dependent
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Australia formed on 23/02/2012. Positive opinions for wild specimens from all countries apart from Tonga were formed on 22/07/1997; these were removed on 02/12/2011 for American Samoa, British Indian Ocean Territory, China, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Comoros, Egypt, Guam, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Myanmar, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tokelau, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America and Wallis and Futuna Islands and on 23/02/2012 for Kiribati. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Cambodia formed on 11/03/2011. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Tonga, Vanuatu and Viet Nam first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji, Marshall
58 Tridacna maxima
Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Tonga, Vanuatu and Viet Nam formed on 22/05/2003 and confirmed on 09/03/2006 for Viet Nam. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from New Caledonia formed on 22/05/2003. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from the Solomon Islands first formed on 12/03/2009 and last confirmed on 02/12/2011.
TRADE PATTERNS: Cook Islands: Imports of T. maxima to the EU-27 directly from the Cook Islands over the period 2001- 2010 consisted of live (mainly captive-bred) clams and a small quantity of shells (Table 4). There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of T. maxima originating in the Cook Islands 2001-2010. Direct imports of T. maxima from the Cook Islands to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live clams (wild-sourced, captive-bred and captive-born) and smaller quantities of shells and carvings (Table 5). The United States was the main importer. Table 4. Direct imports of Tridacna maxima from the Cook Islands to the EU-27, 2001-2010. (No trade was reported 2001-2002 or 2005-2008; the Cook Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2003 2004 2009 2010 Total Denmark shells P W Importer 3 3
Germany live T C Importer 450 450
shells P W Importer 2 1 3 Netherlands live T F Importer 410 3430 3840
United Kingdom live T F Importer 50 50
Subtotals live C Importer 450 450
F Importer 50 410 3430 3890
shells W Importer 3 2 1 6
Table 5. Direct imports of Tridacna maxima from the Cook Islands to countries other than the EU-27, 2001- 2010. Trade was predominantly for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in 2001 or 2009; the Cook Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Term Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 Total carvings W Importer 4 4 live C Importer 1251 100 427 1106 2884
F Importer 500 1020 1520
W Importer 300 2350 121 260 3031 shells W Importer 4 8 9 2 23
French Polynesia: Imports of T. maxima to the EU-27 directly from French Polynesia over the period 2001-2010 consisted of wild-sourced shells and live clams (Table 6). There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of T. maxima originating in French Polynesia 2001-2010. Direct exports of T. maxima from French Polynesia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of wild-sourced live clams and a small quantity of shells (Table 7). All of the live clams were imported by the United States.
59 Tridacna maxima
Table 6. Direct exports of Tridacna maxima from French Polynesia to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was wild- sourced. (No trade reported in 2002, 2004-2007 or 2009-2010). Importer Term Purpose Reported by 2001 2003 2008 Total France shells E Importer
Exporter 2 2 P Importer 3 3
Exporter 5 5
S Importer 600 600
Exporter 600 600
Germany live T Importer
Exporter 3000 3000
Table 7. Direct exports of Tridacna maxima from French Polynesia to countries other than the EU-27, 2001- 2010. All trade was wild-sourced for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2003 or 2005-2008). Term Reported by 2004 2009 2010 Total live Importer 774 3367 4141
Exporter shells Importer
Exporter 7 7
Japan: There have been no reported imports of T. maxima to the EU-27 directly from Japan over the period 2001-2010, nor were there any reported indirect imports in the EU-27 originating in Japan. Direct exports of T. maxima from Japan to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live clams, shells and carvings, the majority of which were wild-sourced (Table 8). The United States and Canada were the main importers. Table 8. Direct exports of Tridacna maxima from Japan to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. (No trade was reported 2001-2004 or 2007-2010). Term Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 carvings Q W Importer
Exporter 21 live T W Importer 26
Exporter 600 shells P I Importer 10
Exporter
Q W Importer 21
Exporter
Palau: Imports of T. maxima to the EU-27 directly from Palau over the period 2001-2010 consisted of 3425 live clams (as reported by the importers), the majority of which were captive-born (Table 10). The only reported indirect trade into the EU-27 originating in Palau 2001-2010 was the import by Germany of 50 live, captive-born clams for commercial purposes via Hong Kong SAR in 2010 (reported by both the importer and the re-exporter). Direct exports of T. maxima from Palau to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted of live individuals and shells of various sources (Table 11). The main importers were the United States and Hong Kong SAR.
60 Tridacna maxima
Table 10. Direct exports of Tridacna maxima from Palau to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals for commercial purposes. Palau became a Party to CITES in 2004, annual reports have not yet been received for 2006, 2009 or 2010). Importer Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total France C Importer 350 350
Exporter
W Importer 250 250
Exporter
Germany C Importer 351 351
Exporter F Importer 250 700 150 300 267 465 342 2474
Exporter
Table 11. Direct exports of Tridacna maxima from Palau to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. Trade was predominantly for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2002 or 2008; Palau became a Party to CITES in 2004, annual reports have not yet been received for 2006, 2009 or 2010). Term Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 Total live C Importer 217 1 218
Exporter
F Importer 25 80 105
Exporter
I Importer 18 18 Exporter
W Importer 1 100 415 160 676
Exporter
shells C Importer 35 104 149 1 289
Exporter
F Importer 6 6 Exporter
W Importer 1 3 4
Exporter
Seychelles: Imports of T. maxima to the EU-27 directly from the Seychelles over the period 2001-2010 consisted live clams (primarily captive-bred) and a small quantity of shells (Table 12). There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of T. maxima originating in the Seychelles 2001-2010. Direct exports of T. maxima from the Seychelles to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001- 2010 consisted primarily of live, captive-bred clams which were imported by the United States for commercial purposes (Table 13).
61 Tridacna maxima
Table 12. Direct exports of Tridacna maxima from the Seychelles to the EU-27, 2001-2010. (No trade was reported in 2001 or 2009-2010; annual reports from the Seychelles have not yet been received for 2009-2010). Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Austria live T C Importer 108 108
Exporter 100 208 308 Belgium live T C Importer 300 300
Exporter 150 450 300 900
France live T C Importer 1600 1600
Exporter 1000 1200 400 2600
W Importer 200 200
Exporter shells P W Importer 2 2
Exporter
Germany live T C Importer
Exporter 300 300 600
shells P W Importer 2 2
Exporter 1 4 5 Italy shells T W Importer
Exporter 4 4
Netherlands live T C Importer 300 300 600
Exporter 300 300 300 600 1500
United Kingdom shells P W Importer
Exporter 2 2 Subtotals live C Importer 300 1600 708 2608
Exporter 600 600 1550 2458 700 5908
W Importer 200 200
Exporter
shells W Importer 2 2 4
Exporter 4 3 4 11
Table 13. Direct exports of Tridacna maxima from the Seychelles to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. Trade was primarily for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2003-2007 or 2009-2010; annual reports from the Seychelles have not yet been received for 2009-2010). Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2008 Total live C Importer 200 200
Exporter 200 200 400 shells U Importer
Exporter 1 1
W Importer
Exporter 1 1
CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Tridacna maxima was considered to be the most widely distributed Tridacnidae species (Newman and Gomez, 2000), with its distribution ranging from East Africa to the Red Sea and across eastern Polynesia and Japan (Munro and Heslinga, 1982; Ellis, 1999; Othman et al., 2010). It was considered to be relatively abundant throughout its range, although its status in the Indian Ocean was noted to be poorly known (Wells, 1997; Wabnitz et al., 2003).
62 Tridacna maxima
T. maxima may reach a maximum shell length of 35-40 cm, although usually not exceeding 25 cm (Raymakers et al., 2003; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010). Annual growth rates of 8-11 mm in juvenile stages were reported to become slower in older individuals (Apte et al., 2004). The species was reported to reach sexual maturity at 35 mm length as a male and develop into a fully mature hermaphrodite after two years, at 45 mm length (Raymakers et al., 2003). An adult of 180 mm size was estimated to produce 10 million eggs (Jameson, 1976). T. maxima was categorised as Lower Risk/conservation dependent in the IUCN Red List, although the assessment was noted to require updating (Wells, 1996d). Overharvesting and collection for the souvenir trade were considered to be the main causes of T. maxima population decline (Apte et al., 2004). The bright colour of its mantle was reported to make the species particularly attractive for the aquarium trade (Hart et al., 1998; Wabnitz et al., 2003; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2008), with prices achieved considered high compared to other Tridacna species (Lindsay et al., 2004). Waters (2008) demonstrated in an experimental study that this species may be particularly sensitive to the impacts of ocean acidification. Furthermore, juvenile T. maxima were considered to be particularly vulnerable to predation (Chambers, 2007). The high morphological variability of T. maxima (Richter et al., 2008) was reported to have led to the erroneous description of many variants as new species in the past (McMichael, 1974). However, a study by Nuryanto and Kochzius (2009) revealed significant genetic differentiation among populations in the Indo-West Pacific and across the Indo-Malay Archipelago, raising concerns that the current network of protected areas may be insufficient. T. maxima was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade process following CoP12 (AC20 Summary Record), with French Polynesia, Japan and Palau initially included among the 31 countries and territories selected for review. All three countries were then excluded from a more detailed analysis and categorised as Least Concern, based on an initial analysis of trade data (AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8f; AC22 Summary Record). Cook Islands: T. maxima was reported to occur throughout the Cook Islands (Raumea, 2009). A survey was conducted in 2007, aimed at the collection and provision of baseline data on the status of reef fisheries (Pinca et al., 2007). This and other surveys recorded T. maxima population densities ranging from 0.0021 to 10.4 ind./m2 on the different islands (Raumea, 2009). The main threat to T. maxima was thought to be overharvest for domestic use (Raumea, 2009), with annual giant clam consumption estimated to range from 500 kg in Palmerston [northern Cook Islands] to 2500 kg in Mangaia [southern Cook Islands] (Pinca et al., 2007). Giant clams were considered to be heavily overfished in the majority of lagoons in the Cook Islands (Raumea, 2009), particularly in the southern Islands, where the species was considered to be rare as a result (Chambers, 2007). On Aitutaki [southern Cook Islands], it was considered “greatly impacted” by harvest and the low abundance of large clams on Palmerston was thought to indicate the impact of fishing on the population (Pinca et al., 2007). Although considered locally common on Mangaia, T. maxima was nevertheless considered affected by harvest and it was recommended that larger “broodstock” clams be protected to support the re-seeding of the reef (Pinca et al., 2007). The species was reported to be under high harvest pressure on Rarotonga [the capital, southern Cook Islands], with the potential of rapid declines of stocks expected in the absence of no-take areas (Pinca et al., 2007). CITES is implemented by the National Environment Service (NES, 2011) and a draft management plan was reported to be under way for “a number of marine resources” (Raumea, 2009). Regulatory measures were reported to prohibit the export of clam meat from some of the islands and temporary harvest bans were reported to be in place (Raumea, 2009), with a number of no-harvest zones established on a number of islands (Pinca et al., 2007). The Ministry of Marine Resources was reported to encourage a traditional management system, initiated and implemented by communities, which is based on (temporary) harvest prohibitions (Pinca et al., 2007). The collection of T. maxima for commercial export was reported to be prohibited on Palmerston and the sale or export, whether commercial or not, was reported to be prohibited on Aitutaki through fisheries by-laws (Pinca et al., 2007). However, specimens originating from the northern Islands, particularly Tongareva, were reported to be increasingly available in Rarotonga (Chambers, 2007).
63 Tridacna maxima
In addition to the temporary designation of specific areas as non-harvest zones, Chambers (2007) recommended the introduction of a size limit of 10-16 cm for harvest of T. maxima, to ensure sustainability of off-take. The Cook Island Ministry of Marine Resources was reported to have established a giant clam hatchery on Aitutaki in 1990 in order to restock clams in the lagoon (Chambers, 2007), although the Ministry was reported to focus on the management of wild stocks to support natural regeneration (Pinca et al., 2007). All exports were confirmed to consist of hatchery-reared specimens only, with numbers exported (approximately 30 000 specimens from 2003 to 2006) considered to be relatively small (Raumea, 2009). The potential export of wild specimens from Manihiki Island [northern Cook Islands] was being discussed (Raumea, 2009). French Polynesia: The species was reported to occur in the Tuamotu (Andréfouët et al., 2005), Austral and Society Islands, while being absent from the Marquesas Islands (Tatarata and Remoissenet, 2009). T. maxima, the dominant species of giant clam in French Polynesia, was believed to be the only species occurring in the country until 2006, when T. squamosa was confirmed to occur in the Austral Islands (Gilbert et al., 2007). Some of the lagoons of the eastern Tuamotu Atolls were reported to contain “enormous” and dominant populations of T. maxima (Andréfouët et al., 2005), with average densities ranging from 0.02 ind./m2 in Anaa (Laurent, 2001 in: Andréfouët et al., 2005) to 7.7 ind./m2 (88.3 x 106 clams on 11.46 km2 lagoon area) at Tatakoto (Gilbert et al., 2006a). The clams at Tatakoto, however, were noted to generally be much smaller, with an average of 5 cm shell length, compared to the clams at Fangatau or Tubuai, measuring around 13 and 15 cm, respectively, which was thought to be possibly due to competition for space (Gilbert et al., 2006a). The Fangatau and Tatakoto lagoons were considered to contain the highest densities of T. maxima globally (Gilbert et al., 2006a). While the species was considered to be abundant in some lagoons and not endangered, it was noted to be overexploited on many islands, particularly the populated Society Islands (Tatarata and Remoissenet, 2009), Ragiroa in the Tuamotu Islands (Gilbert et al., 2006b) and Tubuai in the Austral Islands (Larrue, 2006). Furthermore, extensive bleaching of T. maxima was thought to have led to a population decline of >80% in the Tuamotu Archipelago in the 1990s (Addessi, 2001). The populations of the Eastern Tuamotu Atolls were reported to have been harvested for local consumption only until the mid 2000s, when an increase in exploitation was observed due to rising demand from Tahiti (Andréfouët et al., 2005). Tatakoto, Fangatau and Tubuai were reported to be the main exporters of giant clams (Gilbert et al., 2009), with 2004 exports of T. maxima reaching 16.4 tonnes, 5.5 tonnes and between 8 (Lehartel, 2003 in: Gilbert et al., 2006b) and 40 tonnes (Larrue, 2005), respectively [it is not clear whether these exports were destined for domestic/international trade or both]. Local consumption of giant clam meat in the east Tuamotu and Australes Islands was not considered to be sustainable in the long term, in the absence of management measures (SPE, 2012). The giant clam population at Takapoto Atoll was reported to have been subject to substantial harvest without sufficient recruitment (Andréfouët et al., 2005). However, natural events were reported to be the dominant cause of mortality in this location (Andréfouët et al., 2001 in: Andréfouët et al., 2005). T. maxima populations were noted to have been impacted by fisheries for tourism in the Bora Bora lagoon, leading to significant decreases of average shell sizes of the wild population (Planes et al., 1993). The rates of exploitation of T. maxima on Raivavae were not considered to pose a critical threat to the sustainability of the harvest, however, Andréfouët et al. (2009) recommended that management should include a system of rotational closures to allow certain areas to rest. In 2001, the Service de la Pêche de Polynésie Française initiated a programme to assess the population size, structure, growth rates and genetics of T. maxima for a number of atolls, as well as to establish the suitability of the species for aquaculture (SPE, 2012; Andréfouët et al., 2005). Furthermore, a need for the development of giant clam aquaculture was identified by Tatarata and Remoissenet (2009). At Fangatau atoll, the biomass within the survey area (4 km2 of lagoon) was estimated at approximately 1162 tonnes of meat, but with current regulation restricting the harvestable size to shell lengths of 12 cm or more, the commercially available stock was estimated at 1038 tonnes (Andréfouët et al., 2005). Similarly, the biomass at Tatakoto and Tubuai was estimated at 1485 tonnes
64 Tridacna maxima and 2173 tonnes, with a commercially available stock of 958 tonnes and 1971 tonnes, respectively (Gilbert et al., 2006a). Although exports from the atoll were around 4 tonnes per year (approximately 50 000 T. maxima clams) in the mid 2000s, the harvest was expected to increase, particularly considering the much higher exports from other Polynesian Islands (Andréfouët et al., 2005). A need for conservation initiatives in the near future was noted (Andréfouët et al., 2005), with the multi- island nature and the importance of the clam fishery for local livelihoods requiring “more elaborate management schemes” to ensure long-term sustainability whilst promoting better ecosystem conservation (Gilbert et al., 2006a). To assess the sustainability of harvest, Andréfouët et al. (2005) recommended that the impact of collection on recruitment, growth rates and the stability of the population should be assessed. However, Larrue (2006) found significant divergence between the views of the scientific community and the local population on Tubuai with regard to the status of giant clams, which was making it difficult to find a shared approach for the management of the resource. Furthermore, the significant financial revenues associated with clam fishery were considered to make it difficult to obtain information on local and national trade, with people being reluctant to disclose information (Larrue, 2006). However, by 2009, three no-take areas and nine Marine Protected areas had been designated, with 11 and five more planned, respectively (Tatarata and Remoissenet, 2009). One of these no-take areas, on Tatakoto, was reported to contain some of the highest clam densities, with up to 544 ind./m2 on structures formed of accumulations of dead and live clams known as ‘mapikos’ (Gilbert et al., 2005). Decision No. 88-184 AT (Commission Permanente, 1988) prohibits the harvest or sale/export of wild clams of less than 12 cm length (Tatarata and Remoissenet, 2009). Decision No. 2007-98 (APF, 2007) and order No. 9 (Conseil des Ministres, 2008) regulate the collection, rearing and reseeding of giant clams. Only lagoons with accumulations of clams were selected for authorized spat collection, with a limited number of collectors overall and per lagoon, size and number of collection structures (APF, 2007). After three years, each collector is required to use 1000 specimens of at least 7 cm length per year for restocking purposes (Conseil des Ministres, 2008) and there is a annual reporting requirement for collectors/breeders (APF, 2007). Aquaculture is permitted in any lagoon, but is subject to a number of restrictions, such as size of area, location or depth. The minimum size of spat for collection was set at 4 cm (Conseil des Ministres, 2008). The drafting of a decree on the management of CITES was reported to be under way (Tatarata and Remoissenet, 2009), as was a regulation on exports (Remoissenet, 2009; SPE, 2012). One lagoon on Tatakoto was reported to have been opened for the collection of giant clams for the approved commercial export via Tahiti (SPE, 2012). In 2009, Tatarata and Remoissenet (2009) reported that quotas had been established for wild stocks from a restricted selection of lagoons, but that within three years all exported clams were to be sourced from aquaculture only, with all sizes permitted to be exported from this source. Tatakoto was reported to be the first atoll which was opened in 2009 for the collection of spat for aquaculture (Tatarata and Remoissenet, 2009). More than 100 ind./m2 were reported to be collected on substrates (Remoissenet et al., 2009) and the method of collecting spat for reseeding was considered to be very promising, without the requirement of a hatchery phase, as in other Pacific countries (Gilbert et al., 2006b). Laurent et al. (2002) found that populations from different archipelagos differed genetically, although only in one locus. However the methods used were considered to pose low genetic and ecological risks (Gilbert et al., 2006b). Japan: The species was reported to occur in the southern half of Japan (Othman et al., 2010). Despite T. maxima being amongst the commonly found Tridacna species in Okinawa, 90% of the landings were reported to consist of T. crocea (Okada, 1997). The catch of giant clams was reported to have decreased, indicating depletion of stocks (Okada, 1997; Othman et al., 2010). Whilst T. crocea was reported to be the preferred species for the Japanese sashimi and sushi market (Shang et al., 1991), and also the aquarium market, brightly coloured specimens of T. maxima were noted to demand the same price as T. crocea in the Japanese aquarium market (Okada, 1997) and T. maxima was considered to be highly valued (Tisdell et al., 1994).
65 Tridacna maxima
Japanese fishery management within coastal waters was reported to be based on fishery cooperatives, whereby territorial fishing rights are granted for capture fisheries or for aquaculture, with the cooperatives deciding “who, how, where and when to fish” (Uchida and Wilen, 2004). The government in Okinawa was reported to prohibit the harvest of giant clams during the spawning season (Okada, 1997; Wells, 1997). Further measures, such as a prohibition of the use of diving equipment for fishing, closure of certain areas for fishing, and restriction of daily catch numbers to 50 pieces per person were reported to have been adopted by some fishermen's cooperatives to protect giant clam stocks (Okada, 1997). The Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production was reported to have been established in 1999, in order to maintain environmental conditions (Takeda, 2010). A restocking programme was reported to have been carried out since 1987, by the Okinawa Prefectural Fisheries Experimental Station and a private company, Okinawa Kuruma-ebi Co. Ltd (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b). Seeds of T. maxima were reported to be produced and distributed only occasionally (Okada, 1997); the main focus being T. crocea. An overall levelling-off or decline in production of cultured molluscs was reported to have been observed in Japan since 2008, as the limited availability of suitable sites was restricting further intensification (FAO, 2011). Palau: T. maxima was reported to occur in the Western Caroline Islands (Hardy and Hardy, 1969), where it was reported from the Helen Reef [a small atoll in the southernmost state of Palau] (Hirschberger, 1980), and Ngaruangl, Kayangel, Ngerael and Ngebard reefs in north Palau (Hirschberger, 1977 in: Nichols, 1991). Population densities of 5.45 x 10-3 ind./m2 were reported from a survey south of Koror in the late 1960s (Hardy and Hardy, 1969). In the early 1980s, Hirschberger (1980) estimated T. maxima numbers to amount to 1.1 x 106 across the whole of Helen Reef. Substantial levels of poaching were reported to have led to a declining population trend (Raymakers et al., 2003) and in the 1970s, significant reductions of Tridacna spp. densities at Helen Reef, Southwest Palau, were reported to have been caused by harvesting by foreign vessels (Bryan and McConnell, 1976 in: Apte et al., 2004). Collection was considered to be the main threat to the species, with clams harvested for both subsistence use and for local restaurants (Isamu, 2008). Furthermore, exports of wild specimens to relatives were considered to be frequent (Isamu, 2008). Giant clams were said not to be subject to illegal trade in Palau (Nichols, 1991). The reduction in wild stocks was reported to have led to the establishment of the Palau Maricultural Demonstration Center Program by the Palau Government in 2005 (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), leading to the establishment of 40 clam farms by 2008, which received mainly T. crocea, T. maxima, T. derasa and Hippopus hippopus from the programme (Isamu, 2008). The founder stock was reported to have been collected in the early 1980s and the broodstock placed and monitored in designated areas in the sea, close to the hatchery (Isamu, 2008). These specimens were then (re-)collected for spawning within the hatchery before being returned to the same area in the sea, with the eggs being manually fertilized in the hatchery. The clam aquaculture and farmers receiving stock were reported to be monitored regularly and a minimum of 10% of the clams per farm were to be used as broodstock, thereby re-seeding nearby areas (Isamu, 2008). Conservation areas were also reported to be re-stocked with cultured clams to enhance species diversity and sustainability of harvest (Isamu, 2008) and the hatchery was reported to include the production of seeds of T. crocea, T. derasa, T. gigas and T. maxima for other countries’ enhancement programmes (e.g. Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands), specimens for the aquarium trade and food for restaurants (Anon., 1998 in: Raymakers et al., 2003). The giant clam hatchery in Palau was considered to be the only viable commercial facility of its kind in the South Pacific (Raymakers et al., 2003). Isamu (2008) reported that no management measures were in place to regulate clam offtake. However, the Palau National Code (Palau, 1985) and the Marine Protection Act (Palau, 1994) and its amendments prohibit the export of clams, unless of cultured origin; it also prohibits the use of underwater breathing apparatus other than snorkel. Exports were therefore considered to only consist of specimens reared in hatcheries (Isamu, 2008).
66 Tridacna maxima
Seychelles: Ronnback et al. (2002) reported that following the mass death of giant clams during the El Niño in March 1998, only clams stocked in tanks of the aquaculture facility on Praslin survived, with the facility subsequently initiating a voluntary re-stocking of the reef. The species had previously been reported from Mahé (Selin et al., 1992) and shells were found on Aride (Agombar et al., 2003). Tridacna spp. shells were reported to be harvested for the curio trade in the Seychelles (Bijoux et al., 2008). One aquaculture facility on Praslin was reported to have produced T. maxima since the early 1990s, in land-based recirculation facilities (Martín, 2011). The facility’s technology was considered to have a relatively benign impact on the environment and it was noted that juveniles were not collected from the wild, as they were produced in the hatchery (ASCLME, 2011). In 2005, the first spawning since 1997 took place in the facility, with two million larvae estimated to have been obtained that year (SFA, 2005) and in 2006, eight million larvae were obtained, approximately 7000 of which completed metamorphosis successfully (SFA, 2006). Exports in 2002 and 2003 were reported to have numbered 300 and 600 clams, respectively (SFA, 2003). No giant clams were reported to have been exported in 2004 (SFA, 2004), while total exports in 2005 and 2006 were 550 and 858 clams, respectively, with the majority destined for the European ornamental market (SFA, 2006). The brownish coloration of the majority of specimens from the facility was noted to make it difficult to find a market, as more vividly coloured clams were preferred for the ornamental trade (SFA, 2003). The Fisheries Regulations prohibit the collection of giant clams, their disturbance or the disturbance of their natural environment at specific locations on the east coast of Mahe, on the northern coast of La Digue and on the northern coast of Praslin (Seychelles, 2010). The purchase or sale of unworked giant clams is prohibited and the Regulations also restrict the permitted possession of marine mollusks to less than 20 kg and their export to 2 kg; any excess requires permission from the Seychelles Fishing Authority (Seychelles, 2010).
REFERENCES:
See pages 73-89.
67 Tridacnidae references
BIVALVIA TRIDACNIDAE
SPECIES: Tridacna squamosa
COMMON NAMES: Schilferige doopvontschelp (Dutch), Fluted Clam (English), Fluted Giant Clam (English), Scaly Clam (English)
RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory (?), Comoros, Cook Islands, Egypt (?), Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam (ex, int), India, Indonesia, Japan (ex?), Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Myanmar, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands (ex?), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia (?), South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America (int), Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Wallis and Futuna Islands
RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Marshall Islands, Palau
IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/conservation dependent
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinions for wild specimens from all countries apart from Tonga were formed on 22/07/1997; these were removed on 02/12/2011 for American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory, Comoros, Cook Islands, Egypt, Guam, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Myanmar, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tokelau, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America and Wallis and Futuna Islands. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Cambodia formed on 11/03/2011. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Fiji, Mozambique and Vanuatu first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Fiji, Mozambique and Vanuatu formed on 22/05/2003. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from New Caledonia and Viet Nam first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous
68 Tridacnidae references
negative opinion for wild specimens from New Caledonia and Viet Nam formed on 05/09/2002 and 30/01/2003, respectively. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Solomon Islands first formed on 12/03/2009 and last confirmed on 02/12/2011. Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Tonga first applied on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion formed on 22/07/1997.
TRADE PATTERNS: Marshall Islands: Imports of Tridacna squamosa to the EU-27 directly from the Marshall Islands over the period 2001-2010 consisted of 9133 live clams and 50 seized/confiscated shells, as reported by the importers (Table 1). Indirect trade into the EU-27 originating in the Marshall Islands 2001-2010 consisted of live clams re-exported via the United States (Table 2). Direct exports of T. squamosa from the Marshall Islands to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 consisted primarily of live clams with a small quantity of shells (Table 3). The main importers were the United States and Canada. Table 1. Direct imports of Tridacna squamosa from the Marshall Islands to the EU-27, 2001-2010. (No trade was reported 2009-2010; the Marshall Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Denmark live T R Importer 50 50
France live T C Importer 2200 582 2782
F Importer 200 200 Germany live T C Importer 257 189 70 208 219 943
F Importer 200 200
United Kingdom live T C Importer 527 68 267 862
F Importer 210 901 404 1306 800 475 4096
shells - I Importer 50 50
Subtotals live C Importer 257 716 138 475 2419 582 4587 F Importer 210 901 404 1706 800 475 4496
R Importer 50 50
shells I Importer 50 50
Table 2. Indirect exports of Tridacna squamosa to the EU-27 originating in the Marshall Islands, 2001-2010. All trade was in live individuals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2003-2010). Importer Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 Total Germany - C Importer 18 18 Exporter 18 18
United Kingdom kg W Importer
Exporter 12 12
- C Importer
Exporter 40 40
W Importer 40 12 52 Exporter
69 Tridacnidae references
Table 3. Direct imports of Tridacna squamosa from the Marshall Islands to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade primarily for commercial purposes. (The Marshall Islands are not a Party to CITES, hence trade data are reported by the importers only). Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total live - C Importer 1084 1896 1969 856 10 2395 689 1686 1055 316 11956 F Importer 801 200 5 1006
I Importer 15 250 265
R Importer 56 51 107
U Importer 400 400
W Importer 1020 2212 8 700 821 4761 shells g I Importer 140 140
- C Importer 10 1 11
I Importer 3 3
W Importer 3 2 5
Palau: Imports of T. squamosa to the EU-27 directly from Palau over the period 2001-2010 consisted of 1820 live clams and 56 shells, reported by the importers only (Table 4). The only indirect trade into the EU-27 originating in Palau 2001-2010 consisted of 45 live, captive-born clams imported by Germany via Hong Kong SAR in 2010 for commercial purposes (reported by both the importer and the re-exporter). Direct exports of T. squamosa from Palau to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 primarily consisted of live clams and shells from various sources almost entirely of ranched bodies traded for commercial purposes (Table 5). The main importers were the United States, Japan and Hong Kong SAR. Table 4. Direct exports of Tridacna squamosa from Palau to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2001 or 2007-2008; Palau became a Party to CITES in 2004, annual reports have not yet been received for 2006, 2009 or 2010. Importer Term Source Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2009 2010 Total France live C Importer 350 350
Exporter
W Importer 250 250
Exporter
Germany live C Importer 256 256
Exporter
F Importer 100 250 350 201 63 964
Exporter
Italy shells R Importer 56 56
Exporter
Table 5. Direct exports of Tridacna squamosa from Palau to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. Trade was for commercial and personal purposes. (No trade was reported in 2008; Palau became a Party to CITES in 2004, annual reports have not yet been received for 2006, 2009 or 2010). Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 Total carvings - W Importer 4 4
Exporter
live - C Importer 7 53 1 61
Exporter
F Importer 25 50 75
Exporter
70 Tridacnidae references
Term Units Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 Total I Importer 19 3 22
Exporter W Importer 25 260 285
Exporter
shells kg I Importer 1 1
Exporter
- C Importer 2 23 3 5 2 1 36
Exporter F Importer 6 6
Exporter
W Importer 1 118 3 2 124
Exporter
CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Tridacna squamosa was reported to occur along the East African coast and the Red Sea, ranging across the Indo-Pacific to the Pitcairn islands (Wells, 1997) and to Japan in the north (Othman et al., 2010). The species typically occurs in sheltered areas on sand or attached to corals reefs (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), often amongst branching corals (Raymakers et al., 2003). T. squamosa grows to shell lengths of up to 40 cm (Wells, 1997; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010; Lukan and Brough, 2011b) reaching sexual maturity at 4 years of age as a male and at 6 years as hermaphrodite (Raymakers et al., 2003). T. squamosa was categorised as Lower Risk/conservation dependent in the IUCN Red List, although the assessment was noted to require updating (Wells, 1996e). The species was considered to be common in the 1970s (Dance, 1974) and “reasonably abundant” in the 1990s, although its status in the Indian Ocean was noted to be poorly known (Wells, 1997). Its population was considered to show a decreasing trend (Isamu, 2008). Overexploitation and habitat degradation were considered to pose the main threats to T. squamosa (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008b; Othman et al., 2010). Its attractive coloration, appearance and size were noted to have rendered it a favoured species for the shell trade (IUCN et al., 1996), with the species also considered a “popular food item” (CITES Animals Committee, 2006). The species was reported to be traded at relatively low prices in the aquarium trade (Mingoa-Licuanan and Gomez, 2002). T. squamosa was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade process following CoP12 (AC20 Summary Record), with the Marshall Islands and Palau included among the 27 countries and territories selected for review. Palau was excluded from a more detailed analysis and categorised as Least Concern, based on an initial analysis of trade data; the Marshall Islands was categorised as Possible Concern, due to continuing wild-sourced trade despite an apparent ban on commercial harvest (AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8g; AC22 Summary Record). The Marshall Islands was subsequently removed from the review process in 2009, after complying with the recommendations of the Animals Committee (SC58 Doc. 21.1). Marshall Islands: T. squamosa was reported to occur in the Ailinginae, Likiep, Ailuk (Robinson et al., 1981), Rongelap (Robinson et al., 1981; Beger and Pinca, 2003; Pinca et al., 2005) Bok-ak, Bikar (Maragos, 1994), Milli (Beger and Pinca, 2003), Namu and Majuro Atolls (Beger et al., 2008). A survey in the 1990s found the giant clam populations (especially T. squamosa, T. maxima and Hippopus hippopus) at Bok-ak Atoll and T. squamosa and T. maxima at Bikar Atoll, to be very large (Maragos, 1994). However, in the early 2000s, local fishermen reported they caught fewer giant clams than in the early 1990s (Pinca et al., 2001) and the Tridacna spp. population of Majuro was reported to be declining, partly because of heavy metal pollution (Beger et al., 2008). Pinca et al. (2005) noted that there were signs of unsustainable [marine] resource exploitation and Berger et al. (2008) considered harvest
71 Tridacnidae references for commercial and local use to be amongst the most pressing threats to coral reef ecosystems in the Marshall Islands. Little quantitative information was reported to be available on the impact of the removal of specimens, including clams, from reefs (Pinca et al., 2005). While some Tridacna species were reported to become rarer in the Marshall Islands, this trend was not found in Rongelap (Beger et al., 2008), which includes populations of T. squamosa (Beger and Pinca, 2003). Overall, the Marshall Islands coral reef ecosystems were assessed as “in excellent condition”, with many of the threats which are common in other Pacific islands considered of comparatively low impact (Beger et al., 2008). A government-owned giant clam hatchery was reported to be based at the Likiep Atoll, with specimens sold on to a private company on Majuro (SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2011b). The Marshall Islands Mariculture Farm on Majuro was reported to produce T. maxima, T. squamosa, T. derasa and T. gigas (ORA, 2012). Despite considering aquaculture ventures in the Marshall Islands a “boom and bust business”, Beger et al. (2008) noted that the Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority -operated tridacnid clam hatcheries on Majuro, Likiep, Mili and Arno Atolls were amongst the successful operations. The government of the Marshall Islands was reported to be planning to establish a new giant clam hatchery on the Arno atoll, in cooperation with the Japanese Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation (SPC Aquaculture Portal, 2011c). Pinca et al. (2005) reported that a clam farm was exporting sustainably-produced specimens. T. squamosa does not appear to be protected in the Marshall Islands, however was considered a species “worthy of conservation considerations” (RMI OEPPC, 2008) and giant clams were reported to be among the species conservation targets of the Marshall Islands (Reimaan National Planning Team, 2008). Giant clams are collected for subsistence use, while their commercial harvest was reported to be prohibited (Raymakers et al., 2003). However, giant clams were reported to be subject to unreported, illegal and unregulated trade in the Marshall Islands (Reimaan National Planning Team, 2008). Palau: T. squamosa was reported to occur in the Western Caroline Islands (Hardy and Hardy, 1969), where the species was reported from Helen Reef [a small atoll in the southernmost state of Palau] (Hirschberger, 1980), in the Aulong channel [western Palau] (Heslinga and Perron, 1984 in: Nichols, 1991) and from Velasco reef [north Palau] to Anguar island [south of Koror] (Birkeland and Richmond, 1992 in: Nichols, 1991). Population densities of 6.35x10-3 ind./m2 were found during a survey south of Koror in the 1960s (Hardy and Hardy, 1969). In the 1980s, the species’ population density was considered to be low at Helen Reef, with the local standing stock estimated at 10.4x103 across the reef (Hirschberger, 1980) and Heslinga and Perron (1984 in: Nichols, 1991) estimated the species’ density at Aulong Channel to be 1.2x10-3 specimens per m2. Collection was considered to be the main threat to the species in Palau (Isamu, 2008). Wild clams were reported to be collected for subsistence use and for local restaurants (Isamu, 2008). Substantial levels of poaching were reported to have led to a declining population trend of giant clams in Palau (Raymakers et al., 2003). Giant clams were considered not to be subject to illegal trade in Palau (Isamu, 2008). The reduction in wild stocks was reported to have led to the establishment of the Palau Maricultural Demonstration Center Program by the Palau Government in 2005 (Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), leading to the establishment of 40 clam farms by 2008, which received mainly T. crocea, T. maxima, T. derasa and Hippopus hippopus from the programme - T. squamosa was reported to not be produced, although its breeding was considered possible (Isamu, 2008). Isamu (2008) reported that no management measures were in place to regulate clam offtake. However, the Palau National Code (Palau, 1985) and the Marine Protection Act (Palau, 1994) and its amendments prohibit the export of clams, unless of cultured origin; it also prohibits the use of underwater breathing apparatus other than snorkel. Exports were therefore considered to only consist of specimens reared in hatcheries (Isamu, 2008).
REFERENCES:
See pages 73-89.
72 Tridacnidae references
REFERENCES: Adams, T., Bell, J., and Labrosse, P. 2000. Current Status of Aquaculture in the Pacific Islands, in Subasinghe, R. P. et al., (eds.), Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. NACA and FAO, Bangkok and Rome. 295-305. Adams, T. J. H., Lewis, A. D., and Ledua, E. 1988. Natural population dynamics of Tridacna derasa in relation to reef reseeding and mariculture, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 78-81. Addessi, L. 2001. Giant clam bleaching in the lagoon of Takapoto atoll (French Polynesia). Coral Reef, 19: 220. Agombar, J. S., Dugdale, H. L., and Hawkswell, N. J. 2003. Species list and relative abundance of marine molluscs collected on Aride Island beach between March 2001 and February 2002. Aride Island Research Group. Allen, G. R., Kinch, J. P., McKenna, S. A., and Seeto, P. 2003. A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea - Survey II (2000). RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment no. 29. Conservation International. Washington DC, The United States of America. Andréfouët, S., Friedman, K., Gilbert, A., and Remoissenet, G. 2009. A comparison of two surveys of invertebrates at Pacific Ocean islands: the giant clam at Raivavae Island, Australes Archipelago, French Polynesia. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 1825-1836. Andréfouët, S., Gilbert, A., Yan, L., Remoissenet, G., Payri, C., and Chancerelle, Y. 2005. The remarkable population size of the endangered clam Tridacna maxima assessed in Fangatau Atoll (Eastern Tuamotu, French Polynesia) using in situ and remote sensing data. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 1037-1048. Andréfouët, S., Pagès, J., and Tartinville, B. 2001. Water renewal time for classification of atoll lagoons in the Tuamotu Archipelago (French Polynesia). Coral Reefs, 20 (4): 399-408. Anon. 1998. L'avenir de Palau est-il dans le bénitier, Pacific Sunday News 16 August 1998. APF 2007. Assemblée de la Polynésie Française (APF). Déliberation No. 2007-98 du 3 Décembre 2007 relative à la réglementation des activités de collectage, d'élevage et de repeuplement de bénitiers en Polynésie française. Apte, D., Idrees Babu K.K., Sahib, K., and Dutta, S. 2004. Species conservation action plan - Ecology, population dynamics and conservation of Giant Clam Tridacna maxima (Roding, 1798) in Lakshadweep Archipelago. Bombay Natural History Society, LEAD International, Darwin Initiative. ASCLME. 2011. Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems project. Coastal livelihoods in the Republic of Seychelles. Beger, M., Jacobson, D., Pinca, S., Richards, Z., Hess, D., Harriss, F., Page, C., Peterson, E., and Baker, N. 2008. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, in Waddell, J. E. & Clarke, A. M., (eds.), The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and Pacific. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 387-417. Beger, M. and Pinca, S. 2003. Mili and Rongelap Atolls, Republic of the Marshall Islands. Final Report. CMI - NRAS. 2002-0317-008. Bell, J. D., Lane, I., Gervis, M., Soule, S., and Tafea, H. 1997. Village-based farming of the giant clam, Tridacna gigas (L), for the aquarium market: Initial trials in Solomon Islands. Aquaculture Research, 28 (2): 121-128. Benzie, J. A. H. 1993. Review of the population genetics of Giant Clams, in Munro, P., (ed.), Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings no. 39. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. 1-5. Benzie, J. A. H. and Williams, S. T. 1996. Limitations in the genetic variation of hatchery produced batches of the giant clam, Tridacna gigas. Aquaculture, 139: 225-241. Bijoux, J. P., Decomarmond, A., and Aumeeruddy, R. 2008. Status of the Marine Environment Report. Seychelles. UNEP-GEF WIO LaB Project. Birkeland, C. and R.H. Richmond. 1992. Rapid Ecological Assessment - Palau - Invertebrates. Marine Laboratory, University of Guam, Guam.
73 Tridacnidae references
Bryan, P. G. and McConnell, D. B. 1976. Status of giant clam stocks (Tridacnidae) on Helen Reef, Palau, Western Carolina Islands. Marine Fisheries Review, 38: 15-18. Chambers, C. N. L. 2007. Pasua (Tridacna maxima) size and abundance in Tongareva Lagoon, Cook Islands. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 13: 7-12. Chantrapornsyl, S., Kittiwattanawong, K., and Adulyanukosol, K. 1996. Distribution and abundance of Giant Clam around Lee-Pae Island, the Andaman Sea, Thailand. Phuket Marine Biological Center Special Publication, 16: 195-200. CITES Animals Committee 2006. Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix II species. Species selected following CoP12. AC22 Doc. 10.2 Annex 8. Commission Permanente 1988. Délibération No. 88-184 AT du 8 décembre 1988 relative à la protection de certaines espèces animales marines d'eau douce du patrimoine naturel polynésien. Conseil des Ministres 2008. Arrêté No. 9 CM du 8 janvier 2008 portant application de la délibération n° 2007 - 98 APF du 3 décembre 2007, relative à la réglementation des activités de collectage, d'élevage et de repeuplement de bénitiers en Polynésie française. Dance, S. P. 1974. The encyclopedia of shells. Blandford Press Ltd., London, United Kingdom. Dolorosa, R. G. and Schoppe, S. 2007. Focal benthic mollusks (Mollusca: Bivalvia and Gastropoda) of selected sites in Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park, Palawan, Philippines. Science Diliman, 17 (2): 1-10. Dumas, P. and Andréfouët, S. 2010. Les bénitiers en Nouvelle-Calédonie: volet status des populations & habitat. Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD). Noumea. Edward, A. 2002. Marine Biodiversity of the Federated States of Micronesia. Report prepared for the FSM National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Project. Eldredge, L. G. 1993. Introduction of commercially significant aquatic organisms to the Pacific Islands. Pacific Science Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Ellis, S. 1998. Spawning and early larval rearing of Giant Clams (Bivalvia: Tridacnidae). Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture. Publication no. 130. Ellis, S. 1999. Lagoon farming of giant clams (Bivalvia: Tridacnidae). Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture. FAO. 2011. Regional Review on Status and Trends in Aquaculture Development in Asia- Pacific - 2010. Aquaculture Service, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department and Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1061/5. Rome. FIRA/C1061/5. Foyle, T. P., Bell, J. D., Gervis, M., and Lane, I. 1997. Survival and growth of juvenile fluted giant clams, Tridacna squamosa, in large-scale grow-out trials in the Solomon Islands. Aquaculture, 148: 85-104. Friedman, K. and Teitelbaum, A. 2008. Re-introduction of giant clams in the Indo-Pacific, in Soorae, P. S., (ed.), Global re-introduction perspectives - Re-introduction case-studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, Abu Dhabi, UAE. 4-10. Gervis, M. 1993. Giant clams, genetics and hatchery procedure, in Munro, P., (ed.), Genetic aspects of conservation and cultivation of Giant Clams. ICLARM Conference Proceedings no. 39. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Coastal Aquaculture Centre, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. 21-24. Gilbert, A., Andréfouët, S., Remoissenet, G., and Stein, A. 2009. Giant clams fishery management in French Polynesia: a review of recent progress. 11th Pacific Science Inter-Congress, Tahiti, 2-6 March 2009. Gilbert, A., Andréfouët, S., Yan, L., and Remoissenet, G. 2006a. The giant clam Tridacna maxima communities of three French Polynesia islands: comparison of their population sizes and structures at early stages of their exploitation. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 1573-1589. Gilbert, A., Planes, S., Andréfouët, S., Friedman, K., and Remoissenet, G. 2007. First observation of the giant clam Tridacna squamosa in French Polynesia: a species range extension. Coral Reefs, 26 (2): 229. Gilbert, A., Remoissenet, G., Yan, L., and Andréfouët, S. 2006b. Special traits and promises of the giant clam (Tridacna maxima) in French Polynesia. SPC Fisheries Newsletter, 118: 44-52.
74 Tridacnidae references
Gilbert, A., Yan, L., Remoissenet, G., Andréfouët, S., Payri, C., and Chancerelle, Y. 2005. Extraordinarily high giant clam density under protection in Tatakoto Atoll (eastern Tuamotu Archipelago, French Polynesia). Coral Reef, 24: 495. Government of Thailand. 1992. Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2535 (1992). Hamner, W. M. and Jones, M. S. 1976. Distribution, burrowing, and growth rates of the clam Tridacna crocea on interior reef flats. Oecologia, 24: 207-227. Hardy, J. T. and Hardy, S. A. 1969. Ecology of Tridacna in Palau. Pacific Science, XXIII (October 1969): 467-472. Hart, A. M., Bell, J. D., and Foyle, T. P. 1998. Growth and survival of the giant clams, Tridacna derasa, T. maxima and T. crocea, at village farms in the Solomon Islands. Aquaculture, 165: 203-220. Hean, R. L. and Cacho, O. J. 2003. A growth model for giant clams Tridacna crocea and T. derasa. Ecological modelling, 163 (1-2): 87-100. Heslinga, G. A. and Perron, F. E. 1984. Status of giant clam stocks at Aulong Channel, Republic of Palau. -20. DMR. Hirschberger, W. 1977. Tridacna clam population survey of Palau's Northern reefs. -22. DMR document. Hirschberger, W. 1980. Tridacnid clam stocks on Helen Reef, Palau, Western Caroline Islands. Marine Fisheries Review, 42 (2): 8-15. Hviding, E. 1993. The rural context of giant clam mariculture in Solomon Islands: an anthropological study. ICLARM Technical Reports 39. Isamu, T. 2008. Palau case study - Tridacnidae. International expert workshop on CITES non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, November 17-22, 2008. IUCN, TRAFFIC, and WCMC. 1996. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II - detailed reviews of 24 species. Final report to the CITES Animals Committee. IUCN Species Survival Commission, TRAFFIC Network, World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Jameson, S. C. 1976. Early life history of the giant clams Tridacna crocea, T. maxima and Hippopus hippopus. Pacific Science, 30: 219-233. Kinch, J. 2002. Giant Clams: their status and trade in Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 19 (2): 67-75. Kinch, J. 2009. The importance of giant clam fisheries management and trade to the Pacific, Regional management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building workshop, CITES, Nadi, Fiji Islands (4th to 7th August 2009). Kinch, J., Mesia, P., Kere, N., Manioli, J., and Bulehite, K. 2006. Socioeconomic baseline study: Eastern Marovo Lagoon, Solomon Islands. IWP-Pacific Technical Report (International Waters Project) No. 35. Apia, Samoa. Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2008. Proceedings of the sub-regional workshop on the marine ornamental trade in the Pacific, SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community). Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridancidae) and CITES capacity building 4-7 August 2009. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, New Caledonia. Larrue, S. 2005. Rapport pour une participation des acteurs socio-économiques à la gestion durable des ressources en bénitiers du lagon de Tubuai. Laboratoire IRIDIP, UPF. Convention 5.0020?MPP?SPE, rapport final. Larrue, S. 2006. Giant clam fishing on the island of Tubuai, Austral Islands group: between local portrayals, economic necessity and ecological realities. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin, 19: 3-10. Laurent, V. 2001. Etude de stocks, relations biométriques et structures des populations de béhitiers, Tridacna maxima, dans trois lagons de Polynésie française (Moorea, Takapoto et Anaa). ENSAR. Rennes. 45 pp. Laurent, V., Planes, S., and Salvat, B. 2002. High variability of genetic pattern in giant clam (Tridacna maxima) populations within French Polynesia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 77: 221- 213. Lehartel, M. 2003. Enquête sur la pêcherie de bénitiers à Tubuai. SPE. Rapport scientifique et technique. 8 pp. Lindsay, S. 1994. Giant clams in the Federated States of Micronesia. Clamlines, 13: 11-12.
75 Tridacnidae references
Lindsay, S. 1995. Giant Clams Reef reseeding programs for giant clams: do they work and do they use limited resources wisely? Using YAP state, FSM as a model. South Pacific Commission. Joint FFA/SPC workshop on the management of South Pacific inshore fisheries. 26 June - 7 July 1995. Noumea, New Caledonia. Lindsay, S. R., Ledua, E., and Stanley, J. 2004. Regional assessment of the commercial viability for marine ornamental aquaculture within the Pacific Islands (giant clam, hard & soft coral, finfish, live rock & marine shrimp). Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Aquaculture Section. Noumea, New Caledonia. Lucas, J. 2003. Giant Clam mariculture. Global Aquaculture Advocate, June 2003: 52-54. Lucas, J. S. 1988. Giant clams: Description, distribution and life history, in Copland, J. W. & Lucas, J. S., (eds.), Giant clams in Asia and the Pacific. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Monographs, 21-32. Lukan, E. M. and Brough, C. 2011a. Giant Clam - Tridacna gigas. Animal World. URL: http://animal- world.com/encyclo/reef/clams/TridacnaGigasClam.php Accessed: 24-1-2011a. Lukan, E. M. and Brough, C. 2011b. Squamosa Clam - Tridacna squamosa. Animal World. URL: http://animal-world.com/encyclo/reef/clams/TridacnaSquamosaClam.php Accessed: 7-2- 2011b. Maragos, J. E. 1994. Description of reefs and corals for the 1988 protected area survey of the northern Marshall Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin, 419. Marshall Islands Consolidated Legislation. 2004. Fisheries Act. Title 51 - Management of marine resources. Chapter 2. Fisheries. Martín, J. I. 2011. Fisheries in the Seychelles and fisheries agreements with the EU. Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union. Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies. Fisheries. Brussels. McKenna, S. A., Baillon, N., and Spaggiari, J. 2009. A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of the coral reefs of the northwest lagoon, between Koumac and Yandé, Province Nord, New Caledonia. Conservation International. Arlington, VA, USA. RAP Bulleting of Biological Assessment 53. McMichael, D. F. 1974. Growth rate, population size and mantle coloration in the small giant clam Tridacna maxima (Röding). at One Tree Island, Capricorn Group, Queensland, Proceedings of the Second International Coral Reef Symposium Vol.1, A. M. Cameron et al., eds., Great Barrier Reef Committee, Brisbane, pp. 241-256. Mingoa-Licuanan, S. and Gomez, E. D. 2002. Giant clam conservation in Southeast Asia. Tropical Coasts, 2: 24-56. Mollusc Specialist Group. 1996. Tridacna crocea. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 5-9-2011. Munro, J. L. 1989. Fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae: Bivalvia) and prospects for stock enhancement, in Caddy, J. F., (ed.), Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York/Chichester. 541-558. Munro, J. L. 1992. Giant clams. Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, FFA Report 92/75. Munro, J. L. 1993. Giant Clams, in Wright, A. & Hill, L., (eds.), Nearshore marine resources of the South Pacific. Institute of Pacific Studies/Forum Fisheries Agency/International Centre for Ocean Development, 431-449. Munro, J. L. and Heslinga, G. A. 1982. Prospects for the commercial cultivation of giant clams (Bivalvia: Tridacnidae), 35th Meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Nassau, Bahamas. National Parliament of Solomon Islands. 1998. Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998 (No. 10 of 1998). NES. 2011. National Environment Service. CITES Permits URL: http://www.environment.gov.ck/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93:cite s-permits&catid=57:services&Itemid=119 Accessed: 2-6-2012. Newman, W. A. and Gomez, E. D. 2000. On the status of giant clams, relics of Tethys (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Tridacnidae). Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia 23-27 October 2000, 2. Nichols, P. V. 1991. Republic of Palau marine resources profiles. Fisheries Development Section, Forum Fisheries Agency. FFA Report No. 91/59.
76 Tridacnidae references
Nuryanto, A. and Kochzius, M. 2009. Highly restricted gene flow and deep evolutionary lineages in the giant clam Tridacna maxima. Coral Reefs, 28: 607-619. Okada, H. 1997. Market survey of aquarium giant clams in Japan URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AC892E/AC892E00.htm#TOC Accessed: 26-6-2012. ORA. 2012. Oceans, Reefs & Aquariums. ORA Giant Clams URL: http://www.orafarm.com/products/invertebrates/clams/ Accessed: 25-6-2012. Othman, A. S., Goh, G. H. S., and Todd, P. A. 2010. The distribution and status of Giant Clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58 (1): 103-111. Palau. 1994. Marine Protection Act. RPPL No. 4-18. Palau. 1985. Palau National Code. Title 24 Environmental Protection, Division 2: Wildlife Protection. Pernetta, J. 1987. Giant clams: A new potential food source in tropical small island states or another source of biological contamination? Science in New Guinea, 13 (2): 92-96. Pinca, S., Awira, R., Kronen, M., Chapman, L., Lasi, F., Pakoa, K., Boblin, P., Friedman, K., Magron, F., and Tardy, E. 2007. Cook Islands country report: profiles and results from survey work at Aitutaki, Palmerston, Mangaia and Rarotonga. Pacific Regional Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries Development Programme (PROCFish/C/CoFish). Pinca, S., Beger, M., Jacobson, D., and Keju, T. 2005. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the Marshall Islands, in Waddell, J. E., (ed.), The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment's Biogeography Team, Silver Spring. 373-386. Pinca, S., Dick, M., Hess, D., Horton, L., James, C., Muller, B., and Reeves, E. 2001. Marine resource assessment: Likiep Atoll 2001: final report. Research and Education Project. Sponsored by M.I.M.R.A. and Conducted by C.M.I. Planes, S., Chauvet, C., Baldwin, J., Bonvallot, J., Fontaine-Verneudon, Y., Gabrie, C., Holthus, P., Payri, C., and Galzin, R. 1993. Impact of tourism-related fisheries on Tridacna maxima (Mollusa, Bivalvia) stocks in Bora-Bora lagoon (French Polynesia). National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Washington DC. Atoll Research Bulletin 385. Ponia, B. 2010. A review of aquaculture in the Pacific Islands 1998-2007: tracking a decade of progress through official and provisional statistics. Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Aquaculture Technical Papers. Raumea, K. 2009. Director of Inshore Fisheries and Aquaculture. Report for CITES & status of wild clams in the Cook Islands. Regional Management of Sustainable Fisheries for Giant Clam (Tridacnidae) & CITES Capacity Building, Nadi, 3-7 August 2009. Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N., and Sant, G. 2003. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam. Unpublished draft report. TRAFFIC Europe and TRAFFIC Oceania. Brussels and Sydney. 37 pp. Reimaan National Planning Team. 2008. Reimaanlok: National Conservation Area Plan for the Marshall Islands 2007-2012. N. Baker. Melbourne. Remoissenet, G. 2009. Regional Management of sustainable fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building workshop. Nadi, Fiji Islands, 4-7 August 2009. French Polynesia case study of giant clam management and trade. Some modern tools to the benefit of specific islands and communities. Remoissenet, G., Yan, L., Gilbert, A., and Andréfouët, S. 2009. Spat collection of giant clam Tridacna maxima: first results and promises from Eastern Tuamotu lagoons. 11th Pacific Science Inter- Congress, Tahiti, 2-6 March "009. Richards, A. H., Bell, L. J., and Bell, J. D. 1994. Inshore fisheries resources of Solomon Islands. ICLARM contribution. Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) Report 94/01. Richter, C., Roa-Quiaoit, H., Jantzen, C., Al-Zibdah, M., and Kochzius, M. 2008. Collapse of a new living species of giant clam in the Red Sea. Current Biology, 18: 1349-1354. RMI OEPPC. 2008. Republic of the Marshall Islands Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism, RMI Office of Environmental Planning and Policy Coordination, URL: http://biormi.org/index.shtml?en/protected_species.shtml Accessed: 4-6-2012. Robinson, W. L., Noshkin, V. E., Phillips, W. A., and Eagle, R. J. 1981. The northern Marshall Islands radiological survey: radionucleotide concentrations in fish and clams and estimated doses via the marine pathway. Lawrence Livermore Laboraroty. Livermore, California. UCRL-52853 PT.3.
77 Tridacnidae references
Ronnback, P., Bryceson, I., and Kautsky, N. 2002. Coastal aquaculture development in Eastern Africa and the Western Indian Ocean: prospects and problems for food security and local economies. Ambio, 31 (7-8): 537-542. Rosewater, J. 1965. The family Tridacnidae in the Indo-Pacific. Indo-Pacific Mollusca 1-6, 347-396. Sant, G. 1995. Marine invertebrates of the South Pacific - an examination of the trade. TRAFFIC International. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Selin, N. I., Latypov, Y. Y., Malyutin, A. N., and Bolshakova, L. N. 1992. Species composition and abundance of corals and other invertebrates on the reefs of the Seychelles Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin, 368: 1-9. Seychelles 2010. Fisheries Regulation. Chapter 82. SFA. 2003. Seychelles Fishing Authority. Annual Report 2003. Seychelles Fishing Authority. Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles. SFA. 2004. Seychelles Fishing Authority. Annual Report 2004. Seychelles Fishing Authority. Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles. SFA. 2005. Seychelles Fishing Authority. Annual Report 2005. Seychelles Fishing Authority. Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles. SFA. 2006. Seychelles Fishing Authority. Annual Report 2006. Seychelles Fishing Authority. Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles. Shang, Y. C., Tisdell, C., and Leung, P. 1991. Report on a market survey of giant clam products in selected countries. Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, Publication #107. Skewes, T. 1990. Marine resource profiles: Solomon Islands. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Natural Resources. South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Report 90/61. Smith, A. J. 1992. Republic of the Marshall Islands marine resources profiles. Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, FFA Report 92/78. 103 pp. SMMPM undated. Giant clams in New Caledonia. Service de la Marine Merchande et des Pêches Maritimes. SPC Aquaculture Portal. 2009. Giant clam, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, URL: http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/images/commodities/pdf/GiantClam_page.pdf Accessed: 2-6-2012. SPC Aquaculture Portal. 2011a. Centre of excellence in Cook Islands URL: http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/index.php?option=com_centreexcellence&view=centreexc ellence&id=3 Accessed: 2-6-2012. SPC Aquaculture Portal. 2011b. Country Links - Marshall Islands URL: http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/index.php?option=com_countries&id=9&view=country Accessed: 2-6-2012. SPC Aquaculture Portal. 2011c. Research and Development URL: http://www.spc.int/aquaculture/index.php?option=com_research&view=research&id=55 Accessed: 22-6-2012. SPE. 2012. Service de la Pêche de Polynésie Française. L'aquaculture du bénitier URL: http://www.peche.pf/spip.php?rubrique213 Accessed: 2-7-2012. Sutton, D. C. and Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 1990. Host-zooxanthella interactions in four temperate marine invertebrate symbioses: assessment of effect of host extracts on symbionts. Biological Bulletin, 178 (2): 175-186. Takeda, I. 2010. The measures for sustainable marine aquaculture in Japan. Bulletin of Fisheries Research Agency, 29: 135-141. Tatarata, M. and Remoissenet, G. 2009. Regional management of sustainable fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES capacity building workshop, Nadi, Fiji Islands, 4-7 August 2009. Country presentation French Polynesia. Teitelbaum, A. and Friedman, K. 2008a. Current status and prospects for cultured giant clams, Proceedings of the sub-regional workshop on the marine ornamental trade in the Pacific, SPC, p. 39. Teitelbaum, A. and Friedman, K. 2008b. Successes and failures in reintroducing giant clams in the Indo-Pacific region. SPC Trochus Information Bulletin, 14: 19-26. Tervo, K. and Csomos, R. 2001. Tridacna gigas - giant clam URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Tridacna_gigas.html Accessed: 2-6-2012.
78 Tridacnidae references
Thamrongnavasawat, T., Saisaeng, A., Sittithaweepat, N., Limviriyakul, P., Worachananant, S., and Patimanukasem, O. 2001. Survey Report in Mu Ko Surin Marine National Park Area Presented to UNESCO. Talaythai. Thomas, P. E. J. 1989. Report of the Northern Marshall Islands Natural Diversity and Protected Areas Survey 7-24 September 1988. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Noumea, New Caledonia, and the East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. Tisdell, C. A., Shang, Y. C., and Leung, P. S. 1994. Economics of commercial giant clam mariculture. -306. ACIAR Monograph No. 25. Tobey, J., Haws, M., and Ellis, S. 2004. Aquaculture profile for Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Pohnpei State Division of Marine Development, Office of Economic Affairs and the Conservation Society of Pohnpei. Publication#2004-1. Uchida, H. and Wilen, J. E. 2004. Japanese coastal fisheries management and institutional designs: a descriptive analysis. IIFET 2004 Japan Proceedings. Wabnitz, C., Taylor, M., Green, E., and Razak, T. 2003. From ocean to aquarium: the global trade in marine ornamental species. UNEP-WCMC. Waters, C. G. 2008, Biological responses of juvenile Tridacna maxima (Mollusca: Bivalvia) to increased pCO2 and ocean acidification, A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies, The Evergreen State College. Wells, S. 1996a. Hippopus hippopus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 22-6-2012. Wells, S. 1996b. Tridacna derasa. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 2-6-2012. Wells, S. 1996c. Tridacna gigas. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 2-6-2012. Wells, S. 1996d. Tridacna maxima. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 2-6-2012. Wells, S. 1996e. Tridacna squamosa. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 2-6-2012. Wells, S. M. 1997. Giant clams: status, trade and mariculture, and the role of CITES in management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 77 pp. WorldFish Center. 2012a. How to Farm Giant Clams. WorldFish Center, WWF-SI and New Zealand's International Aid & Development Agency, Solomon Islands. URL: http://www.solomonseasustainables.com/Farm/GiantClams.aspx. WorldFish Center. 2012b. Sustainably farmed aquarium products from the Western Province, Solomon Is. The WorldFish Center, WWF-SI and New Zealand's International Aid & Development Agency, Solomon Islands. URL: http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/Western%20Province%20Cultured%20Pr oducts.pdf. Accessed: 2-6-2012.
79 Dicksonia antarctica
REVIEW OF SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS: SPECIES OTHER THAN CORALS AND BUTTERFLIES FROM ASIA AND OCEANIA
DICKSONIACEAE
SPECIES: Dicksonia antarctica
COMMON NAMES: Australian tree fern (English), Soft tree fern (English), Bristly tree fern (English)
RANGE STATES: Australia
RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Australia
IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinion for all countries formed on 22/07/1997.
TRADE PATTERNS: The family Dicksoniaceae was listed in the CITES Appendices on 04/02/77; this listing was then amended to cover only ’Dicksonia spp. – populations of the Americas’ on 19/07/00 (CoP11 Summary Report). As Dicksonia antarctica is endemic to Australia, it is therefore no longer included in the CITES Appendices or the EU Annexes, hence there is no requirement to report its trade. Nevertheless, the CITES Trade Database contains some information reported for this species. Reported imports of D. antarctica to the EU-27 directly from Australia over the period 2001-2010 consisted of 4855 live tree ferns, according to importers, of which 4627 were wild-sourced (Table 1). None of this trade was reported by Australia. There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of D. antarctica originating in Australia 2001-2010. Nor were there any reported direct exports of D. antarctica from Australia to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010. Table 1. Direct exports of Dicksonia antarctica from Australia to the EU-27, 2001-2010. (No trade was reported 2002-2003, 2005-2006 or 2008-2010; Australia’s 2010 annual report has not yet been received). Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2004 2007 Total Germany live T W Importer 456 456
Exporter
Netherlands live T A Importer 227 227
Exporter
United Kingdom live T W Importer 4171 4171
Exporter - I Importer 1 1
Exporter
80 Dicksonia antarctica
CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Australia: Dicksonia antarctica is a large fern endemic to Australia (Spencer et al., 1995), reaching maturity at around 23 years or 95 cm in height, and living for up to 1000 years (Tasmanian Government, 2007). It was reported to occur in South Australia, southeast Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania (Spencer et al., 1995; Tasmanian Government, 2007), and described as common and widespread in wet forests (Ough and Murphy, 2004; Tasmania Forest Practices Authority, 2007). The population of trunked D. antarctica in Tasmania was estimated to exceed 130 million. Dicksonia was reported to have many horticultural applications, primarily as a live-trunked tree fern planted in gardens, with trunks used as secondary horticultural products, such as plant pots, steps and mulch, and fronds used in floristry (Tasmania Forest Practices Authority, 2007). Threats to the species were reported to include clear felling (Ough and Murphy, 2004) and salvage-logging following natural disturbances such as wildfire (Lindenmayer and Ough, 2006). Over 50 per cent of the population in Tasmania was estimated to occur in Formal and Informal Reserves (Tasmania Forest Practices Authority, 2007). The majority of tree ferns harvested in Tasmania were reportedly exported overseas, primarily to Europe and Asia (Tasmania Forest Practices Authority, 2007). Under provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), specimens exported for commercial purposes must be from an approved source, such as an approved Wildlife Trade Management Plan (Tasmania Forest Practices Authority, 2007). Tasmania has in place a Tree Fern Management Plan (Tasmania Forest Practices Authority, 2007). The terms of the Tasmanian Tree Fern Management Plan permit harvesting from: native forest to be cleared permanently or converted (salvage harvesting); native forest to be intensively logged and regenerated, where harvesting prescriptions will be applied to maintain local and regional populations; existing softwood and hardwood plantations; and tree fern plantations or nursery sites (Tasmania Forest Practices Authority, 2007). According to the Forest Practices Act (Tasmania, 1985), harvest of D. antarctica was prohibited unless they are harvested in accordance with a forest practices plan enabling the harvesting of tree ferns and each stem has a tag affixed before removal from the harvesting. Furthermore, trade in D. antarctica was prohibited except with a tag issued by the Authority affixed to each stem. The implementing legislation, Forest Practices Regulations (Tasmania, 2007) stated that a forest practices plan was not required for the harvesting of D. antarctica with the consent of the landowner and if no more than six tree ferns were harvested on the applicable land during one year.
REFERENCES: Lindenmayer, D. B. and Ough, K. 2006. Salvage logging in the montane ash eucalypt forests of the Central Highlands of Victoria and its potential impacts on biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 20 (4): 1005-1015. Ough, K. and Murphy, A. 2004. Decline in tree-fern abundance after clearfell harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management, 199 (1): 153-163. Spencer, R., Barley, A., and Pearson, S. 1995. Horticultural flora of south-eastern Australia. University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney. 361 pp. Tasmania 1985. Forest Practices Act. -61. Tasmania 2007. Forest Practices Regulations. -8. Tasmania Forest Practices Authority. 2007. Tree fern management plan for the sustainable harvesting, transporting or trading of Dicksonia antarctica in Tasmania. Tasmanian Government. 2007. Dicksonia antarctica (notesheet). Tasmanian Government Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment.
81 Dendrobium chrysotoxum
REVIEW OF SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS: SPECIES OTHER THAN CORALS AND BUTTERFLIES FROM ASIA AND OCEANIA
ORCHIDACEAE
SPECIES: Dendrobium chrysotoxum
RANGE STATES: Bangladesh (ex, int, reint, br, v), Bhutan, Cambodia (ex, int, reint, br, v), China, India, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Viet Nam
RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Lao People's Democratic Republic (hereafter referred to as Lao PDR)
IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Lao People's Democratic Republic formed on 15/12/1997. Positive opinion for Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal and Viet Nam formed on 15/12/1997 and removed on 02/12/2011.
TRADE PATTERNS: There were no reported direct or indirect imports of Dendrobium chrysotoxum to the EU-27 from Lao PDR over the period 2001-2010. Direct exports of D. chrysotoxum from Lao PDR to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 primarily consisted of live orchids. While trade in wild-sourced orchids was reported 2006-2007, trade was in artificially propagated orchids from 2008 onwards (Table 1). None of the trade was reported by Lao PDR; China was the main importer. Table 1. Direct exports of Dendrobium chrysotoxum from Lao PDR to countries other than the EU-27, 2001- 2010. All trade was for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2005. Lao PDR became a Party to CITES in 2004; annual reports for 2005 and 2010 have not yet been received). Term Units Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total live kg A Importer 150000 150000 100000 400000
Exporter W Importer 80000 150000 230000
Exporter
- W Importer 5 5
Exporter roots kg W Importer 7000 7000
Exporter
82 Dendrobium chrysotoxum
CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Dendrobium chrysotoxum was reported to occur from India through to Viet Nam, including southern China and the Himalayas (Schelpe and Stewart, 1990; Kramer and Williams, 1997; Singchi et al., 1999) at altitudes from 300-1063 m (Schuiteman et al., 2008) or 500-1700 m (Singchi et al., 1999) above sea level, although it was also described as usually occurring above 2000 m (Schelpe and Stewart, 1990). The species is an epiphyte found in evergreen and semi-deciduous forest, as well as on small trees on rocky limestone hills (Schuiteman et al., 2008). The pseudobulbs are up to 30 cm long with deep yellow flowers (Schelpe and Stewart, 1990). It was reported to flower from January to May (Schuiteman et al., 2008), although much shorter flowering periods were reported by studies focussing on China (Singchi et al., 1999; Pfingst and Hensel, 2010). Lao People’s Democratic Republic: In the 1960s, D. chrysotoxum was described as “quite common” in Lao PDR (Kerr, 1969). It was reported from the mountains of Phou Pha, Phou Khao Khouay and Phou Bia (Kerr, 1969). Phou Khao Khouay is a National Biodiversity Protection Area (Clarke, 1999). It was not possible to locate any more recent information on distribution or status. Lamxay (2009) considered the greatest threats to orchids in Lao PDR to be over-harvesting of whole plants (due to market demand) and habitat loss, such as forest degradation. D. chrysotoxum was reported to be subject to large-scale collection in Lao PDR for the Chinese medicine industry (Schuiteman et al., 2008). Schuiteman et al. (2008) reported that in a single year, one exporter in central Lao PDR exported >100 000 kg of dried Dendrobium stems (all species) taken from the wild to China. They noted that this was probably just a fraction of what was actually collected, and considered it to be unsustainable. Schuiteman et al. (2008) expressed concerns over unreported and illegal trade and noted that even though Lao PDR had recently become a Party to CITES, enforcement was still a problem. The use of D. chrysotoxum as an ornamental in Lao PDR was also reported (Thomas et al., 2006), and extracts have been patented as cosmetic anti-aging agents (Leplanquais et al., 2010) as well as having been demonstrated to have antioxidant and anti-hyperglycaemic properties (Zhao et al., 2007). The species was included in a list of CITES species known to be in trade for medicinal purposes (CITES Notification No. 1999/26). In a review of orchid exports from Lao PDR, there was reported to be a quota system for orchids at the provincial level; however concern was raised that the system was not based on population studies and may not lead to sustainable utilisation (Lamxay, 2009). Lamxay (2009) recommended the strict protection of all orchids, including limiting of export and issuance of quotas for local and national trade to seedlings from micropropagation. The Decree on the Establishment of National Forest reserves (NBCAs) (Lao PDR, 1993) established eighteen forest reserves, totalling 2.8 million ha, in which the gathering of forest products was prohibited. This represents approximately 12 per cent of the country’s total land area (Sanonty, 2002). However, the Master Plan for Management and Utilization of Forests was considered to be ineffective, and the NBCAs were not covered by long-term management plans (Sanonty, 2002). Efforts to establish a micropropagation laboratory to produce orchids were reportedly started by Vientiane Orchidées and the National University of Laos (Lamxay, 2009) and trade records (Table 1) show reported trade in artificially propagated D. chrysotoxum since 2008.
REFERENCES: Clarke, J. E. 1999. Biodiversity and protected areas: Lao PDR. Asian Development Bank (ADB). Vientiane. Regional Environmental Technical Assistance 5771. 15 pp. Kerr, A. D. 1969. On a collection of orchids from Laos. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society, 23: 185-211. Kramer, J. and Williams, B. 1997. Orchids for everyone: a practical guide to the home cultivation of over 200 of the world's most beautiful orchids. Smithmark.
83 Dendrobium chrysotoxum
Lamxay, V. 2009. Case study on orchid exports from Lao PDR: recommendations for using the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to increase sustainable orchid trade. IUCN; National University of Laos & TRAFFIC. Lao PDR 1993. Decree on the establishment of national forest reserves. Lao People's Democratic Republic, 164/PM. Leplanquais, V., Andre, P., and Pecher, V. 2010. Anti-ageing composition containing Dendrobium chrysotoxum orchid extract. UK Patent Application GB 2483766 , -22. Pfingst, W. and Hensel, O. 2010. Dendrobium chrysotoxum - cultivation, processing and marketing of an endangered orchid species, Tropentag 2010, book of abstracts., p. 244. Sanonty, S. 2002. Forest policy reviews in Lao PDR, Forest policies and forest policy reviews, T. Enters & R. N. Leslie, eds., EC-FAO partnership programme, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 70-74. Schelpe, S. and Stewart, J. 1990. Dendrobiums: an introduction to the species in cultivation. Orchid Sundries. Schuiteman, A., Bonnet, P., Bouakhaykhone S., and Barthélémy, D. 2008. An annotated checklist of the Orchidaceae of Laos. Nordic Journal of Botany, 26: 256-316. Singchi, C., Zhanhuo, T., and Yibo, L. 1999. Native Orchids of China in Colour. Elsevier Science Press, Beijing, New York. 416 pp. Thomas, P., Newman, M., Svengsuka, B., and Ketphanh, S. 2006. A review of CITES Appendices I and II plant species from Lao PDR. IUCN Lao PDR. 52 pp. Zhao, Y., Son, Y.-O., Kim, S.-S., Jang, Y.-S., and Lee, J.-C. 2007. Antioxidant and anti-hyperglycemic activity of polysaccharide isolated from Dendrobium chrysotoxum Lindl. Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 40 (5): 670-677.
84 Dendrobium delacourii
REVIEW OF SPECIES SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING POSITIVE OPINIONS: SPECIES OTHER THAN CORALS AND BUTTERFLIES FROM ASIA AND OCEANIA
ORCHIDACEAE
SPECIES: Dendrobium delacourii
RANGE STATES: Cambodia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Thailand, Viet Nam
RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Viet Nam
IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated
PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinions for all countries formed on 09/10/1997 and removed for Cambodia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar and Thailand on 02/12/2011.
TRADE PATTERNS: Imports of Dendrobium delacourii to the EU-27 directly from Viet Nam over the period 2001-2010 consisted of 200 live orchids in 2001 and 50 live orchids in 2003, all wild-sourced, imported by Germany for commercial purposes. This trade was not reported by Viet Nam. There were no reported indirect imports in the EU-27 of D. delacourii originating in Viet Nam 2001-2010. The only reported direct export of D. delacourii from Viet Nam to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2010 was of 10 live, wild-sourced orchids imported by the United States in 2003 for commercial purposes. This trade was not reported by Viet Nam. CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Dendrobium delacourii is a small white or pale yellow-flowered orchid (Schelpe and Stewart, 1990), native to Myanmar, Thailand, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Viet Nam (Stewart, 1995). Viet Nam: The species was reported from the North Indochinese, Central Annamese, South Annamese and South Indochinese floristic provinces, covering most of the country (Averyanov et al., 2003). Nguyen Manh Ha et al. (2007) noted that many Dendrobium species had been heavily exploited and traded illegally in Viet Nam, although little was known about the nature and scale of the activity. Decree No. 32/2006/ND-CP of 30 March 2006 provides for the management of endangered, precious and rare species from Viet Nam’s forests. However, in this decree only one species of Dendrobium (D. nobile) was included on the lists of protected plants (Government of Viet Nam, 2006). Nguyen Manh Ha et al. (2007) noted that the government had suspended the issuance of export permits for Dendrobium spp., affecting the income of communities that participated in their collection and export; however it was not specified when this suspension occurred or whether it was still in place.
85 Dendrobium delacourii
REFERENCES: Averyanov, L. V., Ke Loc, P., Tien Hiep, N., and Harder, D. K. 2003. Phytogeographic review of Vietnam and adjacent areas of Eastern Indochina. Komarovia, 3: 1-83. Government of Viet Nam. 2006. Decree No. 32/2006/ND-CP of March 30, 2006, on Management of Endangered, Precious and Rare Forest Plants and Animals. URL: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/vie64788.pdf . Nguyen Manh Ha, Vu Van Dung, Nguyen Van Song, Hoaung Van Thang, Nguyen Huu Dung, Pham Ngoc Tuan, Than Thi Hoa, and Doan Canh. 2007. Report on the review of Vietnam's wildlife trade policy. CRES/FPD/UNEP/CITES/IUED. Hanoi, Vietnam. URL: http://www.cites.org/common/prog/policy/Vietnam_wildlife_trade_policy_review.pdf . Schelpe, S. and Stewart, J. 1990. Dendrobiums: an introduction to the species in cultivation. Orchid Sundries. Stewart, J. 1995. Manual of Orchids - the new Royal Horticultural Society dictionary. MacMillan Reference Books, London.
86 Annex
ANNEX. Key to Purpose and Source Codes
Source of specimens Code Description W Specimens taken from the wild R Ranched specimens: specimens of animals reared in a controlled environment, taken as eggs or juveniles from the wild, where they would otherwise have had a very low probability of surviving to adulthood D Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Appendix-I plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention A Plants that are artificially propagated in accordance with Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP15), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 (specimens of species included in Appendix I that have been propagated artificially for non-commercial purposes and specimens of species included in Appendices II and III) C Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 F Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that do not fulfil the definition of ‘bred in captivity’ in Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof U Source unknown (must be justified) I Confiscated or seized specimens (may be used with another code) O Pre-Convention specimens
Purpose of trade Code Description T Commercial Z Zoo G Botanical garden Q Circus or travelling exhibition S Scientific H Hunting trophy P Personal M Medical (including biomedical research) E Educational N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation L Law enforcement / judicial / forensic
87