Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries annual reports to CITES 2013

Transcription

1 UNEP-WCMC technical report Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries annual reports to CITES 2013 (Version edited for public release)

2 Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries annual reports to CITES 2013 Prepared for The European Commission, Directorate General Environment, Directorate E - Global & Regional Challenges, LIFE ENV.E.2. Global Sustainability, Trade & Multilateral Agreements, Brussels, Belgium Published November 2015 Copyright European Commission 2015 Citation UNEP-WCMC Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries annual reports to CITES UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment centre of the United Nations Environment Programme, the world s foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, combining scientific research with policy advice and the development of decision tools. We are able to provide objective, scientifically rigorous products and services to help decision-makers recognize the value of biodiversity and apply this knowledge to all that they do. To do this, we collate and verify data on biodiversity and ecosystem services that we analyze and interpret in comprehensive assessments, making the results available in appropriate forms for national and international level decision-makers and businesses. To ensure that our work is both sustainable and equitable we seek to build the capacity of partners where needed, so that they can provide the same services at national and regional scales. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP, contributory organisations or editors. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, the European Commission or contributory organisations, editors or publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of a commercial entity or product in this publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK Tel: www.unep-wcmc.org UNEP promotes environmentally sound practices globally and in its own activities. Printing on paper from environmentally sustainable forests and recycled fibre is encouraged.

3 Contents Introduction and summary... 2 Crocodylus niloticus... 3 Arapaima gigas Appendix Appendix

4 Introduction and summary This report presents a review of two species selected on the basis of the Species suggested for review on the basis of the 2013 EU Analysis. On the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries annual report to CITES 2013, 74 taxa were originally selected for review on the basis of noteworthy trends in trade (see Appendix I for methodology). The 2013 Analysis identified four Appendix II and Annex B species which may warrant a review on the basis of recent trade levels and taxon status; Crocodylus niloticus (Zimbabwe), Kinyongia fischeri and K. tavetana (United Republic of Tanzania), and Arapaima gigas (Brazil). Two of these taxa were selected for review, Crocodylus niloticus (Zimbabwe and Arapaima gigas (Brazil); the reviews are presented below. Prior to any reviews being carried out, positive opinions which were in place for Kinyongia fischeri and K. tavetana (United Republic of Tanzania) were replaced with no opinion iii), with reviews for these two species therefore no longer being required.

5 REPTILIA: CROCODYLIDAE Crocodylus niloticus II/B COMMON NAMES: Nile Crocodile (EN), Crocodile du Nil (FR), Cocodrilo del Nilo (ES) SYNONYMS: RANGE STATES: UNDER REVIEW: EU DECISIONS: IUCN: Alligator cowieii, Crocodilus binuensis, Crocodilus chamses, Crocodilus complanatus, Crocodilus lacunosus, Crocodilus madagascariensis, Crocodilus marginatus, Crocodilus multiscutatus, Crocodilus octophractus, Crocodilus robustus, Crocodilus suchus, Crocodilus vulgaris Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d'ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, United republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Current no opinion ii) for wild-sourced specimens from Madagascar first formed on 30/01/2015 and last confirmed on 09/04/2015. Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for wild specimens from Madagascar first applied on 29/10/2001 and last confirmed on 04/09/2014. Previous negative opinion formed on 27/09/2000. Lower risk/least Concern Trade patterns Crocodylus niloticus was listed in Appendix I on 01/07/1975 and on 29/07/1983 ranched individuals from Zimbabwe were included in Appendix II. All populations from Zimbabwe were listed in CITES Appendix II on 23 June Zimbabwe became a Party to CITES on 19 May 1981, and has submitted annual reports for all years Zimbabwe published a quota of 200 sport hunted specimens of C. niloticus in Trade in the species from Zimbabwe is reported in a large variety of terms from a number of sources. The following section provides an overview of wild-sourced (including source U and trade reported without a source) and ranched trade in the top terms in trade: meat, skins, skin pieces and leather products. Full details of all reported trade in C. niloticus from Zimbabwe over the period can be found here: Direct exports of wild-sourced C. niloticus from Zimbabwe to the EU primarily comprised skin pieces traded for commercial purposes, the vast majority of which were reported in 2008 by the exporter only (Table 1). Notable levels of wild-sourced skins were also directly exported to the EU-28 over this period. Direct exports of ranched C. niloticus to the EU-28 from Zimbabwe over the period mainly consisted of meat reported by weight and skins, of which most were exported for commercial purposes (Table 1). No trade in ranched C. niloticus was reported Trade in ranched meat in 2013 accounted for 69% of reported exports in the period according to importers (91% according to

6 exporter reported data), whilst the ranched skin trade, as reported by importers in 2013, accounted for 90% of total exports in the period (93% according to exporter reported data). Indirect exports of wild-sourced C. niloticus originating in Zimbabwe to the EU-28 principally consisted of small leather products, whilst indirect exports from ranching operations were mainly small leather products and skins re-exported via Switzerland and Singapore, respectively (Table 2). The majority of direct exports to countries other than the EU-28 also comprised ranched meat and skins, of which the main trading partners were Hong Kong, SAR and Singapore, respectively. Notable levels of wild-sourced meat were also directly exported to Hong Kong, SAR in Table 1: Direct exports of main wild-sourced and ranched Crocodylus niloticus terms from Zimbabwe to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), The vast majority of trade was for commercial purposes. Importer Term Reported by Total Wild-sourced (includes sources W, U and unspecified) EU leather products (small) Importer skin pieces Importer skins Importer RoW leather products (large) Importer leather products (small) Importer meat (kg) Importer skin pieces Importer skins Importer Ranched EU leather products (small) Importer meat (kg) Importer skin pieces Importer skins Importer RoW leather products (small) Importer meat (kg) Importer skin pieces Importer skins Importer Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 28/09/2015

7 Table 2: Indirect exports of main wild-sourced and ranched Crocodylus niloticus term originating in Zimbabwe to the EU-28, The vast majority of trade was for commercial purposes. Importer Term Reported by Total Wild-sourced (includes sources W, U and unspecified) EU leather products (large) Importer leather products (small) Importer skins Importer Ranched EU leather products (large) Importer leather products (small) Importer skin pieces Importer skins Importer Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 28/09/2015 Conservation status Crocodylus niloticus was reported to be the most widely distributed crocodile species in Africa, occurring throughout Sub-Saharan Africa whilst being absent from much of the extreme South and South-West (Cott, 1961 and Parker and Watson, 1970 in Leslie and Spotila, 2001; Groombridge, 1987). The species was also reported to occur on Madagascar (Groombridge, 1987). Thorbjarnarson et al. (1992) reported the species had been extirpated from Israel, Algeria, Comoros and Seychelles. C. niloticus is a large species of crocodile with a typical length of 3.5 m (Groombridge, 1987), although males can reach up to 6 m (Thorbjarnarson et al., 1992; Fergusson, 2010). The species occurs in a variety of wetland habitats including rivers, lakes and swamps and also in brackish water (Groombridge, 1987; Thorbjarnarson et al., 1992; Pauwels et al., 2004). Individuals breed once a year; the timing depends on the locality (Cott, 1961 and Graham, 1976 in Leslie and Spotila, 2001). Females were reported to sexually mature between 1.8 m (Games, unpublished data in Fergusson, 2010) and 3 m in length (Detouf-Boulade, 2006 in Fergusson, 2010), at around years of age (Groombridge, 1987). The average clutch size was reported to be around eggs, although this varies between populations (Fergusson, 2010). Females were reported to incubate the eggs for a period of days and to guard the young for 6-8 weeks after hatching (Fergusson, 2010). The species was classified as Lower Risk/Least Concern in 1996 by the IUCN, noting that it may be threatened in parts of its range (Crocodile Specialist Group, 1996). The global population of C. niloticus in the wild was estimated at between and individuals (Kyalo, 2008), although no information was provided on how this estimate was reached. It has also been reported that populations have been depleted throughout much of their range (DeSmet, 1998 in Zisadza-Gandiwa et al., 2013; Combrink et al., 2011; Feeley, 2010; Fergusson, 2010). However, Fergusson (2010) reported that the status of the species was relatively secure throughout much of East and Southern Africa and considered that although the situation in Central and West Africa was less certain, it was likely to be similar.

8 Fergusson (2010) reported that the species was threatened by loss of habitat, as well as conflict with people. Earlier, Thorbjarnarson et al. (1992) and Ross (1998) considered that, as a whole, the species was not threatened. Zimbabwe: C. niloticus is the only crocodilian species native to Zimbabwe (Child, 1987). The species was reported to occur in most of the river systems and water bodies (ZPWMA, 2015) and the majority of populations in Zimbabwe (80%) were reported to be found in the northern part of the country in Lake Kariba on the Zambezi River (ZPWMA, 2015; ZPWMA, 2006). Zimbabwe is divided by a central watershed which separates the two main river basins, with suitable crocodile habitat located below 600 m as a result of several environmental factors (Hutton and Child, 1986). The distribution of the species was reported to be strongly influenced by altitude (Hutton, 1984 in Hutton and Child, 1989); in areas above 900 m the incubation temperatures were noted to be suboptimal, with females predominating in these areas, as sex determination is dependent on egg incubation temperature (Hutton, 1984 in Child, 1987). Child (1987) reported that while hunting of C. niloticus reached a peak in the 1950s, at which point many accessible populations were brought to the point of extinction, numbers recovered from 1961 in response to legal protection, to the point where the population was considered widespread and abundant in In 1983, the population in Zimbabwe had been estimated at over individuals in the wild (Child, 1987). Between 2008 and 2011, a study was carried out in the early or late dry seasons in the Save, Runde and Mwenzi rivers, the three main rivers in Gonarezhou National Park in south eastern Zimbabwe, to count the number of crocodiles on stretches of each river (Zisadza-Gandiwa et al., 2013). The mean population estimates across the four years of surveys were 22 individuals on the Save River (estimated density of 0.69 crocodiles per km), 240 individuals in the Runde river (estimated density of 3.12 crocodiles per km) and 45 individuals on the Mwenzi river (estimated density of 0.79 crocodiles per km) (Zisadza-Gandiwa et al., 2013). The study recorded an increase in the population of C. niloticus in the entire Gonarezhou National Park between 2008 and 2011 (Zisadza-Gandiwa et al., 2013). The species was reported not listed on the list of Specially Protected Animals in Zimbabwe as the population was reported to be large and growing (ZPWMA, 2015). The Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA) monitor the wild population in conjunction with the Crocodile Farmers Association of Zimbabwe (CFAZ), and by using spotlight counts and nesting effort assessments they are able to provide population estimates (ZPWMA, 2006; ZPWMA, 2015). In 2004, the population was estimated to be 646 individuals in the Upper Zambezi, in Kariba, 2214 in the Lower Zambezi and 56 in Mat north (ZPWMA, 2006). ZPWMA (2006) reported that the population in the Upper Zambezi seemed to be robust between 2000 and 2004, but that the populations in the lower Zambezi and Kazungula had declined over the same time period. It was reported that indices to estimate populations based on the number of nests showed that the population was stable in areas where egg collection was carried out (ZPWMA, 2015). Water levels were noted to influence the number of successful nests and therefore crocodile estimates (ZPWMA, 2015). On the shoreline of Lake Kariba, the density of C. niloticus was estimated to be 8-10 crocodiles per km (ZPWMA, 2015). In 2013, the population of animals larger than 1.2m in Zimbabwe was estimated to be over 9000 individuals, including over 5000 in Lake Kariba based on nest data (ZPWMA, 2015). The species population was noted to be increasing in the country (ZPWMA, 2015). Child (1987) reported that the destruction of live animals and eggs was considered a social service to the community in some areas, likely due to predation on humans and livestock; the ZPWMA (2015) also

9 noted that conflicts between humans and crocodiles over risks to human life and livestock as a threat. The ZPWMA (2006) reported that C. niloticus was not threatened in Zimbabwe, except in some local areas as a result of habitat loss. Climate change was reported as an emerging threat by the ZPWMA (2015), as flooding could lead to the destruction of crocodile nests. The species was confirmed to be protected nationally, with any utilization governed by the Parks and Wildlife Act and any trade, including the take of eggs, trade of skins and breeding of the species requiring permits (ZPWMA, 2015). Quotas for sport hunting and the export of trophies were noted to apply, and hunters were reported not to be allowed to shoot female crocodiles (ZPWMA, 2015). The ZPWMA (2015) considered current levels of sport hunting not to be detrimental to the survival of the species. A ranching programme was reported to have been first authorised in Zimbabwe in 1965 (ZPWMA, 2015), which involved artificially incubating wild-collected eggs and releasing a proportion of the ranched crocodiles back into the wild (Revol, 1995). As of 2015, a total of 18 crocodile farms 1 were reported to be operating in Zimbabwe (ZPWMA, 2015). Five of these appear to have been operational in 1992, according to Luxmoore (1992). In 2014, these farms were reported to hold a total of hatchlings, rearings, 3890 growers and 6871 breeders ; in the same year, 78% of eggs used in the farms had originated from farms themselves, with the remainder originating from the wild (ZPWMA, 2015). Permits for egg collection were previously reported to be issued on the condition that stations submit monthly stock returns (Hutton and Brennan, 1985 in Hutton and Child, 1986). The ZPWMA (2015) confirmed that only eggs and no live crocodiles were collected for ranching purposes. Furthermore, all crocodile farms are part of the CFAZ and their members must be accompanied by rangers from the ZPWMA when collecting eggs from the wild (ZPWMA, 2015). Data on nests was reported to be recorded during collection, which is used to assess the population status in the country (ZPWMA, 2015). Permit holders are subject to a condition which may require them to return 5% of all eggs collected to the wild as juvenile crocodiles, should the population begin to decline (ZPWMA, 2015). Indeed, between 1990 and 1994, 3182 juvenile crocodiles were reported to have been released into the wild to compensate for eggs harvested (ZPWMA, 2015). Releases were, however, reported to have been stopped, due to habitats already carrying high crocodile populations, high mortalities of released animals and the program being unpopular with local communities (ZPWMA, 2015). In 2014, around eggs were reported to be collected in Zimbabwe, 60% of which from the shored of Lake Kariba; it was believed that current levels of wild egg collection were not detrimental to the survival of the species (ZPWMA, 2015). Eighty per cent of eggs collected in the wild for ranching were expected to hatch and mortality rates in ranching operations are expected not to exceed 2%; higher mortality was reported to result in investigations (ZPWMA, 2015). The collection of C. niloticus eggs for ranching was noted to have led to benefits for local communities, providing some motivation for improving the conservation status of the species (ZPWMA, 2015). The ranching output by farms appeared to have increased, whilst egg collection from the wild was reported not to have increased, (ZPWMA, 2015). All C. niloticus specimens from ranching operations or taken from the wild through sports hunting were reported to all be tagged with tags issued by ZPWMA when exported (ZPWMA, 2015). 1 Lake Crocodile Farm*, Binga Crocodile Farm*, Spencers Creek Crocodile Ranch*, Ume Crocodile Farm, Chiredzi Wildlife Investments*, La Lucie*, Friedawill Lesdor, Crocraise/ Rokoptone, Mwenezi / Zimbabwe Bio Energy, Mimosa/ Dollar Bubi, Milpenta/ Mblibizi, Carendon Farm, Charara Wilderness Enterprises, Hunter Services, Dane Pack Investments, Cheyiza Crocodile Farm, D. Wardley and Kamurota (ZPWMA, 2015). *Farms operational in 1992, based on Luxmore (1992).

10 A crocodile management plan was reported to be in place in Zimbabwe, which included community awareness and anti-poaching campaigns, as well setting aside no-take reservoir areas 2 for crocodiles (ZPWMA, 2015). The main aims of the plan were reported to be the conservation and scientific management of the species, reduction of human-crocodile conflicts and promotion of crocodile conservation through supporting the sustainable ranching and hunting of the species (ZPWMA, 2015). The ZPWMA (2006) reported that most of the national parks were practising zero management of the crocodile population, with no effort to increase or decrease the populations. References Bory de Saint-Vincent Dictionnaire classique d histoire naturelle. Part 5. Rey & Gravier, Paris. Child, G The management of crocodiles in Zimbabwe. In: Webb, G.J.W., Manolis, S.C. and Whitehead, P.J. (Eds.). Wildlife Management: Crocodiles and Alligators. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, Australia Combrink, X., Korrûbel, J.L., Kyle, R., Taylor, R. and Ross, P Evidence of a declining Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) population at Lake Sibaya, South Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 41(2): Cott, H.B Scientific results of an enquiry into the ecology and economic status of the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) in Uganda and Northern Rhodesia. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 29: Crocodile Specialist Group Crocodylus niloticus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: [Accessed: 28/09/2015]. Deraniyagala, P.E.P Some scientific results of two visits to Africa. Spoila Zeylanica, 25(2): DeSmet, K Status of the Nile crocodile in the Sahara Desert. Hydrobiologia, 391(1): Detouf-Boulade, A Reproductive cycle and sexual size dimorphism of the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Unpublished MSc Thesis. University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. Feeley, J.M On the southeastern range limits of the Nile Crocodile: A review of its past and present occurrences in the Eastern Cape and Western Cape, South Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 40(2): Fergusson, R.A Nile Crocodile Crocodylus niloticus. In: Manolis, S.C. and Stevenson, C. (Eds.). Crocodiles. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Crocodile Specialist Group, Darwin Graham, A.D A management plan for Okavango crocodiles. In: Proceedings of the Okavango Delta Symposium. Botswana Society, Gabarone Grandidier, A Description de quelques reptiles noveaux decouverts a Madagascar en Annual Science Nature Paris, series 5. (20): Groombridge, B The distribution and status of world crocodilians. In: Webb, G.J.W., Manolis, S.C. and Whitehead, P.J. (Eds.). Wildlife Management: Crocodiles and Alligators. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd, Chipping Norton, Australia Hekkala, E., Shirley, M.H., Amato, G., Austin, J.D., Charter, S., Thorbjarnson, J., Vliet, K.A., Houck, M.L., Desalle, R. and Blum, M.J An ancient icon reveals new mysteries: mummy DNA resurrects a cryptic species within the Nile crocodile. Molecular Ecology, 20(20): Hekkala, E.R., Amato, G., DeSalle, R. and Blum, M.J Molecular assessment of population differentiation and individual assignment potential of Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) population. Conservation Genetics, 11(4): Hewitt, J Guide to the Vertebrate Fauna of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Part II: Reptiles, Amphibians and Freshwater Fishes. Albany Museum, Grahamstown, South Africa. Hutton, J.M Cashing in on crocs. Zimbabwe Wildlife, March, Hutton, J.M The population ecology of the Nile crocodile Crocodylus niloticus Laurentii 1768 at Ngezi, Zimbabwe. University of Zimbabwe. 2 Matusadonha National Park, Mana Pools National Park, Zambezi National Park, Ngezi Recreational Park, Gonarezhou National Park (ZPWMA, 2015).

11 Hutton, J.M. and Brennan, S.L An analysis of records of the crocodile rearing industry in Zimbabwe. Branch of terrestrial ecology internal report, Department of National parks and Wild life Management, Zimbabwe. Hutton, J.M. and Child, G.F.T Crocodile Management in Zimbabwe. In: Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 7th Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Caracas, Venezuela, 21 to 28 October IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Kyalo, S Non-detriment finding studies on Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) the status of and trade in the Nile Crocodile in Kenya. In: NDF Workshop Case Studies, WG7 - Reptiles and Amphibians. Available at: Laurenti, J.N Specimen Medicum, Exhibens Synopsis Reptilium. Vienna. Leslie, A.J. and Spotila, J.R Alien plant threatens Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus. Biological Conservation, 98: Luxmore, R.A Directory of Crocodilian Farming Operations. Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 350pp. Parker, I.S.C. and Watson, R.M Crocodile distribution and status in the major waters of western and central Uganda in East African Wildlife Journal, 8: Pauwels, O.S.G., Branch, W.R. and Burger, M Reptiles of Loango National park, Ogooué-maritime province, south-western Gabon. Hamadryad, 29(1): Revol, B Crocodile Farming and Conservation, the Example of Zimbabwe pp. Available at: ISI: A1995QU Ross, J.P Crocodiles: Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. - pp. Saint-Hilaire, G Description de deux crocodiles qui existent dans le Nil, comparés au crocodile de Saint Domingue. Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., 10: Schmitz, A., Mansfield, P., Hekkala, E., Shine, T., Nickel, H., Amato, G. and Böhme, W Molecular evidence for species level divergence in African Nile Crocodiles Crocodylus niloticus (Laurenti, 1786). Comptes Rendus Palevol, 2(8): Thorbjarnarson, J.B., Messel, H., King, F.W. and Ross, P Crocodiles: an action plan for their conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. - pp. Wermuth, H. and Mertens, R Schildkröten, Krokodile, Brückenechsen. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena pp. Zisadza-Gandiwa, P., Gandiwa, E., Jakarasi, J., Westhuizen, H. van der and Muvengwi, J Short Communication: Abundance, distribution and population trends of Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) in Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Water SA, 39(1): ZPWMA Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. Status of the wild crocodile populations in Zimbabwe. ZPWMA Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. A non-detriment finding for Nile Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) in Zimbabwe.

12 ACTINOPTERYGII: ARAPAIMIDAE Arapaima gigas II/B COMMON NAMES: Arapaima (EN), Arapaïma (FR), Arapaima (ES) SYNONYMS: RANGE STATES: UNDER REVIEW: EU DECISIONS: IUCN: Sudas gigas, Sudis pirarucu, Vastes agassizii, Vastes arapaima, Vastes cuvieri, Vastes mapae Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru Brazil No current or previous SRG decisions for this species. Data Deficient Taxonomic note Stewart (2013a) reported that the genus Arapaima was erroneously considered to be monotypic for 145 years, with Arapaima gigas being the only recognised species (Stewart, 2013b). Three species had been considered synonymous with Arapaima gigas, namely Arapaima mapae, Arapaima arapaima and Arapaima agassizii, but Stewart (2013a) reported that based on the literature and existing holotypes, the four nominal species recognised by Valenciennes (Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1847 in Stewart, 2013a) appeared to be valid. Stewart (2013a) also recognized a new species within the genus, A. leptosoma. The current CITES Standard taxonomic reference, Eschmeyer and Fricke (2011), only recognises A. gigas and considers the abovementioned five taxa as synonyms. However, the updated online version of Eschmeyer and Fricke (2015) recognises A. agassizii, A. gigas, A. leptosoma and A. mapae as the valid species within this genus. Trade patterns Arapaima gigas was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01 July Brazil became a Party to CITES on 06 August 1975 and has submitted annual reports for all years Brazil has not published any export quotas for this species Direct exports of A. gigas to the EU-28 over the period mainly comprised meat reported by weight for commercial purposes, the majority of which was ranched according to importer-reported data and captive-bred according to exporter-reported data. In addition, kg of ranched derivatives for commercial purposes were reported in 2008; this trade was reported by exporters only (Table 1). Direct exports to the rest of the world also primarily comprised meat reported by weight for commercial purposes, the majority of which was captive produced and imported by the United States. The vast majority of indirect trade to the EU-28 originating in Brazil was ranched meat re-exported via Switzerland in In addition, 58 wild sourced skins traded for commercial purposes were reported by importers in 2013, this trade was not reported by exporters (Table 2).

13 Table 1: Direct exports of Arapaima gigas from Brazil to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by Total EU bodies T C Importer 3 3 bodies (kg) P C Importer T C Importer derivatives (kg) T R Importer fingerlings S C Importer T C Importer leather products T W Importer (large) live S C Importer T C Importer Z C Importer meat (kg) E W Importer T C Importer F Importer R Importer scales - I Importer skins T W Importer RoW bodies S C Importer bodies (kg) P C Importer T C Importer bones (kg) S W Importer 2 2 garments T C Importer 60 60

14 Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by Total W Importer RoW (cont.) leather products T U Importer (large) leather products T I Importer (small) W Importer live T C Importer W Importer meat (kg) P C Importer S W Importer 1 1 T C Importer F Importer I Importer R Importer W Importer 5 5 scales (kg) S W Importer 0 0 T C Importer skin pieces T W Importer skin pieces (m 2 ) T W Importer skins T W Importer unspecified (kg) T R Importer Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 28/09/2015

15 Table 2: Indirect exports of Arapaima gigas originating in Brazil to the EU-28, Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by Total EU meat (kg) T R Importer skins T W Importer Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 28/09/2015 Conservation status Arapaima gigas is an obligate air breathing fish (Bard and Imbiriba, 1986 in Castello, 2004; Gomes et al., 2006) endemic to the Amazon basin (Bard and Imbiriba, 1986 in Castello, 2004). A. gigas was reported to occur predominately in the Amazon basin floodplain, although it has also been recorded from the upper Essequibo basins of Guyana (Lüling, 1964; Hrbek et al., 2005). Arapaima were reported to inhabit most lowland aquatic ecosystems in these basins, including flooded forests, rivers, lakes and coastal drainages (Castello and Stewart, 2010). A. gigas was found to occupy flood plains when water levels are rising, during which time they build nests and reproduce (Castello, 2008a; Queiroz, 2000); when water levels are lower they migrate to channels and lakes (Castello, 2008b). The species was reported to be a top predator (Fernandes, 2006), with adults reaching a length of up to 3 m and a weight of up to kg (Bard and Imbiriba, 1986 in Castello, 2004; Salvo-Souza and Val, 1990, and Graham, 1997 in Brauner et al., 2004; Saint-Paul, 1986; Hrbek et al., 2005). Individuals are solitary (Hrbek et al., 2005). Breeding was reported to occur once a year and the age of maturity was reported to be around 4-5 years (Hrbek et al., 2005). The size of maturity for females was reported to depend on environmental conditions and varies from around 120 cm in length to 185 cm (Godinho et al., 2005); for males it was reported to be cm in length (Godinho et al., 2005). Males carry the fertilized embryos and newly hatched larvae in their mouth (Salvo-Souza and Val, 1990 in Brauner et al., 2004). A. gigas was assessed as Data Deficient by the IUCN (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1996). Castello and Stewart (2010) considered it impossible to estimate the population size of Arapaima in its entire range. However, it was believed that the population was likely to be declining (Castello and Stewart, 2010). Over-fishing was reported to be the major threat to Arapaima, with habitat degradation and by-catch also threats (Castello and Stewart, 2010). It was reported that an increase in fishing effort as a result of demand and advancements in traditional fishing technology was fuelling the threat of overfishing (Queiroz, 2000). Their requirement to surface to breathe air was noted to make Arapaima vulnerable to harpoon fishing (Castello and Stewart, 2010). Whilst it is illegal to harvest A. gigas in some parts of the range (e.g. in Guyana), this was reported to be rarely enforced (Lüling, 1964 in Fernandes, 2006). Within captivity, continuous reproduction was reported to have occurred rather than reproduction being confined to the rainy season (FAO, 2015). The commercial production cycle in captivity was reported to involve breeding fish of a minimum of four years old in breeding ponds (FAO, 2015). Two to three week old fry are then collected from breeding ponds and transferred to small tanks and distributed food; young juveniles of weeks old are transferred to small net cages or ponds and then grown in larger ponds or net cages for 12 months (FAO, 2015). Harvesting and processing of fish was reported to take place around 14 months after hatching (FAO, 2015). Brazil: Within Brazil, the genus Arapaima was reported to occur in the Amazon basin floodplain (Hrbek et al., 2007).

16 A. gigas was reported to have been relatively abundant near main Amazonian processing and export cities, such as Manaus in the State of Amazonas, and Santarém and Belém in the State of Pará, until the early 1960s, with declines in the 1970s, followed by commercial extinction near large Amazonian cities in the 1980s (Goulding, 1980 in Hrbek et al., 2005). The majority of information on Arapaima was reported to derive from Mamirauá reserve, Amazonas State, an area of less than 1000 km 2, which represents less than 1% of the distribution of the species (Castello and Stewart, 2010). Queiroz (2000) led a study in the middle of Mamirauá reserve, using mark re-capture of A. gigas between 1994 and 1996 and estimated the population size of A. gigas within a region of around 8000 ha (with a water surface area within this region of around 180 ha during droughts) to be 8189 individuals, with a density of individuals per ha. Queiroz (2000) considered this estimate to be smaller than any known densities of other piscivorous fish species at Mamirauá. A method for fishers to count A. gigas in this particular reserve was later reported to have been standardised (Castello, 2004). Over the period , during which an experimental management study was implemented for Mamirauá reserve, a nine fold increase in the population abundance of Arapaima from around 2200 to 20,650 individuals was recorded, which the authors believed likely to be due to the management scheme (Castello et al., 2009). No national estimates for the population of A. gigas within Brazil were found, although Castello and Stewart (2010) reported that data suggested population declines. Arapaima spp. was not included in the national list of endangered species, reportedly due to a lack of data (Castello et al., 2014). Within Brazil, overfishing was considered to be the largest threat facing Arapaima (Castello and Stewart, 2010). Castello and Stewart (2010) also reported that illegal fishing of Arapaima was so widespread that most Arapaima were probably caught and traded illegally. Fisheries were reported to be managed as open access resources, with all citizens having equal rights of use (McGrath et al., 2008). Several strategies were reported to have been employed in Brazil to manage Arapaima fishing (Castello and Stewart, 2010). This included a minimum length of catch of 1.5 m imposed in 1986, a closed fishing season imposed in 1991, as well as the ban of Arapaima fishery in the state of Tocantins in 1990, in the state of Amazonas in 1996 and in state of Acre in 2008 (Castello and Stewart, 2010). Hrbek et al. (2005) reported that despite the bans, fishing for A. gigas in Brazil continued throughout the year and Castello and Stewart (2010) reported that government regulations on fishing Arapaima, including restrictions on the size of catch, season and even moratoriums on capture have been poorly enforced. It has also been reported that in early 2001, the Brazilian government banned all commercial fishing for Arapaima, except in the Mamirauá sustainable development reserve (Hrbek et al., 2007). The ban of fishing Arapaima was lifted for community based management schemes in the State of Amazonas in 2004, and in the state of Acre in 2008, providing that local fishers carry out population counts (Castello and Stewart, 2010). Whilst a number of reserves were reported to exist within the Amazon basin, it was reported that there was a lack of political will and resources to enforce the laws (Hrbek et al., 2007). Methods for sustainable fishing for Arapaima have been reported in the State of Amazonas (Castello et al., 2009). In Mamirauá, a method for fishers to count A. gigas was reported to have been standardised (Castello, 2004) and an experimental management scheme was implemented; based on annual counts from the local fishers, quotas for fishing Arapaima were set and upheld (Castello et al., 2009). Other regions in the Amazonas State were also reported to have been authorized for a limited sustainable exploitation of their Arapaima stock (Hrbek et al., 2007). In Pará State, fishing of Arapaima was reported to be open, but restrictions were in place on the size of the catch and seasonal limits (Castello et al., 2014). However, unsustainable fishing within this State was

17 reported (Castello et al., 2014). Based on data on fisheries of Arapaima from the Amazon River mainstream near the municipality of Santarém in the State of Pará, Arapaima spp. were reported as depleted in 76% of the 81 fishing communities studied, over-exploited in 17%, well-managed in 5% and unfished in 2% (Castello et al., 2014). Arapaima harvest in the Purus River and surrounding areas was considered to require urgent assessment, to avoid serious depletion of populations (Stewart, 2013a). Captive breeding of Arapaima for the Amazonian market was reported to have been successfully undertaken (Hrbek et al., 2005) and farming of the species was reported to have grown substantially in the decade leading up to 2006 (Gomes et al., 2006). References Bard, J. and Imbiriba, E.P Piscicultura do pirarucu Arapaima gigas. Embrapa-Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Trópico Úmido, Belém, Brasil. Brauner, C.J., Matey, V., Wilson, J.M., Bernier, N.J. and Val, A.L Transition in organ function during the evolution of air-breathing; insights from Arapaima gigas, an obligate air-breathing teleost from the Amazon. Journal of Experimental Biology, 207(9): Castello, L A method to count pirarucu Arapaima gigas: fishers, assessment, and management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 24(2): Castello, L. 2008a. Lateral migration of Arapaima gigas in floodplains of the Amazon. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 17(1): Castello, L. 2008b. Nesting habitat of Arapaima gigas (Schinz) in Amazonian floodplains. Journal of Fish Biology, 72(6): Castello, L., Arantes, C.C., McGrath, D.G., Stewart, D.J. and Sousa, F.S Understanding fishinginduced extinctions in the Amazon. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Available at: Castello, L. and Stewart, D.J Assessing CITES non-detriment findings procedures for Arapaima in Brazil pp. Available at: ISI: Castello, L., Viana, J.P., Watkins, G., Pinedo-Vasquez, M. and Luzadis, V.A Lessons from Integrating Fishers of Arapaima in Small-Scale Fisheries Management at the Mamirauá Reserve, Amazon. Environmental Management, 43: Cuvier, G. and Valenciennes, A Histoire naturelle des Poissons. Tome dix-neuvième. Suite du livre dixneuvième. Brochets ou Lucioïdes. Livre vingtième. De quelques familles de Malacoptérygiens, intermédiaires entre les Brochets et les Clupes. Bertrand, Paris. v. 19: Eschmeyer, W. and Fricke, R Catalog of fishes electronic version (updated 2 September 2015). Available at: Eschmeyer, W.N. and Fricke, R Taxonomic Checklist of all CITES listed Shark and Fish species (Elasmobranchii and Actinopterygii, except the genus Hippocampus), information extracted from Eschmeyer, W.N. & Fricke, R. (eds.): Catalog of Fishes, an online reference, version downloaded 30. FAO Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme Arapaima gigas (Schinz, 1822). Available at: Fernandes, D More eyes watching Community-based management of the Arapaima (Arapaima gigas) in Central Guyana. Conference on Survival of the Commons: Mounting Challenges and New Realities, the Eleventh Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Available at: Godinho, H.P., Santos, J.E., Formagio, P.S. and Guimarães-Cruz, R.J Gonadal morphology and reproductive traits of the Amazonian fish Arapaima gigas (Schinz, 1822). Acta Zoologica, 86(4): Gomes, L.C., Chagas, E.C., Brinn, R.P., Roubach, R., Copppati, C.E. and Baldisserotto, B Use of salt during transportation of air breathing pirarucu juveniles (Arapaima gigas). Aquaculture, 256(1): Goulding, M The Fishes and the Forest, Explorations in Amazonian Natural History. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA. - pp.

18 Graham, J.B Air-Breathing Fishes; Evolution, Diversity and Adaptation. Academic Press, San Diego. Hrbek, T., Crossa, M. and Farias, I.P Conservation strategies for Arapaima gigas (Schinz, 1822) and the Amazonian várzea ecosystem. Brazilian journal of biology (Revista brasleira de biologia), 67(4 Suppl): Hrbek, T., Farias, I.P., Crossa, M., Sampaio, I., Porto, J.I.R. and Meyer, A Population genetic analysis of Arapaima gigas one of the largest freshwater fishes of the Amazon basin: implications for its conservation. Animal Conservation, 8(3): Isaac, V.J., Rocha, V.L.C. and Mota, S Considerações sobre a legislação da piracema e outras restrições da pesca da região do Médio Amazonas. PAGES L. G. Lüling, V Zur Biologie und Ökologie von Arapaima gigas (Pisces, Osteoglossidae). Z. Morph. Öko. Tiere, 54: McGrath, D.G., Cardoso, A., Almeida, O.T. and Pezzuti, J Constructing a policy and institutional framework for an ecosystem-based approach to managing the Lower Amazon floodplain. Environment, Development and Sustainability. Environ Dev Sustain, 10: Queiroz, H.L. de Natural history and conservation of Pirarucu, Arapaima gigas, at the Amazonian varzea: red giants in muddy waters. University of St. Andrews pp. Saint-Paul, V Potential for aquaculture of South American freshwater fishes: a review. Aquaculture, 5: Salvo-Souza, R. and Val, A.L O gigante das aguas amazonicas. Ciencia Hoje, 11: Stewart, D.J. 2013a. A New Species of Arapaima (Osteoglossomorpha: Osteoglossidae) from the Solimões River, Amazonas State, Brazil. Copeia, 3: Stewart, D.J. 2013b. Re-description of Arapaima agassizii (Valenciennes), a rare fish from Brazil (Osteoglossomorpha: Osteoglossidae). Copeia, 1: World Conservation Monitoring Centre Arapaima gigas. Available at: [Accessed: 18/09/2015].

19 Appendix 1 Introduction to the Analysis of the European Union Annual Reports to CITES UNEP-WCMC undertakes an annual Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries annual reports to CITES. The Analysis examines patterns of trade into the European Union and candidate countries, trade in groups of particular note, possible transgressions of suspensions and negative opinions, exports of native species, etc. As part of the 2013 Analysis, imports reported by the EU (and candidate countries) as wild-sourced, ranched, source unknown or source blank were analysed to identify noteworthy patterns of trade according to three criteria. These criteria were designed to identify: 1. High volume trade in 2013; 2. Globally threatened and near threatened species traded at relatively high volumes in 2013; and 3. Sharp increase in trade in Imports were considered to be high volume according to thresholds which were determined by taxonomic group and CITES Appendix (Table 1). In order to account for threat status, the Appendix I threshold was also applied to Appendix II and III species considered to be threatened, near threatened or data deficient by the IUCN (Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened and Data Deficient in the IUCN Red List). Table 1. Minimum number of wild, ranched, source unknown and source blank individuals imported in 2012 needed to qualify for selection on the basis of high trade volume. Taxonomic group CITES Appendix / IUCN Red List status I II III I/II/III (kg) CR, EN, VU, NT, - CR, EN, VU, NT, - CR, EN, VU, NT, - DD* DD* DD* Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish Invertebrates (non-corals) Corals Plants (non-tree) Plants (trees) 250 m³ 250 m³ 500 m³ 250 m³ 2500 m³ * CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened, DD = Data Deficient in IUCN Red List ( The sharp increase criterion was designed to determine if there was a sharp increase in importerreported wild-sourced imports in 2013, compared with the average level of imports between 2008 and Species that, despite a sharp increase in trade in 2013, were still only traded in very low volumes (i.e. less than 5% of the levels listed in Table 1) were omitted.

20 Appendix 2 Table 1: Purpose of trade Code Description T Z G Q S H P M E N B L Commercial Zoo Botanical garden Circus or travelling exhibition Scientific Hunting trophy Personal Medical (including biomedical research) Educational Reintroduction or introduction into the wild Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation Law enforcement / judicial / forensic Table 2: Source of specimens Code W X R D A C F U I O Description Specimens taken from the wild Specimens taken in the marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State 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 Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with Resolution Conf (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 Plants that are artificially propagated in accordance with Resolution Conf (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) Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that do not fulfil the definition of bred in captivity in Resolution Conf (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof Source unknown (must be justified) Confiscated or seized specimens (may be used with another code) Pre-Convention specimens