species selected on the basis of the Analysis

Transcription

1 UNEP-WCMC technical l report Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas Part II (Version edited for public release)

2 Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas. Part II. 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 2014 Copyright European Commission 2014 Citation UNEP-WCMC Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas. Part II. 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: i 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... 1 Note on quota-setting in Guyana... 3 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus... 4 Corallus caninus Corallus hortulanus Chelonoidis denticulata Dogania subplana Cyclemys dentata Euphorbia bulbispina Euphorbia pachypodioides Aloes from Madagascar Overview of status, management and trade Aloe capitata...43 Aloe deltoideodonta Aloe guillaumetii Aloe imalotensis Aquilaria spp Appendix ii

4 Introduction and summary Introduction and summary This report presents a review of thirteen taxa selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas (UNEP-WCMC, 2014a) and provides an update of new and increased 2014 CITES export quotas published since the production of this analysis and the Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas: Part I (UNEP-WCMC, 2014b). National export quotas for CITES listed taxa are an important tool to manage and monitor wildlife trade. The establishment or revision of an export quota should be based on a non-detriment finding (NDF) by the Scientific Authority of the exporting country and the NDF should be reviewed annually (Resolution Conf (Rev. CoP15)). Once such annual quotas are established, the need for a NDF for each individual shipment of the species concerned is eliminated. The EU, through stricter measures outlined in the Wildlife Trade Regulations, requires an NDF by importing Member States and therefore monitors newly established quotas and changes to previous quota levels to assess the situation where necessary, or to reassess SRG opinions or EU decisions. Similarly, by assessing the new quotas early each year, the SRG can advise on the treatment of anticipated import applications within the EU. Export quotas are usually established by each Party to CITES unilaterally on a voluntary basis, but they can also be set by the Conference of the Parties, or result from recommendations of the Animals and Plants Committees. To ensure that national quotas are effectively communicated and implemented on permits and certificates, countries should inform the CITES Secretariat when they establish national export quotas for CITES species (Resolution Conf (Rev. CoP16)). In turn, the Secretariat informs the Parties by publishing a list of national export quotas of which it has been informed ( In 2014, quotas were published on the CITES website ( on 14/03/2014 and were updated on 26/03/2014, 14/04/2014, 20/06/2014, 11/08/2014 and 25/09/2014. Based on the quotas that were available on 28/04/2014, UNEP-WCMC analysed the 2014 CITES export quotas to identify: a) Quotas that were newly established in 2014 (i.e quotas for particular species/country/term/source combinations that have not previously been subject to a quota, or have not been subject to a quota for at least the last 5 years); b) Quotas that increased or decreased in 2014 compared with 2013 quotas (or compared with 2012 quotas if no quota was published in 2013). This analysis was discussed at SRG 68 on 28/05/2014 and a list of 18 taxa/country combinations that may warrant review was presented; in addition Member States were invited to suggest any additional species with new or increased quotas that may warrant review. An update on 2014 CITES export quotas was provided at SRG69, following which a further four species were selected for review. The following 13 taxa/country combinations are reviewed in this report: Caiman crocodilus crocodilus/guyana (increased quota, live and skins) Corallus caninus/guyana (increased quota, 1371 live) Corallus hortulanus/guyana (increased quota, 4570 live) 1

5 Introduction and summary Chelonoidis denticulata/guyana (increased quota, 183 live) Cyclemys dentata/indonesia (new quota, live) Dogania subplana/ Indonesia (new quota, 4500 live) Euphorbia bulbispina/madagascar (new quota, 34 artificially propagated live plants) Euphorbia pachypodioides/madagascar (new quota, 199 artificially propagated live plants) Aloe capitata/madagascar (increased quota, 1483 live) Aloe deltoideodonta/madagascar (increased quota, 3708 live) Aloe guillaumetii/madagascar (increased quota, 250 live) Aloe imalotensis/madagascar (increased quota, 178 live) Aquilaria spp./peninsular Malaysia and Sabah (new quota, kg wood chips, wood blocks and essential oil) The SRG agreed that further consideration might be necessary to determine whether the trade would have a harmful effect on the conservation status of these species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of these species. These reviews are presented below. Update since Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas Since the publication of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas (UNEP-WCMC, 2014a) and the Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas: Part I (UNEP-WCMC, 2014 b), additional CITES export quotas were published from Cameroon, Indonesia, Madagascar and the United Republic of Tanzania on 11 th August 2014, and from Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Peru, Romania and Uganda on 25 th September Of these, there were no new quotas and the following relate to increased quotas: An increase in the quota for Pericopsis elata (EN) from Congo, from m 3 sawn wood and m 3 logs in 2012 to m 3 sawn wood and m 3 logs in 2014; no quotas were published in An increase in the quota for Prunus africana (VU) from Cameroon, from kg dry bark in 2013 to kg dry bark in The SRG formed a positive opinion for this 2014 annual export quota on 3 rd September 2014, subject to the origin being clearly indicated in the export permit. An increase in the quota for Prunus africana (VU) from Democratic Republic of the Congo, from kg dry bark in 2013 to kg dry bark in A positive opinion was formed for bark from DRC on 30 th November 2012, subject to an annual quota of kg and clear indication of origin in the export permit. An increase in the quota for Swietenia macrophylla (VU) from Peru, from m 3 wood in 2011 (plus m 3 wood valid from 23 rd July 2010 until 22 nd July 2011), to m 3 sawn wood in 2014; no quotas were published in 2012 or

6 Note on quota-setting in Guyana Note on quota-setting in Guyana In the Analysis of 2014 CITES Export Quotas (UNEP-WCMC, 2014a), it was noted that many of the quotas published by Guyana had increased compared with 2013, quite substantially in some cases. Before 2014, Guyana s quota year ran from 4 th April of the quota year to 3 rd April of the following year. In 2014, Guyana adopted a change to their licence year, aligning it with the calendar year. Due to a shortening of the original 2013/2014 licence period, unused quotas as of 31 st December 2013 were added to the preexisting annual quotas for The issuance of licences in relation to wildlife are detailed in the Environmental Protection (Wildlife Management and Conservation) Regulations, 2009, with Commercial Collecting Licences relating to the export and re-export of wild animals from Guyana detailed in the Wildlife Import and Export Regulations, 2009 (Government of Guyana, 2013). Grimes et al. (2008) raised concerns over the apparent lack of knowledge on the population status of most species for which export quotas had been issued in Guyana and noted that no baseline data were available to assess harvesting levels. Duplaix (2001) also raised concerns over the setting of export quotas in the country possibly being based on levels of export rather than best information available. Illegal trade in wildlife between Guyana and Suriname was also reported to be a problem (Duplaix, 2001). References Duplaix, N Evaluation of the animal and plant trade in the Guianas: preliminary findings. WWF- Guianas. Government of Guyana Environmental Protection (Wildlife Management and Conservation) Regulations, The Official Gazette of Guyana (legal supplement) B 16 th November Government of Guyana National Printers Ltd, Georgetown, p Grimes, A., Fraser, D. and Zweede, M FAA 118/119 Biodiversity and tropical forest assessment Guyana. 32 pp. UNEP-WCMC, 2014a. Analysis of 2014 CITES export quotas. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. UNEP-WCMC, 2014b. Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2014 export quotas. UNEP- WCMC, Cambridge. 3

7 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus REPTILIA: ALLIGATORIDAE Caiman crocodilus crocodilus II/B COMMON NAMES: South American spectacled caiman (English), Caïman à lunettes (French), Babilla (Spanish) RANGE STATES: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba (int), Ecuador, French Guiana (France), Guyana, Peru, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Puerto Rico (int), Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America (int) UNDER REVIEW: Guyana EU DECISIONS: Caiman crocodilus: Current positive opinion for Guyana and Venezuela, formed on 14/09/2007. Current positive opinion for Bolivia formed on 11/07/2000 and confirmed on 07/02/2013. Current no opinion (i) for Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America formed on 02/12/2011. Previous positive opinion for these countries formed on 11/07/2000. Current no opinion (i) for Guatemala and Mexico formed on 20/06/2011. Current no opinion (ii) for Nicaragua formed on 07/02/2013 and last confirmed on 12/09/2013. Previous positive opinion for Nicaragua formed on 11/07/2000. Current no opinion (ii) for Suriname formed on 07/02/2013 and confirmed on 28/05/2013. Previous positive opinion for Suriname formed on 22/07/1997 and confirmed on 14/09/2007. Current no opinion (iii) for El Salvador formed on 20/06/2011.Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico first applied on 24/09/2000 and removed on 10/09/2012. Previous negative opinion for El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico formed on 11/07/2000. Caiman crocodilus crocodilus: Current no opinion for Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago formed on 14/09/2007. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Ecuador, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 24/09/2000. Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Bolivia first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 19/09/1999. IUCN: Lower Risk/least concern 4

8 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus Trade patterns Guyana: Caiman crocodilus crocodilus was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 under the order listing Crocodylia spp. Caiman crocodilus crocodilus is the only subspecies of Caiman crocodilus native to Guyana (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Therefore, all wild-sourced direct trade from Guyana reported as Caiman crocodilus can be considered to be Caiman c. crocodilus. Guyana has submitted CITES annual reports for all years Guyana published CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Caiman c. crocodilus of skins and live in all years from 1997 to 2013 (Table 1). These quotas applied to the period from 4 th April to 3 rd April the following year (as explained in the note on quota-setting above). In 2014, Guyana published increased CITES export quotas, applicable to the calendar year, of skins and live specimens of Caiman c. crocodilus. According to data reported by Guyana and its trading partners in their annual reports to CITES, the export quota for wild-sourced skins appears to have been exceeded in 2008 (by 1000 skins according to Guyana); in 2009 (by 5999 skins according to Guyana and by 8250 skins according to importers); and in 2012 (by skins according to importers). However, it is difficult to confirm these potential quota excesses due to the quota year not running according to the calendar year. A permit analysis indicated that three shipments reported by Mexico (amounting to skins), were recorded by Guyana in their 2011 report (based on permit numbers), indicating that the apparent quota excess for 2012 may be closer to 3500 skins rather than Additional discrepancies between trade reported by Guyana and that of Mexico (the sole importer in 2012) were also observed, with Mexico reporting the import of skins from Guyana on four export permits that were not reported by Guyana in any year (totalling skins). The potential discrepancies could also relate to trade being reported on the basis of permits issued; neither Mexico nor Guyana have specified the basis for the compilation of their annual report (permits issued or actual trade). Table 1: CITES export quotas of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus from Guyana and global direct exports of *wild-sourced skins and live specimens from Guyana (including trade reported at species level). Trade data for are not yet available. Reported by Quota 1 (live) Importer Quota 1 (skins) Importer The 2014 quota applies to the calendar year. Previous quotas applied to the period from 4 th April of the year for which the quota was published to 3 rd April the following year. *Wild-sourced includes trade reported as Source W and without a source specified. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014. Direct exports of Caiman c. crocodilus to the EU (including trade reported at species level) consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals, nearly all of which was traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). The principal importers were the Netherlands, Spain and Germany. Additionally, the United Kingdom reported the confiscation/seizure of 10 bodies in 2004, 17 bodies in 2007 and 4 small leather products in Direct trade in Caiman c. crocodilus (including trade reported at species level) from Guyana to countries other than the EU primarily comprised wild-sourced skins traded for commercial purposes 5

9 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus (Table 3). The main importer was Mexico. The United States of America reported small numbers of confiscations/seizures of bodies and large leather products in 2003 and Indirect trade in Caiman c. crocodilus (including trade reported at species level) from Guyana to the EU- 28 between 2003 and 2012 principally consisted of wild sourced trade for commercial purposes, the main terms being skins and small leather products, and trade being mainly via Panama (Table 3). Additionally, the import of small quantities of wild-sourced small leather products and skin pieces of Caiman c. fuscus, originating from Guyana (for which it is not a range state) were reported by Austria and France. Additionally, the United States of America reported at the genus level the import of 1 body (source U ) in 2004 and the confiscation/seizure of 28 small leather products in 2006 of Caiman spp. from Guyana. Table 2: Direct exports of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus from Guyana to the EU-28 (EU), (including trade reported at the species level). Virtually all trade was for commercial purposes. Term Source Reported by Total bodies I Importer leather products (small) I Importer 4 4 live W* Importer *Wild-sourced includes trade reported as Source W and without a source specified. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/

10 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus Table 3: Direct exports of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus (including trade reported at species level) from Guyana to countries other than the EU-28, Most trade was for commercial purposes. Term Unit Source Reported by Total bodies - I 1 Importer U 1 Importer 1 1 W Importer leather products (large) - I 1 Importer 2 2 W Importer leather products (small) - W Importer live - R Importer meat kg W Importer W Importer skins - C Importer O Importer W Importer Importer specimens ml W Importer 1 Reported as Caiman crocodilus. As the source is unknown, it is not certain that this is C.c. crocodilus. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/

11 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus Table 4: Indirect exports of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus (including trade reported at species level) originating in Guyana to the EU-28, Purpose was primarily commercial. Term Source Reported by Total leather products (large) U Importer 3 3 leather products (small) C Importer U Importer W Importer skin pieces W Importer skins C Importer 2 2 W Importer tails W Importer Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/

12 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus Conservation Status Caiman crocodilus is a medium-sized crocodilian growing up to 2.7 m in length, found in lakes, ponds, marshes, forest swamps and slow-flowing rivers of Central and South America (Trutnau and Sommerlad, 2006; Crocodile Specialist Group, 2012). Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) considered Caiman crocodilus to range from southern Mexico to Peru, northern Bolivia and the northern half of Brazil. Including Caiman crocodilus yacare, the native range extends through Paraguay into northern Argentina. Of the five Caiman crocodilus subspecies, Caiman c. crocodilus has the most extensive range, covering much of northern South America (Busack and Pandya, 2001; Trutnau and Sommerlad, 2006; Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) reported its occurrence as distributed throughout the Orinoco drainage from Colombia through Brazil north and east of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Guyana and French Guyana. Female Caiman crocodilus reach sexual maturity at about 1.2 m, approximately 4-7 years of age, and lay an average of eggs (Thorbjarnarson 1994; Velasco et al. 1996; Rueda-Almonacid et al., 2007). In 1996, Caiman crocodilus was categorised as Lower Risk/least concern in the IUCN Red List, with the following justification: probably numbers in the millions, widely distributed throughout range, although locally depleted or extirpated in some localities (Crocodile Specialist Group, 1996). However, it is noted that this assessment needs updating. Trutnau and Sommerlad (2006) reported that Even though the species has become rare today and has been extirpated in some localities, Caiman crocodilus has a huge distribution area with population sizes that are possibly in the millions. Britton (2009) estimated the size of the wild C. crocodilus global population at over one million individuals, whilst the Crocodile Specialist Group (2012) estimated the Venezuelan population alone to be over three million individuals. Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) noted that even taking into account local depletions, the population size overall may be larger than historically, as other more valuable crocodilian species are preferentially hunted. The main threats to Caiman crocodilus were reported to include illegal hunting and habitat loss (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Large-scale exploitation of Caiman crocodilus was reported to have started in the 1950s, following population declines in sympatric larger crocodilian species with higher quality skins (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Since then, Caiman crocodilus was reported to have become the main source of crocodilian skins in trade (Hutton and Webb, 2003), with C. c. crocodilus and C. c. fuscus supplying the vast majority of skins on the international market (Velasco and De Sola, 2005 in: Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Britton (2009) stated that smuggling rings operating through Thailand and Singapore are extremely damaging to individual populations, and greater control measures and more effective legislation are needed. However, Velasco and Ayarzagüena, (2010) reported that improvements in the implementation and enforcement of CITES regulations had contributed to a reduction of illegal trade. Each of the five named subspecies (apaporiensis, crocodilus, fuscus, chiapasius and yacare) have been designated an individual code in the universal tagging system for the identification of crocodilian skins (CITES Resolution Conf [Rev CoP15]). However, the practice of removing tags from skins before the tanning, and re-tagging the skins with the export tags after the tanning was thought to potentially allow laundering of illegal skins through tanneries (AC24 Doc. 11). Caiman crocodilus was considered to be relatively resilient to the impacts of hunting, due to its ability to survive in various different habitats (Rueda-Almonacid et al., 2007; Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010; Crocodile Specialist Group, 2012), early maturation at approximately four years at a relatively small size, and the lower hunting pressure on females and smaller individuals (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Furthermore, Caiman crocodilus was considered to have benefitted from the decline of populations of larger crocodilians (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). 9

13 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) reported captive breeding programs for Caiman crocodilus in many range states and Caiman crocodilus and its subspecies were reported to be successfully kept and bred in captivity. However, Britton (2009) noted that farming and ranching may not be economically viable. Guyana: Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) and Rueda-Almonacid et al. (2007) reported the occurrence of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus throughout Guyana and De Ávila Pires (2005) considered C. crocodilus (crocodilus) to be widespread throughout the Guiana Shield area. Surveys conducted in 1989 of Caiman c. crocodilus reported it to be widespread in the lowlands of Guyana, although most of the accessible populations surveyed had been significantly or severely depleted by commercial hunting (Gorzula and Woolford, 1990 in: Thorbjarnarson et al., 1992). More recent surveys of the herpetofauna and other groups in Iwokrama forest area in central Guyana recorded Caiman c. crocodilus (Donnelly et al., 2005; Bicknell et al., 2013), however, it was not recorded in various other surveys (Pickles et al., 2009; MacCulloch and Reynolds, 2012; Reynolds and MacCulloch, 2012; Alonso et al., 2008). Alonso et al. (2013) noted that larger reptilians were less abundant near villages due to hunting pressure from local communities. Research on Caiman c. crocodilus population status and the impact of the harvest in Guyana were reported to be needed (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). There was reported to be a national program based on the harvest of wild Caiman crocodilus populations (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). A representative of the regional Crocodile Specialist Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (Lucía Fernández, pers. comm. to UNEP-WCMC, 31 st October 2014) confirmed that it was difficult to obtain any official information regarding the management program for Caiman c. crocodilus in Guyana, although it was likely to be based on the hunting of adult animals. She noted that the CITES authorities of Guyana reported there to be no size limit for the skins and no hunting season established. There was reported to have been no recent monitoring of the wild population (Lucía Fernández, pers. comm. to UNEP-WCMC, 31 st October 2014). References Alonso, L., Vitus, A., Buckley, C., Fernandes, D., Fredericks, N., Fredericks, P., Gomes, E., Helms, J. and Hutchinson, C South Rupununi Biodiversity Assessment Team (BAT) Expedition October 22- November Preliminary Report. WWF-Guianas and Global Wildlife Conservation. Austin, Texas. 97 pp. Alonso, L.E., McCullough, J., Naskrecki, P., Alexander, E. and Wright, H.E A rapid biological assessment of the Konashen Community Owned Conservation Area, Southern Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment, 51. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. 90 pp. De Ávila Pires, T.C.S Reptiles. In: T. Hollowell & R.P. Reynolds (Eds.). Checklist of the terrestrial vertebrates of the Guiana shield. Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington no. 13, Bicknell, J., Snyder, A., Lim, B., Horsley, T., Bryce, C. and Worthington, R Monitoring biodiversity by Operation Wallacea in the Iwokrama and Surama Forests, Guyana. Operation Wallacea research report pp. Britton, A Caiman crocodilus (Linnaeus, 1758). Crocodilian species list. [Online] Available at: [Accessed: 18 September 2014]. Busack, S.D. and Pandya, S Geographic variation in Caiman crocodilus and Caiman yacare (Crocodylia: Alligatoridae): Systematic and legal implications. Herpetologia, 57(3): Campos, Z., Llobet, A.Q., Piña, C.I. and Magnusson, W.E Caiman yacare (Yacare caiman) S.C. Manolis & C. Stevenson (Eds.). Third edition p Crocodile Specialist Group Caiman crocodilus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version [Online] Available at: [Accessed: 18 September 2014]. 10

14 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus Crocodile Specialist Group Spectacled Caiman Caiman crocodilus. Species description. [Online] Available at: [Accessed: 18 September 2014]. Donnelly, M.A., Chen, M.H. and Watkins, G.G Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 154: Gorzula, S. and Woolford, J Crocodilian resources in Guyana. Draft Report to CITES. Hutton, J. and Webb, G Crocodiles: legal trade snaps back. In: S. Oldfield (Ed.). The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation. Earthscan Publication Ltd, London, UK MacCulloch, R.D. and Reynolds, R.P Amphibians and reptiles from Paramakatoi and Kato, Guyana. Check List, 8(2): Pickles, R., McCann, N. and Holland, A A biodiversity assessment of the Rewa Head, Guyana. The Zoological Society of London, London. 49 pp. Reynolds, R.P. and MacCulloch, R.D Preliminary Checklist of Amphibians and Reptiles from Baramita, Guyana. Check List, 8(2): Rueda-Almonacid, J. V, Carr, J.L., Mittermeier, R.A., Rodríguez-Mahecha, J. V, Mast, R.B., Vogt, R.C., Rhodin, A.G.J., Ossa-Velásquez, J. de la, Rueda, J.N. and Mittermeier, C.G Las tortugas y los cocodrilianos de los países Andinos del trópico. Conservation International, Bogotá, Colombia. 536 pp. Thorbjarnarson, J.B., Messel, H., King, F.W. and Ross, P Crocodiles: an action plan for their conservation. H. Messel, F.W. King and J.P Ross (Eds). IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. p.137. Trutnau, L. and Sommerlad, R Crocodilians. Their natural history and captive husbandry. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Edition Chimaira. 646 pp. Velasco, A. and Ayarzagüena, J Spectacled Caiman Caiman crocodilus. In: S.C. Manolis & C. Stevenson (Eds.). Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Crocodile Specialist Group, Darwin: IUCN SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, Velasco, A. and De Sola, R Exportaciones de pieles de cocodrilos desde Latino América Latina y el Caribe del Grupo de Especialistas en Cocodrilos C. Publication (Ed.). Reunión Regional de América Latina y el Caribe del Grupo de Especialista en Cocodrilos,

15 Corallus caninus REPTILIA: BOIDAE Corallus caninus II/B COMMON NAMES: Emerald tree boa (English), Boa émeraude (French), Boa esmeralda (Spanish) SYNONYMS: Boa aurantiaca, Boa canina, Boa exigua, Boa hipnale, Boa thalassina, Chrysenis batesii, Corallus batesi, Corallus batesi, Xiphosoma araramboya, Xiphosoma canina RANGE STATES: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, French Guiana (France), Guyana, Suriname UNDER REVIEW: Guyana EU DECISIONS: Current no opinion (ii) for Guyana and Suriname formed on 07/02/2013 and confirmed on 28/05/2013. Previous positive opinion for Guyana formed on 11/11/1997 and removed on 07/02/2013. Previous positive opinion for Suriname formed on 02/09/1997 and removed on 07/02/2013. Current no opinion (i) for Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Plurinational State of Bolivia formed on 02/12/2011. Previous positive opinion for these countries formed on 11/11/1997 and removed on 02/12/2011. IUCN: Not assessed Taxonomic Note Henderson et al. (2009) recognised Corallus caninus only from the Guiana Shield region and Brazil north of the Rio Negro and Amazon River, referring to specimens previously also included with Corallus caninus from elsewhere in South America (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and elsewhere in Brazil) as Corallus batesii. Henderson et al. (2009) was adopted as the standard nomenclatural reference for C. batesii at CoP16 (CITES Notification No. 2012/060). Trade patterns Corallus caninus was listed in CITES Appendix II on 04/02/1977 under the family listing Boidae spp. Guyana has submitted CITES annual reports for all years Guyana published CITES export quotas for 880 individuals from ; from 1999 onwards the quota specified live (Table 1). These quotas applied to the period from 4 th April to 3 rd April the following year. Guyana published an increased CITES export quota of 1371 live specimens of C. caninus in 2014, starting on the 1 st January According to data reported by Guyana and the importers, the quota appears to have been exceeded in 2003 (by 80 individuals according to Guyana and 157 individuals according to the importers). This apparent quota excess may be due to Guyana reporting on permits issued, as opposed to actual trade; Guyana did not specify this in their annual report. The apparent quota excess in 2003 according to importer-reported data can partly be explained by year-end trade: 113 of the animals imported in 2003 were traded with export permits that were not reported by Guyana in its 2003 annual report, and were within the range of permit numbers reported in Guyana s annual report for

16 Corallus caninus Direct exports of C. caninus to the EU consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals, mainly traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). According to both importer- and exporter-reported data, trade declined over the period The principal importers were Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Direct trade in C. caninus from Guyana to countries other than the EU primarily comprised wild-sourced, live individuals traded for commercial purposes. The main importer was the United States of America. Indirect trade in C. caninus from Guyana to the EU-28 between 2003 and 2012 principally consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals exported via the United States of America for commercial purposes (Table 3). The United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of one scientific specimen in 2009 and 18 scientific specimens in Additionally, the United States of America reported the direct import from Guyana of live, wild-sourced Corallus spp. at the genus level, totalling 40 individuals in 2006 and 50 individuals in This trade was not reported by Guyana. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live Corallus caninus from Guyana and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export Trade data for are not yet available Quota Importer The 2014 quota applies to the calendar year. Previous quotas applied to the period from 4 th April of the year for which the quota was published to 3 rd April the following year. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014. Table 2: Direct exports of Corallus caninus from Guyana to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), All trade was wild-sourced. Importer Term Purpose Reported by Total EU live P Importer T Importer Importer RoW bodies T Importer 1 1 live B, Z Importer P Importer 2 2 T Importer

17 Corallus caninus Table 3: Indirect exports of Corallus caninus originating in Guyana to the EU-28, (no trade was reported in 2012). Term Source Purpose Reported by Total live W P Importer 5 5 W T Importer specimens I S Importer Conservation status Corallus caninus is an arboreal snake that occurs in northern Brazil and the Guiana Shield area (Henderson et al., 2009; de Ávila Pires, 2005). It occurs in lowland tropical forest (Henderson et al., 2009), both primary and secondary (Starace, 2013), usually below 200 m a.s.l. (Vidal et al., 2005) but up to 1000 m a.s.l. (Wallach et al., 2014). Adults were reported to reach an average size of mm (Gasc & Rodrigues, 1980 in: Starace, 2013). Females were reported to reach sexual maturity at 4-5 years and bear 5-12 live offspring every other year (Paulette, 2008; Oxtoby, 2008), with gestation lasting 6-8 months (Starace, 2013). C. caninus was reported to be a popular pet species because of its attractive colouration (Paulette, 2008; Marešová and Frynta, 2008). It was reported to have a high mortality in captivity and to be prone to various stress-related symptoms and diseases (Oxtoby, 2008). The conservation status of the species has not been assessed by IUCN. Naugher (2004) regarded habitat loss as the primary threat to the species, and overcollection for the pet trade as a potential threat. Guyana: Little systematically recorded data was available on the status of populations in Guyana. Wallach et al. (2014) listed it from three regions of central Guyana: Cuyuni-Mazaruni, Potaro-Siparuni, Upper Demerara-Berbice, and the coastal region of Essequibo Islands-West Demerara. A range map by Henderson (1993) indicated that it occurs throughout the country, apart from the northernmost parts. The species appears to be less frequently encountered in surveys than its congener C. hortulanus. Bicknell et al. (2013) and Donnelly et al. (2005) recorded it from two of 17 sites surveyed in Iwokrama in the Potaro-Siparuni region, central Guyana. Alonso et al. (2013) and Alonso et al. (2008) recorded it from two of five sites surveyed in the south-western region, Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo. Three other surveys in Guyana did not record the species: Rewa Head, southern Guyana (Pickles et al., 2009), Baramita in northern Guyana (Reynolds and MacCulloch, 2012) and Paramakatoi in western Guyana (MacCulloch and Reynolds, 2012). C. caninus has been noted as the most valuable reptile species in Guyana, with exports making over US$ in 1999 (van Andel et al., 2003). Export of C. caninus was reported to be an important source of income for Guyana (van Andel et al., 2003). Van Andel et al. (2003) also reported that illegal trade of animals from Guyana into Suriname (to fill export quotas), or to Brazil, was common. C. caninus from Guyana was recently reviewed as a case study for making CITES NDF findings (Rose, 2014), in which a negative opinion was recommended, due to a lack of data on population status and management of the species. Particular concern was raised that the species had not been recorded at sites where it occurred in 1993, possibly indicating localised extinctions (Rose, 2014). References 14

18 Corallus caninus Alonso, L., Vitus, A., Buckley, C., Fernandes, D., Fredericks, N., Fredericks, P., Gomes, E., Helms, J. and Hutchinson, C South Rupununi Biodiversity Assessment Team (BAT) Expedition October 22- November Preliminary Report. WWF-Guianas and Global Wildlife Conservation. Austin, Texas. 97 pp. Alonso, L.E., McCullough, J., Naskrecki, P., Alexander, E. and Wright, H.E A rapid biological assessment of the Konashen Community Owned Conservation Area, Southern Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment, 51. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. 90 pp. Van Andel, T., MacKinven, A. and Bánki, O Commercial Non-Timber Forest Products of the Guiana Shield. An inventory of commercial NTFP extraction and possibilities for sustainable harvesting. Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 192 pp. De Ávila Pires, T.C.S Reptiles. In: T. Hollowell & R.P. Reynolds (Eds.). Checklist of the terrestrial vertebrates of the Guiana shield. Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington no. 13, Bicknell, J., Snyder, A., Lim, B., Horsley, T., Bryce, C. and Worthington, R Monitoring biodiversity by Operation Wallacea in the Iwokrama and Surama Forests, Guyana. Operation Wallacea research report pp. Donnelly, M.A., Chen, M.H. and Watkins, G.G Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 154: Gasc, J.P. and Rodrigues, M.T Liste préliminaire des serpents de la Guyane française. Bulletin du Muséum national d Histoire Naturelle Paris, 2(2): Henderson, R.W Corallus caninus. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles, 574: 1 4. Henderson, R.W., Passos, P. and Feitosa, D Geographic variation in the Emerald Treeboa, Corallus caninus (Squamata: Boidae). Copeia, 2009(3): MacCulloch, R.D. and Reynolds, R.P Amphibians and reptiles from Paramakatoi and Kato, Guyana. Check List, 8(2): Marešová, J. and Frynta, D Noah s Ark is full of common species attractive to humans: The case of boid snakes in zoos. Ecological Economics, 64(3): Naugher, K Emerald tree boa (Corallus caninus) and Annulated boa (Corallus annulatus): North American regional studbook. Montgomery, Alabama: Montgomery Zoo & Mann Museum. Oxtoby, G.P The Emerald Tree Boa Corallus caninus. Husbandry and reproduction of the green tree boa of South America. Paulette, D Corallus caninus - Emerald tree boa. Animal Diversity Web. URL: Accessed: 16/09/2014. Pickles, R., McCann, N. and Holland, A A biodiversity assessment of the Rewa Head, Guyana. ZSL Conservation Report No. 10. The Zoological Society of London, London. 49 pp. Reynolds, R.P. and MacCulloch, R.D Preliminary checklist of amphibians and reptiles from Baramita, Guyana. Check List. 8 (2) p Rose, M Non-detriment Findings in CITES (NDFs). Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Version 1.2 (2014). 98 pp. Starace, F Serpents et amphisbènes de Guyane Française. Ibis Rouge Editions, Matoury, Guyane. 604 pp. Vidal, N., Henderson, R., Delmas, A.-S. and Hedges, S A phylogenetic study of the Emerald treeboa (Corallus caninus). Journal of Herpetology, 39(3): Wallach, V., Williams, K.L. and Boundy, J Snakes of the world: a catalogue of living and extinct species. CRC press pp. 15

19 Corallus hortulanus REPTILIA: BOIDAE Corallus hortulanus II/B COMMON NAMES: Garden tree boa (English), Boa arboricole d Amazonie (French), Boa arborícola de jardín (Spanish) SYNONYMS: Boa ambleocephala, Boa elegans, Boa enydris, Boa hortulana, Boa merremi, Boa modesta, Boa obtusiceps, Coluber bitis, Corallus enydris, Corallus maculatus, Corallus obtusirostris, Vipera bitis, Vipera madarensis, Xiphosoma dorsuale, Xiphosoma hortulanum, Xiphosoma merremi, Xiphosoma ornatum RANGE STATES: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana (France), Guyana, Peru, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Suriname UNDER REVIEW: Guyana EU DECISIONS: Current positive opinion for Guyana formed on 09/10/1997. Current no opinion (i) for Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, formed on 02/12/2011. Previous positive opinions for these countries formed on 09/10/1997 and removed on 02/12/2011. Current no opinion (ii) for Suriname formed on 07/02/2013 and confirmed on 28/05/2013. Previous positive opinion for Suriname formed on 22/07/1997 and removed on 07/02/2013. IUCN: Not assessed Trade patterns Corallus hortulanus was listed in CITES Appendix II on 04/02/1977 under the family listing Boidae spp. Guyana has submitted CITES annual reports for all years Guyana published CITES export quotas for 3000 individuals from ; from 1999 onwards the quota specified live (Table 1). These quotas applied to the period from 4 th April to 3 rd April the following year. Guyana published an increased CITES export quota of 4570 live specimens of C. hortulanus in 2014, beginning on the 1 st of January. According to data reported by Guyana and its trading partners, trade appears to have remained within quota for all years (Table 1). Direct exports of C. hortulanus to the EU consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals, mainly traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). According to both importer- and exporter-reported data, trade declined over the period The principal importers were Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Direct trade in C. hortulanus from Guyana to countries other than the EU primarily comprised wild-sourced, live individuals traded for commercial purposes. The main importer was the United States of America. Indirect trade in C. hortulanus from Guyana to the EU-28 between 2003 and 2012 consisted entirely of live, wild-sourced individuals exported for commercial purposes, mainly via the United States of America (Table 3). 16

20 Corallus hortulanus Additionally, the United States reported the direct import from Guyana of live, wild-sourced Corallus spp. at the genus level, totalling 40 individuals in 2006 and 50 individuals in This trade was not reported by Guyana. The United States also reported the import of 48 live, wild-sourced C. cookii from Guyana in 2009; this species is not native to Guyana and a permit analysis revealed that the same trade was reported by Guyana as C. hortulanus. Table 1: CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced Corallus hortulanus from Guyana and corresponding global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and export Trade data for are not yet available Quota Importer The 2014 quota applies to the calendar year Previous quotas applied to the period from 4 th April of the year for which the quota was published to 3 rd April the following year. Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/09/2014. Table 2: Direct exports of Corallus hortulanus from Guyana to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), All trade was wild-sourced. Importer Term Purpose Reported by Total EU live T Importer Importer RoW bodies T Importer live P Importer T Importer Z Importer Table 3: Indirect exports of Corallus hortulanus from Guyana to the EU-28, All trade was in live, wild-sourced individuals for commercial purposes. No trade was reported Reported by Total Importer Conservation status Corallus hortulanus was reported to be one of the most frequently encountered neotropical snakes (McDiarmid et al., 1996). It is very widespread in South America east of the Andes from Colombia to southern Brazil including many offshore islands (McDiarmid et al., 1996) and it was reported to be widespread throughout the Guiana Shield (De Ávila Pires, 2005). It occurs in a wide variety of habitats although mainly in lowland moist and wet forest (Henderson, 1993) but also sparsely in drier biomes including the cerrado (savanna-woodland) and caatinga (xeric thorn forest) of central and northeastern Brazil (O Shea, 2011). It is a lowland species, usually occuring below 300 m a.s.l. but up to 915 m a.s.l. in 17

21 Corallus hortulanus Peru (Henderson, 1997). It is primarily arboreal and may be abundant in river margins (Martins & Oliveira, 1999). Adults were reported to reach an average size of mm (Starace, 2013). Females produce a litter of 6-16 juveniles and may breed every other year (Pizzatto & Marques, 2007), with gestation lasting 6-7 months (Starace, 2013). The conservation status has not been assessed by the IUCN, however the species was described as locally abundant (McDiarmid et al., 1996), geologically and ecologically widespread (Henderson, 2007; Starace, 2013) and not considered to be at risk (Winner, 2008). O Shea and Halliday (2002) and McDiarmid et al. (1996) described it as one of the most common snakes of the Amazon basin region. C. hortulanus has many colour morphs (Henderson, 1993) and it is popular in the pet trade (van Andel et al., 2003; Winner, 2008). Nóbrega Alves et al. (2012) noted that the species was also used for medicinal purposes and sometimes killed due to being misidentified as a poisonous species in Brazil. However, in an assessment of morbidity and mortality in captivity, Altherr and Freyer (2001) classified the species to be suitable only for qualified keepers, due to being difficult to keep or with high mortality in captivity. Guyana: There was little systematically recorded information available on C. hortulanus populations in Guyana. Wallach et al. (2014) gave the recorded distribution from six of the ten regions of the Guyana namely: the northern coastal regions of Barima-Waini, Demerara-Mahaica, Essequibo Islands-West Demerara and Mahaica-Berbice; and the adjoining inland regions of Upper Demerara-Berbice and Cuyubi-Mazaruni. Reynolds and MacCulloch (2012) also reported it from Baramita (Barima-Waini), northern Guyana, but without details of abundance. In addition, several surveys have reported the species elsewhere in Guyana. Donnelly et al. (2005) recorded it from 6 of 12 sites in Iwokrama forest in Potaro-Siparuni in central Guyana between 1997 and Bicknell et al. (2013) also reported C. hortulanus from the Iwokrama forest at each of five sites surveyed between MacCulloch and Reynolds (2012) did not report it from Paramakatoi and Kato in Potaro-Siparuni in central Guyana. Alonso et al. (2013) reported it from Kusad Mountain in the Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo region of south-western Guyana. Alonso et al. (2008) recorded it at each of three sites surveyed in Konashen community-owned area of southern Guyana. No further information was located on status, threats or management. References Alonso, L., Vitus, A., Buckley, C., Fernandes, D., Fredericks, N., Fredericks, P., Gomes, E., Helms, J. and Hutchinson, C South Rupununi Biodiversity Assessment Team (BAT) Expedition October 22- November Preliminary Report. WWF-Guianas and Global Wildlife Conservation. Austin, Texas. 97 pp. Alonso, L.E., McCullough, J., Naskrecki, P., Alexander, E. and Wright, H.E A rapid biological assessment of the Konashen Community Owned Conservation Area, Southern Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment, 51. Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. 90 pp. Altherr, S. and Freyer, D Morbidity and mortality in private husbandry of reptiles. RSPCA and Pro Wildlife, West Sussex, UK. 122 pp. Van Andel, T., MacKinven, A. and Bánki, O Commercial Non-Timber Forest Products of the Guiana Shield. An inventory of commercial NTFP extraction and possibilities for sustainable harvesting. Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 192 pp. De Ávila Pires, T.C.S Reptiles. In: T. Hollowell & R.P. Reynolds (Eds.). Checklist of the terrestrial vertebrates of the Guiana shield. Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington no. 13,