review of american species/country combinations subject to long … · 2016. 6. 9. · 1 980 m/day)...

Review of American species/country combinations subject to long-standing import

suspensions

(Version edited for public release)

SRG 55

Prepared for the European Commission

Directorate General Environment ENV.E.2. – Environmental Agreements and Trade

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

February, 2011

bussyev

Rectangle

2

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136 Email: [email protected] Website: www.unep-wcmc.org ABOUT UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION

MONITORING CENTRE

The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

(UNEP-WCMC), based in Cambridge, UK, is the

specialist biodiversity information and assessment

centre of the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP), run cooperatively with

WCMC, a UK charity. The Centre's mission is to

evaluate and highlight the many values of

biodiversity and put authoritative biodiversity

knowledge at the centre of decision-making.

Through the analysis and synthesis of global

biodiversity knowledge the Centre provides

authoritative, strategic and timely information for

conventions, countries and organisations to use in

the development and implementation of their

policies and decisions.

The UNEP-WCMC provides objective and

scientifically rigorous procedures and services.

These include ecosystem assessments, support for

the implementation of environmental agreements,

global and regional biodiversity information,

research on threats and impacts, and the

development of future scenarios.

CITATION

UNEP-WCMC. 2011. Review of American species/country combinations subject to long-standing import suspensions. SRG. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

PREPARED FOR

The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect

the views or policies of UNEP or contributory

organisations. 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 concerning the legal status of any

country, territory, city or area or its authority, or

concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or

boundaries.

© Copyright: 2011, European Commission

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/

Introduction SRG

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4

2. Species reviews ........................................................................................................................ 5

SPECIES: Callithrix geoffroyi ...................................................................................................... 5

SPECIES: Amazona autumnalis ................................................................................................ 10

SPECIES: Ara chloropterus ........................................................................................................ 14

SPECIES: Ara severus ................................................................................................................. 19

SPECIES: Aratinga acuticaudata ............................................................................................... 22

SPECIES: Cyanoliseus patagonus ............................................................................................. 25

SPECIES: Deroptyus accipitrinus ............................................................................................. 29

SPECIES: Triclaria malachitacea ........................................................................................... 32

SPECIES: Caiman crocodilus ..................................................................................................... 37

SPECIES: Heloderma suspectum .............................................................................................. 56

SPECIES: Iguana iguana ............................................................................................................ 65

SPECIES: Boa constrictor ........................................................................................................... 76

SPECIES: Eunectes murinus ...................................................................................................... 89

SPECIES: Podocnemis unifilis ................................................................................................... 93

SPECIES: Chelonoidis denticulata ............................................................................................ 97

ANNEX I. Full version of large trade tables ........................................................................... 101

ANNEX II. Purpose and Source Codes .................................................................................... 109

Introduction SRG

4

1. Introduction

Article 4.6(b) import suspensions for some species/country combinations have been in place for a relatively long time. It was agreed that a review of such import suspensions be undertaken in order to determine whether or not they are still appropriate.

Species subject to long-standing import suspensions from Madagascar and Indonesia were reviewed at the 49th and 50th meetings of the SRG and recommendations to remove 11 and 24 import suspensions respectively, were agreed.

An overview of trade in a further 323 species/country combinations subject to EC import suspensions formed in 2001 or earlier (but not subject to trade suspensions formed through CITES processes) was presented at SRG 51, and the SRG agreed to the removal of 184 of these import suspensions, based on the current or anticipated levels of trade. The remaining 139 species/country combinations were suggested for in-depth review by the SRG, to determine whether the listing in the Suspensions Regulations may still be warranted.

An SRG 52 document presented in-depth reviews for the African mammal and bird species/country combinations and an SRG 53 document for the African reptile species/country combinations, for which the SRG agreed to the removal of 28 and 8 import suspensions, respectively, from the EC Suspensions Regulations. In-depth reviews for the remaining Asian species/country combinations, originally produced for SRG 54, will be discussed at SRG 55.

This report presents in-depth reviews for the American species/country combinations.

Callithrix geoffroyi

5

2. Species reviews

REVIEW OF AMERICAN SPECIES/COUNTRY COMBINATIONS SUBJECT TO LONG-STANDING IMPORT SUSPENSIONS

MAMMALIA CEBIDAE

SPECIES: Callithrix geoffroyi

SYNONYMS: Callithrix jacchus geoffroyi

COMMON NAMES: Witbuikpenseelaap (Dutch), Geoffroy's Tufted-ear Marmoset

(English), White-fronted Marmoset (English), Ouistiti de Geoffroy (French), Tití de caba blanca (Spanish), Geoffroys silkesapa (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Brazil

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Brazil

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from

Brazil first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

TRADE PATTERNS:

As the only confirmed range State of the species, Brazil was the only direct exporter of wild-sourced Callithrix geoffroyi 1977-2009. Brazil has never published export quotas for the species.

According to exporter-reported figures, nearly all global direct exports of C. geoffroyi from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live individuals, 7 per cent of which were wild-sourced, the remainder being captive-bred or captive-born (totalling 65 live, source C and F individuals, of which 22 were imported by the EU-27).

All trade from Brazil to the EU-27 1977-2009 was in live, captive-bred individuals (Table 1), consisting of 92 individuals (as reported by Brazil) and four individuals (as reported by the importers). There were no indirect exports to the EU-27 of C. geoffroyi originating in Brazil 1977-2009.

Direct exports of C. geoffroyi from Brazil to countries other than the EU-27 mainly consisted of live animals 1977-2009 (Table 2). The main importer was Thailand. According to exporter-reported figures, 85 per cent of live exports were of captive-bred individuals. There have been no reported exports of wild-sourced C. geoffroyi to countries other than the EU-27 since 2001.


6

Table 1. Direct exports of Callithrix geoffroyi from Brazil to the EU-27, 1977-2009. All trade involved live, captive-bred individuals.

Importer Purpose Reported by 1991 1992 1993 1995 2004 2007 Total

Czech Republic T Importer

2

2

Exporter

2

2

France T Importer

Exporter

2

2

Z Importer

2

2

Exporter

Netherlands T Importer

Exporter 20 42 10 12

84

Z Importer

Exporter 2

2

Spain P Importer

Exporter

2 2

Subtotals Importer

2

2

4

Exporter 22 42 12 12 2 2 92

Table 2. Direct exports of Callithrix geoffroyi from Brazil to countries other than the EU-27, 1977-2009.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1992 1993 1994 1997 1998 2000 2001 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

hair S C Importer

Exporter

20

20

live B C Importer

8

8

Exporter

S W Importer

Exporter

5

5

T C Importer

4

8 8 11 31

Exporter 4

5

10 4 8

31

W Importer

5

5

Exporter

Z C Importer

5

5

Exporter

3

3

Subtotals (live)

C Importer

4

5

8 8 8 11 44

Exporter 4

3 5

10 4 8

34

W Importer 5 5

Exporter 5 5

TAXONOMIC NOTE:

Hybrids of C. geoffroyi and C. flaviceps were reported to be found in southern Espírito Santo and south-east Minas Gerais and hybrids of C. penicillata and C. geoffroyi were reported to have been observed in some parts of the Serra da Piedade, along the Rio Piracicaba (Rylands and Mendes, 2008; Rylands et al., 2009).


7

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states

Brazil: Callithrix geoffroyi is endemic to the Atlantic Forest of south-east Brazil, where it occurs in the States of Espírito Santo and Minas Gerais (Rylands, 1993; Nowak, 1999; Rylands and Mendes, 2008; Rylands et al., 2009), and was reported to feed mainly on plant exudates, insects and fruit (Passamani and Rylands, 2000b; Oliveira et al., 2003). It was reported to be generally restricted to lowlands below 500-700 m (Chiarello, 2003; Rylands and Mendes, 2008; Rylands et al., 2009), although it has been recorded at elevations of 1274 m in a small forest fragment in Serra do Cipó National Park, Minas Gerais (Oliveira et al., 2003), and in mixed bands with C. flaviceps at altitudes of 800 m (Mendes, 1997 in: Rylands and Mendes, 2008).

Rylands and Mendes (2008) provided the following information on its distribution:

“Geoffroy‟s Marmoset occurs in the state of Espírito Santo and the forested eastern and north-eastern part of Minas Gerais, north as far as the Rios Jequitinhonha and Araçuaí and south to near the state border of Espírito Santo and Rio de Janeiro (Ávila-Pires, 1969; Hershkovitz, 1977; Coimbra-Filho, 1984; Rylands et al., 1988). The populations just south of the Rio Jequitinhonha resulted from animals released near its mouth, at Belmonte, around 1975 (Coimbra-Filho, 1986). From there it spread eastward, and today also occurs in gallery forests throughout the region of dry thorn scrub (caatinga) of the middle reaches of the river (Rylands et al., 1988).”

Callithrix geoffroyi was classified as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List (Rylands and Mendes, 2008) “as it is relatively abundant, being present in a number of protected areas, and because the current rate of decline is not sufficient to qualify it for listing in a threatened category.” The population trend was categorised as Stable (Rylands and Mendes, 2008), although several sources considered the population to be declining (Rylands, 1993; Oliveira et al., 2003; Rylands and Mendes, 2008).

No overall estimate of population size was found, although Chiarello (2003 Table 3) provided population estimates for several forest fragments in Espírito Santo.

Table 3. Estimates of Callithrix geoffroyi population size for reserves/fragments in SE Brazil. Source (Chiarello, 2003)

Site Area (ha) Estimate of Population size

Lower-Montane Espírito Santo

SLBS ~440 7 to 10

SLMR ~500 4 to 6

ARBR 3598 present

Lowland Espírito Santo Putiri 210 6 to 9

M7 260 7

CGBR 1504 23 to 33

CVBR 2400 220 to 322

VRDNR 21800 6125 to 8971

SBR 24250 5100 to 7469

Chiarello (2000) conducted transect surveys in six Atlantic Forest reserves in northern Espírito Santo 1994-1996 and found an average population density of 18.92 ind./km2 (95% C.I. 15.63-22.89). The population size of C. geoffroyi within these six reserves was estimated to be 13 874 individuals (Chiarello and de Melo, 2001). Another transect survey conducted in two areas of Linhares Forest Reserve, Espírito Santo, recorded an estimated population density of 14.4-16.8 ind./km2 (Price et al., 2002). Price et al. (2002) suggested that their lower estimate of population density compared with Chiarello (2002) may have been due to the more seasonal availability of gum.

In studies of C. geoffroyi home range, it was reported that one group of five individuals in a forest fragment in Espírito Santo had a total home range of 23.3 ha (and travelled between 480 and 1 980 m/day) (Passamani and Rylands, 2000a), and one group in a coastal sand plain forest at Parque


8

Estadual Paulo Cesar Vinha, Espírito Santo, had a total home range of 17.5 ha over a seven month period (Rocha and Passamani, 2009).

The main threat to C. geoffroyi was reported to be the widespread destruction and fragmentation of the Atlantic Forest (Rylands, 1993; Passamani and Rylands, 2000b; Rylands and Mendes, 2008). Rylands et al. (2009) noted that marmosets were relatively resistant to habitat fragmentation due to their small size and ecological flexibility, although he cautioned that they are still vulnerable to habitat loss, particularly in the Atlantic Forest. C. geoffroyi was reported to be less threatened than other marmoset species because of the size and preservation of its geographic range (Rylands et al., 2009).

C. geoffroyi was reported to be “occasionally hunted for pets” (Rylands and Mendes, 2008), and Oliveira et al. (2003) listed “hunting and capture for pets” as one reason for the species‟ decline over large parts of its range. However, Chiarello (2003) noted that small-bodied primates like marmosets were rarely taken by hunters in the Atlantic Forest.

Preston-Mafham and Preston-Mafham (1999) reported that C. geoffroyi bred easily in captivity, and were commonly used in biological and medical research laboratories.

C. geoffroyi was reported to occur in the following protected areas: Serra do Cipo National Park and Fazenda Córrego de Areia Reserve, Minas Gerais; Córrego Grande Biological Reserve, Córrego do Veado Biological Reserve, Sooretama Biological Reserve, Comboios Biological Reserve, Duas Bocas State Reserve, Linhares Forest Reserve, Goitacazes Forest Reserve, Santa Lucia Biological Station and Fazenda São Joaquim Reserve in Espírito Santo; and Porto Seguro Forest Reserve, Pau Brasil Experimental Station and Gregório Bondar Experimental Station in Bahia (Rylands and Mendes, 2008). The species‟ occurrence in Monte Pascoal National Park, Espírito Santo, was reported to be in some doubt (Rylands and Mendes, 2008).

Commercial, sport, and recreational hunting were reported to be prohibited in all Brazilian territory (except for the state of Rio Grande do Sul, where the hunting law permits non-commercial hunting of certain species) (Clayton, 2003). The Brazilian Environmental Crimes Law of February 12, 1998 implements penalties against actions that may damage the environment, including penalties of six months to one year for killing, pursuing, hunting, catching or using specimens of wild animals without proper permission, license or authorization of the competent authority. In addition, penalties are increased by one half if the crime is committed against rare or endangered species, in the period in which hunting is prohibited, at night, by abusing the license, within a conservation area or by using methods capable of mass destruction (House of Representatives, 1998; Clayton, 2003).

The Atlantic Forest has recently become protected from deforestation through the Atlantic Forest Law of 2006 (President of Brazil, 2006; Yun, 2007), and the Atlantic Forest Decree of 2008 (Portal Brasil, 2010), and in 2010, the Ministry of the Environment was also reported to have published a Best Practices Manual for the Atlantic Forest (Portal Brasil, 2010).

REFERENCES:

Ávila-Pires, F. D. 1969. Taxonomia e zoogeografia do gênero Callithrix Erxleben, 1777 (Primates, Callitrichidae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 29 (1): 46.

Chiarello, A. G. 2000. Density and population size of mammals in remnants of Brazilian Atlantic forest. Conservation Biology, 14 (6): 1649-1657.

Chiarello, A. G. 2003. Primates of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: the influence of forest fragmentation on survival, in Marsh, L. K., (ed.), Primates in fragments: ecology and conservation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Chiarello, A. G. and de Melo, F. R. 2001. Primate population densities and sizes in Atlantic forest remnants of northern Espirito Santo, Brazil. International Journal of Primatology, 22 (3): 379-396.

Clayton, L. A. 2003. Overview of Brazil's legal structure for animal issues URL: http://www.animallaw.info/nonus/articles/ovbrazil.htm Accessed: 12 January 2011.


9

Coimbra-Filho, A. F. 1984. Situação atual dos calitriquídeos que ocorrem no Brasil (Callitrichidae-Primates), in de Mello, M. T., (ed.), A Primatologia no Brasil. Sociedade Brasileira de Primatologia, Brasília, Brazil, 15-33.

Coimbra-Filho, A. F. 1986. Sagüi-de-cara-branca Callithrix geoffroyi (Humboldt, 1812). FBCN/Inf., Rio de Janeiro.

Coimbra-Filho, A. F. 1990. Sistemática, distribuiçáo geográfica e situaçáo atual dos símios brasileiros (Platyrrhini-Primates). Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 50: 1063-1069.

Hershkovitz, P. 1977. Living New World monkeys (Platyrrhini), with an introduction to Primates. University of Chicago Press, USA.

House of Representatives, Government of Brazil. 1998. Act No. 9.605 establishing sanctions against environmental illegal activities, sanctioned 12th February 1998 URL: http://eelink.net/~asilwildlife/LeideCrimesAmbientais.htm Accessed: 20 January 2011.

Mendes, S. 1997. Hybridization in free-ranging Callithrix flaviceps and the taxonomy of the Atlantic forest marmosets. Neotropical Primates, 5 (1): 6-8.

Nowak, R. M. 1999. Walkers primates of the world. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Oliveira, L. d. C., Câmara, E. M. V. C., Hirsch, A., Paschoal, A. M. O., Alvarenga, R. M., and

Belarmino, M. G. 2003. Callithrix geoffroyi (Primates: Callitrichidae) and Alouatta caraya (Primates: Atelidae) in the Serra do Cipo National Park, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Neotropical Primates, 11 (2): 86-89.

Passamani, M. and Rylands, A. 2000a. Home range of a Geoffroy's marmoset group, Callithrix geoffroyi (primates, Callitrichidae) in south-eastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 60 (2): 275-281.

Passamani, M. and Rylands, A. B. 2000b. Feeding behavior of Geoffroy's marmoset (Callithrix geoffroyi) in an Atlantic forest fragment of south-eastern Brazil. Primates, 41 (1): 27-38.

Portal Brasil. 2010. Brazilian government releases data on Atlantic Forest deforestation URL: http://www.brasil.gov.br/news/history/2010/12/02/brazilian-government-releases-data-on-atlantic-forest-and-action-in-2011/newsitem_view?set_language=en Accessed: 12 January 2011.

President of Brazil. 2006. Dispõe sobre a utilização e proteção da vegetação nativa do Bioma Mata Atlântica,dá outras providências. LEI Nº 11.428, DE 22 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2006 [in Portuguese] URL: www.ibama.gov.br Accessed: 12 January 2011.

Preston-Mafham, R. and Preston-Mafham, K. 1999. Primates of the world. Blandford, London. Price, E. C., Piedade, H. M., and Wormell, D. 2002. Population densities of primates in a Brazilian

Atlantic forest. Folia primatologica, 73 (1): 54-56. Rocha, M. F. and Passamani, M. 2009. Use of space by a group of Geoffroy's marmoset (Callithrix

geoffroyi) in southeastern Brazil. Boletim do Museu de Biologia Mello Leitao Nova Serie, 26: 47-58. Rylands, A. B. 1993. Marmosets and tamarins: systematics, behaviour and ecology. Oxford University

Press. Rylands, A. B., Coimbra-Filho, A. F., and Mittermeier, R. A. 2009. The systematics and distributions of

the Marmosets (Callithrix, Callibella, Cebuella and Mico) and Callimico (Callimico) (Callitrichidae, Primates), in Ford, S. M., Porter, L. M., & Davis, L. C., (eds.), The smallest anthropoids: the Marmoset/Callimico radiation. Springer, New York. 25-62.

Rylands, A. B. and Mendes, S. L. 2008. Callithrix geoffroyi. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 10-1-2011.

Rylands, A. B., Spironelo, W. R., Tornisielo, V. L., Lemos de Sá, R. M., Kierulff, M. C. M., and Santos, I. B. 1988. Primates of the Rio Jequitinhonha valley, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Primate Conservation, 9: 100-109.

Yun, L. 2007. Atlantic forest protected at last URL: http://www.conservation.org/FMG/Articles/Pages/atlantic_forest_protected.aspx Accessed: 12 January 2011.

Amazona autumnalis

10


AVES PSITTACIDAE

SPECIES: Amazona autumnalis

SYNONYMS: Psittacus autumnalis

COMMON NAMES: Geelwangamazone (Dutch), Red-lored Amazon (English), Red-

lored Parrot (English), Amazone à joues jaunes (French), Amazone diadème (French), Amazona frentirroja (Spanish), Cotorra cucha (Spanish), Loro frente roja (Spanish), Loro frentirrojo (Spanish), Diademamazon (Swedish), Gulkindad amazon (Swedish), Salvins amazon (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Belize (br), Brazil (br), Colombia (br), Costa Rica (br),

Ecuador (br), Guatemala (br), Honduras (br), Mexico (br), Nicaragua (br), Panama (br), Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (br)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Ecuador


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens

from Brazil first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 24/09/2000.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Ecuador first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Guatemala first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 19/09/1999.

Previous positive opinion for wild specimens from Nicaragua formed on 05/09/2002 and removed on 13/12/2004.

TRADE PATTERNS:

According to exporter-reported figures, Honduras and Nicaragua were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced and unspecified soured Amazona autumnalis, 1981-2009. The majority of global direct exports 2000-2009 consisted of live individuals of various sources (totalling 7285 live individuals, 70 per cent of which were imported by the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures).

Ecuador has never published CITES annual export quotas for the species.

Amazona autumnalis

11

Direct exports of A. autumnalis from Ecuador to the EU-27 1981-2009 consisted entirely of live individuals of unspecified source, with no trade reported since 1988 (Table 1). The only indirect export to the EU-27, 1981-2009 of A. autumnalis originating in Ecuador was the export from the United States of America to the United Kingdom for breeding (purpose B) of four live birds of unspecified source in 1986.

Direct exports of A. autumnalis from Ecuador to countries other than the EU-27 consisted entirely of live individuals of unknown or unspecified source; this trade was only reported by the importers (Table 2). In addition, seven confiscated/seized A. autumnalis were reported by the United States of America.

Table 1. Direct exports of Amazona autumnalis from Ecuador to the EU-27, 1981-2009. All trade involved live individuals of unspecified source.

Importer Purpose Reported by 1981 1982 1984 1988 Total

France T Importer

50

50

Exporter

Germany P Importer

1 1

Exporter

T Importer 166 35

201

Exporter

United Kingdom - Importer

Exporter

2

2

Table 2. Direct exports of Amazona autumnalis from Ecuador to countries other than the EU-27, 1981-2009. All trade involved live individuals.

Importer Purpose Source Reported by 1983 1984 1985 1989 1990 1994 Total

Japan T - Importer 11 138 1

150

Exporter

United States of America T U Importer

2

2

Exporter

- Importer 82 2780

2862

Exporter

- I Importer

4 2

1 7

Exporter

TAXONOMIC NOTE:

Some authors recognize four subspecies, with Amazona a. autumnalis in Mexico to Honduras (including the Bay Islands); A. a. salvini in Honduras/Nicaragua to southwest Colombia and northwest Venezuela; A. a. lilacina from Western Ecuador north of the Gulf of Guayaquil and possibly in Nariño in southwest Columbia; and A. a. diadema in the Amazon basin (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

Snyder et al. (2000) noted that the species may be misidentified as Amazona viridigenalis.


Amazona autumnalis was reported to occur from southern Mexico into the northern part of South America, with a disjunct population in the Amazon basin in Brazil (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

The species was reported to range over 854 000 km2 (BirdLife International, 2010) and it was reported to occur at an altitudinal range of 0-1100 m asl (Juniper and Parr, 1998), but mostly below 800 m asl (Forshaw, 2010), where it was reported to mainly occur in a wide range of wooded and open habitats, such as rainforest, tropical deciduous forests, Pinus woodlands, and also mangroves, wooded

Amazona autumnalis

12

swamps, gallery forests, cultivated areas and plantations (Juniper and Parr, 1998). It was also reported to be able to exist in partially deforested areas (Ridgely, 1981).

A. autumnalis was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2009), because its very large range and population size did not meet the thresholds for Vulnerable, and whilst “the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion.”

The global population was estimated to be 500 000 to 4 999 999 mature individuals (BirdLife International, 2010).

Juniper and Parr (1998) considered A. autumnalis to be generally common and the most numerous parrot species in parts of its range, for example in parts of Central America and Forshaw (2010) considered the species locally common. The species has also been considered “periodically common” near Manaus in Brazil (Sick, 1993). The population was reported to have declined in parts of its range, e.g. in Mexico and Ecuador, with declines considered drastic in Honduras (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The population trend was considered to be unset (BirdLife International, 2010).

A. autumnalis was reported to form pairs or small flocks, but was found in larger numbers when feeding or roosting (Juniper and Parr, 1998). It was reported to nest in crevices of trees and in palm scrub, with the clutch size ranging from two to four eggs. Breeding was reported to take place between January and May, depending on location (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Berg and Angel (2006) reported that the species had a potentially low reproductive rate.

Harvest was considered to be the main threat to the species and the population was suspected to be in decline, due to both habitat destruction and unsustainable levels of exploitation (BirdLife International, 2010).

The species was considered common in captivity in some areas (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

Ecuador: The species [subspecies A. a. lilacina] was reported to occur from the northern border of the country along the western part of Ecuador to the gulf of Guayaquil (Juniper and Parr, 1998). A. a. lilacina was reported to be endemic to western Ecuador (Berg and Angel, 2006).

Juniper and Parr (1998) reported that the species was also found in scrubby dry forests in the southern part of the country, and in taller, more humid forests, as reported by Ridgely (1981). Berg and Angel (2006) observed breeding of the species in dry tropical forest dominated by Ceiba trichistandra trees.

The species was reported to be very rare west of the Andes in Ecuador and Colombia, with the race A. a. liliacina estimated at 400-600 birds (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Ridgely and Greenfield (2001) considered the species to be rare to fairly common, but being outnumbered by Amazona farinosa in most of Ecuador. Berg and Angel (2006) studied a population in southern Ecuador, which was estimated at 214 individuals and reported that their findings showed “that as much as half of the estimated total population of A. a. lilacina uses one, vulnerable roost”. Pilgrim (2000) reported that approximately two-thirds of the birds will not produce offspring in any year in most wild populations of A. a. lilacina.

Ridgely and Greenfield (2001) reported that the species had declined “substantially” as a result of deforestation and persecution and considered the species to be of Vulnerable status in Ecuador. Pilgrim (2000) considered A. a. lilacina to be “the most threatened mainland amazon”.

Poaching at the above roost was reported to persist (R. R. Angel, pers. obs. in: Berg and Angel, 2006) and trapping for trade and habitat loss were reported to have led to declines in Ecuador (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Forest clearance was reported to have caused general disturbance and to

have facilitated the hunting, trapping and theft of chicks from the nest (Pilgrim, 2000).

A. autumnalis was listed as a threatened species in Acuerdo No. 143 of 19 November 2002; Acuerdo No. 143 prohibits the hunting and collection of threatened mammal and bird species (Luque de Jaramillo, 2002).

Amazona autumnalis

13

REFERENCES:

Berg, K. S. and Angel, R. R. 2006. Seasonal roosts of Red-lored Amazons in Ecuador provide information about population size and structure. Journal of Field Ornithology, 77 (2): 95-103.

BirdLife International. 2009. Amazona autumnalis. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 5 December 2010.

BirdLife International. 2010. Species factsheet: Amazona autumnalis URL: http://www.birdlife.org Accessed: 5 December 2010.

Forshaw, J. M. 2010. Parrots of the World. Christopher Helm, London. Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots - a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Sussex. Kunz, B. and Abs, M. 1994. Investigations about ecology and number of the Lilacine Amazon (Amazona

autumnalis lilacina) in S W-Ecuador. Diplomarbeit Ruhr-Universität, Bochum, Germany. Luque de Jaramillo. 2002. Acuerdo No. 143 – Normas para el control de la cacería, vedas y licencias de

cacería de especies de fauna silvestre. Ojasti, J. 1996. Wildlife utilization in Latin America - Current situation and prospects for sustainable

management. FAO, Rome. Pilgrim, M. 2000. Development of the European Endangered Species Programme (EEP) for the

Ecuadorian or Lilacine amazon at Chester Zoo. International Zoo Yearbook, 37: 195-202. Ridgely, R. S. 1981. The current distribution and status of mainland and neotropical parrots. In Parquier,

R. F., (ed.), Conservation of New World Parrots. Smithsonian Press, 233-384. Ridgely, R. S. and Greenfield, P. J. 2001. The Birds of Ecuador: Status, Distribution and Taxonomy.

Christopher Helm, London. Sick, H. 1993. Birds in Brazil: A Natural History. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Snyder, N., McGowan, P., Gilardi, J., and Grajal, A. 2000. Parrots. Status survey and conservation action

plan 2000-2004. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Ara chloropterus

14


AVES PSITTACIDAE

SPECIES: Ara chloropterus

SYNONYMS: Ara chloroptera

COMMON NAMES: Groenvleugelara (Dutch), Green-winged Macaw (English),

Red-and-green Macaw (English), Ara chloroptère (French), Guacamayo aliverde (Spanish), Guacamayo rojo (Spanish), Grönvingad ara (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Argentina (ex, br), Bolivia (br), Brazil (br), Colombia (br),

Ecuador (br), French Guiana (br), Guyana (br), Panama (br), Paraguay (br), Peru (br), Suriname (br), Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (br)

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Argentina, Panama


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens

from Argentina and Panama first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Peru first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 19/09/1999.

Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Suriname formed on 22/07/1997.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Guyana and Suriname were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Ara chloropterus 1981-2009. The majority of global direct exports of A. chloropterus 2000-2009 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals (totalling 9442 birds, of which 3800 were imported by the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures).

Neither Argentina nor Panama have ever published CITES annual export quotas for the species.

Argentina: The only direct exports of A. chloropterus 1981-2009 from Argentina to the EU-27 consisted of five individuals imported in 2001 and two imported in 2004, all of which were live, captive-bred individuals imported by Spain for commercial purposes, with the same quantities reported by both Argentina and Spain. There were no indirect exports to the EU-27 of A. chloropterus originating in Argentina reported 1981-2009.

Ara chloropterus

15

Direct exports of A. chloropterus from Argentina to countries other than the EU-27, 1981-2009 mainly consisted of live, captive-bred individuals (Table 1). In addition, three live individuals and three scientific specimens to the United States of America were reported as seized/confiscated items.

Panama: The only direct exports of A. chloropterus 1981-2009 from Panama to the EU-27 consisted of 60 feathers of unknown source exported to Germany for personal purposes in 2000. This export was reported by Panama only. There were no indirect exports to the EU-27 of A. chloropterus originating in Panama reported 1981-2009.

All direct exports of A. chloropterus from Panama to countries other than the EU-27, 1981-2009 involved live individuals (Table 2), the main importing country being the United States of America. There has been no reported trade since 1999.

Table 1. Direct exports of Ara chloropterus from Argentina to countries other than the EU-27, 1981-2009.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1985 1986 1987 1990 1997 2000 2003 2004 2005 2008 Total

feathers T W Importer

Exporter

9

9

live T C Importer

2 3

5

Exporter

2 2 5 3

12

- C Importer

Exporter

1

1

I Importer

2 1

3

Exporter

- Importer 2

1

3

Exporter

specimens S I Importer

Exporter

3

3

W Importer

Exporter

1 1

Table 2. Direct exports of Ara chloropterus from Panama to countries other than the EU-27, 1981-2009. All trade involved live individuals.

Purpose Source Reported by 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1997 1999 Total

P W Importer

Exporter

3

3

- Importer

1 2

3

Exporter 1

2 1 1 1

1

2

9

T U Importer

1

1

Exporter

W Importer

1

1

Exporter

- C Importer

1

1

Exporter

O Importer

1

1

Exporter

W Importer

2 1 3 1 7

Exporter

- Importer

1 1

2

Exporter

Ara chloropterus

16

TAXONOMIC NOTE:

Ridgely (1981) noted that this species may be misidentified as Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao) and may be traded under this name.


Ara chloropterus was reported to occur from eastern Panama to the Rio Atrato region, in northwestern Colombia and northern to central South America, east of the Andes, from eastern Colombia, Venezuela and Guianas, south to Paraná and Mato Grosso, Brazil, eastern Peru and eastern Bolivia to Paraguay and northern Argentina in Formosa (Forshaw, 2010).

The species was reported to range over 8 100 000 km2 (Parker et al., 1996) and was reported to occur at altitudes ranging from 0 m to 1400 m asl. It was reported to mainly occur in terra firme rainforest in the northern part of its range, while in the southern and eastern part of its range it was reported from drier areas, such as floodplain forest, upland forest and dry woodland (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Haugaasen and Peres (2008) reported that the highest density of this species was found in várzea forests.

A. chloropterus was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2009), because it has an extremely large range, the population size was not believed to approach the threshold for Vulnerable under the population size criterion, and “Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion”.

While the population size was reported not to have been quantified (BirdLife International, 2010), Lambert et al. (1993) had estimated the global population at less than 100 000 birds and declining. Parker et al. (1996) described the species as “fairly common”, however Juniper and Parr (1998) considered the species to be generally uncommon, following a population decline due to capture for trade and habitat loss, but widespread in the Amazon basin. They also reported that the species was mostly absent near population centres and the population was declining or had already disappeared from the peripheries of the species range, again due to habitat loss, trade and hunting (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The species was considered to be “more thinly dispersed and generally less numerous than other large macaws” (Forshaw, 2010), apart from some “spectacular aggregations” observed at earth-banks, where the birds consume minerals” (Forshaw, 1989).

A. chloropterus was reported to be generally found in pairs, but also small flocks of several pairs (Juniper and Parr, 1998) and was often found associated with other large macaw species, such as A. macao and A. ararauna (Forshaw, 1989). The species was reported to require crevices in large trees of rockfaces for nesting (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Breeding was reported to take place from November to April (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The clutch size was reported to comprise of two to three eggs (Juniper and Parr, 1998) and nest success was reported to be 40-50 per cent, producing 0.53-0.8 per cent fledglings per breeding pair (Renton and Brightsmith, 2009). Renton and Brightsmith (2009) further found that A. chloropterus showed a preference for nest sites in Dipteryx trees (slow growing hardwood trees, which may live for over 1000 years (Chambers et al., 1998)).

Both ongoing habitat destruction and unsustainable levels of exploitation were considered to be the main threats to the species (BirdLife International, 2010) and Ridgely (1981) considered the species to be particularly susceptible to disturbance.

Although the species was reported to be widespread in captivity (Juniper and Parr, 1998), breeding was considered to be a rather recent occurrence (Abramson et al., 1995).

Argentina: Juniper and Parr (1998) noted that the last reliable records of the species‟ occurrence in Argentina were reported to date back to 1917 and considered the species to have since vanished from the country. The Argentinean Management Authority (Argentina, 1993) reported in 1987 that the species was considered extinct in the country. While WICE (undated) confirmed that the species was present in Argentina, the abundance was reported as not determined. Chebez et al. (2011) noted that the species had recently been sighted to the north of Misiones and that it should therefore be classified as Critically Endangered in Argentina. It had also previously been classified as Critically Endangered in the country by Chebez (2008) and López Lanús et al. (2008).

Ara chloropterus

17

The species was not listed as a species protected from hunting and trade in the country (SADS, 2007).

Panama: The species was reported to only occur in remote parts of eastern Panama, e.g. upper Bayano Valley (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Ridgely and Gwynne Jr. (1989) reported that the species was “found in remote humid forested areas in Darién, eastern San Blas, and probably eastern Panama province (somewhat uncertain reports from the Upper Bayano River Valley)”. Records from the area west of the Caribbean slope of the former Canal Zone were thought to have involved escapees (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

In the 1960s, the species had been considered fairly common in the eastern San Blas province and the same was reported from east Darién in the late 1980s (Ridgely, 1976 in: Forshaw, 1989). The species was reported to be locally distributed (Juniper and Parr, 1998) and generally uncommon in Panama (Ridgely, 1976 in: Forshaw, 1989). Ridgely (1981) considered the species to be “decidedly uncommon” and restricted to the most remote areas in the east of Panama.

Forshaw (2010) reported that the species occurred in Darién Biosphere Reserve in eastern Panama.

The species was classified as Endangered nationally in Panama (ANAM, 2008). Resolution No. DIR-002-80 of 23 July 2003 banned the hunting, selling and trade of threatened species, including A. chloropterus (DNRNR, 2003).

REFERENCES:

Abramson, J., Speer, B. L., and Thomsen, J. B. 1995. The Large Macaws, their Care, Breeding and Conservation. Raintree Publications.

ANAM. 2008. Resolución No. AG – 0051-2008 por la cual se reglamenta lo relative a las especies de fauna y flora amenazadas y en peligro de extinction, y se dictan otras disposiciones. Gaceta Oficial Digital 26013. Autoridad Naccional del Ambiente, República de Panamá.

Argentina 1993. Review of Significant Trade, AC 9, 1993. BirdLife International. 2009. Ara chloropterus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 5-12-2010. BirdLife International. 2010. Species factsheet: Ara chloropterus URL: http://www.birdlife.org Accessed:

5-12-2010. Chambers, J. Q., Higuchi, N., and Schimel, J. P. 1998. Ancient trees in Amazonia. Nature, 391 (135): 136. Chebez, J.C. 2008. Los que se van. Fauna argentina amenazada. Albatros: Buenos Aires. Chebez, J.C., Gasparri, B., Hansen Cier, M., Nigro, N.A. & Rodríguez, L. 2011. Estado de conservación

de los tetrápodos de la Argentina. In_ Porini, G. & Ramadori (eds.) Manejo de Fauna Silvestre en Argentina. Conservación de especies amenazadas. Fundación de Historia Natural Félix de Azara: Buenos Aires.

DNRNR. 2003. Resolución DIR-002-80 – Animales silvestres en peligro de extinction. Gaceta Oficial No. 24850. Dirección Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables, Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario, Panama.

Forshaw, J. M. 1989. Parrots of the world. 3rd edn. Blandford Press, London. Forshaw, J. M. 2010. Parrots of the World. Christopher Helm, London. Haugaasen, T. and Peres, C. A. 2008. Population abundance and biomass of largebodied birds in

Amazonian flooded and unflooded forests. Bird Conservation International, 18: 87-101. Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots - a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Sussex. Lambert, F., Wirth, R., Seal, U. S., Thomsen, J. B., and Ellis-Joseph, S. 1993. Parrots: an action plan for

their conservation 1993-1998. Cambride, UK, BirdLife International and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resource.

López Lanús, B., Grilli, P., Coconier, E., Di Giacomo, A. & Banchs, R. 2008. Categorización de la saves de la Argentina según su estado de conservación. Informe de Aves Argentinas/AOP y Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable. Bs. AS, Argentina.

Parker, T. A., Stotz, D. F., and Fitzpatrick, J. W. 1996. Ecological and distributional databases, in Stotz, D. F. et al., (eds.), Neotropical birds: ecology and conservation. University of Chicago, Chicago. 131-436.

Renton, K. and Brightsmith, D. J. 2009. Cavity use and reproductive success of nesting macaws in lowland forest of southeast Peru. Journal of Field Ornithology, 80 (1): 1-8.

Ara chloropterus

18

Ridgely, R. S. 1976. A Guide to the Birds of Panama. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Ridgely, R. S. 1981. The current distribution and status of mainland and neotropical parrots., in

Parquier, R. F., (ed.), Conservation of New World Parrots. ICBP Technical Publication No. 1. Smithsonian Press, 233-384.

Ridgely, R. S. and Gwynne Jr. 1989. A guide to the birds of Panama with Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras. second edn. Princeton University Press.

SADS. 2007. Resolución 513/2007 Conservación de la fauna. Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentatble.

WICE undated. World Institute for Conservation & Environment. Birds of Argentina, Checklist of the Birds of Argentina URL: http://www.birdlist.org/argentina.htm Accessed: 7-12-2010.

Ara severus

19


AVES PSITTACIDAE

SPECIES: Ara severus

SYNONYMS: Ara severa, Psittacus severus

COMMON NAMES: Dwergara (Dutch), Chestnut-fronted Macaw (English), Severe

Macaw (English), Ara sévère (French), Ara vert (French), Guacamayo severo (Spanish), Brunpannad ara (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bolivia (br), Brazil (br), Colombia (br), Ecuador (br), French

Guiana (br), Guyana (br), Panama (br), Peru (br), Suriname (br), United States of America (int, br), Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (br)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Guyana


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens

from Ecuador and Panama first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 19/09/1999.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Guyana first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Suriname formed on 22/07/1997.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Suriname was the main global direct exporter of wild-sourced Ara severus 1981-2009. The majority of global direct exports of A. severus from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live individuals of various sources (totalling 1842 individuals, of which 459 were imported by the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures). Of the 942 wild-sourced individuals exported globally, 402 were imported by the EU-27.

Guyana has never published CITES annual export quotas for the species.

The only direct exports of A. severus from Guyana to the EU-27 1981-2009 consisted of eight live individuals of unspecified source and purpose exported to Denmark in 1985. This trade was not reported by Denmark. There were no reported indirect exports of A. severus originating in Guyana to the EU-27 1981-2009.

Direct exports of A. severus from Guyana to countries other than the EU-27 1981-2009 consisted of live individuals of unspecified source traded for commercial purposes, of which seven were imported by

Ara severus

20

Switzerland in 1983 and ten were imported by Trinidad and Tobago in 1990. These exports were not reported by Guyana.

TAXONOMIC NOTE

Juniper and Parr (1998) reported that the birds in the western part of the range had been distinguished under the subspecies „castaneifrons‟, but they considered the “degree of variation and overlap […] too great to be convincing”.


Ara severus was reported to occur in the tropical zone of eastern Panama, on the Pacific slope of the Andes south to southern Ecuador as well as in the northern lowlands of Colombia, extending down to the Andean foothills in Colombia (Juniper and Parr, 1998). East of the Andes the species was reported to occur in the Amazonian lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, from where it ranged east through the western and southern Amazon basin, through the tropical zone of Venezuela reaching the Guiana‟s and Amapá in Brazil (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

The range of this species was estimated to be 5 770 000 km2 (BirdLife International, 2010) and it was reported to occur at an altitudinal range of 350-1000 m asl (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The species was reported to occur in forest, including forest edge, humid lowland forest with clearings, varzeá, swamp forest with dead trees, partly cleared and secondary forest, palm groves and gallery forest, but also savannah with pastures (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

A. severus was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2009), because it has an extremely large range, a stable population, and because “The population size has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion”.

Whilst the global population size has not been quantified, the species was described as “fairly common” by Stotz et al. (1996). Juniper and Parr (1998) considered the species to be fairly common to common over much of its range. Local declines were reported to have been caused by severe habitat loss, however moderate deforestation was considered to have led to increases in numbers (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Ridgely and Greenfield (2001) reported that the species sometimes appeared to be most common in partially deforested areas. The population was suspected to be stable in the absence of evidence for any declines or substantial threats (BirdLife International, 2010).

A. severus was reported to roost communally, its breeding season was reported to range from September to May, depending on location and the clutch size was reported to be two to three eggs (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

Juniper and Parr (1998) reported that A. severus was held in captivity but considered the demand for the species “not great”. Sick (1993) reported that the species was seldom seen in captivity in Brazil.

The species was reported to have been found in illegal trade in Bolivia (Herrera and Hennessey, 2007).

Guyana: Juniper and Parr (1998) reported that the species had not been reported from Guyana since the early 19th century. However, Braun et al. (2000) reported that A. severus was scarce and only occasionally encountered in small numbers even in prime habitat and season. The species was considered to be patchily distributed and absent from large areas of apparently suitable habitat (Braun et al., 2000).

Robbins et al. (2007) found a single record of A. severus during bird surveys in the upper Essequibo river and Acary mountains (southern Guyana) during 1998-2006.

It is not clear whether the species occurs in any protected areas in Guyana, or whether it has any protection under national legislation. Niles (1981) reported that Psittacines were not protected by legislation and the species was not listed in the Wild Birds Protection Act (Guyana, 1998). Guyana adopted the „Species Protection Regulations‟ in September 1999 (GINA, 2011), although it was not possible to acquire a copy.

Ara severus

21

REFERENCES:

BirdLife International. 2009. Ara severus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 13-12-2010.

BirdLife International. 2010. Species factsheet: Araseverus URL: http://www.birdlife.org Accessed: 12 December 2010.

Braun, M. J., Finch, D. W., Robbins, M. B., and Schmidt, B. K. 2000. A field checklist of the birds of Guyana. Washington, D. C., Smithonian Institution.

GINA. 2011. Government Information Agency. Species Protection Regulations URL: http://www.gina.gov.gy/gina_pub/laws/tableofcontents.pdf Accessed: 12 December 2010.

Global Species. 2010. Global Species URL: http://globalspecies.org/ Accessed: 8 December 2010. Guyana 1998. Laws of Guyana. Wild Bird Protection, Chapter 71:07. Wild Birds Protection Act,

September 1919. Herrera, M. and Hennessey, B. 2007. Quantifying the illegal parrot trade in Santa Cruz de la Sierra,

Bolivia, with emphasis on threatened species. Bird Conservation International, 17: 295-300. Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots - a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Sussex. Niles, J. J. 1981. The status of Psittacine birds in Guyana, in Pasquier, R. F., (ed.), Conservation of New

World Parrots. Smithsonian Institution Press. Ridgely, R. S. and Greenfield, P. J. 2001. The Birds of Ecuador: Status, Distribution and Taxonomy.

Christopher Helm, London. Robbins, M.B., Braun, M.J., Milensky, C.M., Schmidt, B.K., Prince, W., Rice, N.H., Finch, D.W. & O‟Shea,

B.J. 2007. Avifauna of the upper Essequibo river and Acary mountains, southern Guyana. Ornitologia Neotropical 18: 339-368.

Sick, H. 1993. Birds in Brazil: A Natural History. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Stotz, D. F., Fitzpatrick, J. W., Parker, T. A., and Moskovits, D. K. 1996. Neotropical birds: ecology and

conservation. University of Chicago Press.

Aratinga acuticaudata

22


AVES PSITTACIDAE

SPECIES: Aratinga acuticaudata

SYNONYMS: Psittacus acuticaudatus, Thectocercus acuticaudatus

COMMON NAMES: Blauwkoparatinga (Dutch), Blue-crowned Conure (English),

Blue-crowned Parakeet (English), Conure à tête bleue (French), Aratinga cabeciazul (Spanish), Carapaico (Spanish), Cotorra de los Palos (Spanish), Blåhuvad kilstjärtsparakit (Swedish), Blåpannad kilstjärtparakit (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Argentina (br), Bolivia (br), Brazil (br), Colombia (br),

Paraguay (br), Uruguay (br, ?), Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (br)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Uruguay


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Paraguay

formed on 23/06/1999.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for all wild specimens from Uruguay first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Argentina was the main global direct exporter of wild-sourced Aratinga acuticaudata 1981-2009 according to exporter-reported figures. Global direct exports of the species from all countries 2000-2009 consisted mainly of live individuals, the majority of which were wild-sourced (totalling 12 891 individuals, of which 10 871 were exported to the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures).

Uruguay has never published CITES annual export quotas for the species. There have never been any reported direct or indirect exports of A. acuticaudata originating from Uruguay, neither to the EU-27 nor globally, since the species was listed in Appendix II in 1981.

TAXONOMIC NOTE:

Juniper and Parr (1998) reported the existence of five races: Aratinga a. acuticaudata occurring in southern South America from eastern Bolivian lowlands to Mato Grosso in Brazil, Paraguay, northern Argentina and possibly western Uruguay; A. a. neumanni occurring on the eastern slopes of the Bolivian Andes in Cochabamba, where is was found above the nominate form at 1500 to 2650 m asl, as well as in Santa Cruz, Chuquisaca and “probably Tarija provinces”; A. a. haemorrhous in north eastern Brazil; A. a. koenigi in northern Venezuela and north eastern Colombia; and A. a. neoxena on Margarita Island in Venezuela.


23


A. acuticaudata was reported to occur in several disjunct populations in South America, ranging from Venezuela to Argentina (Juniper and Parr, 1998). One of the areas was reported to range from north eastern Colombia into north western Venezuela east to Monagas, including Margarita island, and south to northern Bolívar; a second was reported to lie in north eastern Brazil (eastern Piauí, northern Bahia Pernambuco and Alagoas) and a third in southern South America, ranging from eastern Bolivia and western Mato Grosso in Brazil south to Paraguay and Argentina, possibly also western Uruguay (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

Forshaw (2010) reported that the species had been introduced to Florida and southern California in the United States of America.

The global range of the species was estimated at 3 330 000 km2 (BirdLife International, 2010) and while A. acuticaudata was considered a bird of the lowlands (Forshaw, 1989), it was reported to occur up to 2650 m asl in Bolivia (Juniper and Parr, 1998). This species was reported to prefer dry woodlands, deciduous or gallery forests, savannah and even semi-desert shrublands, leading to the disjunct distribution by avoiding forested areas (Forshaw, 1989). In Bolivia the species was reported to inhabit leguminous woodlands with columnar cacti (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

A. acuticaudata was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2009) because it has an extremely large range, the population size was not thought to approach the threshold for Vulnerable under the population size criterion and “Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion.”

A. acuticaudata was considered to be common and conspicuous and it was reported to be one of the most numerous parrots in the southern part of its distribution (Forshaw, 1989). Juniper and Parr (1998) considered the species to be fairly common in Colombia, frequent in Venezuela (abundance depending on season), rare to fairly common in Bolivia, very rare on Margarita Island (population estimated at 100-200 individuals) and the most abundant parrot in some localities in Brazil.

The breeding season was reported to be ranging from December to July, with two eggs recorded as the clutch size (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

A. acuticaudata was considered to be threatened by extensive cultivation, deforestation and habitat loss (Hilty, 2003). Trade was considered to be the major threat to the species (BirdLife International, 2010) and Ayuso and Arambiza Segundo (2004) reported that the collection of chicks and the techniques applied may be leading to the loss of up to 70 per cent of nestling and nest sites. The species was found to be amongst the most highly traded species in a survey of the illegal parrot trade in Bolivia, with parrot specimens reported to originate from various countries in South and Central America (Herrera and Hennessey, 2007). The species was reported to be tolerant of moderate habitat disturbance (Forshaw, 1989) and Forshaw (1989) reported that the species was known to raid crops occasionally.

Juniper and Parr (1998) reported that the species was fairly common in captivity.

Uruguay: Forshaw (1989) reported that Cuello and Gerzenstein (1962 in: Forshaw, 1989) considered the specimens obtained by Barattini (1945 in: Forshaw, 1989) to be the only ones from Uruguay.

Juniper and Parr (1998) considered the population in western Uruguay “at best rare”.

The species was reported to occur in Bañados del Este Wetland Reserve in Uruguay (Global Species, 2010).

REFERENCES:

Ayuso, J. G. and Arambiza Segundo, A. 2004. Nidificación de Amazona aestiva y Aratinga acuticaudata en la tierra comunitaria de origen del Isoso, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Revista boliviana de ecología y conservación ambiental, 16: 11-28.

Barattini, L. P. 1945. Las aves de Paysandú. Anales Lic. Dptal. Pays., 1: 1-53.


24

BirdLife International. 2009. Aratinga acuticaudata. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 15 December 2010.

BirdLife International. 2010. Species factsheet: Aratinga acuticaudata URL: http://www.birdlife.org Accessed: 15 December 2010.

Cuello, J. and Gerzenstein, E. 1962. Las aves del Uruguay. Apartado de Comunicaciones Zoológicas del Museo de Historia Natural de Montevideo, 6 (93): 1-191.

Forshaw, J. M. 1989. Parrots of the world. 3rd edn. Blandford Press, London. Forshaw, J. M. 2010. Parrots of the world. Christopher Helm, London. Global Species. 2010. Global Species URL: http://globalspecies.org/ Accessed: 8 December 2010. Herrera, M. and Hennessey, B. 2007. Quantifying the illegal parrot trade in Santa Cruz de la Sierra,

Bolivia, with emphasis on threatened species. Bird Conservation International, 17: 295-300. Hilty, S. L. 2003. Birds of Venezuela. Christopher Helm, London. Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots - a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Sussex.

Cyanoliseus patagonus

25


AVES PSITTACIDAE

SPECIES: Cyanoliseus patagonus

SYNONYMS: Psittacus patagonus

COMMON NAMES: Patagonische rotsparkiet (Dutch), Burrowing Parakeet

(English), Patagonian Conure (English), Conure de Patagonie (French), Loro barranquero (Spanish), Patagonienparakit (Swedish), Patagonparakit (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Argentina (br), Chile (br), Falkland Islands (Malvinas) (v),

Uruguay (br)

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Chile, Uruguay



from Chile and Uruguay first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

TRADE PATTERNS:

With the exception of one live individual exported by Chile, Argentina was the sole global direct exporter of wild-sourced Cyanoliseus patagonus 1981-2009. The majority of global direct exports of C. patagonus from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals (totalling 24 913 individuals, of which 17 833 were exported to the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures).

Chile and Uruguay have never published CITES annual export quotas for the species.

Chile: Direct exports of C. patagonus from Chile to the EU-27 1981-2009 consisted of small numbers of live individuals, none of which were wild-sourced, with the only reported trade 2000-2009 consisting of 10 captive-bred zoo animals (Table 1). There were no reported indirect exports of C. patagonus originating in Chile to the EU-27 1981-2009.

The United States of America was the only country other than the EU-27 to import C. patagonus from Chile 1981-2009. The United States reported the import of three scientific specimens for commercial purposes in 1989 and one live, wild-sourced individual in 1999; Chile reported the export of three bodies for scientific purposes in 1989.

Uruguay: There has never been any reported direct or indirect trade in C. patagonus originating from Uruguay, either globally or to the EU-27, since its listing in Appendix II in 1981.


26

Table 1. Direct exports of Cyanoliseus patagonus (including trade reported as Cyanoliseus patagonus byroni) from Chile to the EU-27, 1981-2009. All trade was in live individuals.

Importer Purpose Source Reported by 1982 1985 1992 2009 Total

Belgium - - Importer

Exporter 10

10

France Z C Importer

10 10

Exporter

10 10

Italy P - Importer

1

1

Exporter

Spain T C Importer

6

6

Exporter

Z C Importer

Exporter

6

6

TAXONOMIC NOTE:

Juniper and Parr (1998) note the existence of four races: Cyanoliseus patagonus patagonus from north Santa Cruz (Southern Argentina) to the latitude of Buenos Aires and southern Uruguay in the east and Lake Nahuel Huapi in south Neuquén in the west (possibly ranging into remote regions, Los Lagos and Aisén, in eastern Chile); C. p. andinus, which was reported to range from northwest Argentina towards an area of intergradation with the nominate form in central Argentina; C. p. conlara was reported from San Luis and Cordoba in Argentina and C. p. bloxami (formerly C. p. bryoni) from very restricted areas in central provinces of Chile.


Cyanoliseus patagonus was reported to occur in southern South America, ranging “from northern Santa Cruz and Chubut in Argentina north through Río Negro and La Pampa to Buenos Aires, San Luís, Córdoba, San Juan, La Rioja, Catamarca, Tucumán and Salta” and west through to southern Uruguay, with a few remaining populations found in foothills of the Andes in Chile (Juniper and Parr, 1998). This species was reported to be one of the three most southern neotropical Psittacines (Ridgely, 1981).

The range of the species was estimated at 1 290 000 km2 and at 975 000 km2 during the breeding season (BirdLife International, 2010). C. patagonus was reported to generally occur in arid country, but also often in the vicinity of watercourses, inhabiting open grassy country, savannah, wooded valleys and farmland (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The altitudinal range was reported to be up to 2000 m asl (Juniper and Parr, 1998; Forshaw, 2010).

C. patagonus was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2009), because it has a very large range, its population size was not believed to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion and “Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion.”

The global population size has not been quantified (BirdLife International, 2010), but a colony in El Cóndor in Patagonia, Argentina, was considered the largest colony of C. patagonus and was reported to contain 51 412 burrows, an estimated 37 527 of which were active in the 2001-02 breeding season, with a further 6500 parrots found associated with the colony, but not attending nestlings, during the 2003–2004 breeding (Masello et al., 2006).

In the late 1980s the stronghold of the species was reported to be in central to north-western Argentina (Forshaw, 1989). Forshaw (2010) considered the species to be common, apart from in Chile. In the late 1990s the overall population was thought to be declining (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

Flocks of this gregarious species were reported to sometimes comprise more than 1000 individuals and communal roosts were found in trees, on wires (also in towns) and in tunnels, which the species


27

excavates for nesting (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The species was reported to breed communally in tunnels/burrow dug in cliffs and was reported to be “showing a socially and genetically monogamous breeding system with intensive biparental care” (Masello et al., 2006). The breeding season was reported to be between November and April in Argentina and possibly earlier in Chile (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The species was reported to lay one clutch of two to five eggs per year (Masello and Quillfeldt, 2002).

Forshaw (1989) considered persecution to be the main reason for the population decline. Local declines were considered to be attributable to exploitation for trade and food, habitat loss through conversion of grassland to cropland and persecution of the species as a crop pest (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The species was reported to be valued in the pet trade (Guix et al., 1997 in: Masello et al., 2006).

Ridgely (1981) considered the species to be common in captivity in the early 1980s and reported that it had been exported in large numbers [the species was listed on CITES Appendix II in 1981 under Psittaciformes spp.].

C. patagonus were reported to be “officially considered an agricultural pest in Argentina (National Law of Defence of the Agricultural Production 6704/63)” (Masello et al., 2006).

Chile: C. patagonus was reported to formerly have been recorded in central Chile, ranging from northern Los Lagos north to Atacama, but the range has since then been restricted and confined to “a few localities in the Andean foothills” such as Bío Bío (Juniper and Parr, 1998) and in coastal ranges between Atacama and Colchagua (Forshaw, 1989).

In 1984, about 2800 individuals were reported to have been counted in Chile (Goodland, 1987) and the species was estimated at less than 3000 individuals in the late 1980s (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Fuenzalida Díaz and Muñoz Villagra (2005) provided an estimate of 1497 individuals, distributed in regions IV (19.5% of the total), VI (32%), VII (47%) and in the Metropolitan region (0.5%).

Juniper and Parr (1998) reported that the species (C. p. bloxami) was very restricted in Chile and that the population was considered at risk in the country. Pearman (1995) considered the species to be rare and Forshaw (2010) considered it to be endangered in Chile. C. p. bloxami was considered at risk of extinction (Beltrami et al., 1995 in: Masello et al., 2006).

C. patagonus was classified as Endangered in regions III and IV of Chile and as Vulnerable in the rest of the country (MSGP, 2007). The species was reported to have drastically declined in Chile (Masello et al., 2006) during the 20th century, due to hunting for trade and food (particularly nestlings (Ridgely, 1981, Galaz Leigh et al., 2005), habitat loss through conversion of grassland to cropland and persecution as a crop pest (Juniper and Parr, 1998; Galaz Leigh et al., 2005). Collection of nestlings for the pet trade was reported to be a particular problem in region IV, where 52 birds were confiscated in 2002 (Galaz Leigh et al., 2005).

Seasonal movements in Chile were reported to include altitudinal displacements (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

Goodland (1987) reported that due to the Pehuenche Hydroelectric Project leading to the drowning of two of Chile‟s twelve breeding sites of this species, mitigatory measures included the protection of all breeding sites used at the time during the breeding season, capture of parrots from the two sites and re-installation into recently abandoned breeding sites, including 5 years feeding with collected wild fruits, support for captive breeding and re-introduction programmes and support for education and surveillance programmes.

Galaz Leigh et al. (2005) reported that the species was formally protected through hunting law No. 19.473. The species was reported to occur in the Río de los Cipreses National Reserve, O‟Higgins region (Forshaw, 2010) and in the Parque Nacional Laguna Del Laja, Bío-Bío Province, southern Chile (Pearman, 1995).

Uruguay: The species was considered to be scarce and sporadically occurring in Uruguay (Juniper and Parr, 1998) and Bucher and Rodriguez (1986 in: Forshaw, 1989), considered the species to be a sporadic winter visitor to coastal areas.


28

No information on the species‟ occurrence in protected areas could be located.

REFERENCES:

Beltrami, M., Naranjo, J., Sarmient, C., Ulloa, L., Alfaro, L., and Olguin, P. 1995. Reproductive behaviour of Cyanoliseus patagonus byroni in semi-captive conditions. Boletín Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Chile, 45: 19-29.

BirdLife International. 2009. Cyanoliseus patagonus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 9 December 2010.

BirdLife International. 2010. Species factsheet: Cyanoliseus patagonus URL: http://www.birdlife.org Accessed: 14 December 2010.

Bucher, E. H. and Rodriguez, E. N. 1986. Sobre la presencia del Loro barranquero (Cyanoliseus patagonnus) en el Uruguay. Hornero, 12: 303.

Forshaw, J. M. 1989. Parrots of the world. 3rd edn. Blandford Press, London. Forshaw, J. M. 2010. Parrots of the world. Christopher Helm, London. Fuenzalida Díaz and Muñoz Villagra. 2005. Situación actual del estado de conservación del Tricahue en Chile.

Escuela de Ingeniería Forestal, Universidad de Talca, Chile. Galaz Leigh, J.L., del Castillo, S.F. & Ulloa Godoy, L. 2005. Plan nacional de conseración del Tricahue,

Cyanoliseus patagonus bloxami Olson, 1995, en Chile. Corporación Nacional Forestal, CONAF. Santiago, Chile.

Goodland, R. J. A. 1987. Protection of the Chilean Conure or Burrowing Parrot. Environmental Conservation, 14: 180.

Guix, J. C., Jover, L., and Ruiz, X. 1997. Muestreos del comercio de psitácidos neotropicales en la ciudad de Barcelona, España: 1991–1996. Ararajuba, 5: 159-167.

Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots - a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Sussex. Masello, J. F., Pagnossin, M. L., Sommer, C., and Quillfeldt, P. 2006. Population size, provisioning

frequency, flock size and foraging range at the largest known colony of Psittaciformes: the Burrowing Parrots of the north-eastern Patagonian coastal cliffs. Emu, 106: 69-79.

Masello, J. F. and Quillfeldt, P. 2002. Chick growth and breeding success of the Burrowing Parrot. Condor, 104: 574-586.

MSGP. 2007. Clasificación de especies silvestres según su estado de conservación. Diario Oficial de la República de Chile 38.722. Ministerio Secretaría General de la Presidencia.

Pearman, M. 1995. The essential birding in Chile. World Publications. Ridgely, R. S. 1981. The current distribution and status of mainland and neotropical parrots, in Parquier,

R. F., (ed.), Conservation of New World Parrots. ICBP Technical Publication No.1. Smithsonian Press, 233-384.

Deroptyus accipitrinus

29


AVES PSITTACIDAE

SPECIES: Deroptyus accipitrinus

SYNONYMS: Psittacus accipitrinus

COMMON NAMES: Kraagparkiet (Dutch), Hawk-headed Parrot (English), Red-fan

Parrot (English), Papegeai maillé (French), Loro cacique (Spanish), Hökhuvudpapegoja (Swedish), Solfjäderpapegoja (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Brazil (br), Colombia (br), Ecuador (br), French Guiana (br),

Guyana (br), Peru (br), Suriname (br), Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (br)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Peru



from Peru first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Suriname first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Suriname formed on 05/09/2002.

Previous Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from Brazil first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 24/09/2000.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Guyana and Suriname were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Deroptyus accipitrinus 1981-2009. The majority of global direct exports of D. accipitrinus from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals (totalling 2622 individuals, of which 1462 were imported by the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures). Guyana and Suriname have published CITES annual export quotas for the species since 1997. No export quotas have ever been published for D. accipitrinus from Peru.

There have never been any reported direct or indirect exports of D. accipitrinus originating from Peru, either to the EU-27 or globally, since the species was listed in Appendix II in 1981.


30

TAXONOMIC NOTE:

Juniper and Parr (1998) reported of two races, Deroptyus a. acciptrinus in eastern Colombia, southern Venezuela, the Guianas and Brazil north of the Amazon and D. a. fuscifrons in Brazil south of the Amazon and possibly including the population in Ecuador and Peru.


Deroptyus accipitrinus was reported to occur patchily in northern South America, where it was found in extreme eastern and south-eastern Colombia, ranging through to south-east Venezuela to the Guianas (Juniper and Parr, 1998). It was reported to be distributed though the Amazon basin in Brazil and although sporadic reports of the species in Ecuador and north-eastern Peru were reported to exist, the species may be absent from the upper reaches of the Amazon (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The range was reported to also possibly extend into the extreme north-east of Bolivia (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

The global range of the species was estimated at 4 240 000 km2 (BirdLife International, 2010) and it was reported to occur up to 500 m asl (Forshaw, 2010). The species was reported to occur in undisturbed lowland rainforest (Forshaw, 1989). The species was also reported to persist in some moderately disturbed forest habitats (Hilty, 2003).

D. accipitrinus was considered common in the Guianas and adjacent far north-eastern Brazil, but much less widespread to the west in Amazonia; south of the Amazon it was reported to be “still locally fairly common” (Forshaw, 1989). Strahl et al. (1991) considered the species to be one of the least abundant Psittacines in Venezuela. Juniper and Parr (1998) reported that the species was most numerous in the western part of its range, but that even there it was considered to be quite rare and becoming scarcer westwards. De Oliveira Lunardi et al. (2003) reported that the population density was known to be low and that the species was “considered to be naturally rare in the wild”. Forshaw (1989) reported that the overall numbers were in decline.

D. accipitrinus was classified as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2009), because it has an extremely large range, a stable population trend and the population size was not believed to approach the threshold for Vulnerable under the population size criterion.

The species was reported to occur in pairs or in small groups of three to four and rarely up to ten birds (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Seasonal movements were reported to occur (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The clutch size was reported to be three eggs (Forshaw, 1989), with the breeding season reported to range from December to June, depending on location (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

The species was reported to be threatened by large-scale deforestation (Forshaw, 1989) and it was also reported to be captured for the pet trade, particularly in the western part of its range, where numbers were reported to be reduced (Juniper and Parr, 1998). However, BirdLife International (2010) reported that substantial threats were absent.

Ridgely (1981) considered the species to be in great demand in the pet trade, but reported that it had always been rare in captivity. Hilty (2003) reported that the species does not thrive in captivity.

Peru: The range of the species in Peru was reported to be limited, with the species occurring very locally on the upper Rio Pastaza in northern Loreto (Clements and Shany, 2001). Schulenberg et al. (2007) reported that the species was restricted to sandy soil and blackwater areas of the upper Río Pastaza and middle Río Yavarí. According to local Indians, the species was found in flooded forests in the Morona River drainage (O'Neill, 1981).

Schulenberg et al. (2007) considered the species to be rare and local in Peru and O'Neill (1981) reported that the status of the species in the lowlands of north-eastern Peru was unknown.

Decree No. 013-99-AG of May 1999 listed D. accipitrinus as a species of unknown status and banned the hunting, transportation and export of the species for commercial purposes (INRENA, 1999). It is not clear whether the species occurs in any protected areas within Peru.


31

REFERENCES

BirdLife International. 2009. Deroptyus accipitrinus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 15 December 2010.

BirdLife International. 2010. Species factsheet: Deroptyus accipitrinus URL: http://www.birdlife.org Accessed: 15 December 2010.

Clements, J. F. and Shany, N. 2001. A Field Guide to the Birds of Peru. Ibis Publishing Company, Temecula, California.

de Oliveira Lunardi, V., Francisco, M. R., Rocha, G. T., Goldschmidt, B., and Galetti Junior, P. M. 2003. Karyotype description of two Neotropical Psittacidae species: the endangered Hyacinth Macaw, Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus, and the Hawk-headed Parrot, Deroptyus accipitrinus (Psittaciformes: Aves), and its significance for conservation plans. Genetics and MOlecular Biology, 26 (3): 283-287.

Forshaw, J. M. 1989. Parrots of the world. 3rd edn. Blandford Press, London. Forshaw, J. M. 2010. Parrots of the world. Christopher Helm, London. Global Species. 2010. Global Species URL: http://globalspecies.org/ Accessed: 8 December 2010. Hilty, S. L. 2003. Birds of Venezuela. Christopher Helm, London. INRENA. 1999. Decreto Supremo No. 013-99-AG - Prohibe la caza, extracción, transporte y/o

exportación con fines comerciales de especies de fauna silvestre no autorizados por el INRENA, a partir del año 2000.

Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots - a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Sussex. O'Neill, J. P. 1981. Comments on the status of the parrots occurring in Peru, in Pasquier, R. F., (ed.),

Conservation of New World Parrots. Smithsonian Institution Press. Ridgely, R. S. 1981. The current distribution and status of mainland and neotropical parrots, in Parquier,

R. F., (ed.), Conservation of New World Parrots. ICBP Technical Publication No.1. Smithsonian Press, 233-384.

Schulenberg, T. S., Stotz, D. F., Lane, D. E., O'Neill, J. P., and Parker III, T. A. 2007. Field guide to the birds of Peru. Christopher Helm, London.

Strahl, S. D., Desenne, P. A., Jimenez, J. L., and Goldstein, I. R. 1991. Behaviours and biology of the Hawk-headed parrot, Deroptyus accipitrinus, in southern Venezuela. The Condor, 93: 177-180.

Triclaria malachitacea

32


AVES PSITTACIDAE

SPECIES: Triclaria malachitacea

SYNONYMS: Psittacus malachitaceus

COMMON NAMES: Paarsbuikpapegaai (Dutch), Blue-bellied Parrot (English),

Purple-bellied Parrot (English), Crick à ventre bleu (French), Perruche à ventre bleu (French), Loro ventriazul (Spanish), Purpurbukad papegoja (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Argentina (?), Brazil (br)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Argentina, Brazil

IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened


from Argentina and Brazil first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

TRADE PATTERNS:

As the only confirmed range States of the species, Argentina and Brazil were the only global direct exporters of wild-sourced Triclaria malachitacea. The majority of global direct exports from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live captive-bred individuals (totalling 123 individuals, of which 38 were imported by the EU-27). No CITES export quotas have ever been published for T. malachitacea.

Argentina: Direct exports of T. malachitacea from Argentina to the EU-27 1981-2009 mainly consisted of live captive-bred individuals, with the exception of 20 wild-caught individuals imported by Spain in 1991 (Table 1). The only indirect exports of T. malachitacea originating in Argentina were live, captive bred individuals exported from Switzerland to Germany, of which six were imported 2004 and two were imported in 2005, according to Switzerland.

Direct exports of T. malachitacea from Argentina to countries other than the EU-27 1981-2009 consisted of live captive-bred individuals, with South Africa, Switzerland and the United States of America being the main importers (Table 2).

Brazil: The only reported direct trade to the EU-27 of T. malachitacea from Brazil 1981-2009 was the export to the United Kingdom in 1995 of two flasks of wild-sourced specimens for scientific purposes; this trade was not reported by the United Kingdom. There was no reported indirect trade to the EU-27 of T. malachitacea originating in Brazil 1981-2009. The only reported direct trade to countries other than the EU-27 of T. malachitacea from Brazil 1981-2009 was the export to Canada in 2004 of three captive-bred scientific specimens (which was not reported by Canada) and the import by the


33

Philippines of four captive-bred live animals in 1996, for which the purpose was reported by Philippines as scientific, and Brazil as captive breeding.

Table 1. Direct exports of Triclaria malachitacea from Argentina to the EU-27 1981-2009. All trade involved live individuals.

Importer Purpose Source Reported by 1990 1991 1999 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 Total

Czech Republic T C Importer

4 16 4 6 30

Exporter

16 4 6 26

Italy T C Importer

2

2

Exporter

Z C Importer

Exporter

2

2

Spain T C Importer

4

4

Exporter

W Importer

20

20

Exporter

Z C Importer

Exporter

4

4

- C Importer

Exporter 20

20

Subtotals

C Importer

4 6 16 4 6 36

Exporter 20

4 2

16 4 6 52

W Importer 20 20

Exporter

Table 2. Direct exports of Triclaria malachitacea from Argentina to countries other than the EU-27 1981-2009. All trade involved live individuals.

Purpose Source Reported by 1989 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 Total

B C Importer

14

14

Exporter

T C Importer

12 14

8 4

38

Exporter

3 14 14 8 6 6 4 55

- Importer 21

21

Exporter

Z C Importer

Exporter

12

12

- C Importer

3

3

Exporter 21

21

Subtotals C Importer

15 14 14 8 4

55

Exporter 21 15 14 14 8 6 6 4 88

- Importer 21

21

Exporter


Triclaria malachitacea was reported to occur in coastal southern Brazil, from southern Bahia and eastern Minas Gerais south to Rio Grande do Sul and in northernmost Misiones in the extreme north-


34

east of Argentina (Forshaw, 2010). However, its occurrence in Argentina was considered to require confirmation (BirdLife International, 2010) and Juniper and Parr (1998), Ridgely (1981) and Dos Anjos et al. (2009) considered the species to be endemic to Brazil.

The range was estimated at 30 300 km2 (BirdLife International, 2010) and it was reported to mainly occur at an altitudinal range of 300 m to 700 m asl, but also from sea level up to 1000 m in some locations (Juniper and Parr, 1998). The species was reported to inhabit lower montane and escarpment forests, but also range into lowland forests outside the breeding season (BirdLife International, 2010). T. malachitacea was reported to only occur in the forested landscape and require large and continuous territories (Uezu et al., 2005). The species‟ habitat was considered to be restricted (Ridgely, 1981) and the sporadic nature of reports and the species absence from “seemingly suitable areas” was considered to indicate that some aspects of the species ecology were not understood (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

T. malachitacea was categorised as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2008), because “it is suspected to be declining moderately rapidly owing to habitat loss and capture for the cagebird trade”.

The global population has not been quantified, but the population trend was considered to be decreasing (BirdLife International, 2010) and the species was reported to be considered „rare‟ (Stotz et al., 1996).

T. malachitacea was considered to be strongly territorial (at least during the breeding season), with distances of up to 2 km between nest sites (Juniper and Parr, 1998). While Bencke (1998) reported that the species was found to nest on flat, ridgeline terrain in remnants of primary forest (possibly an artefact of lowland forest destruction) in Rio Grande do Sul, most records in the Serra do Mar were from along valley watercourses (BirdLife International, 2010). Nesting was reported to occur from October to January (Bencke, 1998) and Forshaw (1989) reported of a nest containing three eggs. The species diet was considered to be varied (Bencke, 1996 in: BirdLife International, 2010), including fruits, seeds, buds, nectar, insects, bark occasionally and fruits from plantations (Juniper and Parr, 1998).

The species was reported to be threatened by habitat loss and trapping (BirdLife International, 2010). The species had previously been classified as Endangered (1994-1999) and Vulnerable (2000-2003), before being reassessed as Near Threatened in 2004 (BirdLife International, 2008).

Bencke (1996) reported that captive birds were rare and Cornejo and Wolf (2006) considered the species to be difficult to maintain in captivity.

Argentina: There appear to be only two records from Argentina, from Misiones, but they were considered to require confirmation (BirdLife International, 2010). The species was considered to be very rare or accidental in Argentina (Chebez, 1999).

According to Global Species (2010), T. malachitacea occurred in Parque Nacional Iguazú in northern Argentina.

No further information on the status of the species in Argentina could be located.

Brazil: T. malachitacea was reported to mainly occur in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, ranging through coastal areas (including Ilha do Cardoso), as well as Rio Grande do Sul in south-east Brazil, where it was found in the band of country south of Caxias to Sul (Juniper and Parr, 1998). Records were also reported to exist from south Bahia (last recorded in 1833), Minas Gerais (records considered doubtful), Espírito Santo (more recent records reported from four or five sites) and Paraná (three recent records) (BirdLife International, 2010). Do Rosário (1996 in: BirdLife International, 2010) reported the species from Santa Catarina. Forshaw (2010) reported that the species occurred in the following localities: Intervales State Park, Sâo Paulo, and Monte Alverne district, Rio Grande do Sol, southern Brazil (Forshaw, 2010).

Lambert et al. (1993) estimated the population at fewer than 5000 individuals, but surveys by Bencke (1996 in: BirdLife International, 2010) suggested that there may be about 10 000 birds in Rio Grande do Sul and Juniper and Parr (1998) reported that the species may be more numerous on the east slope of the Serra do Mar in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. Snyder et al. (2000) considered

http://globalspecies.org/protectareas/display/20


35

T. malachitacea to be “one of the most secretive parrots in the world” and concluded that numbers may be higher than suspected, but cautioned that the above estimate by Bencke (1996 in: BirdLife International, 2010) of 10 000 specimens may have been an overestimate.

Stotz et al. (1996) considered the species to be naturally rare and Juniper and Parr (1998) reported that pairs were found “well spaced and at low densities”. Forshaw (1989) reported that the species was locally common in some districts. Bencke and Kindel (1999) reported that the species was fairly common in Araucaria woodlands and foothill forests between Tainhas and Terra de Areia (South-eastern Brazil).

Extensive habitat loss due to agricultural conversion, urbanisation and intensive palmito collection were considered major threats to the species (BirdLife International, 2010). Bencke (1996 in: BirdLife International, 2010) reported that in Rio Grande do Sul, cutting for fuelwood to cure tobacco was fragmenting habitat. Dos Anjos et al. (2009) reported that T. malachitacea was highly sensitive to fragmentation of the Atlantic Forest in Brazil and Uezu et al. (2005) considered T. malachitacea to be one of the most sensitive species to alterations in forest cover and of medium sensitivity to human disturbance. However, BirdLife International (2010) reported that the species appeared to persist in moderately disturbed habitats. Capture for cagebird trade was also considered a threat (Bencke, 1996 in: BirdLife International, 2010).

T. malachitacea was reported to be protected under Brazilian law and to occur in 14 protected areas in Brazil (Develey, 1997 in: BirdLife International, 2010). According to Global Species (2010), the species occurred in Mata Atlântica Biosphere reserve. Most of the recent observations outside Rio Grande do Sul were reported to have been in reserves (BirdLife International, 2010).

REFERENCES:

Bencke, G. A. 1996. The ecology and conservation of the Blue-bellied Parrot Triclaria malachitacea in forest fragments in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Final Report.

Bencke, G. A. 1998. Notes on the breeding of Blue-bellied parrot Triclaria malachitacea. Cotinga, 10 (71): 78.

Bencke, G. A. and Kindel, A. 1999. Bird counts along an altitudinal gradient of Atlantic forest in northeastern Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Ararajuba, 7 (2): 91-107.

BirdLife International. 2008. Triclaria malachitacea. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 8 December 2010.

BirdLife International. 2010. Species factsheet: Triclaria malachitacea URL: http://www.birdlife.org Accessed: 8 December 2010.

Chebez, J. C. 1999. Los que se van. Especies argentinas en peligro. Editorial Albatros Saci, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Cornejo, J. and Wolf, P. 2006. Quantitative review of the diet of the Purple-bellied parrot Triclaria malachitacea at Loro Parque Fundación, Tenerife. International Zoo Yearbook, 39 (1): 99-108.

Develey, P. F. 1997. Ecologia de bandos mistos de aves de Mata Atlântica na Estaçao Ecológica Juréia-Itatins. Sâo Paulo, Brasil. Sâo Paulo, Brasil, Tese de Mestrado. Instituto de Biociências. Universidade de Sâo Paulo, Brasil.

do Rosário, L. A. 1996. As aves em Santa Catarina: distribuiçao geográfica e meio ambiente. Santa Catarina, Brazil: Glorianópolis.

Dos Anjos, L., Holt, R. D., and Robinson, S. 2009. Position in the distributional range and sensitivity to forest fragmentation in birds: a case history from the Atlantic forest, Brazil. Bird Conservation International, 20: 392-399.

Forshaw, J. M. 1989. Parrots of the world. 3rd edn. Blandford Press, London. Forshaw, J. M. 2010. Parrots of the world. Christopher Helm, London. Global Species. 2010. Global Species URL: http://globalspecies.org/ Accessed: 8 December 2010. Juniper, T. and Parr, M. 1998. Parrots - a guide to the parrots of the world. Pica Press, Sussex. Lambert, F., Wirth, R., Seal, U. S., Thomsen, J. B., and Ellis-Joseph, S. 1993. Parrots: an action plan for their

conservation 1993-1998. Cambride, UK, BirdLife International and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resource.

Ridgely, R. S. 1981. The current distribution and status of mainland and neotropical parrots., in Parquier, R. F., (ed.), Conservation of New World Parrots. Smithsonian Press, 233-384.

http://globalspecies.org/protectareas/display/95


36

Snyder, N., McGowan, P., Gilardi, J., and Grajal, A. 2000. Parrots. Status survey and conservation action plan 2000-2004. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Stotz, D. F., Fitzpatrick, J. W., Parker, T. A., and Moskovits, D. K. 1996. Neotropical birds: ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press.

Uezu, A., Metzger, J. P., and Vielliard, J. M. E. 2005. Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic Forest bird species. Biological Conservation, 123 (507): 519.

Caiman crocodilus

37


REPTILIA ALLIGATORIDAE

SPECIES: Caiman crocodilus

SYNONYMS: Caiman sclerops, Crocodilus caiman, Crocodilus sclerops,

Jacare hirticollis, Jacaretinga crocodilus, Lacerta crocodilus

COMMON NAMES: Brilkaaiman (Dutch), Brown Caiman (English), Common

Caiman (English), Spectacled Caiman (English), Caïman à lunettes (French), Caimán (Spanish), Smalnosad glasögonkajman (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bolivia (?), Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba (int), Ecuador,

El Salvador, French Guiana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Puerto Rico (int), Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America (int), Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico

IUCN RED LIST: Lower Risk/least concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinions for wild specimens from Bolivia,

Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago and United States of America formed on 11/07/2000.

Current positive opinion for Suriname formed on 22/07/1997.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico first applied on 24/09/2000 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Previous negative opinions for El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico formed on 11/07/2000.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Venezuela was the main global exporter of wild-sourced Caiman crocodilus 1975-2009. The majority of global direct exports of the species from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of large quantities of skins and sides from a variety of sources, including 55 408 wild-sourced skins (of which 101 were exported to the EU-27), according to exporter-reported figures.

No CITES annual export quotas have ever been published by El Salvador, Guatemala or Mexico.

El Salvador: The only direct trade from El Salvador to the EU-27 1975-2009 consisted of 4655 C. crocodilus fuscus skins exported to Italy in 1985 for commercial purposes and one small leather

Caiman crocodilus

38

product of C. crocodilus exported to Greece in 2009 for unspecified purposes. In both cases, the source was unspecified and trade was reported by the importers only.

Indirect exports of C. crocodilus originating in El Salvador to the EU-27 1975-2009 mainly took place before 1989 (Table 1). Most of the trade was imported to the EU-27 via Panama, Switzerland or the United States of America. The source of the exports was usually unspecified; however when provided, it was usually wild-sourced. Caiman crocodilus was traded under a large range of terms, predominantly tails and skins. For live, tails and skins, more than 99 per cent of trade was reported as C. crocodilus fuscus, according to both importer- and exporter-reported figures.

Direct exports from El Salvador to countries other than the EU-27 1975-2009 consisted mainly of skins and live animals, with the majority of trade taking place before 1986 and no trade reported since 2003 (Table 2). The vast majority of trade was reported by the importers only, the main importer being Panama. In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of six bodies in 1990 and one body and one handbag in 1995. For bodies, live and skins, 72 per cent were traded as C. crocodilus fuscus, according to importer-reported figures.

Guatemala: Direct trade from Guatemala to the EU-27 1975-2009 consisted mainly of skins of unspecified source, with the majority of trade taking place before 1986, no reported imports of wild-soured C. crocodilus since 1994 and no reported imports from any source reported since 2003 (Table 3). The vast majority of exports were reported as Caiman crocodilus fuscus. Indirect trade to the EU-27 of C. crocodilus originating in Guatemala 1975-2009 consisted of a large range of terms, with most trade being in skins (Table 4). Most trade was imported to the EU-27 via Panama and Switzerland, the main importer was Italy.

Direct exports from Guatemala to countries other than the EU-27 1975-2009 consisted mainly of skins and live individuals, with Japan, Panama and the United States of America being the only importers (Table 5). For bodies, live individuals and skins, the majority of exports were of unspecified source. There has been no reported trade since 2002, however a number of confiscations/seizures were reported by the United States of America, including three bodies in 2006. According to exporter-reported figures for bodies, skins, live and tails, nearly 88 per cent of exports were reported as Caiman crocodilus fuscus.

Mexico: The only reported direct trade of Caiman crocodilus from Mexico to the EU-27 1975-2009 consisted of one body imported by the United Kingdom in 1977, one body imported by the United Kingdom for personal purposes in 1981 and one body imported by Italy in 1986 for personal purposes. All trade was reported by the importers only, with the bodies reported as C. crocodilus, C. crocodilus crocodilus and C. crocodilus fuscus respectively.

The only reported indirect exports of C. crocodilus originating in Mexico to the EU-27 1975-2009 were to the United Kingdom. These consisted of three watchstraps of unspecified source imported via Switzerland in 1985 for unspecified purposes and one wild-sourced body imported via Canada in 2000 for personal purposes.

Direct exports of C. crocodilus from Mexico to countries other than the EU-27 1975-2009 mainly consisted of manufactured items, such as shoes and leather products (Table 6). Most trade was imported by the United States of America, with smaller quantities imported by El Salvador and Panama. Mexico reported all exports as C. crocodilus fuscus, whereas the importers reported imports as C. crocodilus and C. crocodilus crocodilus.

Caiman crocodilus

39

Table 1. Indirect exports of Caiman crocodilus originating in El Salvador to the EU-27 1975-2009. Purpose was mainly commercial or unspecified.

Term Units Source Reported by 1983-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2002 2007 2008 Total

Manufactured pairs W Importer

Items*

Exporter

6

6

- C Importer

6

6

Exporter

U Importer

115

115

Exporter

W Importer

499 1648 34

10 2191

Exporter

1652

11

10

1673

- Importer

21527 13913 5

35445

Exporter

33619 18029

51648

live - - Importer 561 70

631

Exporter 723 100

823

skin pieces m W Importer

Exporter

4687.2

4687.2

- - Importer 2100 20

2120

Exporter

skin scraps - - Importer

10841

10841

Exporter

skins kg - Importer 423

423

Exporter

m - Importer

296.729

296.729

Exporter

1300.165

1300.165

sides - Importer 680 29258

29938

Exporter

14091

14091

- W Importer

1587

1587

Exporter

Caiman crocodilus

40

Term Units Source Reported by 1983-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2002 2007 2008 Total

- Importer 68206 158711 4

226921

Exporter 91758 206203 75

298036

tails - - Importer

Exporter

10841

10841

Subtotals (live, skins & tails

only)

kg - Importer 423

423

Exporter

m - Importer

296.729

296.729

Exporter

1300.165

1300.165

sides - Importer 680 29258

29938

Exporter

14091

14091

- W & Importer 68767 158781 1591

229139

unspecified

Exporter 92481 217144 75

309700

*Belts, garments, handbags, shoes etc. have been combined into the single category “manufactured items”.

Table 2. Direct exports of Caiman crocodilus from El Salvador to countries other than the EU-27 1975-2009 (including trade reported as C. crocodilus fuscus and C. crocodilus crocodilus).

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1978-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2002 2003 Total

bodies - P W Importer

1 2 3

Exporter

- I Importer

6 1

7

Exporter

U Importer

1

1

Exporter

W Importer

4 2

6

Exporter

- Importer

2

2

Exporter

live shipments - - Importer 1

1

Caiman crocodilus

41


Exporter

- T F Importer

3

3

Exporter

- Importer

18829 13228

32057

Exporter

Z U Importer

Exporter

3

3

- - Importer 1000

1000

Exporter

skin pieces - P W Importer

1

1

Exporter

skin/ - - - Importer

5

5

leather items

Exporter

skins kg T - Importer

10654

10654

Exporter

- T - Importer

201302 129200

330502

Exporter

- W Importer

1

1

Exporter

specimens - E - Importer

1

1

Exporter

S U Importer

Exporter

3

3

trophies - P W Importer

1

1

Exporter

Manufactured - P - Importer

1

1

Items*

Exporter

T C Importer

5

5

Exporter

Caiman crocodilus

42


W Importer

9 1

10

Exporter

- I Importer

1

1

Exporter

Subtotals (bodies, live & skins only)

kg - Importer

10654

10654

Exporter

shipments - Importer 1

1

Exporter

- F Importer

3

3

Exporter

I Importer

6 1

7

Exporter

U,W & Importer 1000 220131 142430 5 3

1 2 363572

unspecified Exporter

3

3

*Handbags and watchstraps have been combined into the single category “manufactured items”.

Caiman crocodilus

43

Table 3. Direct exports of Caiman crocodilus from Guatemala to the EU-27, 1975-2009 (including trade reported as C. crocodilus fuscus and C. crocodilus crocodilus).

Importer Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1979 1984 1985 1994 2003 Total

France skins - T - Importer

Exporter

9980 43498

53478

- C Importer

34

34

Exporter

W Importer

28

28

Exporter

- Importer

33100

33100

Exporter Germany large leather products pairs P R Importer

1 1

Exporter

live - T - Importer

Exporter

400

400

- - Importer 80

80

Exporter

skins - T - Importer

Exporter

29983

29983

Italy live - T - Importer

Exporter

200 200

400

skins - T - Importer

85153

85153

Exporter

76390 229399

305789

Netherlands bodies - - I Importer

1

1

Exporter Spain live - T C Importer

470 470

Exporter

470 470

Subtotals (live, bodies & skins only)

C Importer

34 470 504

Exporter

470 470

I Importer

1

1

Exporter

W & Importer 80

118253 28

118361


86570 303480

390050

Caiman crocodilus

44

Table 4. Indirect exports of Caiman crocodilus originating in Guatemala to the EU-27 1975-2009 (including trade reported as C. crocodilus fuscus and C. crocodilus crocodilus).

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 2006 Total

Manufactured - T C Importer

29 13

42

Items*

Exporter

I Importer

2

2

Exporter

O Importer

1

1

Exporter

U Importer

1741 63

1804

Exporter

W Importer

1354 772 5

2131

Exporter

5 9 14

- Importer

11913 1226

13139

Exporter

- U Importer

Exporter

3

3

W Importer

806

806

Exporter

42 1

43

- Importer

1243 217

1460

Exporter

19552 5035

24587

live - T C Importer

25 10

35

Exporter

W Importer

5

5

Exporter

- Importer 68

68

Exporter 329

329

skins sides T C Importer

181

181

Exporter

Caiman crocodilus

45

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 2006 Total

W Importer

327

327

Exporter

- U Importer

Exporter

870

870

W Importer

95

95

Exporter

- Importer

943

943

Exporter

1693 194

1887

- T W Importer

128 199

327

Exporter

- Importer

34701

34701

Exporter

44026

44026

- U Importer

Exporter

205

205

- Importer

2084 67

2151

Exporter

1098 189

1287

Subtotals (live & skins only)

sides C Importer

181

181

Exporter

W, U & Importer

943 422

1365

unspecified

Exporter

1693 1064

2757

- C Importer

25 10

35

Exporter

W, U & Importer 68 36785 200 199

37252

unspecified

Exporter 329 45124 189 205

45847

*Garments, Handbags, watchstraps, shoes etc. have been combined into the single category “manufactured items”.

Caiman crocodilus

46

Table 5. Direct exports of Caiman crocodilus from Guatemala to countries other than the EU-27, 1975-2009 (including trade reported as C. crocodilus fuscus and C. crocodilus crocodilus).

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2006 Total

Manufactured T I Importer

24

24

Items*

Exporter

U Importer

17

17

Exporter

W Importer

70

70

Exporter

- Importer

17

17

Exporter

- I Importer

12 26

38

Exporter

- Importer

28

28

Exporter

bodies P I Importer

1

1

2

Exporter

U Importer

1 2

3

Exporter

W Importer

1

1

Exporter

T I Importer

3 3

Exporter

U Importer

1

1

Exporter

- Importer

2

2

Exporter

- I Importer

7 2

9

Exporter

Caiman crocodilus

47


O Importer

1

1

Exporter

U Importer

2 1

3

Exporter

W Importer

3 6

9

Exporter

- Importer

1

1

Exporter

live T C Importer

2000 500 600

3100

Exporter

4000 3300

205

7505

W Importer

1000

1000

Exporter

- Importer 3871 8227

12098

Exporter

800 1690

2490

Z - Importer 1112

1112

Exporter

- I Importer

1

1

Exporter

skins T W Importer

1

1

Exporter

- Importer

14875 29864

44739

Exporter

29864 40764

70628

eggs P I Importer

20

20

Exporter

Subtotals (bodies, live, skins)

C Importer

2000 500 600

3100

Exporter

4000 3300

205

7505

I Importer

8 3

1

3 15

Caiman crocodilus

48


Exporter

O Importer

1

1

Exporter

W, U & Importer 4983 23102 29866 1

1000 2 1

58955


30664 42454

73118

*Carvings, Handbags, watchstraps etc. have been combined into the single category “manufactured items”.

Caiman crocodilus

49

Table 6. Direct exports of Caiman crocodilus from Mexico to countries other than the EU-27, 1975-2009 (including trade reported as C. crocodilus fuscus and C. crocodilus crocodilus).

Term Units Source Reported by 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Manufactured - C Importer

2 250 164 120

820 211 79 272

746 2664

Items*

Exporter

265

265

F Importer

48 10

58

Exporter

I Importer 2 11

281 8 14

443

4 39 60 38 314 1214

Exporter

R Importer

542 2 4

548

Exporter

U Importer

2 120 2 4

3

8

139

Exporter

W Importer

3 211 4 6 32 2511 613 605 14 419

4418

Exporter

- Importer 59 582

641

Exporter bodies - I Importer 14 9 9 5

37

Exporter

W Importer

3 4

1

8

Exporter

- Importer 34 12

46

Exporter live - C Importer

Exporter

10

10

skins - I Importer 1 2

3 4 10

Exporter

U Importer

1300

1300

Exporter

W Importer

1

1

Exporter

- Importer

1

1

Exporter

Caiman crocodilus

50

Term Units Source Reported by 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

tails - C Importer

Exporter

16

16

skin pieces m C Importer

961 961

Exporter

- I Importer

1

1

1

4

7

Exporter

U Importer

124

124

Exporter

W Importer

3

3

Exporter skulls - I Importer

1

9

1

11

Exporter

U Importer

1

1

Exporter

W Importer

3

3

Exporter specimens - C Importer

Exporter

8

8

- Importer 1

1

Exporter trophies - I Importer

1

1

Exporter

- Importer 1 1

2

Exporter

Subtotals (live, bodies, skins,

tails & skulls only)

C Importer

Exporter

16

10

26

I Importer 15 12 9 5

9

1

3 4 58

Exporter

U,W & unspecified Importer 34 13 1303 5

1

4

1360

Exporter

*Terms such as belts, garments, handbags, leather products etc. have been combined into a single category “manufactured items”.

Caiman crocodilus

51

TAXONOMIC NOTE:

Caiman yacare is often considered to be a subspecies of Caiman crocodilus, and it was found that distinguishing C. crocodilus and C. yacare from incomplete skin pieces was difficult due to similar morphological characteristics (Busack and Pandya, 2001). Campos et al. (2010) noted that “as there are no differences between the two taxa, they have to be defined geographically, rather than morphologically, which obviously poses legal difficulties”. Investigation of the relationship between C. crocodilus and C. yacare was considered as high priority in relation to the conservation of the species (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010).

Four subspecies of Caiman crocodilus were listed: C. c. fuscus, C. c. apaporiensis, C. c. chiapasius and C. c. crocodilus (Busack and Pandya, 2001; Uetz, 2010), and each has been designated an individual code in the universal tagging system for the identification of crocodilian skins (CITES Resolution Conf. 11.12 [Rev CoP15]). In an analysis of morphological characteristics of the different subspecies, Busack and Pandya (2001) found, however, “no clear boundaries between the subspecies” and “no appropriate means by which to diagnose separate taxa”. Furthermore, Uetz (2010) noted that “C. c. chiapasius is not accepted by all authors and may be a synonym of C. c. fuscus”, and the Crocodile Specialist Group (2010) did not consider C. c. chiapasius as a valid subspecies. However, in a recent analysis involving mitochondrial DNA sequence data, Venegas-Anaya et al. (2008) found support for the existence of the four subspecies, and considered C. c. chiapasius as a distinct evolutionary lineage. Groombridge (1987) listed C. c. mattogrossiensis and C. c. paraguayensis as further unverified subspecies.


Caiman crocodilus was described as “adept at surviving in a great variety of habitats, but preferring lakes, ponds, marshes and meandering tributaries of rivers where the current is not fast” (Crocodile Specialist Group, 2010). Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) noted that its ecological adaptability was “evidenced through its rapid population growth where it has been introduced, both accidentally and deliberately”. Age of maturity was estimated to be approximately four years, and average clutch size was reported to be 30 eggs (Crocodile Specialist Group, 2010). Hatchlings were found to stay in groups under the care of females until up to 18 months of age (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Egg predation rates were reported to reach 80 per cent in some areas (Crocodile Specialist Group, 2010), and flooding was found to sometimes cause high embryonic mortality (Allsteadt, 1994).

The species was reported to be “widespread through Central and South America” (Crocodile Specialist Group, 2010). Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela were listed as native range countries (Crocodile Specialist Group, 1996; Uetz, 2010; Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Furthermore, the species was reported to occur in Bolivia (Groombridge, 1987; Uetz, 2010), Argentina and Paraguay (Groombridge, 1987). Introduced populations were reported in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the United States (Crocodile Specialist Group, 1996; Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010) and Lesser Antilles (Uetz, 2010).

The range of C. c. crocodilus was reported to cover a major part of the species‟ range in South America, including the Amazon river basin (Groombridge, 1987; Busack and Pandya, 2001). C. c. fuscus was reported to occur in northern parts of Colombia and Venezuela, whereas C. c. chiapasius was reported to be distributed through Central America from southern Mexico, to the Pacific coasts of Colombia and Ecuador (Busack and Pandya, 2001). Groombridge (1987) reported the distribution of C. c. apaporiensis to be restricted to a “200 km stretch of the upper Rio Apaporis River in southeast Colombia”.

C. crocodilus was classified as Lower risk/least concern in the IUCN Red List (Crocodile Specialist Group, 1996), with the justification “probably numbers in the millions, widely distributed throughout range, although locally depleted or extirpated in some localities”. However, it was noted that this assessment needed updating.

C. crocodilus was reported to be “particularly abundant within some South American countries”, and found to have successfully established in areas where other crocodilian species had declined

Caiman crocodilus

52

(Crocodile Specialist Group, 2010). However, Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) reviewed recent studies, concluding that although the populations in some range countries seemed stable, other populations were highly overexploited and depleted. The status of C. c. apaporiensis was considered unknown, however “suspected to be depleted to some extent” (Groombridge, 1987); Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) stated that “its evaluation through surveys and habitat characterization remains a high priority”.

Illegal hunting and habitat loss were mentioned as the main threats to the species (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Due to the low value of C. crocodilus skins, in relation to other crocodilians, large-scale hunting was reported to have started only after the 1950s, as a result of the decreasing populations of Crocodylus acutus and C. moreletii, and improvements to the tanning techniques (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010; Escobedo-Galván et al., 2010b). Climate change was considered to be a further serious potential threat to the Mesoamerican crocodilians, as their reproduction success, sex ratio, and distributional limits are strongly dependent on climate (Escobedo-Galván et al., 2010b).

It was suggested that the species may be able to tolerate hunting relatively well due to its small size at sexual maturity (130 cm) (Luxmoore et al., 1988), and because hunting often targets predominantly large adult males (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010). Furthermore, the hunting of larger crocodilian species, and the construction of human-made water bodies were considered to have had a positive impact on the populations of C. crocodilus in many areas (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010).

C. crocodilus was regarded as a species of high potential for sustainable management (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010), and C. c. crocodilus was reported to breed well in captivity (Groombridge, 1987). Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) reported that captive breeding programs were in place in many of the range states, and management and conservation programs had been initiated in some countries.

El Salvador: C. crocodilus was reported to have a narrow distribution range, limited to two localities in El Salvador (Greenbaum and Komar, 2010). Martínez and Dueñas (2007) conducted daytime and night-time surveys during two visits to the Santa Rita-Zanjón el Chino protected areas in south-western El Salvador in 2004, during which a total of 135 individuals were observed (Martínez and Dueñas, 2007). Herrera et al. (2007) reported a verified sighting in the El Jocotal lake in the eastern part of the country in 1997. Surveys were also conducted in 2002 in five areas where prior information suggested occurrence, however the only observations were four individuals spotted on the Jiquilisco‟s Bay area (southern coast), where 3 km of shoreline was covered (Escobedo-Galván et al., 2010a). In addition, local people reported last sightings of the species 10-40 years ago in the Guija‟s lake area in the northwestern part of the country (Escobedo-Galván et al., 2010a).

Escobedo-Galván et al. (2010b) stated that the populations in El Salvador were the most deteriorated in Mesoamerica. Greenbaum and Komar (2010) classified the species as Endangered according to the IUCN Threat Criteria, due to the narrow distribution of the species in the country. The species was also classified as Endangered in the recent national list of threatened species (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2009).

It was reported that local settlers had entirely extirpated the populations of C. crocodilus in the areas of Guija and Los Negritos by the 1950s (Escobedo-Galván et al., 2010b). It was also noted that the increased population pressure in coastal habitats was a major threat to crocodilians in El Salvador (Greenbaum and Komar, 2010; Escobedo-Galván et al., 2010a).

C. crocodilus was reported to occur in the protected area of San Diego y La Barra (Greenbaum and Komar, 2010).

Guatemala: C. crocodilus was considered widespread in Guatemala (Acevedo et al., 2010), and it was reported to occur in the Caribbean and Pacific lowlands (Wilson and Johnson, 2010).

Based on its limited occurrence in only two ecological zones (subtropical dry and moist forests), and being persecuted by humans, the species was categorised as a high vulnerability species in Guatemala (Acevedo et al., 2010).

Caiman crocodilus

53

Escobedo-Galván et al. (2010b) stated that “information on the population status of this species is lacking, which highlights the need to conduct […] studies, as well as to assess the impact of human activities”. An earlier estimate of population size was 10 000-12 000 individuals (Menghi, 1988, in litt. to Luxmoore et al., 1988).

Regulation No 36/04 banned hunting without authorization and appropriate permits in Guatemala (Congreso de la República de Guatemala, 2004). C. crocodilus was classified as a species under serious threat due to habitat loss, high levels of trade or narrow distribution (CONAP, 2006). Consequently, hunting and capture was allowed only for scientific or breeding purposes, or if approved in a management plan that guarantees sustainable use (CONAP, 2006).

Luxmoore (1992) reported that approximately 185 individuals of C. crocodilus were kept on two experimental farms in Guatemala. More recently, Velasco (2008) reported that there were captive breeding programs of C. crocodilus in Guatemala, with the aim of production for local trade.

Mexico: C. crocodilus was reported to occur in the Pacific coastal plains of Oaxaca and Chiapas in southeastern Mexico (Johnson et al., 2010). Groombridge (1982) reported C. c. fuscus to be “relatively abundant in parts of southern Mexico”.

Aguilar-Miguel (2005) reported that the status of the species was poorly known, and noted that in addition to the known populations in Chiapas, other populations may possibly exist. Velasco and Ayarzagüena (2010) stated that “Flores (2002; 2005) reported a stable population of C. c. chiapasius in Chiapas State, and Aguilar-Galindo et al. (2005) monitored caiman populations in Chiapas State and reported good status.”

The main threats to C. crocodilus in Mexico were considered to include hunting and habitat degradation (Aguilar-Miguel, 2005). In addition to skins, also meat and other parts were reported to be used in Mexico (Aguilar-Miguel, 2005). It was stated that C. crocodilus was “much persecuted in Chiapas, primarily for the skin trade. They are protected under legislation which sets closed seasons and a minimum size of 1.5 m, but in general the laws are not well enforced and they are considered as a free resource” (Luxmoore et al., 1988). It was also mentioned that juvenile individuals were often dried for the curio market (Luxmoore et al., 1988).

Velasco (2008) reported that there were captive breeding programs aimed at the conservation of C. crocodilus in Mexico.

C. crocodilus was classified as species “under special protection” in NOM-059-ECOL-2001 (Aguilar-Miguel, 2005).

REFERENCES:

Acevedo, M., Wilson, L. D., Cano, E. B., and Vásquez-Almazán, C. 2010. Diversity and conservation status of the Guatemalan herpetofauna, in Wilson, L. D., Townsend, J. H., & Johnson, J. D., (eds.), Conservation of Mesoamerican amphibians and reptiles. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 406-434.

Aguilar-Galindo, A. 2005, Evaluación del estado de conservación del Caiman crocodilus fuscus (Mertens,1943) durante el año 2003-2004, en el sistema lagunar de Chantuto, Reserva de la Biosfera la Encrucijada, Chiapas,México, Unpublished BSc Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Aguilar-Miguel, X. 2005. Caiman crocodilus. Algunas especies de anfibios y reptiles contenidos en el Proyecto de Norma Oficial Mexicana PROY-NOM-059-ECOL-2000. Facultad de Ciencias, Centro de Investigación en Recursos Bióticos, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México.

Allsteadt, J. 1994. Nesting ecology of Caiman crocodilus in Caño Negro, Costa Rica. Journal of Herpetology, 28 (1): 12-19.

Busack, S. D. and Pandya, S. 2001. Geographic variation in Caiman crocodilus and Caiman yacare (Crocodylia: Alligatoridae): systematic and legal implications. Herpetologica, 57 (3): 294-312.

CONAP. 2006. Lista de especies amenazadas de Guatemala. Consejo Nacional de Áreas Protegidas URL:

Caiman crocodilus

54

http://conap.gob.gt:7778/conap/documentos/fauna/Listado%20de%20especies%20amenazadas.pdf Accessed: 12 December 2010.

Congreso de la República de Guatemala. 2004. Decreto No 36/04 - ley de caza. Diario de Centro América, 22/12/2004.

Crocodile Specialist Group. 1996. Caiman crocodilus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 8 December 2010.

Crocodile Specialist Group. 2010. Crocodilian species list, IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, URL: www.iucncsg.org/ph1/modules/Crocodilians/species.html Accessed: 8 December 2010.

Escobedo-Galván, A. H., Dueñas, C., and Martinez, C. 2010a. Notes on crocodiles in El Salvador. Crocodile Specialist Group Newsletter, 23 (3): 14.

Escobedo-Galván, A. H., Venegas-Anaya, M., Espinal, M. R., Platt, S. G., and Buitrago, F. 2010b. Conservation of crocodilians in Mesoamerica, in Wilson, L. D., Townsend, J. H., & Johnson, J. D., (eds.), Conservation of Mesoamerican amphibians and reptiles. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 746-757.

Flores, C. 2002. Estado actual de la población del Caiman crocodilus chiapasius en El Castaño, Chiapas. COMACROM. Mexico.

Flores, C. G. 2005, Caracterización de una población del Caiman crocodilus chiapasius en El Castaño, Reserva de la Biosfera La Encrucijada, Chiapas, México, Unpublished BSc Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Greenbaum, E. and Komar, O. 2010. A conservation assessment of Salvadoran protected areas: priorities and recommendations based on amphibian and reptile distributions, in Wilson, L. D., Townsend, J. H., & Johnson, J. D., (eds.), Conservation of Mesoamerican amphibians and reptiles. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 435-459.

Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-reptilia Red Data Book Part 1: Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 426 pp.

Groombridge, B. 1987. The distribution and status of world crocodilians, in Webb, G. J. W., Manolis, S. C., & Whitehead, P. J., (eds.), Wildlife management: Crocodiles and Alligators. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd, Chipping Norton, Australia. 9-24.

Herrera, N., Henríquez, V., and Greenbaum, E. 2007. New country and department records for amphibians and reptiles from El Salvador. Herpetological Review, 38 (2): 222-226.

Johnson, J. D., Mata-Silva, V., and Ramírez-Bautista, A. 2010. Geographic distribution and conservation of the herpetofauna of southeastern Mexico, in Wilson, L. D., Townsend, J. H., & Johnson, J. D., (eds.), Conservation of Mesoamerican amphibians and reptiles. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 322-369.

Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B., and Broad, S. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: A review of selected species in CITES Appendix II, Vol. 2. Reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 306 pp.

Luxmoore, R. A. 1992. Directory of crocodilian farming operations. Second edition edn. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Martínez, C. C. and Dueñas, C. 2007. Observaciones preliminares de Caiman crocodilus en el Área Natural Protegida Santa Rita y El Zanjón El Chino, El Salvador. Mesoamericana, 10 (4): 34-36.

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 2009. Acuerdo No 36 - listado oficial de especies de vida silvestre amenazadas o en peligro de extinción. Diario Oficial - San Salvador, 5/6/2009.

Uetz, P. 2010. The Reptile Database URL: www.reptile-database.org/ Accessed: 1 November 2010. Velasco, A. and Ayarzagüena, J. 2010. Spectacled Caiman Caiman crocodilus, in Manolis, S. C. &

Stevenson, C., (eds.), Crocodiles. Status survey and conservation action plan. Third edition Ed. IUCN SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, 10-15.

Velasco, A. B. 2008. Crocodile management, conservation and sustainable use in Latin America, Crocodiles.Proceedings of the 19th working meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group (unreviewed), IUCN, pp. 72-88.

Venegas-Anaya, M., Crawford, A. J., Galván, A. H. E., Sanjur, O. I., Densmore III, L. D., and Bermingham, E. 2008. Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography of Caiman crocodilus in Mesoamerica and South America. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 309A (10): 614-627.

Caiman crocodilus

55

WCMC, IUCN/SSC Trade Specialist Group, and TRAFFIC International. 1993. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of select animal species in CITES Appendix II. Draft report to the CITES Animals Committee, June 1993. Cambridge, UK.

Wilson, L. D. and Johnson, J. D. 2010. Distributional patterns of the herpetofauna of Mesoamerica, a biodiversity hotspot, in Wilson, L. D., Townsend, J. H., & Johnson, J. D., (eds.), Conservation of Mesoamerican amphibians and reptiles. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 30-235.

Heloderma suspectum

56


REPTILIA HELODERMATIDAE

SPECIES: Heloderma suspectum

COMMON NAMES: Gilamonster (Dutch), Gila Monster (English), Lézard perlé

(French), Monstre de Gila (French), Monstruo de Gila (Spanish), Gilaödla (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Mexico, United States of America

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Mexico, United States of America

IUCN RED LIST: Near Threatened


from Mexico and the United States of America first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

TRADE PATTERNS:

As the only range States for the species, Mexico and the United States of America were the only direct exporters of wild Heloderma suspectum 1975-2009 (although Singapore reported the import of two live wild-sourced H. suspectum from and originating in Indonesia in 1996, Indonesia reported these exports as originating in the United States of America). The majority of global direct exports of H. suspectum from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live, captive-bred or captive-born individuals (totalling 660 individuals, of which 442 were imported by the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures).

No CITES export quotas have ever been published for this species by any country.

Mexico: There were no direct exports of H. suspectum from Mexico to the EU-27 reported 1975-2009. The only indirect export of H. suspectum originating in Mexico was the export in 1984 of two live zoo animals from the United States of America to Denmark.

Direct exports of H. suspectum from Mexico to countries other than the EU-27, 1975-2009 consisted of a small number of live animals and one body, which were imported by the United States of America and Switzerland, with no reported trade since 2001 (Table 1). In addition, the confiscation/seizure of a total of 24 items was reported by the United States of America in 1982, 1992 and 1999.

United States of America: The majority of direct exports of Heloderma suspectum from the United States of America to the EU-27 1975-2009 were of live, captive-bred and captive-born individuals, with no trade in wild-sourced individuals since 1997 (Table 2). Thirteen member States reported imports, the main importers being Denmark and Germany. The majority of trade was for commercial purposes. Indirect trade to the EU-27 of H. suspectum originating in the United States consisted of four live individuals imported via Switzerland (Table 3).

Direct exports of Heloderma suspectum from the United States of America to countries other than the EU-27 1975-2009 consisted of 292 and 255 live individuals as reported by the United States of America and

Heloderma suspectum

57

by the importers respectively, with the main importer being Japan (Table 4). The majority of trade was in captive-born and captive-bred individuals, with no wild-sourced individuals exported since 1999.

Table 1. Direct exports of H. suspectum from Mexico to countries other than the EU-27, 1975-2009.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1980 1982 1992 1999 2000 2001 Total

bodies P W Importer

1

1

Exporter

live P C Importer

Exporter

1 1 2

- Importer 4

4

Exporter

T I Importer

9

9

Exporter

- Importer 2

2

Exporter

skins - I Importer

1

1

Exporter

small leather products T I Importer

14

14

Exporter

Heloderma suspectum

58

Table 2: Direct exports of Heloderma suspectum from the United States of America to the EU-27, 1975-2009. More details are provided in Annex I.

Term Source Reported by 1980 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

bodies W Importer

2

2

Exporter

live C Importer

9 20 4 13 4 11

4

4

11

6

86

Exporter

15 20 12 19 4 5

2 5 22 29 15 44 24 25 8

249

F Importer

2 4 6 22 18 28 73 87 84 66 6 396

Exporter

4 2 1

13 34 71 72 62 13 272

R Importer

5 7 12

Exporter

U Importer

Exporter

5

5

W Importer

Exporter

4 3

7

- Importer 10 4 10

1 4

29

Exporter

specimens F Importer

Exporter

4

4

Table 3. Indirect exports of Heloderma suspectum originating in the United States of America 1975-2009. All trade involved live individuals exported by Switzerland. Importer Purpose Source Reported by 1981 1986 1992 2008 2009 Total

Austria - - Importer

Exporter

2

2

France - - Importer

Exporter 1

1

Germany B C Importer

2

2

Exporter

Q F Importer

1 1 2

Exporter

2

2

Heloderma suspectum

59

Table 4. Direct exports of Heloderma suspectum from the United States of America to countries other than the EU-27, 1975-2009. All trade involved live individuals.

Purpose Source Reported by 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

B C Importer

Exporter

6 5

11

F Importer

Exporter

5

5

P C Importer

6 3

9

Exporter

F Importer

4

17 21

Exporter

Q F Importer

1

1

Exporter

S - Importer

Exporter

3

3

T C Importer

12 29 8

49

Exporter

8 26 11

2 10 14 6 9

4

7 97

F Importer

25 16 15 10 19 6 15 9 13 8 2 138

Exporter

7 18 8

10 16 19 12 43 133

O Importer

Exporter

4

4

U Importer

Exporter

11

11

W Importer

Exporter

4

4

- Importer

2 2

4

Exporter

Z C Importer

7

7

Exporter

2

2

2 2

8

Heloderma suspectum

60

Purpose Source Reported by 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

F Importer

2

2

2

8

14

Exporter

4 4

W Importer

4

4

Exporter

- Importer

Exporter

2

2

- C Importer

Exporter

7

7

- Importer 2 4

2

8

Exporter 2 1

3

Subtotals

C&F Importer

12 42 38 16 17 10 21 6 15 13 14 16 19 239

Exporter

8 35 18 18 17 16 21 8 19 16 23 12 54 265

O Importer

Exporter

4

4

U,W & Importer 2 6 2 4

2

16

unspecified Exporter 2 3 3 11 4

23

Heloderma suspectum

61

TAXONOMIC NOTE:

Beck (2004) listed two accepted subspecies, Heloderma s. suspectum and Heloderma s. cinctum.; however, in a recent molecular analysis, Douglas et al. (2010) found no support for the distinction.


Heloderma suspectum is a venomous terrestrial lizard that may grow up to 50 cm in length (Beck, 2004; NatureServe, 2010). It was reported to be primarily a desert species, also found in semi-desert grasslands and dry woodlands (Beck, 2004; Wilson and Johnson, 2010; CaliforniaHerps.com, 2010). Home range sizes were estimated to vary from 10 to over 50 ha, with considerable overlap between ranges (Degenhardt et al., 1996). Reproduction was reported to typically take place every other year (CaliforniaHerps.com, 2010). Clutch sizes of 2-12 eggs, with an average size of five, were recorded in Arizona (Degenhardt et al., 1996).

H. suspectum was reported to occur in the southwestern parts of the United States of America, and northwestern Mexico (Hammerson et al., 2007), with an estimated total range of 200 000-2 500 000 km2 (NatureServe, 2010).

It was classified as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List, with the following justification: “species is probably in significant decline (but probably at a rate of less than 30% over three generations), especially because of habitat loss throughout much of its range, thus making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable” (Hammerson et al., 2007). In the NatureServe (2010) conservation status ranking system, it was classified as “apparently secure” and reported to be “fairly common in some areas”.

Hammerson et al. (2007) reported the population size to be unknown, but “probably at least several thousand; the species is fairly common in at least some parts of the range”. It was noted that the species “is never very abundant, but its abundance varies greatly” (Hammerson et al., 2007), and that “canyon bottoms, arroyos, and rocky slopes may support relatively dense populations in some parts of Arizona and Sonora” (NatureServe, 2010). Beck (2005) reported that the species was “very rare” in some localities and relatively common in others, and stated that “throughout much of their range, they are spottily distributed and seldom seen, which certainly gives an impression of rarity”.

Habitat destruction, mainly related to agricultural expansion, urbanisation, and the construction of roads, was considered to be the main threat to H. suspectum (Hammerson et al., 2007; NatureServe, 2010). Due to its naturally low population densities, H. suspectum was considered particularly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation, which was reported to have taken place in large parts of its range (Beck, 2005). Illegal exploitation by commercial and private collectors was also considered as a significant threat (Beck, 2005; Hammerson et al., 2007; NatureServe, 2010). It was stated that there was evidence to indicate “significant illegal trade, both within the United States, between the United States and Mexico, and otherwise internationally” (Federal Register, 1996). However, Beck (2005) reported that although the Heloderma species belong to the most commercially valuable reptiles globally, their secretive habits and rarity have helped control the levels of exploitation by humans.

The commercial collection of H. suspectum in the wild was reported to be banned in both range states (Federal Register, 1996; Hammerson et al., 2007), and the earliest laws for its protection were reported to have been established in the 1950s following large-scale exploitation for displays and zoos (Beck, 2005). The laws were considered to have had a significant impact on reducing the pressure on wild populations, and it was stated that “today, most permits for wild-caught Gila Monsters are issued for lizards displaced by housing or recreational developments and turned in to wildlife officials. Such permits are normally given only to those engaged in legitimate scientific research or education” (Beck, 2005). However, it was also stated that “some degree of illegal collection certainly occurs”, and that the species was not under appropriate protection or management in most parts of its range (NatureServe, 2010).

Beck (2005) reported that the species had been successfully bred in captivity. Captive breeding programs were suggested to provide potential means to alleviate pressure on natural populations (Beck, 2005); however, it was stated that “although specimens have been bred in captivity, concern has been expressed over the potential and likelihood of illegal laundering of wild animals into the captive-bred trade” (Federal Register, 1996). In an assessment of morbidity and mortality in captivity,

Heloderma suspectum

62

H. suspectum was classified as a species „not suitable for private husbandry‟, due to its seasonal activity patterns, being a dangerous species and requiring environmental conditions that are difficult to simulate, and it was reported to be „difficult to keep or with a „high mortality in captivity‟ (Altherr and Freyer, 2001).

Mexico: H. suspectum was reported to occur in the states of Sonora, Chihuahua and Sinaloa in northern Mexico (Beck, 2004; Enderson et al., 2009). Campbell and Lamar (1989) reported occurrences in most of Sonora, apart from the northwestern coast and the eastern mountains; northern parts of Sinaloa; western Chihuahua; and a relict population (not geographically connected to the main populations) in west-central Sinaloa. The populations were reported to be “probably decreasing in southern Sonora due to expanding commercial agriculture” (Hammerson et al., 2007).

Main threats to the species in Mexico were considered to include habitat destruction, traditional use as folk medicine and food, and commercial trade in live animals and skins (Lavín-Murcio and Lazcano, 2010). Deliberate killing of H. suspectum by farmers and ranchers was reported to be common (Beck, 2005).

H. suspectum was reported to be classified as Threatened in Mexico, and regulation NOM-059-ECOL-1994 banned the unauthorized capture and hunting of the species (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social, 1994). However, Lavín-Murcio and Lazcano (2010) noted that the actual protection under the regulation was insufficient, and that “in the past, numerous cases of organisms regarded as „legal‟ turned out to involve protected organisms, and many had their origins in natural sanctuaries”.

It was reported that H. suspectum does not occur in any protected areas in northern Mexico (Lavín-Murcio and Lazcano, 2010). Beck (2005) stated that although several planned protected sites were identified along the range of H. suspectum, many locality records “fall outside the boundaries of these proposed protected areas”.

United States of America: H. suspectum was reported to occur in the Mojave Desert (extreme southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, southeastern California, and northwestern Arizona), Sonoran desert in Arizona, and a small area in the Chihuahuan desert (southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico) (Beck, 2004). It was reported to be most common in the Sonoran Desert region of Arizona (Lovich and Beaman, 2007), where the populations were classified as Apparently Secure by NatureServe (2010), although Beck (2005) reported that it was considered as a “species of concern” and “sensitive species” in certain parts of Arizona. The status of populations in the two areas of occurrence in New Mexico was reported to be stable, although the species was classified as Vulnerable by NatureServe (2010) and Endangered (i.e. in jeopardy of extinction or extirpation from the state) in the Wildlife Conservation Act in New Mexico (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 2006). Densities of five individuals per km2 were recorded by Degenhardt et al. (1996) in New Mexico.

In Utah, H. suspectum was classified Critically Imperiled (NatureServe, 2010) and given the status of “state endangered species” (Beck, 2005). Beck (2005) reported that most populations in the Mohave Desert had been lost and estimated that due to habitat loss, the current population densities in Utah were significantly lower than the densities of 8-10 individuals per km2 recorded in the 1970s and 1980s. The population trends in Nevada were reported to be unknown (RECON, 2000), and the species was classified as “imperiled” (NatureServe, 2010), and given a “high priority” status in Clark County in southern Nevada (RECON, 2000). It was reported to be “extremely rare” and classified as “species of special concern” in California (Beck, 2005); however, Lovich and Beaman (2007) considered the rarity to be a natural result of the species being at the edge of its range, rather than due to human impact.

The main threats to the species were considered to include habitat degradation and illegal collection (Federal Register, 1996; Beck, 2005; New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 2006). The trade on captive-bred H. suspectum was reported to be increasing, with prices of up to USD 1200 per specimen (Beck, 2005). Beck (2005) considered the potential for illegal trade to be very significant, and estimated H. suspectum to be “among the most common black-market reptiles in the southwestern United States”. It was also reported that there may be significant levels of illegal trade across the international borders; U.S. customs officials were reported to encounter H. suspectum “frequently”, although the fines for smuggling were reported to typically exceed USD 10 000, and be up to USD 250 000 for individuals and USD 500 000 for organisations (Beck, 2005).

Heloderma suspectum

63

In addition, the species was reported to be often killed due to being perceived dangerous, and road mortality was common (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, 2006). Translocations from inhabited areas were reported to significantly increase mortality (Sullivan et al., 2004).

It was reported that the Humane Society of the United States had suggested the transfer of H. suspectum from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I in 1996, and another similar request had been made in collaboration with the International Wildlife Coalition in 1999, but that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could not find sufficient evidence to support the transfer (Beck, 2005).

The species was given NatureServe national rank of “apparently secure at the present time” (NatureServe, 2010). However, H. s. cinctum was classified as a “species of concern” by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2011). It was reported that permits for the capture of H. suspectum were “usually given only for legitimate scientific or educational purposes” (Beck, 2005). The U.S. Lacey Act was reported to have banned the imports, exports, transport, selling, receiving, acquiring and purchase of any wildlife that has been obtained in violation of any law and regulation, and the fines for keeping illegally obtained individuals of H. suspectum were reported to be as high as USD 250 000 (Beck, 2005). Furthermore, the keeping of captive-bred individuals was reported to be banned in the native range states (Beck, 2005).

Beck (2005) stated that “hundreds of square miles of suitable habitat” remained in Arizona in “national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, and other Sonoran Desert ecosystems protected from habitat conversion”. Most of the habitat of H. suspectum in California was reported to be “protected or relatively free from human disturbance” (Lovich and Beaman, 2007).

REFERENCES:

Altherr, S. and Freyer, D. 2001. Morbidity and mortality in private husbandry of reptiles. RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), Pro Wildlife.

Beck, D. D. 2004. Heloderma suspectum (Cope 1869), in Pianka, E. R., King, D. R., & King, R. A., (eds.), Varanoid lizards of the world. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 528-534.

Beck, D. D. 2005. Biology of gila monsters and beaded lizards. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

CaliforniaHerps.com. 2010. Heloderma suspectum cinctum - Banded Gila Monster URL: www.californiaherps.com Accessed: 8 December 2010.

Campbell, J. A. and Lamar, W. W. 1989. The venomous reptiles of Latin America. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca and London.

Davis, J. R. and DeNardo, D. F. 2010. Seasonal patterns of body condition, hydration state, and activity of Gila Monsters (Heloderma suspectum) at a Sonoran desert site. Journal of Herpetology, 44 (1): 83-93.

Degenhardt, W. G., Painter, C. W., and Price, A. H. 1996. Amphibians and reptiles of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Douglas, M. E., Douglas, M. R., Schuett, G. W., Beck, D. D., and Sullivan, B. K. 2010. Conservation phylogenetics of helodermatid lizards using multiple molecular markers and a supertree approach. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 55: 153-167.

Enderson, E. F., Quijada-Mascareñas, A., Turner, D. S., Rosen, P. C., and Bezy, R. L. 2009. The herpetofauna of Sonora, Mexico, with comparisons to adjoining states. Check List, 5 (3): 632-672.

Federal Register 1996. Species being considered for amendments to the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; request for information. Federal Register, 61 (168): 44328-44329.

Hammerson, G. A., Frost, D. R., and Gadsden, H. 2007. Heloderma suspectum. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 8-12-2010.

Kwiatkowski, M. A., Schuett, G. W., Repp, R. A., Nowak, E. M., and Sullivan, B. K. 2008. Does urbanization influence the spatial ecology of Gila monsters in the Sonoran Desert? Journal of Zoology, 276: 350-357.

Lavín-Murcio, P. A. and Lazcano, D. 2010. Geographic distribution and conservation of the herpetofauna of northern Mexico, in Wilson, L. D., Townsend, J. H., & Johnson, J. D., (eds.),

Heloderma suspectum

64

Conservation of Mesoamerican amphibians and reptiles. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 274-301.

Lovich, J. E. and Beaman, K. R. 2007. A history of Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum cinctum) records from California with comments on factors affecting their distribution. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 106 (2): 39-58.

NatureServe. 2010. Heloderma suspectum - Cope, 1869. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1 URL: www.natureserve.org/explorer Accessed: 8 December 2010.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2006. Threatened and endangered species of New Mexico - final 2006 biennial review and recommendations.

RECON. 2000. Clark County multiple species habitat conservation plan and environmental impact statement for issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of 79 species in Clark County, Nevada. Appendix B: Individual species analyses. Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. San Diego, California.

Secretaría de Desarrollo Social. 1994. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-ECOL-1994. Diario Oficial de la Federación No 16, 22 March 2000.

Sullivan, B. K., Kwiatkowski, M. A., and Schuett, G. W. 2004. Translocation of urban Gila Monsters: a problematic conservation tool. Biological Conservation, 117: 235-242.

USFWS. 2011. Banded gila monster (Heloderma suspectum cinctum), U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service - Species profiles., URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C05Q#status Accessed: 6 January 2011.


Iguana iguana

65


REPTILIA IGUANIDAE

SPECIES: Iguana iguana

SYNONYMS: Iguana rhinolopha

COMMON NAMES: Groene leguaan (Dutch), Common Iguana (English), Green

Iguana (English), Iguane commun (French), Iguane vert (French), Gallina de palo (Spanish), Iguana verde (Spanish), Grön leguan (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Anguilla (int), Aruba, Barbados (ex), Belize, Bolivia, Brazil,

British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, United States Virgin Islands, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: El Salvador

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for Costa Rica formed on 12/12/2000.

Previous negative opinion for Costa Rica formed on 16/09/1999.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens from El Salvador formed on 21/11/1998 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from El Salvador formed on 02/09/1997. Current positive opinion for captive-bred specimens from El Salvador formed on 02/09/1997.

Current positive opinion for live, captive-bred specimens from Nicaragua formed on 05/09/2002.

Current positive opinion for all other countries formed on 02/09/1997.

TRADE PATTERNS:

El Salvador, Suriname and Colombia were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Iguana iguana 1977-2009. According to exporter-reported figures, the majority of global direct exports

Iguana iguana

66

of I. iguana from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live, captive-bred and captive-born individuals (totalling 6 146 888 individuals, of which 20 per cent were imported by the EU-27) followed by live, wild-sourced individuals (totalling 92 525 individuals, of which 13 per cent were imported by the EU-27).

El Salvador has never published CITES annual export quotas for the species.

According to El Salvador and its trading partners respectively, a total of 1 347 845 and 1 049 832 live I. iguana were exported to the EU-27 1977-2009 (Table 1), of which zero and 9830, respectively, were wild sourced, with the majority being captive-bred. Trade was reported to 20 EU Member States, with Belgium and Spain being the main importers. EU Member States have not reported any imports of wild-sourced I. iguana from El Salvador since 2002, when France reported the import of 500 wild-sourced individuals. Indirect exports to the EU-27 of the species originating in El Salvador 1977-2009 consisted of 165 149 and 206 917 live individuals according to exporter- and importer-reported figures, respectively, including 86 per cent which were captive-bred or captive-born, and 11 per cent which were wild-sourced or of unknown or unspecified source (Table 2). All indirect exports were imported to the EU-27 via the United States of America.

Direct exports from El Salvador to countries other than the EU-27 1977-2008 consisted mainly of live, captive-bred individuals (Table 3). Trade was reported to 35 countries, with the United States of America being the main importer. Although El Salvador did not report the export of any live, wild-sourced I. iguana 1977-2009, importers reported the import of 528 573 live I. iguana during this period. A further 11 per cent were of unknown or unspecified source. In addition, the United States reported the confiscation/seizure of a total of three live animals in 1991 and 2005. The United States also reported the confiscation/seizure of bodies, eggs, meat and soup 1991-2009.

Iguana iguana

67

Table 1. Direct exports of Iguana iguana from El Salvador to the EU-27, 1977-2009. Further details are provided in Annex 1.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1989 1991-1994 1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

live T C Importer 1800 5000 112839 94550 82349 104358 118643 112009 102229 113893 66452 57601 51675 1023398

Exporter

6700 185752 155400 122930 154805 167293 173060 71605 135560 106140

68600 1347845

F Importer

5604 2000 3800 1000 200 2000

14604

Exporter

R Importer

1000

1000

Exporter

W Importer

9330

500

9830

Exporter

- I Importer

500

500

Exporter

small leather products T C Importer

500

500

Exporter

Table 2. Indirect exports of Iguana iguana originating in El Salvador to the EU-27, 1977-2009. All trade involved live individuals traded via the United States of America.

Purpose Source Reported by 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

B C Importer

2

2

Exporter

P C Importer

3 2

2

2 1

2 12

Exporter

2 2 2 3

2

2 1

14

U Importer

1

1

Exporter

W Importer

Exporter

5 5

- Importer

Exporter 2

2

Q C Importer

Iguana iguana

68


Exporter

3

1

4

T C Importer

6176 53144 13810 9812 9855 25909 17627 15601 13159 11640 8396 8375 193504

Exporter

1900 25781 4822 9400 6168 14846 16807 14335 13310 11468 7696 8460 134993

F Importer

450

2230 3577 32 6289

Exporter

500

2610 4008 332 7450

O Importer

Exporter

1060

1060

R Importer

600

700 300 1600

Exporter

500

1100

800

300 700 3400

U Importer

Exporter

4149 552 800

5501

W Importer

1447 1643

350

3440

Exporter

1130 6651 475 929

500

9685

- Importer 1218 400 301 150

2069

Exporter 2354 635

2989

- C Importer

Exporter

1 4

5

U Importer

Exporter

40

40

W Importer

Exporter

1

1

Subtotals

C,F Importer

6176 53594 13813 9816 9855 25911 17627 15601 13161 13871 11973 8409 199807

Exporter

1900 25783 5325 9406 6171 14846 16809 14338 13312 14080 11704 8792 142466

O Importer

Exporter 1060 1060

W,U & Importer 1218 400 1748 1794 350 5510

unspecified Exporter 2356 635 5279 7244 1275 929 500 5 18223

Iguana iguana

69


R Importer 600 700 300 1600

Exporter 500 1100 800 300 700 3400

Table 3. Direct exports of Iguana iguana from El Salvador to countries other than the EU-27, 1977-2009.

Term Units Source Reported by 1977-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

bodies - I Importer

4

2 2 13

7 28

Exporter

W Importer

3 7

4 20

34

Exporter

derivatives - C Importer

24 24

Exporter

eggs kg I Importer

0.3

2.9 3.3

Exporter

W Importer

2

2

Exporter

- I Importer

36

94 44 93 87 175 529

Exporter

O Importer

153

153

Exporter

U Importer

64

64

Exporter

W Importer

24 50

142

119

335

Exporter

live - C Importer

332790 827465 226147 279587 234727 283425 350041 333902 309587 338973 278040 231941 4026625

Exporter

707420 2238787 429279 377329 495165 473455 606313 144479 449746 453059

333669 6708701

F Importer

3000

3000

Exporter

Iguana iguana

70


I Importer

2

1

3

Exporter

O Importer

93654

93654

Exporter

R Importer

3500

2000

5500

Exporter

U Importer

332030 45040

2000

379070

Exporter

W Importer

101517 312870 21808 35587 16000 11150 26500

512 1112 1517 528573

Exporter

- Importer 19400 76685 31984 62200

500

190769

Exporter

meat g I Importer

454 454

908

Exporter

kg C Importer

444

65 278 528 1198 1010 1976 816 547 240 7102

Exporter

857.3 45.4

1257 2175.8 2131

2027 176.9

8670.4

I Importer

30

27 16

2 1 2 4 30 328 8.9 448.9

Exporter

R Importer

50 463 1200

1713

Exporter

W Importer

191

72 10

10

283

Exporter

- C Importer

45

45

Exporter

130

130

I Importer

9 1

23

2

35

Exporter

O Importer

2

2

Exporter

Iguana iguana

71


R Importer

135

135

Exporter

U Importer

8

8

Exporter

W Importer

3 1

4

Exporter

skins - C Importer

2500

44

3100

5644

Exporter

50

3100

3150

- Importer

100 600

700

Exporter

soup cans C Importer

Exporter

649

3024

3673

kg C Importer

Exporter

237.7

237.7

- C Importer

2500

2500

Exporter

I Importer

128

128

Exporter

specimens - C Importer

Exporter

1600

1600

W Importer

1

1

Exporter

- Importer

17

17

Exporter

Subtotals

C,F Importer

335290 830465 226191 279587 234727 283425 353141 333902 309587 338973 278040 231941 4035269

(live, bodies

Exporter

707420 2238787 429329 377329 495165 473455 609413 144479 449746 453059

333669 6711851

& skins only)

I Importer

6

3 2 13

7 31

Exporter

Iguana iguana

72


O Importer

93654

93654

Exporter

W,U & Importer 19400 76685 32084 496350 357917 21808 36091 18020 11150 26500

512 1112 1517 1099146


R Importer

3500

2000

5500

Exporter

Iguana iguana

73


Iguana iguana is a primarily herbivorous lizard native to Central and South America (Masterson, 2007). The species was reported to inhabit various forest types, (Wilson and Johnson, 2010), typically along waterways (Global Invasive Species Database, 2005), although it was also reported to be able to adjust to open areas (Gingell and Harding, 2005) and human-modified habitats (Malone and Davis, 2004). The age of sexual maturity was reported to be 2-4 years (Alderton et al., 2007; Masterson, 2007) with reported clutch sizes varying between nine and 71 eggs (Alderton et al., 2007).

The range of I. iguana was reported to reach from Northern Mexico to Paraguay and Brazil, including several islands of the Caribbean area and West Indies (Peters and Orejas-Miranda, 1986; Hollingsworth, 2004). The distribution of I. i. iguana was reported to reach “from southern Costa Rica and adjacent Caribbean islands to tropical South America”, whereas I. i. rhinolopha was reported to be found in “Sinaloa and Veracruz, Mexico to southern Costa Rica” (Peters and Orejas-Miranda, 1986). Feral populations were reported in several areas, including Belize (Wilson and Johnson, 2010), Florida (Masterson, 2007; Green Iguana Society, 2011), Hawaii, California (Green Iguana Society, 2011) and Puerto Rico (Global Invasive Species Database, 2005). The feral populations were reported to have been established by pet animals (Green Iguana Society, 2011).

I. iguana was considered to “have undergone drastic reduction”, having disappeared in many areas and become scarce in areas where it was previously found abundant (Fitch et al., 1982). In the Significant Trade Review of 1988, the species was classified as a “possible problem” (Luxmoore et al., 1988), and in 1993 it was stated that “although this species is not globally threatened and is widespread and fairly common in many range states, it would appear to be declining in several regions” (WCMC et al., 1993). Alderton et al. (2007) reported that it was “common in places but under pressure from humans in others”, and Leenders (2001) stated that “around human settlements, this species has suffered tremendously, and its numbers are declining throughout its entire distribution range”.

Main threats were considered to include hunting and habitat destruction (Fitch et al., 1982; Gingell and Harding, 2005). The species was reported to be widely hunted for meat, eggs and skin throughout its range (Ojasti, 1996). Eggs were reported to be collected for market and consumption, often by cutting open the gravid females (Fitch et al., 1982; Ojasti, 1996).

The species was also reported to be used as medicine in some range areas (Fitch et al., 1982) and was considered particularly vulnerable to persecution due to its large size, high visibility, slow growth and high hatchling mortality (Ojasti, 1996). Furthermore, large-scale harvesting for the pet trade was considered to form a threat to the species (Green Iguana Society, 2011). Thousands of individuals were reported to be caught for the pet trade each year (Leenders, 2001).

El Salvador: Greenbaum and Komar (2010) classified the species as widespread in El Salvador, reporting observations in 21 localities and all but two departments. However, Luxmoore et al. (1988) stated that I. iguana were “absent from most of their former range in El Salvador”, and WCMC et al. (1993) reported that the species had nearly disappeared from the coastal mangrove forests, and that no information of population status was available on other areas.

Greenbaum and Komar (2010) applied the IUCN Threat Criteria in El Salvador and classified its status Least Concern. However, in the national assessment of endangered species, it was classified as Threatened (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2009). Based on herpetofaunal surveys conducted in El Salvador, Leenders and Watkins-Colwell (2004) suggested that I. iguana “could be on the decline in El Salvador”.

Habitat loss and increased hunting pressure were considered to form the main threats to the species in El Salvador (Fitch et al., 1982; Leenders and Watkins-Colwell, 2004). The large-scale destruction of mangrove forests was considered to have had a negative impact on the populations, with alluvial lowland forests and their iguana populations reduced to perhaps 1 per cent of their original area (Fitch et al., 1982).

Iguana iguana

74

Greenbaum and Komar (2010) noted that although the species had been observed in protected areas, these observations lacked formal documentation. Leenders and Watkins-Colwell (2004) interviewed park rangers of the Parque Nacional El Imposible, reporting that I. iguana “is not uncommon in the protected area”.

REFERENCES:

Alderton, D., Davies, V., and Mattison, C. 2007. Snakes and reptiles of the world. Grange Books, Kent. Fitch, H. S., Henderson, R. W., and Hillis, D. M. 1982. Exploitation of Iguanas in Central America, in

Burghardt, G. M. & Rand, A. S., (eds.), Iguanas of the world - their behavior, ecology, and conservation. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey. 397-417.

Gingell, F. and Harding, J. 2005. Iguana iguana. Animal Diversity Web URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Iguana_iguana.html Accessed: 6 January 2011.

Global Invasive Species Database. 2005. Iguana iguana URL: www.invasivespecies.net Accessed: 6-1-2011.

Green Iguana Society. 2011. Iguanas in the wild URL: http://www.greenigsociety.org/inthewild.htm Accessed: 6 January 2011.

Greenbaum, E. and Komar, O. 2010. A conservation assessment of Salvadoran protected areas: priorities and recommendations based on amphibian and reptile distributions, in Wilson, L. D., Townsend, J. H., & Johnson, J. D., (eds.), Conservation of Mesoamerican amphibians and reptiles. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 435-459.

Hollingsworth, B. D. 2004. The evolution of iguanas, in Alberts, A. C. et al., (eds.), Iguanas - biology and conservation. University of California Press, London.

Leenders, T. 2001. A guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. Zona Tropical Publication. Leenders, T. A. A. M. and Watkins-Colwell, G. J. 2004. Notes on a collection of amphibians and

reptiles from El Salvador. Postilla, 231. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B., and Broad, S. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: A review of selected

species in CITES Appendix II, Vol. 2. Reptiles and invertebrates. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 306 pp.

Malone, C. L. and Davis, S. K. 2004. Genetic contributions to Caribbean iguana conservation, in Alberts, A. C. et al., (eds.), Iguanas - biology and conservation. University of California Press, London. 45-57.

Masterson, J. 2007. Iguana iguana, Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce, URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/iguana_iguana.htm Accessed: 6 January 2011.

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 2009. Acuerdo No 36 - listado oficial de especies de vida silvestre amenazadas o en peligro de extinción. Diario Oficial - San Salvador, 5/6/2009.

Ojasti, J. 1996. Wildlife utilization in Latin America - Current situation and prospects for sustainable management. FAO, Rome.

Peters, J. A. and Orejas-Miranda, B. 1986. Catalogue of the Neotropical Squamata. Part II: Lizards and amphisbaenians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.



Iguana iguana

75

Boa constrictor

76


REPTILIA BOIDAE

SPECIES: Boa constrictor

SYNONYMS: Boa constrictor isthmica, Boa constrictor longicauda,

Boa constrictor melanogaster, Boa constrictor nebulosa, Boa diviniloqua, Boa diviniloqua mexicana, Boa eques, Boa imperator, Boa mexicana, Boa orophias, Boa ortonii, Constrictor auspex, Constrictor constrictor, Constrictor constrictor amarali, Constrictor constrictor imperator, Constrictor constrictor nebulosus, Constrictor constrictor sigma, Constrictor diviniloquus, Constrictor formosissimus, Constrictor orophias, Constrictor rexserpentum, Epicrates sabogae

COMMON NAMES: Boa constrictor (Dutch), Ampalagua (English), Boa Constrictor

(English), Giboya (English), Masacuate (English), Boa constrictor (French), Boa constrictor (Spanish), Kungsboaormar (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Argentina, Aruba, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica,

Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: El Salvador, Honduras



from El Salvador and Honduras first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

Current positive opinion for Peru formed on 22/02/2000 (which came into effect after removal of the suspension on 24/09/2000). Current positive opinion for Suriname formed on 22/07/1997.

Previous Article 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Costa Rica and Peru first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 24/09/2000.

Boa constrictor

77

TRADE PATTERNS:

Guyana and Suriname were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Boa constrictor 1975-2009. The majority of global direct exports of the species from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live, captive bred individuals (totalling 189 934 individuals, of which 8004 were imported to the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures), followed by live, wild-sourced individuals (totalling 21 410 individuals, of which 4650 were imported to the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures).

El Salvador has never published any CITES annual export quotas for the species. Honduras published a CITES export quota for 1500 captive-bred B. constrictor in 1998 and trade remained within that quota; however it has not subsequently published any CITES export quotas for the species.

El Salvador: Direct trade from El Salvador to the EU-27 1975-2009 consisted of live, captive-bred individuals exported for commercial purposes. According to El Salvador and its trading partners respectively, a total of 1300 and 1231 Boa constrictor were exported to the EU-27 1975-2009 (Table 1), of which 200 were Boa constrictor imperator according to the importing country.

Indirect trade to the EU-27 of Boa constrictor originating in El Salvador 1975-2009 consisted of live individuals exported by the United States of America (Table 2). Where specified, all trade was of captive-bred individuals for commercial purposes.

Direct exports from El Salvador to countries other than the EU-27 1975-2009 consisted mainly of live, captive-bred individuals with the United States of America being the main importer (Table 3). The United States of America also reported the confiscation/seizure of a total of 371 live individuals and 1 skin.

Honduras: Direct trade from Honduras to the EU-27 1975-2009 consisted mainly of live, captive-bred and captive born individuals. According to Honduras and its trading partners respectively, a total of 680 and 2393 live B. constrictor were imported to the EU-27 1975-2009, mainly for commercial purposes (Table 4). Indirect trade to the EU-27 of Boa constrictor originating in Honduras consisted entirely of live individuals (Table 5).

Direct exports from Honduras to countries other than the EU-27, 1975-2009 consisted mainly of live individuals from a range of sources (Table 6) with the United States of America being the main importer. In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of a total of 237 live individuals and 52 skin/leather items from Honduras.

B. constrictor was reported to be popular in pet trade, often as captive bred specimens, which were considered to be easier to handle and more resistant to disease (Auliya, 2003; Lindemann and Harding, 2009). The prices were reported to vary according to subspecies and country of origin: young B. c. nebulosa was worth USD 1500, whereas the price of the more common B. c. constrictor varied between USD 85 and USD 300, and the price of B. c. imperator between USD 75 and USD 250 (Bartlett and Bartlett, 2003). Within the EU, prices of EUR 2812 for an albino B. constrictor, EUR 971 for B. c. orophias, and EUR 920 for B. c. occidentalis recorded in reptile fairs in 1998 (Auliya, 2003).

Table 1. Direct exports of Boa constrictor from El Salvador to the EU-27, 1975-2009 (including trade reported as Boa constrictor imperator). All trade involved captive-bred, live individuals for commercial purposes.

Importer Reported by 1993 1994 1999 2000 2001 2004 2005 2006 Total

Belgium Importer

200

200

Exporter

300

300

Germany Importer

50 50 50 150 130 209 639

Exporter 100

150 100

400

250 1000

United Kingdom Importer 200 192

392

Exporter

Total Importer 200 192 250 50 50 150 130 209 1231

Exporter 100

150 400

400

250 1300

Boa constrictor

78

Table 2. Indirect exports of Boa constrictor originating in El Salvador to the EU-27, 1975-2009. All exports were live individuals exported by the United States of America.

Importer Purpose Source Reported by 1980 1982 1984 1985 1986 2003 2005 2006 2007 Total

Austria T - Importer

30

30

Exporter

2 82 30

114

Denmark T - Importer

Exporter

50

50

France T C Importer

40 50 20

110

Exporter

40 50 20

110

Germany T C Importer

50 100

150

Exporter

50 100

150

- Importer

27

27

Exporter

3

3

Italy T C Importer

24 20

44

Exporter

30 20

50

- Importer

Exporter

17

17

Netherlands T C Importer

50 50 100

Exporter

50

50

- Importer

Exporter 26

125

151

- - Importer

150

150

Exporter

United Kingdom T C Importer

1 22

23

Exporter

7 22

29

- Importer

28 50

78

Exporter 57

150 71 100

378

- - Importer

10

10

Exporter

Boa constrictor

79

Importer Purpose Source Reported by 1980 1982 1984 1985 1986 2003 2005 2006 2007 Total

Subtotals

C Importer

40 125 212 50 427

Exporter

40 137 212

389

- Importer

27

208 60

295

Exporter 83 5 299 226 100

713

Table 3. Direct exports of Boa constrictor from El Salvador to countries other than the EU-27, 1975-2009.

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 Total

live T C Importer

7580

220 729 1889 670 1201 900 13189

Exporter

13344 340 300

312 913

1170

900 17279

I Importer

6

365

371

Exporter

U Importer

4000

4000

Exporter

W Importer

1569

1569

Exporter

- Importer 12870 3297 18140

34307

Exporter

skins - I Importer

1

1

Exporter

specimens E - Importer

8

8

Exporter

S W Importer

3

3

Exporter

4

4

Subtotals (live, skins)

C Importer

7580

220 729 1889 670 1201 900 13189

Exporter

13344 340 300

312 913

1170

900 17279

I Importer

7

365

372

Exporter

W,U & Importer 12870 3297 18140 5569

39876

Boa constrictor

80

Term Purpose Source Reported by 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 Total


Table 4. Direct exports of Boa constrictor (including Boa constrictor imperator) from Honduras to the EU-27, 1975-2009.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1997 1998 2005 2007 Total

Austria live T - Importer

10

10

Exporter

Belgium live T - Importer

100 60

160

Exporter

Denmark live T - Importer

7

7

Exporter

France live T C Importer

50 200

250

Exporter

- Importer

270

270

Exporter

Germany live T C Importer

50 130

180

Exporter

20

20

R Importer

230

230

Exporter

480

480

- Importer 5 4 45 281 20

355

Exporter

Italy live T R Importer

Exporter

100

100

Netherlands live - - Importer 4

4

Exporter

Spain live T R Importer

Exporter

50

50

United Kingdom live T C Importer

231

231

Exporter

F Importer

1

1

Boa constrictor

81

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1997 1998 2005 2007 Total

Exporter

R Importer

Exporter

30

30

- Importer

585 60 50

695

Exporter

specimens S W Importer

300 300

Exporter

300 300

C&F Importer

50 431 50 130 1

662

Exporter

20

20

Subtotals

R Importer

230 230

(live only)

Exporter

660 660

unspecified Importer 9 4 747 401 340

1501

Exporter

Boa constrictor

82

Table 5. Indirect exports of Boa constrictor (including Boa constrictor imperator) originating in Honduras to the EU-27, 1975-2009. All trade involved live individuals of unspecified source.

Exporter Importer Purpose Reported by 1979 1987 1988 1991 Total

Switzerland France - Importer

Exporter

6 6

United States of America Denmark T Importer

4

4

Exporter

4

4

France T Importer

40

40

Exporter

40

40

Germany T Importer

4

4

Exporter

4

4

Italy T Importer

4

4

Exporter

4

4

Sweden P Importer

4

4

Exporter

T Importer

20

20

Exporter

29

29

United Kingdom T Importer 4

4

Exporter

18

18

Total

Importer 4 28 48

80

Exporter

33 68 6 105

Boa constrictor

83

Table 6. Direct exports of Boa constrictor (including Boa constrictor imperator) from Honduras to countries other than the EU-27, 1975-2009.

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1977-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1995 1997 1998 1999 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

bodies - P - Importer

1

1

Exporter

- W Importer

Exporter

4 4

live shipments - - Importer 2

2

Exporter

- P - Importer

4

4

Exporter

T C Importer

15

15

Exporter

50 149

680

879

I Importer

156

156

Exporter

R Importer

1200

1200

Exporter

1400

1400

U Importer

232

232

Exporter

W Importer

20

59

12 500

591

Exporter

412 60 1501 2 600 3660

6235

- Importer 386 429 11385 25

12225

Exporter

- I Importer

77

4

81

Exporter

U Importer

1

1

Exporter

- Importer 287

1

288

Exporter

shoes - - - Importer

1

1

Exporter

Boa constrictor

84

Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1977-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1995 1997 1998 1999 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

skin/leather items - P - Importer

1

1

Exporter

T I Importer

48

48

Exporter

- I Importer

4

4

Exporter

- Importer

4

4

Exporter

skins - P - Importer

3

3

Exporter

S W Importer

1

1

Exporter

- - Importer

1

1

Exporter

specimens - S W Importer

65

65

Exporter

- W Importer

Exporter

2000 2000

Subtotals

C Importer 15 15

(bodies, live &

Exporter 50 149 680 879

skins only)

I Importer

77

156 4

237

Exporter

R Importer

1200

1200

Exporter 1400 1400

W, U & Importer 5934 7927 9935 278

59

1 12 500

13347

unspecified Exporter 673 437 11387 412 60 1501 2 600 3660 4 6239

Boa constrictor

85

TAXONOMIC NOTE:

McDiarmid et al. (1999) listed eight accepted subspecies: Boa c. constrictor, B. c. amarali, B. c. imperator, B. c. nebulosa, B. c. occidentalis (the only subspecies in CITES Appendix I), B. c. orophias, B. c. ortonii and B. c. sabogae. In addition, two subspecies, B. c. melanogaster and B. c. longicauda, were reported to have an unconfirmed status (McDiarmid et al., 1999). Lindemann and Harding (2009) considered B. c. longicauda as an accepted subspecies and B. c. nebulosa as a full species. Furthermore, B. c. mexicana and B. c. sigma were listed as unconfirmed susbpecies (Lindemann and Harding, 2009).


Boa constrictor is a semi-arboreal, non-venomous snake reported to occupy rainforest clearings or edges, woodlands, grasslands, dry tropical forests, thorn scrubs, semi-deserts (Lindemann and Harding, 2009), and montane subtropical forests at altitudes up to 2700 m (Wilson and Johnson, 2010). It was reported to often occur in agricultural areas and close to human settlements (Lindemann and Harding, 2009), and in some areas it was considered to be “almost domesticated, living in native houses and eating pests like rats and bats” (Freiberg, 1982). Females were reported to only reproduce in good physical condition, and it was estimated that approximately half of the female population was reproductive each year (Lindemann and Harding, 2009), giving live birth to litters of 30-50 offspring (Stidworthy, 1969; Freiberg, 1982; Lindemann and Harding, 2009).

The range of B. constrictor was reported to reach from northern Mexico through Central America to Peru, Bolivia and Argentina (McDiarmid et al., 1999; Leenders, 2001). Lindemann and Harding (2009) noted that the species also occupies many islands throughout its distribution range, including Lesser Antilles, Trinidad, Tobago, Dominica, St. Lucia and some islands of Belize and Honduras. Uetz (2010) reported an introduced population in Florida.

Luxmoore et al. (1988) stated that “there is little information on population levels, but what there is may be conflicting. In some areas it is said to be seriously depleted, and in others, abundant”. WCMC et al. (1993) reported that “A recent Captive Breeding Specialist Group CAMP workshop made an „order-of-magnitude guesstimate‟ of >1 000 000 animals”. More recently, Lindemann and Harding (2009) reported that some populations had undergone severe decline, and concluded that “various wild populations are now endangered, particularly those on offshore islands”.

Luxmoore et al. (1988) regarded the trade of skins as the main threat to the species, partially because of the high volumes of trade, but also because mature, larger animals were caught for skin trade, whilst the pet trade targeted younger animals. Lindemann and Harding (2009) reported that some populations had been negatively affected by collection for the pet trade and direct persecution. It was stated that whole or parts of B. constrictor may be “seen in local markets within their range, presumably as food or medicine”, and that they were “sometimes harvested for the skin trade” (Lindemann and Harding, 2009). Further threats were considered to include habitat loss and road mortality (Lindemann and Harding, 2009).

In an assessment of morbidity and mortality in captivity, B. constrictor was classified as a species „not suitable for private husbandry‟, due to its seasonal activity patterns, because it is a particularly dangerous species, and because it was reported to be „difficult to keep‟ or with a „high mortality in captivity‟ (Altherr and Freyer, 2001).

El Salvador: B. imperator was reported to occur in El Salvador (Peters and Donoso-Barros, 1986; Luxmoore et al., 1988), in all lowland and submontane areas (Waller and Micucci, 1993). Greenbaum and Komar (2010) reported occurrences of the species in nearly all departments, and estimated the area of occupancy/ extent of occurrence as 19 129 km2. Leenders and Watkins-Colwell (2004) conducted surveys in various locations, recording occurrences of B. constrictor in the western and northern parts of the country.

Greenbaum and Komar (2010) applied the IUCN Threat Criteria in El Salvador, classifying B. constrictor as Least Concern based on its widespread distribution.

El Salvador was reported to have been one of the main suppliers of live B. constrictor in the international market in the past (Luxmoore et al., 1988; Waller and Micucci, 1993). The species was reported to be

Boa constrictor

86

used within the country as food, for medicinal purposes and for skin treatments (El Salvador CITES Management Authority, 1992, in litt. to Waller and Micucci, 1993).

The species was not included in the most recent national list of threatened species (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2009), although WCMC et al. (1993) noted that B. constrictor was included in the list of threatened species in 1978, and the species was then reported to be in need of a 10-year ban on hunting to aid recovery (Serrano, 1978 in WCMC et al., 1993).

There were two registered rearing operations in El Salvador, however they were reported not to be producing significant quantities of animals for export (Waller and Micucci, 1993).

The species has been recorded in the conservation areas of El Imposible (Leenders and Watkins-Colwell, 2004; Greenbaum and Komar, 2010) Cinquera, Río Sapo (Greenbaum and Komar, 2010), Santa Bárbara and San Diego-La Barra (Herrera et al., 2007).

Honduras: B. constrictor was reported to be found in Honduras (Wilson and Meyer, 1982; Peters and Donoso-Barros, 1986; Luxmoore et al., 1988; Wilson and McCranie, 2004; McCranie, 2009), occurring in the Pacific and Caribbean lowlands and submontane zone up to 800 m in altitude, as well as in the Pacific islands (Wilson and Meyer, 1982; Waller and Micucci, 1993). Townsend and Wilson (2010a) reported occurrences throughout the subhumid forest zone, including the Pacific lowlands, the Comayagua and Guayape-Guayambre valleys in central Honduras, the San Esteban Valley in the west, and the Middle and Upper Choluteca valleys in the south.

B. constrictor was considered to be common in Honduras by Townsend and Wilson (2010a) and common in the Copán river by Alemán Mejía (2008); however, the species was reported to be rare by Uetz (2010) and infrequent and declining in the cloud forests of Honduras by Wilson and McCranie (2004). The total population size was reported to be unknown (Luxmoore et al., 1988; Wilson and McCranie, 2004).

Townsend and Wilson (2010a) reported stable populations “at least in one subhumid forest locality”, and McCranie and Castañeda (2005) found stable populations, although rare abundance in the Pico Bonito national park in northern Honduras. Based on the species‟ geographic range, degree of specialization of reproductive mode, the degree of percecution and the extent of distribution over ecologically distinct zones, the species was considered to have „low vulnerability to environmental degradation‟ in Honduras (Townsend and Wilson, 2010b).

Waller and Micucci (1993) emphasized the need for particular conservation efforts to maintain the genetically distinct populations of the Caribbean islands of Cayos Cochinos (Cayo Menor and Cayo Mayor). It was reported that these populations, characterized by distinct coloration and unusually small size, were subject to intensive collection for the pet trade during the 1980s (Saunders et al., 2009). However, based on mark-recapture surveys conducted on the islands since 2004, the populations were considered to show signs of recovery due to improved protection (Saunders et al., 2009). Saunders et al. (2009) estimated the population size of Cayo Menor at approximately 600 individuals.

Waller and Micucci (1993) reported no known domestic uses for B. constrictor in Honduras.

Regulation No 209/82 banned the capture, marketing and export of live B. constrictor and all products made of the species (Direccion General de Recursos Naturales Renovables, 1982). Regulation No 966/03 set the legislation concerning the import and export permits and sanctions related to illegal transports of CITES-listed animals and plants (Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería, 2004).

The species was reported to occur in the Marine Natural Monument of Cayos Cochinos (Saunders et al., 2009), and in the Pico Bonito National Park (McCranie and Castañeda, 2005). It was mentioned as a species of primary conservation concern in the Cayos Cochinos management plan (The Nature Conservancy, 2008).

Boa constrictor

87

REFERENCES:

Alemán Mejía, J.B. 2008. Caracterización de reptiles y percepción local hacia las serpientes en fincas ganaderas de la subcuenca del Río Copán, Honduras. MSc thesis. Turrialba, Costa Rica.


Auliya, M. 2003. Hot trade in cool creatures - a review of the live reptile trade in the European Union in the 1990s with a focus on Germany. TRAFFIC Europe. Brussels, Belgium.

Bartlett, R. D. and Bartlett, P. 2003. Red-tailed boas and relatives. Barron's Educational Series Inc.. Direccion General de Recursos Naturales Renovables. 1982. Resolución No 209/82 - prohibe la captura,

comercialización y exportación de especímenes o subproductos de diversas especies de mamíferos, aves y reptiles.

Freiberg, M. 1982. Snakes of South America. T.F.H. Publications Inc.. Greenbaum, E. and Komar, O. 2010. A conservation assessment of Salvadoran protected areas:

priorities and recommendations based on amphibian and reptile distributions, in Wilson, L. D., Townsend, J. H., & Johnson, J. D., (eds.), Conservation of Mesoamerican amphibians and reptiles. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 435-459.

Herrera, N., Henríquez, V., and Greenbaum, E. 2007. New country and department records for amphibians and reptiles from El Salvador. Herpetological Review, 38 (2): 222-226.

Leenders, T. 2001. A guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. Zona Tropical Publication. Leenders, T. A. A. M. and Watkins-Colwell, G. J. 2004. Notes on a collection of amphibians and

reptiles from El Salvador. Postilla, 231. Lindemann, L. and Harding, J. 2009. Boa constrictor. Animal Diversity Web URL:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Boa_constrictor.html Accessed: 10 December 2010.


McCranie, J. R. and Castañeda, F. E. 2005. The herpetofauna of Parque Nacional Pico Bonito, Honduras. Phyllomedusa, 4 (1): 3-16.

McCranie, J. R. 2009. Amphibians and Reptiles of Honduras. Museo de Zoología UCR. San Pedro, Costa Rica. URL: http://museo.biologia.ucr.ac.cr/Listas/LZAPublicaciones.htm Accessed: 26 January 2011

McDiarmid, R. W., Campbell, J. A., and T'Shaka, A. T. 1999. Snake species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Herpetologists' League, Washington, DC.

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 2009. Acuerdo No 36 - listado oficial de especies de vida silvestre amenazadas o en peligro de extinción. Diario Oficial - San Salvador, 5 June 2009.

Ministerios de Agricultura y Ganadería y de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 2009. Decreto No 35 - reglamento para regular el comercio internacional de especies amenazadas de fauna y flora silvestres. Diario Oficial No 89, 18/05/2009.

Peters, J. A. and Donoso-Barros, R. 1986. Catalogue of the Neotropical Squamata. Part I: Snakes. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Saunders, J., Connelly, P., Logan, M., and Green, S. 2009. Cayos Cochinos marine science report - 2009. Operation Wallacea on behalf of the Honduran Coral Reef Foundation.

Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería. 2004. Acuerdo No. 966-03 - reglamento para la aplicación de la Convención del Comercio Internacional de Especies Amanazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestre. Diario oficial de la Republica de Honduras.

Serrano, F. 1978. Informe de actividades de la Unidad de Parques Nacionales y Vida Silvestre de El Salvador. In: Morales, R., MacFarland, C., Incer, J., and Hobbs, A. (eds), Primera reunión regional Centroamericana sobre vida silvestre. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, Turrialba, Costa Rica, pp. 117-124.

Stidworthy, J. 1969. Snakes of the world. Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., Feltham, Middlesex. The Nature Conservancy. 2008. Plan de manejo 2008-2012 - Monumento Natural Marino Archipiélago

Cayos Cochinos, Honduras. TNC, WWF, USAID, Fundación Cayos Cochinos. Townsend, J. H. and Wilson, L. D. 2010a. Biogeography and conservation of the Honduran subhumid

forest herpetofauna, in Wilson, L. D., Townsend, J. H., & Johnson, J. D., (eds.), Conservation of

http://museo.biologia.ucr.ac.cr/Listas/LZAPublicaciones.htm

Boa constrictor

88

Mesoamerican amphibians and reptiles. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 686-705.

Townsend, J. H. and Wilson, L. D. 2010b. Conservation of the Honduran herpetofauna: issues and imperatives, in Wilson, L. D., Townsend, J. H., & Johnson, J. D., (eds.), Conservation of Mesoamerican amphibians and reptiles. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 460-487.

Uetz, P. 2010. The Reptile Database URL: www.reptile-database.org/ Accessed: 1 November 2010. Waller, T. and Micucci, P. A. 1993. Estado actual del conocimiento de la biologia, comercio y conservacion de

las boas neotropicales: generos Boa L. (1758) y Eunectes Wagler (1830) (Reptilia: Serpentes: Boidae). TRAFFIC Sudamerica; Unpublished draft.



Wilson, L.D. and McCranie, J.R. 2004. The herpetofauna of the cloud forests of Honduras. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 3(1):34-48.

Wilson, L. D. and Meyer, J. R. 1982. The snakes of Honduras. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Eunectes murinus

89


REPTILIA BOIDAE

SPECIES: Eunectes murinus

SYNONYMS: Boa anacondo, Boa aquatica, Boa gigas, Boa murina, Eunectes

barbouri, Eunectes scytale

COMMON NAMES: Anaconda (Dutch), Anaconda (English), Green Anaconda

(English), Water Boa (English), Anaconda (French), Anaconda commun (French), Anaconda vert (French), Anaconda (Spanish), Sucury (Spanish), Grön anakonda (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Argentina (?), Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French

Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Paraguay


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current 4.6(b) suspension for wild specimens from Paraguay

first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

Current positive opinion for Suriname formed on 22/07/1997.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Guyana and Suriname were the main global direct exporters of wild-sourced Eunectes murinus 1977-2009. The majority of global direct exports of E. murinus from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live, wild-sourced individuals (totalling 7567 animals, of which 819 were imported by the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures).

Paraguay has never published CITES export quotas for this species.

There were no reported direct exports of E. murinus from Paraguay to the EU-27, 1977-2009. Indirect exports of E. murinus originating in Paraguay to the EU-27, 1977-2009 consisted of skins, leather items and handbags, exported via Panama and the United States of America. The main importer was Italy (Table 1). No indirect exports to the EU-27 have been reported since 1992.

Eunectes murinus

90

Direct exports from Paraguay to countries other than the EU-27 consisted of 23 371 skins and 2834 m of skins, eight skin pieces and five skin/leather items, all exported between 1978 and 1988. The majority of exports were to the United States of America and the remainder were to Panama. All trade was reported by the importers only, generally for commercial purposes with source unspecified.

Table 1. Indirect exports of Eunectes murinus originating in Paraguay to the EU-27, 1977-2009.

Exporter Importer Term Units Purpose Source Reported by 1982 1983 1987 1988 1989 1992 Total

Panama Italy skins m - - Importer 442

442

Exporter

- T - Importer

1266 2093

3359

Exporter

United States of America

France skin/

leather

items

- T - Importer

Exporter

16

16

- - Importer

16

16

Exporter

Germany skin/

leather

items

- T W Importer

Exporter

1 1

Italy skins - T - Importer

Exporter 274

274

- - Importer 274

274

Exporter

Spain skins m T - Importer

Exporter

39

39

United Kingdom

handbags - T - Importer

Exporter

28

28

TAXONOMIC NOTE:

Luxmoore et al. (1988) listed two subspecies, Eunectes m. murinus and E. m. scytale, but noted that “there is not agreement on the subspecific names”. Alderton et al. (2007) reported E. m. murinus and E. m. gigas as subspecies, however Uetz (2010) stated that E. m. gigas was “synonymized by Dirksen and Böhme (1998).”


Eunectes murinus was described as semi-aquatic and often found associated with swampy habitats and slow-moving rivers (Stidworthy, 1969). Its reproductive age was estimated to be approximately 2-3 years for males and 3-5 years for females (Alderton et al., 2007), with litter sizes of live-born young reported to vary between four and 82 (Alderton et al., 2007), averaging at 30-40 young (Freiberg, 1982).

The distribution of the species was described as follows: “South America east of the Andes in Colombia, Venezuela, the Guianas, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil; Trinidad” (McDiarmid et al., 1999). In addition, an unconfirmed record was reported in Argentina (McDiarmid et al., 1999).

Alderton et al. (2007) considered the species to be common, although several authors reported the lack of estimates of population status or relative abundance, partially due to the secretive habits of the species (Luxmoore et al., 1988; WCMC et al., 1993; Rivas, 2007). WCMC et al. (1993) noted that “a recent Captive Breeding Specialist Group CAMP workshop made an „order-of-magnitude guesstimate‟ of > 1 000 000 animals (draft material supplied by CBSG, April 1993). This workshop suggested that the species overall population was decreasing (although each of the two subspecies was regarded as stable); the species was given a Mace-Lande category of Safe (draft material supplied by CBSG, April 1993).”

WCMC et al. (1993) did not regard the species as threatened and considered that international trade was “no special cause for concern”. Luxmoore et al. (1988) stated that “There is substantial skin trade, probably over 20 000 animals a year, mostly declared as originating in Paraguay, Bolivia and Guyana, but in reality probably deriving from Brazil. There is also a low level of trade in live animals, probably for the pet trade”. The species was suggested to be especially vulnerable to the hunting of large individuals, as these were reported to be females with the highest reproductive output (Rivas, 2007).

Eunectes murinus

91

Luxmoore et al. (1988) stated that “the species is not extensively used for food, but may be persecuted for cultural reasons”. Although the quality of the skins was considered unsuitable for luxury articles (Rivas, 2000), Rivas (2007) reported that “legal low-profile anaconda harvests occur in several South American nations”, and recorded evidence of illegal trade in Venezuela (Rivas, 2000). In some areas, the fat of the species was considered to have medicinal value (Rivas, 2000). The species was also reported to be persecuted due to being considered dangerous and harmful (Rivas, 2000).

In an assessment of morbidity and mortality in captivity, the species was classified as „not suitable for private husbandry‟, due to being „difficult to keep‟ or with „high mortality in captivity‟; it was reported to require conditions that are difficult to simulate, seasonal activity patterns, and it was classified as a dangerous species that grows into large adult size (Altherr and Freyer, 2001). Although the species was considered unsuitable as a pet, prices of approximately USD 250 per neonate were reported, and the species was considered to be popular in pet trade (Rivas, 2007).

Captive breeding in farms was not considered to be practical, due to the high cost of facilities, slow maturation and low productivity of females (Rivas, 2007).

Paraguay: Northeastern Paraguay was reported to mark the southern fringe of the range of E. murinus (Stidworthy, 1969; Waller and Micucci, 1993). The western limit of its range in Paraguay was reported to be the river Paraguay, northern limit the river Apa, eastern limit the river Paraná and southern limit the tropic of Capricorn (Waller and Micucci, 1993).

Luxmoore et al. (1988) reported that “there is a single record of E. murinus from a swamp in the Parque Nacional Cerro Cora (Anon., 1982). The species was considered to be “rare, if present at all” (Luxmoore et al., 1988). The species was classified as Endangered in Paraguay and protected from unauthorized commercial exploitation under the resolution No 701 of the Wildlife law 96/92 (Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, 1996), updated by resolution 2243/06 (Molinas, 2006). In a more recent assessment following the IUCN Threat Criteria, Motte et al. (2009) classified the species as Critically Endangered, due to restricted distribution and decline of suitable habitat. The species was also considered to be threatened by the expansion of agriculture (Waller and Micucci, 1993).

It was reported that between 1978 and 1982, prior to the implementation of the Decreto 10655 of 1991, thousands of individuals of E. murinus were exported from Paraguay with no proper control, due to a lack of an effective instrument to implement the CITES regulation (Waller and Micucci, 1993). Due to the perceived rarity of the species, it was suggested that the large numbers of skins exported between 1980 and 1985 may have originated elsewhere (Luxmoore et al., 1988).

Since 2003, Paraguay has had a voluntary suspension in place for trade in all CITES Appendix II-listed species (CITES Notification No. 2003/058).

REFERENCES:

Acevedo Gomez, C. 1987. Especies de fauna amenezadas por comercio en el Paraguay. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Paraguay. Unpublished report.

Alderton, D., Davies, V., and Mattison, C. 2007. Snakes and reptiles of the world. Grange Books, Kent. Altherr, S. and Freyer, D. 2001. Morbidity and mortality in private husbandry of reptiles. RSPCA (Royal

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), Pro Wildlife. Anon. 1982. Plan de manejo, Parque Nacional Cerro Cora. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia,

Asuncion. Dirksen, L., and Böhme, W. 2005. Studies on anacondas III. A reappraisal of Eunectes beniensis Dirksen,

2002, from Bolivia, and a key to the species of the genus Eunectes Wagler, 1830 (Serpentes: Boidae). Russian Journal of Herpetology 12 (3): 223-229.

Freiberg, M. 1982. Snakes of South America. T.F.H. Publications Inc.. Hill, K. and Hawkes, K. 1983. Neotropical hunting among the Aché of Eastern Paraguay, in Hames, R.

B. & Vickers, W. T., (eds.), Adaptive responses of native Amazonians. Academic Press, New York. 139-188.


Eunectes murinus

92

McDiarmid, R. W., Campbell, J. A., and T'Shaka, A. T. 1999. Snake species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Herpetologists' League, Washington, DC.

Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería. 1996. Resolución DPNVS No 701 por la cual se aprueba el listado de las especies protegidas de vida ailvestre en vías o peligro de extinción. URL: http://www.ministeriopublico.gov.py. Accessed: 7 January 2011.

Molinas, A. 2006. Resolución 2.243/06 Por la cual se actualiza el listado de las especies protegidas de la vida silvestre en peligro de extinción. Secretaría del Ambiente, Paraguay.

Motte, M., Núnez, K., Cacciali, P., Brusquetti, F., Scott, N., and Aquino, A. L. 2009. Categorización del estado de conservación de los anfibios y reptiles de Paraguay. Cuadernos de Herpetología, 23 (1): 5-18.

Rivas, J. A. 2000, The life history of the Green anaconda (Eunectes murinus), with emphasis on its reproductive biology, PhD Dissertation, University of Tennessee.

Rivas, J. A. 2007. Conservation of green anacondas: how tylenol conservation and macroeconomics threaten the survival of the world's largest snake. Iguana, 14 (2): 75-85.

Stidworthy, J. 1969. Snakes of the world. Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., Feltham, Middlesex. Uetz, P. 2010. The Reptile Database URL: www.reptile-database.org/ Accessed: 6-1-2011. Waller, T. and Micucci, P. A. 1993. Estado actual del conocimiento de la biologia, comercio y conservacion de las

boas neotropicales: generos Boa L. (1758) y Eunectes Wagler (1830) (Reptilia: Serpentes: Boidae). TRAFFIC Sudamerica; Unpublished draft.


http://www.ministeriopublico.gov.py/

Podocnemis unifilis

93


REPTILIA PODOCNEMIDIDAE

SPECIES: Podocnemis unifilis

SYNONYMS: Emys cayennensis, Podocnemis cayennensis

COMMON NAMES: Terekay-schildpad (Dutch), Yellow-headed Sideneck (English),

Yellow-spotted River Turtle (English), Yellow-spotted Sideneck Turtle (English), Podocnémide de Cayenne (French), Terecay (Spanish), Terekay-flodsköldpadda (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana,

Peru, Suriname, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Suriname

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6(b) suspension in place for wild specimens

from Suriname first applied on 19/09/1999 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Peru was the main global direct exporter of wild-sourced Podocnemis unifilis 1975-2009. The majority of global direct exports of the species from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live, captive-bred, captive-born or ranched individuals (totalling 30 063 source C, F and R individuals of which 5327 were imported by the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures).

Annual CITES export quotas for wild P. unifilis from Suriname have been established since 1997 (Table 1). Trade appears to have remained within quota.

All direct trade from Suriname to the EU-27 1975-2009 involved live individuals (Table 2). According to Suriname and its trading partners respectively, a total of 166 and 167 live P. unifilis were imported to the EU-27 1975-2009, with no reported trade since 1998. There was no reported indirect trade of P. unifilis originating in Suriname to the EU-27, 1975-2009.

Direct trade from Suriname to countries other than the EU-27 1975-2009 consisted of 168 and 271 live individuals as reported by the importers and by Suriname respectively, with Japan and the United States of America being the only importers (Table 3). In addition, the United States of America reported the confiscation/seizure of eight live individuals in 2002.

Podocnemis unifilis

94

Table 1. CITES export quotas for wild Podocnemis unifilis from Suriname and global exports, reported by the importers and by the exporter. From 1999 onwards the quota specifies live individuals.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quota 639 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630

Importer 6 8 7 8 10

Exporter 6 5 7 8 10

Table 2. Direct exports of Podocnemis unifilis from Suriname to the EU-27, 1975-2009. All trade involved live individuals.

Importer Purpose Source Reported by 1985 1988 1994 1995 1997 1998 Total

Germany T - Importer

38

38

Exporter

100

100

Netherlands T W Importer

1 4 6

11

Exporter

1 29 6

36

- Importer

Exporter 25

25

- - Importer 110

110

Exporter

Spain T W Importer

8 8

Exporter

5 5

Table 3. Direct exports of Podocnemis unifilis from Suriname to countries other than the EU-27, 1975-2009. All trade involved live individuals.

Purpose Source Reported by 1985 1986 1987 1988 1994 1996 1999 2002 2005 Total

T I Importer

8

8

Exporter

W Importer

135 7 8 10 160

Exporter

20 135 7 8 10 180

- Importer

Exporter 30 10 1 50

91


Podocnemis unifilis is a medium to large-sized South American freshwater turtle that inhabits rivers, backwaters, ponds, lagoons, swamps and flooded forests along major rivers (Groombridge, 1982; Ernst et al., 2006, Bonin et al., 2006). The reproductive size was reported to be approximately 30 cm (in carapace length) (Ernst et al., 2006), and estimates of the female reproductive age were reported to vary between four and 15 years (Ojasti, 1996). Senneke and Tabaka (2006) reported typical clutch sizes of 15-20 eggs, whereas Mittermeier (1978) reported 15-41 eggs and Bonin et al. (2006) reported up to 28 eggs per clutch. It was estimated that in optimum habitat, P. unifilis was able to produce 3000 eggs per year on each river kilometre (Soini, 1981 in litt. to B. Groombridge in: Groombridge, 1982).

Buhlmann et al. (2009) calculated the projected range of P. unifilis to cover 7 184 705 km2, using point locality data combined with information on the distribution of watershed habitats and connections between watersheds. The distribution was reported to cover the “Amazon Basin of Colombia, eastern Ecuador, northeastern Peru, northern Bolivia, southern Venezuela, and Brazil; Caribbean drainages of the Guaianas, Venezuela, and Colombia” (Fritz and Havaš, 2007). The Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group (1996) and Bonin et al. (2006) also considered the species to be also native to Suriname. Uetz (2010) reported a possible occurrence in Trinidad and Tobago, and an introduced population in Florida, U.S.

Podocnemis unifilis

95

In an analysis of microsatellite DNA data, Escalona et al. (2009) found evidence of genetic separation between the populations of the Amazon and Orinoco river basin areas.

P. unifilis was reported to be “widespread, still relatively common in a few areas but locally depleted due to continuing heavy human predation on nesting females and eggs” (Groombridge, 1982). The lack of synchronised nesting aggregations was considered to make the estimation of population size difficult (Groombridge, 1982). Ojasti (1996) reported that whereas the decline of the larger-sized P. expansa as a result of overharvesting was well documented, data on the abundance of P. unifilis was scarce. However, Mittermeier et al. (2010) considered the populations of P. unifilis to be declining, Groombridge (1982) reported depletion in many areas, and Escalona (2010) reported a population decline of at least 80 per cent over the past ten years.

The species was classified as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996), although it was noted that the assessment needed updating.

Human exploitation of meat and eggs was considered to form the main threat for the species (Groombridge, 1982; Conway-Gómez, 2007; Escalona, 2010). Also habitat destruction was mentioned as an important threat (Escalona, 2010). Along with P. expansa, P. unifilis was considered to be the most commercially important of the South American Podocnemis species (Mittermeier, 1978). Escalona (2010) reported that the hunting pressure had shifted towards P. unifilis as a result of the decline in the populations of P. expansa, which used to be very abundant in the Orinoco and Amazon rivers.

Escalona (2010) stated that the success of conservation projects on Podocnemis turtles was limited as most of them “only rely on basic life history information of the species, as very little scientific data is available, making it hard for managers to develop adequate conservation strategies”. The emphasis on juvenile survival, and the lack of concern over the adult population were seen as major factors limiting the success of the management and conservation programs in the range countries, and it was stated that despite these programs, the turtles of the genus Podocnemis were “still facing a huge depletion in their population levels due to over-harvesting of eggs and adults for food by local inhabitants, and increasingly by commercial hunters” (Escalona, 2010).

In an assessment of morbidity and mortality in captivity, P. unifilis was classified as a species „not suitable for private husbandry‟ due to its insufficiently known needs, seasonal activity patterns, and because it is a particularly active species with insufficiently known needs, which inhabits climates that are difficult to stimulate and was reported to be „difficult to keep‟ or with a „high mortality in captivity‟ (Altherr and Freyer, 2001).

Suriname: Groombridge (1982) considered the population of P. unifilis in Suriname to be “probably stragglers from Amazon tributaries”, and Uetz (2010) did not include Suriname in the range area, although neighbouring Guyana and French Guiana were included. However, Senneke and Tabaka (2006), de Ávila Pires (2005) and the Tortoise & Freshwater Specialist Group (1996) included Suriname in the native range countries, and Fritz and Havaš (2007) and Ernst et al. (2006) considered the Caribbean drainages of the Guianas (French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname, and south-east Venezuela) as part of the distribution range. Three localities in Suriname were marked in the distribution map of Iverson (1992); two in the south-eastern part of the country, and one (questionable) recording on the northern coast.

P. unifilis was considered to be “very rare” in Suriname, and, it was recommended that its exports should be banned (Tropenbos International Suriname Programme, 2004).

Duplaix (2001) considered the hunting regulations in Suriname to be insufficient, and recommended that the “hunting regulations under the Game Law of 1954 need to be revamped as soon as possible to cover the whole of Suriname, including the territorial sea and economical zone and to protect CITES-listed species in Suriname.” It was also noted that although “the export trade and permit tracking of CITES-listed species appears to be well controlled”, “the main problem with the wildlife trade in Suriname is lack of funds for enforcement – which is minimal outside of Paramaribo” (Duplaix, 2001). Illegal transport of reptiles was reported to occur between Guyana, French Guiana and Suriname (Duplaix, 2001).

Podocnemis unifilis

96

REFERENCES:


Bonin, F., Devaux, B., and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. A&C Black, London. 416 pp. Buhlmann, K. A., Akre, T. S. B., Iverson, J. B., Karapatakis, D., Mittermeier, R. A., Georges, A.,

Rhodin, A. G. J., van Dijk, P. P., and Gibbons, W. 2009. A global analysis of tortoise and freshwater turtle distributions with identification of priority conservation areas. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 8 (2): 116-149.

Conway-Gómez, K. 2007. Effects of human settlements on abundance of Podocnemis unifilis and P. expansa turtles in northeastern Bolivia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 6 (2): 199-205.

Duplaix, N. 2001. Evaluation of the animal and plant trade in the Guianas - preliminary findings. WWF-Guianas.

Ernst, C. H., Altenburg, R. G. M., and Barbour, R. W. 2006. Turtles of the World URL: http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/turtles.php Accessed: 1 November 2010.

Escalona, T. 2010. Uso local, ecología reproductiva y genética de la "Terecay" (Podocnemis unifilis) en el bajo Río Caura, Venezuela, Simposio: Investigación y manejo de fauna silvestre en Venezuela en homenaje al Dr.Juhani Ojasti.Jardín Botánico de Caracas, 16 al 17 de Octubre de 2008, A. Machado-Allison et al., eds., pp. 85-96.

Escalona, T., Engstrom, T. N., Hernandez, O. E., Bock, B. C., Vogt, R. C., and Valenzuela, N. 2009. Population genetics of the endangered South American freshwater turtle, Podocnemis unifilis, inferred from microsatellite DNA data. Conservation Genetics, 10: 1683-1696.

Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Vertebrate Zoology, 57 (2): 149-368. Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-reptilia Red Data Book Part 1: Testudines, Crocodylia,

Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 426 pp. Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Privately Printed,

Richmond, Indiana. 363 pp. Mittermeier, R. A. 1978. South America's river turtles: saving them by use. Oryx, 14 (3): 222-230. Mittermeier, R. A, Buhlmann, K. A, Rhodin, A. G. J, and Pritchard, P. C. H. 2010. Giant river turtles -

efforts around the world are underway to recover declining turtle populations URL: www.reptilechannel.com/turtles-and-tortoises/wild-turtles-and-tortoises/the-giant-river-turtles.aspx Accessed: 12 November 2010.


Schweigger, A. F. 1812. Monographiae Cheloniorum. Königsberg. Archiv für Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik, 1: 271-368.

Senneke, D. and Tabaka, C. 2006. Podocnemis unifilis - (Yellow-spotted Amazon River Turtle) Care URL: http://www.chelonia.org/articles/podocnemiscare.htm Accessed: 2 November 2010.

Tortoise & Freshwater Specialist Group. 1996. Podocnemis unifilis. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 26 October 2010.

Tropenbos International Suriname Programme. 2004. Issues paper: information issues in the Suriname forest sector.

Uetz, P. 2010. The Reptile Database URL: www.reptile-database.org/ Accessed: 1 November 2010.

Chelonoidis denticulata

97


REPTILIA TESTUDINIDAE

SPECIES: Chelonoidis denticulata

SYNONYMS: Geochelone denticulata, Testudo cagado, Testudo denticulata,

Testudo hercules, Testudo sculpta, Testudo tabulata, Testudo tessellata

COMMON NAMES: Brazilian Giant Tortoise (English), Forest Tortoise (English),

South American Tortoise (English), South American Yellow-footed Tortoise (English), Yellow-footed Tortoise (English), Tortue de l'Amérique du sud (French), Tortue dentelée (French), Tortue denticulée (French), Motelo (Spanish), Tortuga de patas amarillas (Spanish), Brasiliansk skogssköldpadda (Swedish), Gulfotad landsköldpadda (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bolivia (int), Brazil, Colombia, Dominica (int), Ecuador, French

Guiana, Guadeloupe, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Bolivia, Ecuador

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable


from Bolivia and Ecuador first applied on 22/12/1997 and last confirmed on 26/11/2010.

Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Guyana formed on 15/12/1997. Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Suriname formed on 22/07/1997.

Previous Article 4.6(c) import suspension for live wild specimens from all countries first applied on 21/11/1998 and removed on 10/05/2006. Previous Article 4.6(c) suspension for wild specimens from Brazil, Colombia, Dominica, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela first applied on 18/02/2005 and removed on 10/05/2006.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Guyana and Suriname were the only global direct exporters of wild-sourced Chelonoidis denticulata 1975-2009. Global direct exports of the species from all countries 2000-2009 consisted of live


98

individuals, nearly all of which were for commercial purposes, and the majority were wild-sourced (totalling 484 individuals, of which 39 were imported by the EU-27, according to exporter-reported figures). No CITES annual export quotas have ever been published for the species by Bolivia or Ecuador.

Bolivia: There has never been any reported direct or indirect trade in C. denticulata originating from Bolivia, either globally or to the EU-27, since its listing in Appendix II in 1975.

Ecuador: There has never been any reported direct or indirect trade in C. denticulata originating from Ecuador, either globally or to the EU-27, since its listing in Appendix II in 1975.


Chelonoidis denticulata was reported to be the largest of the South American mainland tortoises, growing up to 82 cm in length (Ernst et al., 2006). It was reported to typically occur in evergreen and deciduous rainforests (Ernst et al., 2006), preferring dense forest habitats (Pritchard, 1979) often in the vicinity of water (Ojasti, 1996). Estimates of reproductive age were reported to vary between three years in optimal conditions and 13-15 years in the wild (Ojasti, 1996). The species was considered to be capable of reproducing several times a year (Ernst et al., 2006), producing up to five clutches every one to three weeks during the mating season (Ojasti, 1996). Clutch sizes of 4-8 eggs (Ernst et al., 2006) or 10 eggs were considered average, with maximum recorded sizes of 20 eggs (Bonin et al., 2006).

The species was reported to be widely distributed in South America, reaching from Colombia and Venezuela through the Guianas and the Amazon Basin to Peru, Bolivia and Brazil (Pritchard, 1979; Iverson, 1992; Ernst et al., 2006). It was also reported to be found in Trinidad (Iverson, 1992; Ernst et al., 2006), and introduced populations were reported in Guadeloupe (Bonin et al., 2006; Rhodin et al., 2010) and Dominica (Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996).

The species was classified as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List (Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, 1996), although it was noted that the assessment needed updating. Estimates of population status were reported to be unavailable, partially due to the secretive lifestyle of the species (Bonin et al., 2006).

Hunting for food and degradation of habitat were considered the main threats to the species (Bonin et al., 2006). It was stated that the species was “esteemed for its food value” throughout its range, and that “around human habitations and settlements the population densities inevitably diminish rapidly” (Pritchard, 1979). Ojasti (1996) reported that the species were commonly captured by burning vegetation and that the captured individuals were stored on their back until eaten or sold in towns. The species was also reported to be used for medicinal purposes in some areas (Walker, 1989; Bonin et al., 2006), and be a much sought after pet in its native rural and urban areas (Walker, 1989; Ojasti, 1996).

It was suggested that the slow growth and late maturation made the species vulnerable to excessive hunting (Ojasti, 1996). However, the secretive lifestyle of the species in shady and dense rainforest habitats was seen to partially protect it from intensive hunting (Pritchard, 1979; Bonin et al., 2006), and Walker (1989) considered habitat degradation as a more serious threat to the species.

C. denticulata was considered relatively difficult to breed in captivity, and the breeding of the species for food was not considered economically viable due to slow growth (Ojasti, 1996).

Walker (1989) stated that “the large sections of rain forests protected as national parks, reserves, and wildlife sanctuaries are ensuring the species‟ survival”.

Bolivia: The distribution of the species was reported to be limited to the northeastern part of the country (Pritchard, 1979; Bonin et al., 2006; Ernst et al., 2006; Embert, 2008). Rhodin et al. (2010) reported occurrences of the species in the departments of Beni, La Paz and Pando in northern Bolivia and Santa Cruz in eastern Bolivia; however, Embert (2008) reported occurrences also in the central department of Cochabamba and the department of Chiquisaca in the south.

In the national Red List of Bolivia, C. denticulata was classified as Near Threatened, having been uplisted from the previous national Red List of 2003, where it was classified as Least Concern


99

(Cortez, 2009). However, Conservación Internacional Bolivia (2009) classified it as Vulnerable at the national level. Embert (2008) considered the species to be common in Bolivia.

Habitat loss, hunting and commercial trade were considered to form the principal threats to the species in Bolivia (Cortez, 2009). Embert (2008) reported it to be “collected occasionally for its meat” and that there was some fragmentation of habitat.

Based on a biological survey conducted in the western part of Pando, Alverson et al. (2000) reported overhunting as a specific threat to C. denticulata. It was reported that the species was “consumed locally by Brazil-nut gatherers; a longtime resident of San Sebastián told us that this species was once very common in the area but has been nearly extirpated locally as the human population density increases in the region” (Alverson et al., 2000). It was further stated that due to the low reproductive potential of the species, “population densities are unlikely to reach sustainable levels, even with mild exploitation” (Alverson et al., 2000). The results of a wildlife use survey conducted in the Tacana communities in northern La Paz showed that C. denticulata was principally hunted for food and medicinal purposes, and also its eggs were collected (Tejada et al., 2006). Furthermore, Cortez-Fernandez (2005) stated that in the National Park and Natural Area for Integrated Management Madidi in La Paz, the collection of C. dentidulata for local consumption formed a potential threat to the species.

The species was reported to be found in the Noel Kempff Mercado National Park (Harvey, 1998). It was also recorded in the proposed Tahuamanu Ecological Reserve in Pando (Alverson et al., 2000). Embert (2008) reported occurrences in the national parks of Amboró, Apolobamba, Carrasco, Cotapata, EBB, Iñao, Isiboro Sécure, Itènez, Kaa-iya, Madidi, Manuripi-Heath, NKM, Pilón Lajas, San Matías and Tucavaca.

C. denticulata was not listed as a priority species in the national strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificación, 2001).

Ecuador: The distribution of C. denticulata was reported to be restricted to eastern Ecuador (Miyata, 1982; Bonin et al., 2006; Ernst et al., 2006; Uetz, 2010). Cisneros-Heredia (2006) recorded occurrences of the species in the provinces of Sucumbíos, Orellana, Pastaza and Morona Santiago in eastern Ecuador. In addition, literature references were reported to show occurrence in the province of Napo in the central-eastern part of the country (Cisneros-Heredia, 2006).

In surveys conducted in the Tibutini Biodiversity Station in the department of Orellana, Cisneros-Heredia (2006) found C. denticulata to be “rather common, especially at non-flooded primary forest, but also at flooded primary forest (during low flood periods)”. It was reported that “five to eight individual records were obtained each year between 1997 and 2001” (Cisneros-Heredia, 2006).

C. denticulata was reported to be one of the most common species captured for the illegal pet market (Cisneros-Heredia, 2006). It was stated that the “illegal traffic of turtles in Ecuador has involved several thousands of freshwater turtles and tortoises over the years”, and that although a public campaign in late 1990s was effective in reducing trade to the biggest cities, “several dozens are still captured for the pet markets in small-medium towns” (Cisneros-Heredia, 2006).

In the province of Napo in northeastern Ecuador, C. denticulata was reported to be one of the five most intensively hunted reptile species amongst the native Huaorani communities (Mena et al., 2000).

The species was reported to occur in the Yasuní National Park (Bass et al., 2010).

Resolution 143 regulates the hunting of wildlife in Ecuador; however, no reptile species were listed as protected from hunting (Ministerio del Ambiente, 2000).

REFERENCES:

Alverson, W. S., Moskovits, D. K., and Shopland, J. M. 2000. Bolivia: Pando, Río Tahuamanu. Rapid Biological Inventories for Conservation Action:01.


100

Bass, M. S., Finer, M., Jenkins, C. N., Kreft, H., Cisneros-Heredia, D. F., McCracken, S. F., Pitman, N. C. A., English, P. H., Swing, K., Villa, G., Di Fiore, A., Voigt, C. C., and Kunz, T. H. 2010. Global conservation significance of Ecuador's Yasuní National Park. PLoS ONE, 5 (1): e8767.

Bonin, F., Devaux, B., and Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. A&C Black, London. 416 pp. Cisneros-Heredia, D. F. 2006. Turtles of the Tiputini Biodiversity Station with remarks on the

diversity and distribution of the Testudines from Ecuador. Biota Neotropica, 6 (1). Conservación Internacional Bolivia. 2009. Más esepcies amenazadas de Bolivia. URL:

http://www.conservation.org.bo. Accessed: 3 February 2011. Cortez, C. F. 2009. Reptiles, in Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua, (ed.), Libro rojo de la fauna

silvestre de vertebrados de Bolivia. La Paz. Cortez-Fernandez, C. 2005. Herpetofauna de la zona norte del Parque Nacional y Area Natural de

Manejo Integrado Madidi (PNANMI-Madidi). Ecología en Bolivia, 40 (2): 10-26. Embert, D. 2008, Distribution, diversity and conservation status of Bolivian reptiles, PhD Dissertation,

Rheinischen Friedrichs-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. Ernst, C. H., Altenburg, R. G. M., and Barbour, R. W. 2006. Turtles of the World URL:

http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/turtles.php Accessed: 1 November 2010. Harvey, M. B. 1998. Reptiles and amphibians of Parque Nacional Noel Kempff Mercado, in Killeen, T.

J. & Schulenberg, T. S., (eds.), A biological assessment of Parque Nacional Noel Kempff Mercado, Bolivia. Conservation International, Washington, D.C. 144-153.

Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Privately Printed, Richmond, Indiana. 363 pp.

Mena, P. V., Stallings, J. R., Regalado, J. B., and Cueva, R. L. 2000. The sustainability of current hunting practices by the Huaorani, in Robinson, J. G. & Bennett, E. L., (eds.), Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. Columbia University Press, 57-78.

Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificación. 2001. Estrategia nacional de conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad. La Paz.

Ministerio del Ambiente. 2000. Acuerdo No 143 - Normas para el control de la cacería, vedas y licencias de cacería de especies de fauna silvestre. Registro Oficial No 6, 23 de enero de 2003. Ecuador. 11 pp.

Miyata, K. 1982. A check list of the amphibians and reptiles of Ecuador. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service No. 54.


Pritchard, P. C. H. 1979. Encyclopedia of turtles. T.F.H. Publications, Inc. Ltd.. Rhodin, A. G. J., van Dijk, P. P., Iverson, J. B., and Shaffer, H. B. 2010. Turtles of the world, 2010 update:

Annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status. Chelonian Research Foundation. Chelonian Research Monographs no 5.

Tejada, R., Chao, E., Gómez, H., Painter, R. E. L., and Wallace, R. B. 2006. Evaluación sobre el uso de la fauna silvestre en la Tierra Comunitaria de Origen Tacana, Bolivia. Ecología en Bolivia, 41 (2): 138-148.

Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. 1996. Chelonoidis denticulata. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 8-2-2010.

Uetz, P. 2010. The Reptile Database URL: www.reptile-database.org/ Accessed: 1 November 2010. Walker, P. 1989. Geochelone denticulata - Yellow-footed tortoise, Forest tortoise, in Swingland, I. R. &

Klemens, M. W., (eds.), The conservation biology of tortoises. IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group; The Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, Gland, Switzerland. 22-23.

http://www.conservation.org.bo/

Annex

101

ANNEX I. Full version of large trade tables

Heloderma suspectum

Table 1. Direct exports of Heloderma suspectum from the United States of America to the EU-27, 1975-2009

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported

by 1980 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Austria live T F Importer

Exporter

1

1

Z - Importer

2

2

Exporter

Czech live B F Importer

9 6

15

Republic

Exporter

T F Importer

2

2

Exporter

11 6 17

34

Denmark live B F Importer

8

8

Exporter

P F Importer

10

10

Exporter

Q C Importer

6

6

Exporter

T C Importer

Exporter

21

25 4

50

F Importer

22 7 29 30 6 94

Exporter

7 4 48 13 72

R Importer

5 7 12

Exporter

U Importer

Exporter

5

5


Annex

102


by 1980 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Exporter

4

4

Germany live B C Importer

Exporter

4

4

E F Importer

4

4

Exporter

P C Importer

4 2

11

6

23

Exporter

F Importer

4

7 8 11 35 27

92

Exporter

S C Importer

2

2

Exporter

T C Importer

4 2

6

Exporter

11 2

10 26 13 6 24

92

F Importer

2 2

10 8 18 12 20

72

Exporter

2 2 1

13 23 31 31

103

W Importer

Exporter

4

4

Z C Importer

8

8

Exporter

3

2

4

9

F Importer

2 1 4

5

12

Exporter

5

5

- C Importer

Exporter

4 2

6

Greece live T F Importer

3

3

Exporter

3

3

Ireland live T F Importer

Exporter

4

4

Annex

103


by 1980 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Z F Importer

4

4

Exporter

Italy live T C Importer

Exporter

4

8

12

F Importer

Exporter

4

4

Z F Importer

4

4

Exporter

Netherlands bodies S W Importer

2

2

Exporter

live T C Importer

Exporter

4 2

6

F Importer

8 8

16

Exporter

8

8

W Importer

Exporter

3

3

- C Importer

4 2

6

12

Exporter

F Importer

Exporter

2

2

Poland live T C Importer

Exporter

4

4

Z F Importer

4

4

Exporter

Spain live B F Importer

7

7

Exporter

T F Importer

Annex

104


by 1980 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Exporter

7

7

Sweden live T C Importer

4

4

8

Exporter

2

11

13

F Importer

11

8

19

Exporter

8

8

- Importer

1

1

Exporter

Z C Importer

5

5

Exporter

5

1

6

F Importer

1

4

5

Exporter

4

4

- Importer

6

4

10

Exporter

- C Importer

Exporter

4

4

specimens S F Importer

Exporter

4

4

United live B C Importer

4

4

Kingdom

Exporter

8

8

P C Importer

3 4

7

Exporter

T C Importer

Exporter

5

4 7 4

2 6

28

F Importer

5

2 6

6

19

Exporter

11

6

17

- Importer 10

10

Exporter

Annex

105


by 1980 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Z C Importer

Exporter

3

3

F Importer

3 3

6

Exporter

- Importer

2

2

Exporter

- C Importer

5

5

Exporter

- Importer

2 2

4

Exporter

Total Importer

10 4 19 20 5 17 4 11 2

4 2 8 6 22 29 28 79 87 84 71 13 525

Total Exporter

15 20 12 19 4 10 4 3

4 4 6 22 29 28 82 95 97 70 13 537

Iguana iguana

Table 2. Direct exports of Iguana iguana from El Salvador to the EU-27, 1977-2009.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 1989 1991-1994

1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Austria live T C Importer

Exporter

100

100

Belgium live T C Importer

17000 9500 5000 1000

32500

Exporter

32100 16500 11500 13900

74000

W Importer

8000

8000

Exporter

Bulgaria live T C Importer

500

500

Exporter

500

500

1000

Czech Republic live T C Importer

10000 3500 5800

1200 3000 1000 24500

Exporter

14000 6500 6700 5000 3000 5000 3200 200 5500

2000 51100

F Importer

5604 2000 3800 1000 200 2000

14604

Annex

106


1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Exporter

Denmark live T C Importer

3200 1150 1000

5350

Exporter

9050 4000 1500 1000

1000

1000

17550

R Importer

1000

1000

Exporter


500 4950 9750 5500 3500 3500 4300 3710 2900 2500 1800 42910

Exporter

700 7000 13300 7100 9500 6000

3210 2900

2800 52510

W Importer

500

500

Exporter

small leather T C Importer

500

500

products

Exporter

Germany live T C Importer 1800

13739 14200 10750 14634 8500 8999 11167 11500 4450 5700 2325 107764

Exporter

2700 23200 35050 13870 24050 12500 12000 2190 14000 9540

6700 155800

Greece live T C Importer

1500 2300 1000 6000 8000 14210 17800 19600 6400 9600 9200 95610

Exporter

2000 3300 2050 8052 10000 14210 4000 18400 13400

10700 86112

Hungary live T C Importer

250

250

Exporter

300

300

Ireland live T C Importer

150

150

Exporter

Italy live T C Importer

1450 11000 8000 24500 29543 21300 11800 17500 9002 6000 10000 150095

Exporter

7800 22000 15100 34600 39543 33600 6315 19600 12700

12500 203758

Netherlands live T C Importer

3700 500 1000

5500 1100

1600 2000 15400

Exporter

12850 1000 4250 500 12600 3000

500 2000

3250 39950

Poland live T C Importer

500

1600 2600

500 500 500 500 6700

Exporter

250 1000 1000 1600 4600 1100

500 500

500 11050

Portugal live T C Importer

3700 500 4000 1600 3700 4150 4500 5500 5500 3700 2900 39750

Exporter

4430 500 4000 1600 3700 4150 4500 5500 5500

3200 37080

Annex

107


1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

W Importer

330

330

Exporter

Romania live T C Importer

500

500

Exporter

500

500

500

500

2000

Slovakia live T C Importer

500

500

Exporter

1000

1000

2000

W Importer

500

500

Exporter

Slovenia live T C Importer

300

300

Exporter

600

600

Spain live T C Importer

500 37850 44150 34299 47424 56500 57600 52162 54333 34500 23851 20250 463419

Exporter

41572 46150 43160 53903 70850 89900 50000 71000 52000

24500 543035

Sweden live T C Importer

1250 1000

1600 800 800

1000 1000 1000 700 9150

Exporter

5650 1800 1000 2000 1000 2000 900 1000 1000

1000 17350

United Kingdom live T C Importer

4500 18950 1000 1750

350

250 250

1000 28050

Exporter

4000 31150 9500 5500

600

350

1450 52550

W Importer

500

500

Exporter

- I Importer

500

500

Exporter

Subtotals (live)

C Importer 1800 5000 112839 94550 82349 104358 118643 112009 102229 113893 66452 57601 51675 1023398

Exporter

6700 185752 155400 122930 154805 167293 173060 71605 135560 106140

68600 1347845

F Importer

5604 2000 3800 1000 200 2000

14604

Exporter

I Importer

500

500

Exporter

R Importer

1000

1000

Annex

108


1995-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Exporter

W Importer

9330

500

9830

Exporter

Annex

109

ANNEX II. Purpose and Source Codes

Source of specimens

Code Description

W Specimens taken from the wild

R Ranched specimens: specimens of animals reared in a controlled environment, taken as eggs or juveniles from the wild, where they would otherwise have had a very low probability of surviving to adulthood

D Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Appendix-I plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention

A Plants that are artificially propagated in accordance with Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP15), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 (specimens of species included in Appendix I that have been propagated artificially for non-commercial purposes and specimens of species included in Appendices II and III)

C Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5

F Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that do not fulfil the definition of „bred in captivity‟ in Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof

U Source unknown (must be justified)

I Confiscated or seized specimens (may be used with another code)

O Pre-Convention specimens

Purpose of trade

Code Description

T Commercial

Z Zoo

G Botanical garden

Q Circus or travelling exhibition

S Scientific

H Hunting trophy

P Personal

M Medical (including biomedical research)

E Educational

N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild

B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation

L Law enforcement / judicial / forensic

review of american species/country combinations subject to long … · 2016. 6. 9. · 1 980 m/day)...

Documents