UNEP-WCMC technical report

Review of species selected

on the basis of the Analysis

of the European Union and

candidate countries’

annual reports to CITES

2014

(Version edited for public release)

Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES 2014

Prepared for The European Commission, Directorate General Environment, Directorate F - Global Sustainable

Development, Unit F3 - Multilateral Environmental Cooperation, Brussels, Belgium.

Published January 2017

Copyright European Commission 2017

Citation UNEP-WCMC. 2017. Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and

candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES 2014. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

The United Nations Environment’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the

specialist biodiversity assessment centre of the UN Environment, the world’s foremost

intergovernmental environmental organisation. The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years,

combining scientific research with practical policy advice.

This publication may be reproduced for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission,

provided acknowledgement to the source is made. Reuse of any figures is subject to permission from the

original rights holders. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial

purpose without permission in writing from UN Environment. Applications for permission, with a

statement of purpose and extent of reproduction, should be sent to the Director, UNEP-WCMC, 219

Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK.

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UN Environment,

contributory organisations or editors. The designations employed and the presentations of material in

this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UN Environment or

contributory organisations, editors or publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory,

city area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries or the

designation of its name, frontiers or boundaries. The mention of a commercial entity or product in this

publication does not imply endorsement by UN Environment.

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK Tel: +44 1223 277314 www.unep-wcmc.org

UN Environment promotes

environmentally sound

practices globally and in its

own activities. Printing on

paper from environmentally

sustainable forests and

recycled fibre is encouraged.

i

Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Syrmaticus reevesii non-CITES/Annex D ........................................................................................................2

Lamna nasus II/B ...............................................................................................................................................5

Tridacna squamosa II/B .................................................................................................................................... 11

1

Introduction This report presents a review of three species selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES 2014.

On the basis of the 2014 Analysis, 61 taxa were identified as having noteworthy trends in EU imports of wild or ranched specimens, from which two Appendix II/Annex B species (Lamna nasus and Tridacna squamosa) and one Annex D species (Syrmaticus reevesii) were selected for review.

Syrmaticus reevesii

2

GALLIFORMES: PHASIANIDAE

Syrmaticus reevesii non-CITES/Annex D

Trade patterns

Syrmaticus reevesii is not listed in the CITES Appendices. It was listed in Annex D of the EU Wildlife

Trade Regulations on 26/11/1997 [applied to live specimens; whole or substantially whole, dead

specimens; and any feathers or any skin or other part with feathers on it].

China has never published an annual export quota for S. reevesii and there is no requirement for China

to report on international trade in this species.

Direct exports of S. reevesii from China to the EU-28 over the period 2006-2015 comprised feathers,

reported in both number and weight; imports of wild-sourced feathers in 2014 and 2015 were both

reported by Germany (Table 1). There has never been any reported indirect trade originating in China to

the EU-28. Given that the species is not listed in the CITES Appendices, there is no reported direct trade

from China to countries other than the EU-28.

Table 1: Direct imports of Syrmaticus reevesii from China to the EU-28 2006-2015. No trade reported 2006, 2008-2010 or 2012. (This species is listed in Annex D, hence trade data are reported by EU imports only).

Term (Unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

feathers (kg)

T W Importer 1 40 56.5

T C Importer 374

F Importer 1400

W Importer 1500

- - Importer 400

Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/12/2016

Conservation status

China: Syrmaticus reevesii is a pheasant endemic to central and eastern China, from north-east Sichuan

to inner Mongolia (Dickinson, 2003), occurring in Gansu, Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou, Shaanxi, Henan,

Hubei, Anhui and Hunan provinces (BirdLife International, 2001). It reportedly historically occurred

more widely, but has been extirpated from Shanxi and Hebei provinces (BirdLife International, 2016; del

Hoyo and Collar, 2014). The species occurs within broadleaf habitat dominated by Quercus spp. between

SYNONYMS Phasianus reevesii

COMMON NAMES: Reeves’s pheasant (EN), Faisan vénéré (FR), Faisán venerado (ES)

RANGE STATES: China, Czech Republic (introduced), France (introduced)

UNDER REVIEW: China

EU DECISIONS: None

IUCN: Vulnerable

Syrmaticus reevesii

3

altitudes of 200-2600 m above sea level (Xu et al., 1991; Wu et al., 1994 in: Xu et al., 2007). The average

clutch size is 6-9 eggs (Madge and McGowan, 2002), and eggs are incubated for 24-25 days (Harrison

and Castell, 1998 in: McGowan and Kirwan, 2016).

The population was considered to be “highly fragmented” and declining (McGowan and Garson, 1995 in:

BirdLife International, 2001). There were reported to be two centres of its distribution: the mountains of

central China (the Qinling Shan, Daba Shan, Wu Shan, Wuling Shan and Dalou Shan ranges) and the

Dabie Shan mountains of Henan and Anhui provinces (BirdLife International, 2001).

S. reevesii was categorised as Vulnerable by the IUCN because the population is small and mostly

unprotected, severely fragmented and “declining rapidly” due to continuing habitat loss and over-

hunting (BirdLife International, 2016) . The species was assessed as ‘endangered’ nationally in 2015

(Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China & Chinese Academy, 2016).

Zhou et al. (2015) carried out surveys 2011-2012 using interviews and field surveys in 89 sites covering the

post 1980 range in which S. reevesii was known to occur (Anhiu, Guizhou, Henan, Hubei, Hunan,

Shaanxi provinces and Chongqing municipality) and found that the species no longer occurred in 46 per

cent of surveyed sites. They also reported that the population has declined in 46 of the sites and

recorded evidence of poaching in 83 per cent of sites (Zhou et al., 2015).

McGowan and Kirwan (2016) noted that recent surveys estimated the population to be 2500-10 000

mature individuals with an overall range of 532 000 km2; likewise, BirdLife International (2016) place the

species in the band 2500-9999 mature individuals, equating to 3750-14 999 total individuals. However, it

was reported that the population in China could be as high as c. 23 000 individuals (Xu Jiliang in litt 2012

in: BirdLife International, 2016). In 2001, BirdLife International (2001) noted that the total population of

the species had been estimated to be between 3000 (Weishu et al., 1990 in: BirdLife International, 2001)

and 5000 individuals (Wu et al., 1995; McGowan and Garson, 1995 in: BirdLife International, 2001) but

considered that more recent evidence suggested the population was greater (Liang Wei in litt. 1999,

Zhang Zhengwang verbally 1999 in: BirdLife International, 2001).

Surveys in Dongzhai National Nature Reserve, Henan Province, in 2008 and 2009 estimated the

population of S. reevesii in the reserve to be around 1000 individuals (Yang and Zhengwang, 2010 in:

BirdLife International, 2016).

Liu et al. (2008) surveyed the Dabie Shan range of the Dabie Mountains in central China in 2004-2006

and noted the area held “considerable numbers” of the Syrmaticus reevesii. They also recorded illegal

traps in Zhonghua Shan Forest Farm and Xianjuding Forest Farm within the Dabie Shan range

indicating poaching within unprotected areas.

Habitat destruction and fragmentation were considered to be the main threats to the species (BirdLife

International, 2001; 2016), although the combined effect of hunting for food and egg collection, habitat

loss and fragmentation were noted to be driving a “rapid population decline” (BirdLife International,

2016). S. reevesii were reported to moult their tail feathers annually (Mueller and Seibert, 1966), although

the species was also reported to have been hunted for its long tail feathers (Wu and Xu, 1986; Weishu et

al., 1990; Wu et al., 1995 in: BirdLife International, 2001; BirdLife International, 2016), which are used in

traditional opera costumes (BirdLife International, 2016). McGowan and Garson (1995 in: BirdLife

International, 2001) noted that plastic feathers were increasingly being used as a replacement but Zhou

et al. (2015) reported that the harvest of tail feathers was still occurring in Henan, Hubei and Anhui

provinces in 2012. McGowan and Kirwan (2016) noted that a captive population in China could satisfy

the market for tail feathers for headresses.

There were estimated to be around 3000 individuals in captivity, many of which are in Chinese zoos

(Birdlife International, 2001).

Syrmaticus reevesii was listed as a second class nationally protected species in 1988 (Ministry of Forestry

of the People’s Republic of China, 1989) and listed as a protected species by some provincial

Syrmaticus reevesii

4

governments (Liu Naifa in litt. 1997 in: BirdLife International, 2001). Hunting, catching and killing of

wildlife under special protection by the state [first and second class protected species] is prohibited;

special hunting or catching licenses can be obtained for scientific, breeding, medicinal or educational

purposes (Bureau of Legislative Affairs of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 1992).

Introduced populations: S. reevesii was reported to have been introduced to several areas including

the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria and Hawaii, but most of these population were

considered “probably not self-sustaining” (del Hoyo and Collar, 2014). The species was reported to breed

in northern and central Moravia in the Czech Republic (Lever, 2005).

References

BirdLife International 2016. Syrmaticus reevesii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016 Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22679346/0. [Accessed: 16 December 2016].

BirdLife International 2001. Threatened birds of Asia: the BirdLife International Red Data Book. Birdlife International, Cambridge (UK).

Bureau of Legislative Affairs of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China 1992. Regulations for the implementation of the People’s Republic of China on the protection of terrestrial wildlife.

Dickinson, E.C. 2003. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. 3rd Edition. Christopher Helm Publishers Ltd., London, UK.

Harrison, C.J.O. and Castell, P. 1998. Bird nests, eggs and nestlings of Britain and Europe: with North Africa and the Middle East. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.

del Hoyo, J. and Collar, N.J. 2014. HBW and BirdLife International illustrated checklist of the birds of the world. Volume 1: Non-passerines. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 903 pp.

Lever, C. 2005. Naturalised birds of the world. A&C Black. Liu, Y., Zhang, Z.W., Li, J.Q., Zhang, Y., Lu, S. and Ruan, X.F. 2008. A survey of the birds of the Dabie

Shan range, central China. Forktail, 24: 80–91. Madge, S. and McGowan, P. 2002. Pheasants, partridges & grouse. Incluing buttonquails, sandgrouse and

allies. Helm identification guies. Christopher Helm Publishers, London (UK). McGowan, P.J.K. and Garson, P.J. 1995. Pheasants: status survey and conservation action plan 1995-1999.

IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. McGowan, P.J.K. and Kirwan, G.. 2016. Reeves’s Pheasant (Syrmaticus reevesii). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott,

A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. de Juana, E. (Ed.). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China & Chinese Academy 2016. Red list of China’s vertebrates. Biodiversity Science, 24(5): 500–551.

Ministry of Forestry of the People’s Republic of China 1989. List of National Key Protected Wildlife. Mueller, C.F. and Seibert, H.C. 1966. Wing and tail molt in the Reeves Pheasant. The Ohio Journal of

Science, 66(5): 489–495. Qiu, Y. and Zhang, Z. 2010. The breeding behaviour and nest success of Reeves’ Pheasant (Syrmaticus

reevesii) in central China. Newsletter of China Ornithological Society, 19(1): 26–27. Weishu, X., Zhikang, W. and Zhummei, L. 1990. Current status of the Reeves or White-crowned

longtailed pheasant in China. In: Hill, D.A., Garson, P.J. and Jenkins, D. (Eds.). Pheasants in Asia 1989. World Pheasant Association, Reading. 31.

Wu, Z., Li, X. and Wang, J. 1994. Progress in research on Reeves’s pheasant in China. Annual Review World Pheasant Association, 1993/1994: 39–43.

Wu, Z. and Xu, W. 1986. The distributions and abundances of White-crowned long-tailed pheasants (Syrmaticus reeves) in Guizhou Province, China. In: Pheasants of Asia 1986. World Pheasant Association, Reading.

Xu, J.-L., Zhang, Z.-W., Zheng, G.-M., Zhang, X.-H., Sun, Q.-H. and McGowan, P. 2007. Home range and habitat use of Reeves’s pheasant Syrmaticus reevesii in the protected areas created from forest farms in the Dabie Mountains, central China. Bird Conservation International, 17(4): 319–330.

Xu, W.S., Wu, Z.K. and Li, Z.M. 1991. Reeves’s pheasant (Syrmaticus reevesii). In: Lu, T.C., Liu, R.S. and He, F.Q. (Eds.). The rare and endangered gamebirds in China. Fujian Science and Technology Press, Fuzhou. 328–338.

Zhou, C., Xu, J. and Zhang, Z. 2015. Dramatic decline of the Vulnerable Reeves’s pheasant Syrmaticus reevesii, endemic to central China. Oryx, 49(3): 529–534.

Lamna nasus

5

LAMNIFORMES: LAMNIDAE

Lamna nasus II/B

Trade patterns

Lamna nasus was listed in CITES Appendix III on 25/09/2012 and transferred to Appendix II on

12/06/2013 (coming into effect on 14/09/2014). The European Union was a co-proponent for the CoP16

amendment proposal. The species was listed in Annex C of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on

14/02/2012 then transferred to Annex B on 10/08/2013 (entering into force on 14/09/2014).

Faroe Islands: The Faroe Islands is a self-governing archipelago within the Kingdom of Denmark and is

not a party to CITES1.

Direct trade in L. nasus from the Faroe Islands to the EU-28 reported over the period 2006-2015

comprised 109 kg of wild-sourced meat imported by Denmark for commercial purposes in 2015 as

reported by Denmark. Since the Annex C listing in 2012, there has not been any other reported trade

(direct or indirect) originating from the Faroe Islands.

Norway: Norway has submitted annual reports for the years 2006-2014, but has not yet submitted an

annual report for 2015. Norway has never published an annual export quota for L. nasus.

1 It is confirmed on the CITES website that the Convention does not apply although this is a dependent territory of a Party

(https://www.cites.org/eng/cms/index.php/component/cp/country/FO).

SYNONYMS: Lamna philippi, Lamna philippii, Lamna punctata, Lamna whitleyi, Oxyrhina daekayi, Selanonius walkeri, Squalus cornubicus, Squalus cornubiensis, Squalus glaucus, Squalus monensis, Squalus pennanti, Squalus selanonus

COMMON NAMES: Porbeagle (EN), Marrajo sardinero (ES), Requin-taupe commun (FR)

RANGE: Albania, Algeria, Antarctica, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bermuda (UK),

Brazil, Cabo Verde (distribution uncertain), Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus,

Denmark, Egypt, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Faroe Islands, Finland,

France, French Polynesia, French Southern and Antarctic Territories,

Germany, Gibraltar (UK), Greece, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man

(UK), Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro (distribution

uncertain), Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russian

Federation, Slovenia, South Africa, South Georgia and South Sandwich

Islands (UK), Spain, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America,

Uruguay

UNDER REVIEW: Faroe Islands, Norway

EU DECISIONS: None

IUCN: Vulnerable (Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean subpopulations Critically Endangered, Northwest Atlantic subpopulation Endangered)

Lamna nasus

6

Direct trade in L. nasus from Norway to the EU-28 reported over the period 2006-2015 comprised a total

of 1600 kg of wild-sourced meat imported by Denmark in 2014 and 2015 (Table 1). Since the Annex C

listing in 2012, there has not been any other trade (direct or indirect) originating from Norway.

Table 1: Direct exports of Lamna nasus from Norway to EU-28 2006-2015. (The species was listed in Annex C in 2012; no trade was reported in 2012 or 2013.)

Term Unit Purpose Source Reported by 2014 2015 Total

meat kg T W Importer 851 749 1600

Exporter 851 851

Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded 05/12/2016

Conservation status

Lamna nasus is a wide-ranging shark found in temperate and cold-temperate waters worldwide,

occurring mainly in the open ocean and over continental shelves, but also entering coastal waters

(Stevens, 2005; Stevens et al., 2006d; Francis et al., 2008). It was reported to occur from the surface to a

depth of 370 m, and to feed on pelagic and demersal fish and cephalopods (Stevens, 2005).

The species occurs in the North and South Atlantic, the South Pacific and the southern Indian Oceans;

within the North Atlantic it occurs from Newfoundland [eastern Canada] to Iceland and the western

Barents Sea [off the northern coast of Norway] and from South Carolina [south-eastern United States] to

the Mediterranean and Morocco (Stevens, 2005; Stevens et al., 2006d). Catch data and tagging studies

indicate that the population in the eastern and western Atlantic are distinct from one another (Stevens,

1990; Campana et al., 1999 in: Kohler et al., 2002; Stevens et al., 2006; Campana et al., 2012), although it

is recognised that L. nasus can cross the North Atlantic to at least the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (ICES WGEF,

2015; 2016). Genetic studies indicate that some gene flow has occurred across the North Atlantic (Pade,

2009 in: ICES WGEF, 2016). A recent study found no genetic differentiation between the Northeast and

Northwest Atlantic, but strong differentiation between populations in the North Atlantic and the

Southern Hemisphere (Testerman, 2014 in: ICES WGEF, 2016).

L. nasus was noted to have a low reproductive capacity, making it particularly vulnerable to

overexploitation (Stevens, 2005; Stevens et al., 2006d; Francis et al., 2008). In the North Atlantic, males

and females were reported to reach maturity at eight and 13 years old respectively, with longevity in

excess of 26 years (Francis et al., 2008; Stevens, 2005). The gestation period is eight to nine months, with

a litter size of 1-5 pups (average four); the female reproductive periodicity is roughly annual (Francis et

al., 2008; Stevens, 2005). Individuals were reported to reach a maximum size of ≥355 cm (Stevens, 2005).

L. nasus was considered “highly migratory” (ICES WGEF, 2007), although Saunders et al. (2011) noted

that little was known about the migratory behaviour of the species, particularly in the Northeast

Atlantic; short-medium range migration of individuals (Stevens, 1976; Stevens, 1990a; Campana and

Joyce, 2004; Francis et al., 2008) and a transatlantic migration (Green, 2007 in ICES WGEF, 2013) have

been reported.

L. nasus was categorised as Vulnerable by the IUCN, with a decreasing population trend (Stevens et al.,

2006d). In addition, the IUCN has also conducted assessments for some subpopulations, categorising

the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean subpopulations as Critically Endangered (Stevens et al.,

2006b, 2006a) and the Northwest Atlantic subpopulation as Endangered (Stevens et al., 2006c). A low

reproductive capacity and high commercial value (in target and incidental fisheries) of mature and

immature age classes were considered to make the species “highly vulnerable to over-exploitation and

population depletion” (Stevens et al., 2006d).

The species was noted to have “virtually disappeared” from Mediterranean records; whilst adults are very

rare, the region may still act as a nursery ground (Stevens et al., 2006d).

Lamna nasus

7

The main threat to L. nasus was reported to be unsustainable fisheries (both target and bycatch), for the

meat from both mature and immature age classes (Stevens et al., 2006d). The high value of L. nasus

meat means that most ‘bycatch’ is exploited (Stevens et al., 2006d). The populations of the eastern and

western North Atlantic were reported to have been “seriously over-exploited by directed longline

fisheries” (Stevens et al., 2006d). The Northeast Atlantic population collapsed in 1960s as a result of

targeted fishing since the 1930s. This led intensive targeted fishing to move to the Northwest Atlantic

fishery in the 1960s, which caused depletion of most of the population within six years (Stevens et al.,

2006d). Norwegian and Faeroese fleets were reported to have been excluded from Canadian waters since

1995 and L. nasus in the Northwest Atlantic is now taken almost exclusively by a Canadian directed

longline fishery (Stevens et al., 2006d). Catch in the southern hemisphere was reported to be

predominately bycatch (Francis et al., 2001; Francis et al., 2008) and was considered unlikely to be

sustainable (CITES CoP16 Prop. 44). L. nasus used to be a targeted game fish species for recreational

fishing in Ireland and the UK (Stevens, 2005; Stevens et al., 2006d, CITES CoP16 Prop. 44).

Stock estimates were reported to only be available for the Northwest Atlantic (CITES CoP16 Prop. 44)

where the population was estimated to be 188 000-195 000 individuals (DFO, 2005; Campana and

Gibson., 2008, ICES ICCAT, 2009; Campana et al., 2010 in: CITES CoP16 Prop. 44), which was noted to be

22-27 per cent of the population prior to the commencement of the fishery (CITES CoP16 Prop. 44).

Furthermore, the number of female spawners was estimated to be only 12-16 per cent of their original

abundance (CITES CoP16 Prop. 44). Analyses from 2009-2014 indicated that the biomass and abundance

of L. nasus in the Northwest Atlantic were stable or increasing (Campana et al., 2010; ICES ICCAT, 2010;

Campana et al., 2012; Curtis and Cortés, 2016).

L. nasus is included in Annex 1 (Highly Migratory Species) of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS) under the listing for Lamnidae (Stevens et al., 2006d), although no listed oceanic shark

species is managed under the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish

Stocks (in force since 2001) (CITES CoP16 Prop. 44).

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and Inter-American

Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) have adopted shark finning bans (Stevens et al., 2006d). It was

reported that many range States had prohibited shark fishing in their waters and that “a few” range

States had legally binding fisheries regulations for L. nasus (CITES CoP16 Prop. 44).

As this review relates to the Faroe Islands and Norway, further information has focussed on the

Northeast Atlantic, as this is the stock pertaining to Faroese and Norwegian fisheries.

Northeast Atlantic

L. nasus was reported to have been fished in the Northeast Atlantic by many European countries,

principally Denmark, France, Norway and Spain (Stevens et al., 2006d; ICES, 2015). The Northeast

Atlantic fishery began when Norway started targeting L. nasus in the 1930s using longlines, with the

stock becoming over-fished by the 1960s (Stevens et al., 2006d). The directed fishery for L. nasus was

reported to have stopped in the late 1970s due to low catch rates, with sporadic small fisheries occurring

after that time (ICES 2005 in: CITES CoP16 Prop. 44). Over the last decade, the main country catching

L. nasus was reported to be France, and to a lesser extent, Spain, the UK and Norway (ICES, 2015; ICES

WGEF, 2016). No EU fisheries for L. nasus have been allowed since the implementation of a zero total

allowable catch (TAC) in 2010, and landings since then have been negligible (ICES WGEF, 2013; 2016,

Table 2). Reported landings of L. nasus are considered to underestimate total catch, and levels of discard

and discard survival have not been quantified (ICES, 2015; ICES WGEF, 2016).

Table 2: ICES estimates of Lamna nasus landings in the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation. (Source: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES 2015).

Year Landings (tonnes)

2005 343

Lamna nasus

8

2006 289

2007 431

2008 313

2009 333

2010 20

2011 17

2012 48

2013 22

2014 7

The Northeast Atlantic stock assessment in 2009 estimated the population had declined over 90 per

cent from baseline figures in the 1920s to 6 per cent of the biomass and 7 per cent of the numbers (ICES

ICCAT, 2009). A summary of population and catch trend data for the Northeast Atlantic region is

presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of population and catch trend data for the Northeast Atlantic Lamna nasus subpopulation. (Source: CITES CoP16 Prop. 44).

Year range Data used Trend Source

1926–2008 Stock assessment

94% decline in biomass, 93% decline in numbers from historic baseline

Surplus production age-structured model ICCAT SCRS/ICES 2009

1933/37–2004/08

All Northeast Atlantic landings

87% decline in 5 yr average landings from historic baseline

ICCAT SCRS/ICES (2009); FAO (2010)

1936–2007 Norwegian landings

>99 % decline from historic baseline. Trend is the same if 5-year averages are used.

Norwegian and ICES data; ICCAT SCRS/ICES (2009); FAO (2010)

1950/54–2004/08

Danish fishery 99% decline from historic baseline ICES data; ICCAT SCRS/ICES (2009); FAO (2010)

1986–2007 Spanish longline bycatch CPUE

No trend in recent catch rates ICES WGEF (2011)

1972–2007 French target longline CPUE

Approximately one third decline in two most recent generations

ICES WGEF (2011); Biais and Vollette (2009)

Stevens (2005) considered that “The status of the largely unmanaged, unmonitored Northeast Atlantic

stock is probably worse than the seriously depleted Northwest Atlantic stock”. In 2016, there was still

reported to be no management plan in place for the Northeast Atlantic stock and the current stock

status was considered unknown (ICES WGEF, 2016).

The Advisory Committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) provides

advice for the sustainable management of marine resources and ecosystems throughout the North

Atlantic Ocean. The current ICES advice for the period 2015-2019 stated “ICES advises that when the

precautionary approach is applied for porbeagle in the Northeast Atlantic, fishing mortality should be

minimized and no targeted fisheries should be permitted” (ICES, 2015; ICES WGEF, 2016). It was further

noted that as fishing mortality should be minimised “any possible provision for bycatch to be landed

should be part of a management plan which includes close monitoring of the stock” (ICES 2015). The 2012

ICES advice (considered valid for 2013 and 2014) was that no fishing for L. nasus should be permitted and

that no landings should be allowed (ICES WGEF, 2013). In 2008 and 2010, ICES also advised that there

should be no targeted fishing for L. nasus, bycatch should be limited and landings should not be allowed

(ICES WGEF, 2013).

ICES noted that based on available information from Norwegian and Faroese fisheries, landings had

declined strongly and the stock of L. nasus was depleted; they considered that the lack of new fisheries

indicated that the stock had not recovered (ICES WGEF, 2007). In 2013, it was reported that Norwegian

and Faroese fisheries for L. nasus had ceased and not resumed; it was noted that stock recovery may

have taken place but gone undetected (as time since the end of the northern fisheries was noted to be

Lamna nasus

9

longer than the generation time), however WGEF considered the stock to be “probably still depleted”

(ICES WGEF, 2013).

It was noted that there are no fishery-independent survey data for L. nasus in the Northeast Atlantic and

that in the absence of target fisheries, initiation of a dedicated longline survey covering the main parts of

the stock area would be useful to monitor stock recovery (ICES WGEF, 2013).

Faroe Islands: The Faroe Islands are an archipelago between the Norwegian Sea and the North

Atlantic, approximately half way between Norway and Iceland. The Faroe Islands were reported to have

had a quota of 125t from EC waters since 1985, reduced from 300t in 1982 and 150t in 1984 (Stevens, 2005;

Stevens et al., 2006d). ICES estimates of commercial landings of L. nasus from the Northeast Atlantic

1971-2014 indicate that there have been no recorded landings from the Faroe Islands since the zero TAC

in 2010 (ICES. 2015).

The Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources for the Faroe Islands is responsible for the management

of all fisheries in Faroese waters (Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources, 2008). Individual vessels

require a harvesting licence which specifies the details of the fishing activities that the vessel is

permitted to undertake as well as outlining the requirements to report catch data and information on

landings and transhipments (Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources, 2008).

Norway: L. nasus was nationally assessed as ‘vulnerable’ in 2006 (Kålås et al., 2006). Norway was

reported to have had a quota of 200t of L. nasus in European Community (EC) waters, reduced in 1985

from the 500t established in 1982 (Stevens, 2005; Stevens et al., 2006d). In 2007, Norway was reported to

have banned all directed fisheries for L. nasus based on ICES advice, although between 2007 and 2011,

specimens taken as bycatch could be landed and sold (CITES CoP16 Prop. 44; ICES WGEF, 2013). From

2011, live specimens of L. nasus had to be released but dead specimens could be landed and sold;

reporting was extended to include the number as well as weight of specimens landed, and included

recreational fishing (CITES CoP16 Prop. 44; ICES WGEF, 2013). ICES estimates of commercial landings

from Norway 2010-2014 were 12, 10, 17, 8 and 5 tonnes per year, respectively (ICES. 2015).

Whilst levels of discard for L. nasus in the Northeast Atlantic are unknown, it was reported that

anecdotal information indicated that the species is a regular bycatch in the Norwegian pelagic trawl

fishery for blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) in the Norwegian Sea (ICES WGEF, 2016). It has

been suggested that there has been an increase in occurrence of L. nasus in this fishery since 2014/2015,

although this has not been independently verified (ICES WGEF, 2016).

References

Campana, S. and Gibson., J. 2008. Catch and stock status of porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in the Northwest Atlantic to 2007. NAFO Doc. 08/36,

Campana, S., Marks, L., Joyce, W., Hurley, P., Showell, M. and Kulda., D. 1999. A analytical assessment of the porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus, population in the Northwest Atlantic. CSAC Res. Doc. 99/158,

Campana, S.E., Gibson, J.F., Fowler, M., Dorey, A. and Joyce, W. 2012. Population dynamics of northwest Atlantic porbeagle (Lamna nasus), with an assessment of status and projections for recovery. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Res. Doc. 2012/096,

Campana, S.E., Gibson, J.F., Fowler, M., Dorey, A. and Joyce, W. 2010. Population dynamics of porbeagle in the northwest Atlantic, with an assessment of status to 2009 and projections for recovery. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 65(6): 2109–2182.

Campana, S.E. and Joyce, N. 2004. Temperature and depth associations of porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in the northwest Atlantic. Fisheries Oceanography, 13(1): 52–64.

Curtis, T.H. and Cortés, E. 2016. Status review report: porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S Department of Commerce.

DFO 2005. Stock assessment report on NAFO Subareas 3–6 porbeagle shark. CSAS Science Advisory Report 2005/044,

Francis, M.P., Griggs, L.H. and Baird, S.J. 2001. Pelagic shark bycatch in the New Zealand tuna longline fishery. Marine Freshwater Research, 52: 165–178.

Francis, M.P., Natanson, L.J. and Campana, S.E. 2008. The biology and ecology of the porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus. In: Camhi, M.D., Pikitch, E.K. and Babcock, E.A. (Eds.). Sharks of the open ocean, biology, fisheries and conservation. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. 105–113.

Lamna nasus

10

Gibson, C., Valenti, S. V., Fowler, S.L. and Fordham, S. V. 2006. The conservation status of Northeast Atlantic Chondrichthyans. IUCN Shark Specialist Group, Peterborough, UK.

Green, P. 2007. Central Fisheries Board Tagging Programme 1970 to 2006. document to WGEF 2007 (PowerPoint display).

ICES. 2005. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management. Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES. 2015. Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) in the Northeast Atlantic. In: ICES Advice on fishing opportunities,

catch, and effort Northeast Atlantic Ecoregion. Book 9. 9 October 2015. ICES ICCAT 2009. Report of the 2009 porbeagle stock assessments meeting. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap.

ICCAT, 65(6): 1909–2005. ICES WGEF 2007. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). ICES Advisory

Committee. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Galway, Ireland, 22-28 June 2007. ICES WGEF 2013. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). ICES Advisory

Committee. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Lisbon, Portugal, 17-21 June 2013. ICES WGEF 2015. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). ICES Advisory

Committee. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Lisbon, Portugal, 17-23 June 2015. ICES WGEF 2016. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). ICES Advisory

Committee. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Lisbon, Portugal, 15-24 June 2016. Kålås, J.A., Viken, Å. and Bakken, T. 2006. Norsk Rødliste 2006 – 2006 Norwegian Red List.

Artsdatabanken, Norway. Kohler, N.E., Turner, P.A., Hoey, J.J., Natanson, L.J. and Briggs, R. 2002. Tag and recapture data for three

pelagic shark species: Blue Shark, (Prionace glauca), Shortfin Mako (Isurus xyrinchus), and Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) in the north Atlantic Ocean. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers ICCAT, 54(4): 1231–1260.

Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources 2008. Faroe Islands Fisheries and Aquaculture. Responsible management for a sustainable future.

Pade, N. 2009. Molecular and spatial ecology of Porbeagle sharks, Lamna nasus (Bonnaterre, 1788), in the North Atlantic Ocean. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

Saunders, R.A., Royer, F. and Clarke, M.W. 2011. Winter migration and diving behaviour of porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus, in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68(1): 166–174.

Stevens, J. 2005. Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus (Bonnaterre, 1788). In: Fowler, S.L., Cavanagh, R.D., Camhi, M., Burgess, G.H., Cailliet, G.M., Fordham, S. V., Simpfendorfer, C.A. and Musick, J.A. (Eds.). Sharks, rays and chimaeras: the status of the chondrichthyan fishes. Status survey. IUCN/ SSC Shark Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 461.

Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E., Domingo, A. and Francis, M. 2005. Lamna nasus. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.

Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E. and Domingo, A. 2006a. Lamna nasus (Mediterranean subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T61420A12478828. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 03/01/2017].

Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E. and Domingo, A. 2006b. Lamna nasus (Northeast Atlantic subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T39343A10210612. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 03/01/2017].

Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E. and Domingo, A. 2006c. Lamna nasus (Northwest Atlantic subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T39344A10210847. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 03/01/2017].

Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E., Domingo, A. and Francis, M. 2006d. Lamna nasus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T11200A3261697. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/11200/0. [Accessed: 08/12/2016].

Stevens, J.D. 1990a. Further results from a tagging study in the Northeast Atlantic. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 70(4): 707–720.

Stevens, J.D. 1990b. Further results from a tagging study of pelagic sharks in the Northeast Atlantic. Journal of Marine Biological Association, 70(4): 707–720.

Testerman, C.B. 2014. Molecular ecology of globally distributed sharks. Doctoral dissertation. Nova

Southeastern University. Available at: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_stuetd/6.

Tridacna squamosa

11

VENEROIDA: TRIDACNIDAE

Tridacna squamosa II/B

COMMON NAMES: Fluted Giant Clam (EN)

RANGE STATES: American Samoa, Australia, British Indian Ocean Territory (distribution uncertain), Cambodia, Comoros, Cook Islands, Egypt (distribution uncertain), Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam (extinct, introduced), India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Myanmar, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn, Réunion, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia (distribution uncertain), South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America (introduced), Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Wallis and Futuna Islands

UNDER REVIEW: Australia

EU DECISIONS: Current no opinion i) for wild specimens from Australia formed on 02/12/2011, replacing a positive opinion formed on 22/07/1997.

Current no opinion i) for wild specimens also formed on 02/12/2011 for American Samoa, British Indian Ocean Territory (UK), Comoros, Cook Islands, Egypt, Guam, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Myanmar, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Pitcairn Islands (UK), Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, Tokelau, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America and Wallis and Futuna Islands. Current no opinion i) formed on 11/09/2012 for the Marshall Islands and Palau. No opinion i) formed for New Caledonia on 07/03/2016 (comes into effect upon removal from the Suspensions Regulations).

Current negative opinion for Fiji formed on 22/05/2003.

Current Article 4.6(b) import suspensions for wild specimens from Cambodia, Fiji, Mozambique, New Caledonia, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu and Viet Nam last confirmed on 28/05/2015.

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

IUCN: Lower Risk/conservation dependent (needs updating)

Tridacna squamosa

12

Trade patterns

Tridacna squamosa was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/08/1985 and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife

Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997 as part of the family listing for Tridacnidae.

Australia has submitted annual reports for all years 2006-2014, but has not yet submitted an annual

report for 2015. Australia has never published an annual export quota for T. squamosa.

Direct exports of T. squamosa from Australia to the EU-28 2006-2015 comprised 20 wild-sourced clams

reported as ‘bodies’ in 2011 and a total of 320 live, wild-sourced clams 2011-2015, as reported by importers

(Table 1). Direct trade to countries other than the EU-28 predominately comprised live clams for

commercial purposes, both wild and source F, the majority of which was imported by the United States.

Indirect trade in T. squamosa originating from Australia to the EU-28 2006-2015 comprised 20 live

captive-born clams (source F) imported via Singapore for commercial purposes, reported by exporters.

Some global trade in Tridacna species is reported at the family or genus level, however the only reported

imports to the EU-28 2006-2014 from Australia consisted of five source I Tridacna spp. shells in 2007

(reported by importers) and one wild-sourced Tridacna spp. shell in 2012 as part of a travelling

exhibition (purpose Q; reported by exporters).

Table 1: Direct exports of Tridacna squamosa from Australia to the EU-28 (EU) and the

rest of the world (RoW), 2006-2015. No trade was reported 2006-2010

Importer Term (Unit) Purpose

Source Reported by 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

EU bodies T W Importer

Exporter 20

live T W Importer 20 100 200

Exporter 300

RoW bodies T F Importer

Exporter 200

W Importer

Exporter 10

live T F Importer 200 80

Exporter 200 200 80

W Importer 251 8 17

Exporter 41 18

shells P I Importer 1

Exporter

Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 05/12/2016

Conservation status

Tridacna squamosa is a giant clam found along shallow shorelines and on reefs from the shores of

East Africa and the Red Sea to the Pitcairn Islands in the South Pacific and as far north as Japan

(Wells, 1997; bin Othman et al., 2010). T. squamosa and the closely related T. maxima are

reportedly the most widely distributed Tridacna species (Van Wynsberge et al, 2015). The species

occurs on corals reefs or sand (Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010),

usually in sheltered regions amongst branching corals (Raymakers et al., 2004). Optimum

temperatures for Tridacna species were reported to be 23-30°C (Isamu, 2008).

T. squamosa is a filter feeding clam that grows to shell lengths of up to 40 cm (Guest, 2008, Wells,

1997; Kinch and Teitelbaum, 2010), with males reaching sexual maturity at 4 years and

hermaphrodites at 6 years (Raymakers et al., 2004). The species is a broadcast breeder, meaning

sperm and eggs are released into the water and fertilised in free flow (Meadows, 2016). Declining

population density of spawning individuals therefore leads to a low fertilisation rate and reduced

recruitment, potentially leading to population collapse (Meadows, 2016; Neo et al., 2013).

Tridacna squamosa

13

In 1996, T. squamosa was categorised as Lower Risk/conservation dependent in the IUCN Red List,

although this needs updating (Wells, 1996). In the 1970s the species was considered to be common

(Dance, 1974) and in the 1990s “reasonably abundant”, although its status in the Indian Ocean was

reported to be poorly understood (Wells, 1997). Populations of T. squamosa were more recently

considered to have a declining trend (Isamu, 2008). The abundance of giant clams in Oceania was

reported to have been generally declining (bin Othman et al., 2010), although with some instances

of unusually high numbers (e.g. Rees et al., 2003).

The main threats to T. squamosa were considered to be overexploitation and habitat degradation

(Teitelbaum and Friedman, 2008; bin Othman et al., 2010). Demand for Tridacna has traditionally

been associated with aquaria, food, shells, seedstock and breedstock, with its attractive appearance

making it a favoured trade species (Tisdell et al. 1994; IUCN et al., 1996).

Due to their broadcast breeding strategy and relatively late sexual maturity onset, Tridacna spp.

populations were reported to be typically fragile in the context of stock depletion (Neo, et al.,

2015).

T. squamosa from the Solomon Islands was selected for the CITES Review of Significant Trade

process following the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) in 2007, with ongoing

actions (AC28 Doc. 9.3).

Australia: Tridacna squamosa occurs in northern Australia (Braley, 1987; Rees et al., 2003; bin

Othman et al., 2010), found on coral reefs at depths of 2-20m in clear oceanic waters (Isamu, 2008).

Along the coastline of north-western Australia, T. squamosa was reported to occur on the oceanic

reefs of the North West Shelf bioregion (Rowley Shelf and Sahul Shelf), including the Kimberley

fringing reefs, as well as in the Pilbara and Ningaloo bioregions to the south-west; the species was

described as “common in pools and lagoons of reef flats and in the shallow subtidal zone as far

south as Ningaloo Reef” (Wilson, 2013).

No comprehensive density estimates could be located for T. squamosa specifically in Australia.

There are historic reports of population declines of Tridacna species from Australian reefs (Braley,

1987).

In response to concern that Indonesian fishers had been targeting giant clams around the

uninhabited Australian islands of Ashmore, Cartier and Mermaid in the Timor Sea, a 2003 survey

of three Tridacnidae species [T. maxima, T. gigas and Hippopus hippopus] on Ashmore, Cartier,

and Mermaid Reefs [three marine reserves of the North West Shelf] found population densities of

live clams were similar to other reefs with little exploitation; population numbers were considered

healthy on all reefs surveyed (Rees et al., 2003). T. squamosa was reported to be found on these

reefs, but was not chosen as one of the census species to be recorded.

Both the Ashmore and Cartier Reefs form part of the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) Box,

a marine area managed by the Australian government in agreement with the Indonesian

government (Rees et al., 2003; Department of Agricultural and Water Resources, Australian

Government, 2016). The MOU Box of 1974 was historically understood by both parties to be

fishable through traditional practices (Department of Agricultural and Water Resources,

Australian Government, 2016). However, in 1983 and 2000 respectively, Ashmore and Cartier

Island were declared protected areas, prohibiting traditional fishing practices (Department of

Agricultural and Water Resources, 2016; Rees et al., 2003).

The family Tridacnidae (all species) is listed in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations of

1983 as Protected species, for which it is forbidden to take or possess, except for limited impact

research sampling (Office of Parliamentary Counsel, Canberra, 2016). All Tridacnidae species were

also listed in the Marine Parks (Moreton Bay) Zoning Plan 2008, under Schedule 3 as Protected

species, for which it is forbidden to take or possess (Office of the Queensland Parliamentary

Counsel, Queensland, 2013).

Tridacna squamosa

14

An overview of the status and management of Australia’s coral reef systems was provided in report

to the SRG in 2013. Australia’s reefs were considered to remain in relatively good condition (Côté

and Reynolds, 2006; Wilkinson, 2008). Approximately three quarters of the Australian coral reefs

were reported to be within marine protected areas, with a high level of management for many of

these sites (Chin et al., 2011).

References

Braley, R. D., 1987. Distribution and abundance of the giant clams Tridacna gigas and T. derasa on the Great Barrier Reef. Micronesia, 20: 215–223.

Chin, A., Lison de Loma, T., Reytar, K., Planes, S., Gerhardt, K., Clua, E., Burke, L., and Wilkinson, C. 2011. Status of Coral Reefs of the Pacific and Outlook. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.

Côté, I. M. and Reynolds, J. D. 2006. Coral reef conservation. Cambridge University Press. Dance, S.P. 1974. The encyclopedia of shells. Blandford Press Ltd., London, United Kingdom. Department of Agricultural and Water Resources, Australian Government, 2016. Indonesia - Australia

Fisheries Cooperation. Available at: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/international/cooperation/indonesia. [Accessed: 18 November 2016.]

Isamu, T. 2008. Palau case study: Tridacnidae. NDF Workshop Case Studies, WG9 - Aquatic Invertebrates, Case Study 2. International expert workshop on CITES non-detriment findings. Cancun, Mexico, November 17-22, 2008. Gland, Switzerland.

Guest, J.R., Todd, P.A., Goh, E., Sivaloganathan, B. and Reddy, K.P. 2008. Can giant clam (Tridacna squamosa) populations be restored on Singapore’s heavily impacted coral reefs? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 18(5): 570–579.

IUCN, TRAFFIC and WCMC 1996. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II: detailed reviews of 24 species. Final report to the CITES Animals Committee. IUCN Species Survival Commission, TRAFFIC Network, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.

Kinch, J. and Teitelbaum, A. 2010. Proceedings of the regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for Giant Clams (Tridancidae) and CITES capacity building 4-7 August 2009. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, New Caledonia.

Meadows, D.W. 2016. Petition to list the Tridacnidae giant clams (excluding Tridacna rosewateri) as threatened or endangered under the endangered species act notice of petition. Ellicott City. 1-38 pp.

Neo, M.L., Eckman, W., Vicentuan, K., Teo, S.L.M. and Todd, P.A. 2015. The ecological significance of giant clams in coral reef ecosystems. Biological Conservation, 181: 111–123.

Neo, M.L., Erftemeijer, P.L.A., van Beek, J.K.L., van Maren, D.S. and Teo, S.L.M. 2013. Recruitment constraints in Singapore’s fluted giant clam (Tridacna squamosa) population—A dispersal model approach. PLoS One, 8(3): e58819.

Office of Parliamentary Counsel, Canberra 2016. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983: Statutory Rules No. 262, 1983. 349-362 pp.

Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, Queensland. 2013. Marine Parks (Moreton Bay) Zoning Plan 2008.

bin Othman, A.S., Goh, G.H.S. and Todd, P.A. 2010. The distribution and status of giant clams (family Tridacnidae) - a short review. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58(1): 103–111.

Raymakers, C., Ringuet, S., Phoon, N. and Sant, G. 2004. Review of the exploitation of Tridacnidae in the South Pacific, Indonesia and Vietnam.Technical report submitted to the European Commision, TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium.

Rees, M., Colquhoun, J., Smith, L. and Heyward, A. 2003. Surveys of Trochus, Holothuria, giant clams and the coral communities at Ashmore Reef, Cartier Reef and Mermaid Reef, Northwestern Australia: 2003. The Australian Institute of Marine Science. pp 1-64.

Sutton, D.C. and Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 1990. Host-zooxanthella interactions in four temperate marine invertebrate symbioses: assessment of effect of host extracts on symbionts. Biological Bulletin, 178(2): 175–186.

Tisdell, C A., Shang, Y.C. and Leung, P.S. 1994. Economics of commercial giant clam mariculture. ACIAR Monograph No. 25. The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra.

Van Wynsberge, S., Andrefouet, S., Gaertner-Mazouni, N., Wabnitz, C.C.C., Gilbert, A., Remoissenet, G., Payri, C. and Fauvelot, C. 2015. Drivers of density for the exploited giant clam Tridacna maxima: a meta-analysis. Fish and Fisheries, 17(3): 567–584.

Tridacna squamosa

15

Wells, S. 1996. Tridacna squamosa. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 08 December 2016].

Wells, S.M. 1997. Giant Clams: Status, Trade and Mariculture, and the role of CITES in Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Wilkinson, C. 2008. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, Australia.

Wilson, B. 2013. The Biogeography of the Australian North West Shelf: Environmental Change and Life’s Response. Western Australian Museum, Perth. pp 1-640.

16

Appendix

Table 1: Purpose of trade

Code Description

B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation

E Educational

G Botanical garden

H Hunting trophies

L Law enforcement / judicial / forensic

M Medical (including bio-medical research)

N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild

P Personal

Q Circus and travelling exhibitions

S Scientific

T Commercial

Z Zoos

Table 2: Source of specimens

Code Description

W Specimens taken from the wild

R Specimens originating from a ranching operation

D Annex A animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes and Annex A plants artificially propagated for

commercial purposes in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and

derivatives thereof

A Annex A plants artificially propagated for non-commercial purposes and Annexes B and C plants artificially

propagated in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and

derivatives thereof

C Annex A animals bred in captivity for non-commercial purposes and Annexes B and C animals bred in

captivity in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and derivatives

thereof

F Animals born in captivity, but for which the criteria of Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 are not

met, as well as parts and derivatives thereof

I Confiscated or seized specimens (to be used only in conjunction with another source code)

O Pre-Convention (to be used only in conjunction with another source code)

U Source unknown (must be justified)

X Specimens taken in “the marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State”