review of species selected on the basis of the analysis...

Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate

countries’ annual reports to CITES 2010

(Version edited for public release)

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

November, 2012

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 The United Nations Environment Programme

World Conservation Monitoring Centre

(UNEP-WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity

assessment centre of the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP), the world’s

foremost intergovernmental environmental

organisation. The Centre has been in operation

for over 30 years, combining scientific research

with practical policy advice. The Centre's

mission is to evaluate and highlight the many

values of biodiversity and put authoritative

biodiversity knowledge at the centre of decision-

making. Through the analysis and synthesis of

global biodiversity knowledge the Centre

provides authoritative, strategic and timely

information for conventions, countries and

organisations to use in the development and

implementation of their policies and decisions.

UNEP-WCMC provides objective and

scientifically rigorous procedures and services.

These include ecosystem assessments, support

for the implementation of environmental

agreements, global and regional biodiversity

information, research on threats and impacts,

and the development of future scenarios.

CITATION

UNEP-WCMC (2012). Review of species selected on

the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and

candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES 2010.

Prepared for the European Commission. 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: 2012, European Commission

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

1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction to the Analysis of the European Union Annual Reports to CITES ....................................... 2

2. Introduction to the species sheets ..................................................................................................................... 3

SPECIES: Lynx canadensis ..................................................................................................4

SPECIES: Naja kaouthia ....................................................................................................11

SPECIES: Python reticulatus .............................................................................................18

SPECIES: Mauremys sinensis ...........................................................................................33

Annex I: Detailed trade data tables for Python reticulatus ............................................................................... 39

Annex II: Key to purpose and source codes ...................................................................................................... 58

Introduction

2

1. Introduction to the Analysis of the European Union Annual Reports to CITES

UNEP-WCMC undertakes an annual Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual reports to CITES. This Analysis examines patterns of trade into the European Union and candidate countries, trade in groups of particular note, possible transgressions of suspensions and negative opinions, exports of native species, etc.

As part of the 2010 Analysis, imports reported by the EU (and candidate countries) as wild-sourced, ranched, source ‘unknown’ or source ‘blank’ were analysed to identify noteworthy patterns of trade according to five criteria. These criteria were designed to identify:

1. High volume trade in 2010

2. Globally threatened and near threatened species traded at relatively high volumes in 2010

3. Sharp increase in trade in 2010

4. General long term increases or decreases in trade between 2001 and 2010

5. Long term variability in trade between 2001 and 2010.

Imports were considered to be ‘high volume’ according to thresholds which were determined by taxonomic group and CITES Appendix (Table 2). In order to account for threat status, the Appendix I threshold was also applied to Appendix II and III species considered to be threatened or near threatened by the IUCN (Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List).

Table 2. Minimum number of wild, ranched, source ‘unknown’ and source ‘blank’ individuals imported in 2010 needed to qualify for selection on the basis of high trade volume.

Taxonomic group CITES Appendix

I II

CR, EN, VU, NT*

II III

CR, EN, VU, NT*

III

Mammals 50 50 5000 50 25000

Birds 50 50 5000 50 25000

Reptiles 50 50 25000 50 50000

Amphibians 50 50 25000 50 —

Fish 50 50 25000 50 —

Invertebrates (non-corals) 250 250 25000 250 50000

Corals — 10000 25000 10000 50000

Plants (non-tree) 250 250 25000 250 50000

Plants (trees) 250 m³ 250 m³ 500 m³ 250 m³ 2500 m³

* CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened in 2010 IUCN Red List

The ‘sharp increase’ criterion was designed to determine if there was a sharp increase in importer-reported wild-sourced imports in 2010, compared with the average level of imports between 2005 and 2009. Species that, despite a sharp increase in trade in 2010, were still only traded in very low volumes (i.e. less than 5 per cent of the levels listed in Table 2) were omitted from the chapter.

The ‘overall increase’ criteria took into account more general trends over the period 2001-2010 by calculating the slope of a best-fit linear function to the trade data, with a large positive slope indicating a significant increase in trade levels over time.

To account for highly variable trade that may not be picked up by the other criteria, the coefficient of variation was calculated for imports over a ten-year period (2001-2010) and species showing high variation over this period were selected.

Introduction

3

2. Introduction to the species sheets

On the basis of the Analysis of the European Union and candidate countries’ annual report to CITES 2010, five Annex B taxa and one Annex C species were initially considered as candidates for review (SRG 61 document). Four species were selected by the SRG for in-depth review (Table 1).

Species were selected on the basis of particular patterns of trade to the European Union in 2010. Lynx canadensis and Python reticulatus were selected on the basis of high volume of trade in 2010. Naja kaouthia was selected on the basis of a sharp increase in trade in 2010 and a lack of scientific data to support Non Detriment Findings. Mauremys sinensis was selected on the basis of a sharp increase in trade and whilst SRG opinions are not applicable to Annex C species, a review was recommended to assess whether the species might merit listing in Annex B.

Lynx canadensis

4

REVIEW OF SPECIES SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE 2010 ANALYSIS OF EU ANNUAL REPORTS

CARNIVORA FELIDAE

SPECIES: Lynx canadensis

SYNONYMS: Felis canadensis, Lynx lynx canadensis

COMMON NAMES: Canadese lynx (Dutch), American Lynx, Canada Lynx (English), Lynx du Canada (French), Lince del Canadá (Spanish), Kanadensisk lo, Nordamerikansk lo (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Canada, United States of America

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: United States of America

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Positive opinion for wild specimens from Canada and the United States of America first formed on 18/07/2001 and last confirmed on 27/03/2007.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Lynx canadensis from the United States of America was selected on the basis of high volume of trade, with imports of wild-sourced skins to the EU-27 in 2010 reaching the highest levels of trade over the last ten years.

United States of America: The United States of America (hereafter referred to as the United States) has not published any export quotas for Lynx canadensis. According to the CITES Trade Database, imports of L. canadensis to the EU-27 directly from the United States over the period 2001-2011 primarily comprised skins, all of which were wild-sourced and the vast majority traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). Small quantities of wild-sourced trophies, bodies, claws, skulls, skin pieces, plates, garments and specimens were also traded, as well as a small number of captive-born live animals. EU-reported imports of L. canadensis skins increased over 40-fold between 2009 and 2010, with 3389 skins reported imported in 2010, all of which were reported by Greece. However, the United States reported the export of only 632 L. canadensis skins in that year. A cross-check of permit numbers reported by both trading partners revealed that of the 3389 skins reported by Greece, all but 59 were reported by the United States as being of the species Lynx rufus. An additional 411 and 160 skins reported by the United States as L. canadensis were reported by Greece as L. rufus and Lutra canadensis, respectively.

Indirect exports of L. canadensis to the EU-27 originating in the United States also consisted principally of skins, all of which were wild-sourced and traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). Small

Lynx canadensis

5

quantities of wild-sourced small leather products and garments were also reported in trade. The vast majority of the indirect trade was re-exported via Canada.

Direct exports of L. canadensis from the United States to countries other than the EU-27 2001-2010 again primarily comprised wild-sourced skins traded for commercial purposes; no trade was reported in 2011 (Table 3). The principal importer was Canada, with notable quantities also imported by Hong Kong, SAR.

Table 1. Direct exports of Lynx canadensis skins originating in the United States to the EU-27, 2001-2011. All trade was wild-sourced. Small quantities of trophies, bodies, claws, skulls, skin pieces, plates, garments, specimens and live animals were also traded. (The United States’ annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

Importer Purpose Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Austria T Importer

Exporter

169

169

Germany P Importer

1

2

1 4

Exporter

4 1 1

1

7

S Importer

Exporter

9

9

T Importer

9

30

39

Exporter 1

2

30

33

Greece T Importer

12 150 60 608 76 3389 866 5161

Exporter 350 14 24 12 246 90 570 76 630

2012

Hungary P Importer

Exporter

2

2

Italy T Importer 445 150

347

386

400

1728

Exporter 445 150 6 347

386

400

1734

Spain P Importer

1

1

Exporter

United Kingdom P Importer

Exporter 2

1

3

T Importer

39

39

Exporter

39

39

Subtotals Importer 445 150 39 348 21 536 90 1011 76 3389 867 6972

Exporter 445 503 59 377 192 633 120 971 76 632

4008

Table 2. Indirect exports of Lynx canadensis originating in the United States to the EU-27, 2001-2011. All trade was wild-sourced.

Importer Term Purpose Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Austria garments T Importer

Exporter

1

1

Denmark skins T Importer 4 9 52 12

88 57 154

376

Exporter

9 52 12 1 88 57

219

Finland garments T Importer

Exporter

6

6

skins T Importer

Exporter

30

30

Germany garments Q Importer

10 10

Exporter

skins T Importer

1 8 49 148 279

41 105 631

Exporter

1 8 49 148 279

485

small leather products

T Importer

Exporter

59

59

Greece garments T Importer

Exporter

8 1

9

Lynx canadensis

6

Importer Term Purpose Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

skins T Importer

33 13 906 468 1936 313 3669

Exporter

2 38 5

20 62 578 363

1068

Italy skins T Importer 19 121 63 29 43 59 14 5 99 28 254 734

Exporter 16 165 202 30 47 108 14 49 99

730

Lithuania garments T Importer

8

8

Exporter

Poland skins T Importer

15

55

33 218

321

Exporter 3 24 12

689 55

33

816

United Kingdom

skins T Importer

28

146

75 129

378

Exporter

33 21 146

75

275

Subtotal (skins)

Importer 23 130 130 42 79 229 433 1344 675 2352 672 6121

Exporter 19 200 304 48 89 975 482 906 600

3655

Table 3. Direct exports of Lynx canadensis originating in the United States to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. Trade was primarily for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported in 2011; the United States’ annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

bodies W Importer 5 430

435

Exporter

1

1

carvings I Importer

Exporter

2

2

claws W Importer

Exporter 6

6

I Importer

Exporter

11

11

garments W Importer 1 1

1 1

4

Exporter 3

1 1 1 3 1

10

hair W Importer

Exporter

38

44 21 103

I Importer

Exporter

1 1

live F Importer 2

2

Exporter

1

1

plates W Importer

Exporter 1

1

1

3

shoes W Importer

Exporter

2

2

skin pieces W Importer

Exporter 4

4

skins W Importer 52 197 114 102 263 622 6 2241 849 218 4664

Exporter 946 416 888 248 633 1649 830 3301 4383 3657 16951

C Importer

Exporter

1

1

F Importer

246

246

Exporter

246

246

I Importer

Exporter 1

1

skulls W Importer 8

10

9

5 32

Exporter 8

2 10 2 9

5

36

I Importer

Exporter

1

1

specimens W Importer

Lynx canadensis

7

Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

Exporter

60

60

trophies W Importer 3 6

1 1

11

Exporter 28 6 3

1 4 3

1

46

Subtotal (skins)

W Importer 52 197 114 102 263 622 6 2241 849 218 4664

Exporter 946 416 888 248 633 1649 830 3301 4383 3657 16951

C Importer

Exporter

1

1

F Importer

246

246

Exporter

246

246

I Importer

Exporter 1

1

TAXONOMIC NOTE

Lynx canadensis was considered conspecific with the Eurasian species L. lynx by some authors (Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009). Wilson and Mittermeier (2009) recognized two subspecies, Lynx canadensis canadensis and L. c. subsolanus.

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states

Lynx canadensis is a solitary and primarily nocturnal cat (Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009), which occurs in the taiga (boreal forest) zone of North America (Honacki et al., 1982; Wilson and Reeder, 2005; USFWS, 2012), where its typical habitats include forests with heavy snowfall (Long, 2008). The subspecies L. c. canadensis was reported to occur in mainland Canada and the northern United States, with the subspecies L. c. subsolanus restricted to north-eastern Canada (Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009). The overall range of the species was estimated at over 2 500 000 km2 (NatureServe Explorer, 2012). Adult individuals were thought to avoid one another outside the breeding season, although the ranges of females may overlap (Nowak, 1991). Wilson and Mittermeier (2009) reported home range sizes between three and 783 km2, with a typical range size of 15-50 km2.

Particularly in Canada and Alaska, the population density of L. canadensis was found to show a cyclic pattern, linked to changes in the abundance of its main prey, Snowshoe hares Lepus americanus (Koehler and Aubry, 1994; McKelvey et al., 1999; Long, 2008). Koehler and Aubry (1994) showed that the density of L. canadensis may vary from near extinction to 10-20 individuals per 100 km2, depending on the density of L. americanus. Litter sizes were reported to range between one and eight kittens, with significantly higher reproductive success and earlier sexual maturation of females during years of high prey abundance (Long, 2008; Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009).

L. canadensis was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List, based on it being “widespread and abundant over most of its range, where it is legally harvested for the international fur trade for hundreds of years, and recent decades of managed harvests do not appear to have caused any significant decline or range loss” (Mowat et al., 1999 in Nowell, 2008). Due to the species’ low density, wide range and secretive habits, an effective estimation of its population size was considered very difficult (Anderson and Lovallo, 2003); NatureServe Explorer (2012) estimated a total population size of between 10 000 and over 1 000 000 individuals. The population trend was considered stable (Nowell, 2008).

Habitat loss or fragmentation and susceptibility to overharvest were considered the main threats to the species (NatureServe Explorer, 2012). It was reported to have been widely hunted in the past as a predator of domestic animals and game and for its valuable fur (Nowak, 1991). The impacts of trapping were considered poorly known, however it was suggested that it may have local effects on population age- and sex- structure (Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009). Nowak (1991) considered the availability of prey generally to have a higher impact on the populations of L. canadensis than hunting pressure. The USFWS (2005) cautioned that increasing temperatures may affect the species; particularly in areas of lower snow cover L. canadensis may be negatively affected by competition with L. rufus (Long, 2008; USFWS, 2009).

United States of America: The primary range of L. canadensis is limited to the forested areas of Alaska (Koehler and Aubry, 1994). The southern parts of the range include boreal forest areas in the Northeast,

Lynx canadensis

8

Great Lakes area, Rocky Mountains and Cascade mountains (USFWS, 2005), with occurrences reported in Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming (USFWS, 2005 and 2012). These populations were thought to be dependent on the interconnected Canadian populations as a source of emigration (USFWS, 2005).

At CITES CoP13 in 2004, the United States submitted a proposal (CoP13 Prop. 5) to remove L. rufus from Appendix II, as its inclusion for look-alike purposes with other Lynx spp. was no longer considered warranted. However, concerns were expressed, particularly by the European Community, about problems in distinguishing other lookalike species, including L. canadensis (AC25 Doc.15.2.2). The proposal was withdrawn, but the United States agreed to lead a review of Lynx spp. under the Periodic Review of Felidae spp. at the 21st meeting of the Animals Committee (AC25 Doc.15.2.2).

As a part of this review they conducted: 1) a survey of all range states of Lynx spp., 2) a study analysing trade in Lynx spp. (Cooper and Shadbolt, 2007), 3) an analysis of Lynx spp. CITES trade data, 4) a meeting held in Brussels by the United States and the European Commission to discuss the degree of illegal trade in Lynx spp., and 5) a survey conducted by the Scientific Authority of the United States to estimate the population size, distribution and status of L. rufus (AC25 Doc.15.2.2.). A fur identification manual was also created by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (www.wildfurid.com) to help in distinguishing the species from lookalikes, including L. canadensis (AC25 Doc. 15.2.2). According to the results of the range state questionnaire survey, the species was not negatively affected by trade (AC25 Doc. 15.2.2) and illegal trade was not considered to be of significance in the United States (AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 Annex).

The use of CITES tags on furs of L. canadensis exported from the country is required (CITES Notification No. 2012/029).

Alaska: L. canadensis was considered relatively common (Koehler and Aubry, 1994; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2012b) and abundant (Nowell, 2008) throughout its range in Alaska, and the Alaskan populations were considered to be stable or increasing (Koehler and Aubry, 1994; AC25 Doc.15.2.2.).

In Alaska, where L. canadensis was considered to be the most important furbearing species (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2012b), the species was reported to be managed for fur harvest (Nowell, 2008). According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (2012b), the average price paid for a pelt was USD 104 in 2008-2009, and the total value of L. canadensis fur trade was USD 745 650 during the same period.

The Alaskan hunting regulations stipulate that a licence is required for the trapping of L. canadensis and hunting is regulated through hunting seasons, bag limits and restrictions on hunting methods and means, as specified for each hunting unit (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2012a). At times of low productivity, hunting pressure is reduced in some parts of the state through restricted hunting seasons (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2012b). The harvesting system was reported to accommodate cyclic population fluctuations, by allowing increased harvest levels during population peaks and decreasing harvest levels during population declines (AC25 Doc. 15.2.2 Annex).

Contiguous United States: The species’ population density in the contiguous United States (the 48 continental states south of Canada) was considered to be low, due to limited habitat and prey availability (USFWS, 2005; Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009), and Nowell (2008) described these populations as “small and threatened”. The populations of Washington and Montana were considered to be the largest outside Alaska (Koehler and Aubry, 1994; McKelvey et al., 1999; Anderson and Lovallo, 2003). In the southernmost parts of its range, in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, the species was found to be very rare and limited to disjunct and isolated populations or to occur as a short-term resident (Koehler and Aubry, 1994). The species was considered extirpated in New Mexico, although individuals from introduced populations in Colorado were recorded occasionally (Frey, 2006). McKelvey et al. (1999) reported population declines and range retractions in most areas of its historical range in the contiguous United States. The populations were thought not to have recovered from overexploitation through legal and illegal harvest in the 1970s and 1980s (NatureServe Explorer, 2012), although the populations were believed to be stable or increasing in some areas (AC25 Doc. 15.2.2). The total

Lynx canadensis

9

population size in the contiguous United States was estimated at less than 2000 individuals (NatureServe Explorer, 2012).

Nowell (2008) considered habitat fragmentation to be the main threat to the species within the contiguous United States, with accidental trapping and road accidents being additional threats. Long (2008) reported that in Wisconsin the species might be shot mistakenly or illegally and believed that “there is little hope for natural re-establishment”, however this threat was considered only potentially affecting small, local populations with no significant impact on the populations overall (USFWS, 2005).

The populations of the contiguous United States were categorised as ‘Threatened’ by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000, therefore requiring the development of a species recovery plan and the identification of critical habitats (USFWS, 2012). The populations of New Mexico were included in the informal list of species of concern (Frey, 2006) and categorised as a ‘Candidate’ for listing as ’Endangered’ or ‘Threatened’ (USFWS, 2012). The main justification for the listing was the lack of guidance on habitat conservation, allowing the “continued degradation of lynx [L. canadensis] habitat on Federal lands through timber management and other Federal activities” (USFWS, 2005). In the species recovery plan, the species was considered of relatively low priority for conservation action, with a score of 15 on a scale of one (highest) to 18 (lowest), due to “a low degree of threat, a high potential for recovery, and a taxonomic classification as a distinct population segment under the Endangered Species Act” (USFWS, 2005). The plan focussed on the maintenance of crucial habitat in the core areas, monitoring of populations and identification of factors limiting the populations (USFWS, 2005). In 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a 5-year review of L. canadensis to ensure that the listing of the species remained accurate (U.S. Federal Register, 2007).

The designated critical habitat for the contiguous population under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was revised to include 101 010 km2 in the states of Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington (USFWS, 2009). However, apart from some plans in the Washington state there were no management plans focussing on the conservation of L. canadensis (USFWS, 2005).

The USFWS (2005) reported that since the 1980s precautions had been taken in the contiguous United States to prevent overharvest of the species. Trapping for fur was reported to be banned in all contiguous states apart from Montana and Oregon (Ruediger et al., 2000). The export of wild-caught L. canadensis from the contiguous United States was reported to be restricted to purposes consistent with the Endangered Species Act, including scientific, enhancement, zoological or educational purposes (AC25 Doc. 15.2.2).

REFERENCES:

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2012a. 2011-2012 Alaska hunting regulations URL: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/wildliferegulations/pdfs/smgame.pdf Accessed: 5-10-2012.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2012b. Lynx (Lynx canadensis) species profile URL: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=lynx.main Accessed: 5-10-2012.

Anderson, E. M. and Lovallo, M. J. 2003. Bobcat and Lynx - Lynx rufus and Lynx canadensis, in Feldhamer, G. A., Thompson, B. C., & Chapman, J. A., (eds.), Wild mammals of North America - biology, management, and conservation. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 758-788.

Cooper, E. W. T. and Shadbolt, T. 2007. An analysis of the CITES-reported illegal trade in Lynx species and fur industry perceptions in North America and Europe in the context of supporting the CITES Review of Felidae based upon AC21 Doc 11.3 Phase I: AC21-22 Lynx complex and potential look-alikes. Technical report commissioned by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, prepared by TRAFFIC North America.

Frey, J. K. 2006. Inferring species distributions in the absence of occurrence records: An example considering wolverine (Gulo gulo) and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in New Mexico. Biological Conservation, 130: 16-24.

Honacki, J. H., Kinman, K. E., and Koeppl, J. W. 1982. Mammal species of the world - A taxonomic and geographic reference. Allen Press, Inc. and the Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.

Lynx canadensis

10

Koehler, G. M. and Aubry, K. B. 1994. Chapter 4: Lynx, in Ruggiero, L. F. et al., (eds.), The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins. 74-98.

Long, C. A. 2008. Lynx canadensis Kerr - Canada lynx, in The wild mammals of Wisconsin. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria. 428-434.

McKelvey, K. S., Aubry, K. B., and Ortega, Y. K. 1999. History and distribution of Lynx in the contiguous United States, in Ruggiero, L. F. et al., (eds.), Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado and the USDA, Rocky Mountains Research Station, 207-264.

Mowat, G., Poole, K. G., and O'Donoghue, M. 1999. Ecology of Lynx in Northern Canada and Alaska, in Ruggiero, L. F. et al., (eds.), Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado and the USDA, Rocky Mountains Research Station, 265-306.

NatureServe Explorer. 2012. Lynx canadensis - Kerr, 1792. NatureServe Explorer - An online encyclopedia of life URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ Accessed: 8-10-2012.

Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. Volume II. 5th edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Nowell, K. 2008. Lynx canadensis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 5-10-2012.

Ruediger, B., Claar, J., Gniadek, S., Holt, B., Lewis, L., Mighton, S., Naney, B., Patton, G., Rinaldi, T., Trick, J., Vandehey, A., Wahl, F., Warren, N., Wenger, D., and Williamson, A. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDI National Park Service. Missoula, MT.

U.S.Federal Register. 4/18/2007. Federal Register Notices Vol. 72 No. 74 URL: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-04-18/pdf/E7-7342.pdf#page=1 Accessed: 5-10-2012.

USFWS. 2005. Recovery outline: Contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada Lynx. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

USFWS. 2009. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; Revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada Lynx., Federal Register, Vol.74, No.36, URL: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-02-25/pdf/E9-3512.pdf#page=1 Accessed: 5-10-2012.

USFWS. 2012. Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Species Profiles., URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A073 Accessed: 4-10-2012.

Wilson, D. E. and Mittermeier, R. A. 2009. Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. I. Carnivores. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

Wilson, D. E. and Reeder, D. M. 2005. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Naja kaouthia

11


REPTILIA ELAPIDAE

SPECIES: Naja kaouthia

SYNONYMS: Naja naja kaouthia

COMMON NAMES: Monocellate Cobra (English), Monocled Cobra (English)

RANGE STATES: Bangladesh, Bhutan (?), Cambodia, China, India, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal (?), Thailand, Vietnam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Thailand

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6 (b) import suspension for wild specimens from Lao People's Democratic Republic first applied on 18/02/2005 and last confirmed on 10/09/2012. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Lao People's Democratic Republic formed on 25/06/2004.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Naja kaouthia from Thailand was selected on the basis of a sharp increase of trade levels, with a lack of scientific data to support a Non Detriment Finding also noted (SC50 Inf. 8). Lack of consistency was noted in reporting trade in taxa included in the ‘N. naja species complex’ (AC16.7.3. Annex).

Thailand: Thailand published export quotas for 2000 wild-sourced skins and bodies and 1100 wild-sourced small leather products of Naja kaouthia in both 2011 and 2012. According to the data to date, this quota has not been exceeded, although Thailand’s 2011 annual report has not been received. Previously, since 2004, Thailand published the same quotas for Naja spp. (with the exception of 2006 and 2007, when no quota was published). Thailand’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received; the direct export of 1000 wild-sourced skins and 140 wild-sourced small leather products was reported by importers in 2011, while no trade in bodies was reported. Trade data for 2012 are not yet available.

Direct exports of N. kaouthia and Naja spp. from Thailand to the EU-27 over the period 2001-2011 primarily comprised wild-sourced skins and small leather products traded for commercial purposes (Table 1).

Indirect trade in N. kaouthia to the EU-27 originating in Thailand 2001-2011 consisted of 46 skin pieces re-exported via the Philippines reported by the importer, Germany, in 2009. In 2010, very small numbers of small leather products were re-exported from the United States and China to Italy, from

Naja kaouthia

12

Japan to France and from Switzerland to Slovenia. All trade was wild-sourced and for commercial purposes. No indirect trade was reported in Naja spp.

Direct exports of N. kaouthia from Thailand to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2011 principally comprised wild-sourced small leather products and skins traded for commercial purposes (Table 2), the major importer being Japan. Trade in small leather products decreased over the period 2004-2010 overall. No trade in Naja spp. was reported to countries other than the EU-27 over the period 2001-2011.

Naja kaouthia

13

Table 1. Direct exports of Naja kaouthia and Naja spp. originating in Thailand to the EU-27, 1002-2011. (Thailand’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

Taxon Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Naja kaouthiana Austria bodies - I Importer

1

1

Exporter

small leather

products

T W Importer

Exporter

10

10

Denmark small

leather products

T W Importer

146

146

Exporter

184

74

73

331

Finland bodies - I Importer

1

1

Exporter

Germany skins T W Importer

50

50

Exporter

540

50

590

small leather

products

T W Importer

Exporter

5

5

Italy skins T W Importer

700 1900 1000 3600

Exporter

1341 1980 1950

700 1300

7271

small leather

products

T W Importer

Exporter

1

1

Spain small

leather products

T W Importer

245

140 385

Exporter

1364 1023

2387

Sweden large

leather products

- I Importer 1

1

Exporter

skins - I Importer 1

1

Exporter

small leather

products

- I Importer 1 2

3

Exporter

United Kingdom small

leather products

- I Importer

12

12

Exporter

Naja kaouthia

14

Taxon Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Naja spp. Austria bodies - I Importer

20 14

34

Exporter

Sweden small

leather products

- I Importer 3

3

Exporter

United Kingdom bodies - I Importer

1 13

15

29

Exporter

skins - I Importer

1

1

Exporter

small leather

products

- I Importer

2

2

Exporter

Subtotals

skins

W Importer

50 700 1900 1000 3650

(main terms only)

Exporter

1881 1980 1950

50 700 1300

7861

I Importer 1 1

2

Exporter

small leather

products

W Importer

245

146

140 531

Exporter

185 1364 1097

73 15

2734

I Importer 4 2 14

20

Exporter

Naja kaouthia

15

Table 2. Direct exports of Naja kaouthia originating in Thailand to countries other than the EU-27, 2004-2010. (No trade was reported 2001-2003 or in 2011; Thailand’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

Term Source Purpose Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

bodies I P Importer

1

1

Exporter

garments W T Importer

Exporter 15

15

C T Importer

Exporter

10

10

skins W T Importer

50

50

Exporter 118 50 50

103 30 351

small leather products W T Importer

246 73 82 171

30 602

Exporter 879 892 750 82 179 23 30 2835

C T Importer

Exporter 10 137

147

I P Importer

2

2

Exporter

T Importer

1 1 2

Exporter

- - Importer

2 2

Exporter

TAXONOMIC NOTE

Naja kaouthia was previously considered a subspecies of N. naja. It was elevated to species level following an analysis of morphometric characters (Wüster and Thorpe, 1992; see also Wüster et al., 1995 and Wüster, 1996).


Naja kaouthia is a highly venomous snake (O'Shea and Halliday, 2002), reported to typically occur in agricultural environments and human settlements, as well as swamps, mangroves, grasslands, shrublands and forests (Stuart and Wogan, 2012). Its habitat preference leads to the species frequently living close to human habitation (Johnson, 2007) and the species was considered a major source of snakebite accidents and deaths (Wüster, 1998; O'Shea, 2008). O'Shea (2008) reported clutch sizes of 8-45 eggs, and Chaitae (2011) estimated that a female may breed on average every 2.8 years.

Range countries were reported to include Thailand, northern Peninsular Malaysia, north-eastern India, southern China, Myanmar, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Cambodia and Vietnam (Golay et al., 1993; Cox et al., 1998; Sang et al., 2009; Stuart and Wogan, 2012). Nepal was listed as a range country by Golay et al. (1993), O’Shea (2008) and Stuart and Wogan (2012), whereas Sang et al. (2009) considered its occurrence to be unconfirmed in the country. Golay et al. (1993) and Stuart and Wogan (2012) reported Bangladesh a range country and Wüster (1998) considered its occurrence in Bhutan to be probable.

N. kaouthia was categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List, due to its wide distribution, tolerance of modified habitats and high abundance (Stuart and Wogan, 2012). The species was considered to be common throughout most of its range (Daniel, 1983; O'Shea and Halliday, 2002; Stuart and Wogan, 2012), although its population trend was considered to be decreasing, with “at least” localized population declines in the eastern parts of the species’ range reported; a lack of available information to assess whether the populations were undergoing a significant decline was noted (Stuart and Wogan, 2012).

Whilst noting that the species was used extensively as food, for medicinal purposes and in the skin trade, Stuart and Wogan (2012) reported no major threats. Auliya (2011) considered the trade in the

Naja kaouthia

16

species “not well understood” and noted that “it remains unclear if it may pose a threat to the survival of local populations”.

Thailand: Nabhitabhata and Chan-ard (2005) and Chanhome et al. (2011) reported N. kaouthia to occur in all provinces, while Cox et al. (1998) and Wüster (1998) found the species to be absent from northern Thailand and O'Shea and Halliday (2002) reported that its range was limited to southern Thailand.

In a study conducted in rice fields in central Thailand, Chaitae (2011) measured population densities of 96±48 adult N. kaouthia and 768±168 juvenile individuals per square kilometre. In areas in central and southern Thailand (Sukhothai, Angthong and Ayutthaya provinces) where the species was regularly harvested, average densities of 2.1-3.6 individuals per square kilometre were reported, based on a sample of 64 individuals (Anon., 2009).

Humphrey and Bain (1990) did not consider N. kaouthia to be threatened in Thailand but the species was categorised as ‘Vulnerable’ in the Thailand Red Data book in 2005 (Nabhitabhata and Chan-ard, 2005).

The species was reported to be harvested particularly in rice fields and abandoned agricultural areas within central and southern areas of Thailand (Anon, 2009; Chaitae, 2011). Chaitae (2011) noted that as the period of most intensive harvesting overlapped with the reproductive season, egg-laying females may be particularly vulnerable to harvesting. However, due to its relatively high reproductive output, high adult growth rates, broad distribution and wide prey base, the species was considered “probably able to withstand harvesting with appropriate management” in Thailand (Chaitae, 2011).

The species was reported to be used for food and medicinal purposes, as well as in skin trade and snake shows in Thailand (Anon., 2009). It was being bred in captivity for the production of antivenom (Chanhome et al., 2001).

N. kaouthia was not listed as a protected species in Thailand; however, the export of live individuals was reported to be prohibited (Chaitae, 2011; Chaweepak et al., 2011; SC50 Inf. 8), although illegal exports of live individuals were reported to occur (Chaitae, 2011).

At the 19th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2003, Naja spp. from Thailand was assessed as Category 1 (urgent concern); no response had been received from the country (AC19 Summary Report). A report by Thailand on trade in Naja spp. (including N. kaouthia) presented at the 50th meeting of the Standing Committee in 2004 emphasized that the export of Naja spp. was regulated at border checkpoints and that steps had been taken to determine methods for quota-setting and non-detriment findings (SC50 Inf. 8). It was also suggested that a project would be undertaken by the CITES Management and Scientific Authorities to acquire scientific data on the status of populations of Naja spp. in the country (SC50 Inf. 8). On the basis of this information and agreeing to reduce their voluntary export quotas, Thailand was excluded from the Review of Significant Trade process at the 50th meeting of the Standing Committee in 2004 (AC21 Doc. 10.1.1 Rev.1).

The project report on the status of Naja spp. in Thailand in 2005-2006, as submitted to the CITES Secretariat in 2009, found that since the implementation of the ban on exports of live snakes and unprocessed skins in 1990, harvest volumes had decreased substantially, as had the number of people involved in snake harvest (Anon., 2009). Based on interviews with local traders, the levels of commercial domestic trade were estimated at 10 000-15 000 individuals of N. kaouthia per year (Anon., 2009). Results of a questionnaire survey showed that the majority of harvested Naja spp. (82 per cent) were used for local food consumption, with skins of the species commonly obtained from local restaurants, or, less frequently, from individuals used in snake shows (Anon., 2009). Anon. (2009) considered that the levels of harvest could be sustainable.

The country report presented at the CITES Asian Snake Trade Workshop in April 2011 suggested that ”a degree of sustainability may be accomplished” in the exploitation of N. kaouthia in Thailand (Chaweepak et al., 2011). Live snakes were found to achieve higher prices than skins, and the species was therefore not primarily harvested for its skin, with exported skins derived from domestic uses (Anon., 2009; Chaweepak et al., 2011). Individuals of more than 1 kg bodyweight were reported to achieve the highest prices (Anon., 2009).

Naja kaouthia

17

REFERENCES:

Anon. 2009. Field assessment of Cobra (Naja spp.) exploitation in Thailand. Report submitted to the CITES Secretariat.

Auliya, M. 2011. Biology and conservation of Asian snakes. CITES Asian Snake Trade Workshop, Guangzhou, China 11-14 April 2011. Background paper - Topic 1.

Chaitae, A. 2011, Demography of the Monocled cobra (Naja kaouthia) in the central region of Thailand, MSc thesis, Department of Biology, University of Louisville, Kentucky.

Chanhome, L., Cox, M. J., Vasaruchapong, T., Chaiyabutr, N., and Sitprija, V. 2011. Characterization of venomous snakes of Thailand. Asian Biomedicine, 5 (3): 311-328.

Chanhome, L., Jintakune, P., Wilde, H., and Cox, M. J. 2001. Venomous snake husbandry in Thailand. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 12: 17-23.

Chaweepak, S., La-ong, S., and Khanha, N. 2011. Country report of Thailand. CITES Asian snake trade workshop, Guangzhou (China), 11-14 April 2011.

Cox, M. J. 1991. The snakes of Thailand and their husbandry. Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, U.S.A. Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J., and Thirakhupt, K. 1998. A photographic guide to snakes and

other reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland, London, UK. 144 pp. Daniel, J. C. 1983. The book of Indian reptiles. Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford University Press. Golay, P., Smith, H. M., Broadley, D. G., Dixon, J. R., McCarthy, C., Rage, J. C., Schätti, B., and Toriba, M.

1993. Endoglyphs and other major venomous snakes of the world - a checklist. Azemiops S.A., Herpetological Data Center, Geneva, Switzerland.

Humphrey, S. R. and Bain, J. R. 1990. Endangered animals of Thailand. Sandhill Crane Pr. Johnson, S. A. 2007. Cobras. Lerner Publications Company, Minneapolis, U.S.A. Nabhitabhata, J. and Chan-ard, T. 2005. Thailand Red Data: mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Office of

Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Bangkok, Thailand. 234 pp. O'Shea, M. 2008. Venomous snakes of the world. New Holland Publishers Ltd. O'Shea, M. and Halliday, T. 2002. Reptiles and amphibians. Dorling Kindersley Ltd, London. 256 pp. Sang, N. V., Cuc, H. T., and Truong, N. Q. 2009. Herpetofauna of Vietnam. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am

Main. Stuart, B. and Wogan, G. 2012. Naja kaouthia. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Version 2012.1 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 15-10-2012. Wüster, W. 1996. Taxonomic changes and toxicology: systematic revisions of the Asiatic cobras (Naja

naja species complex). Toxicon, 34 (4): 399-406. Wüster, W. 1998. The cobras of the genus Naja in India. Hamadryad, 23 (1): 15-32. Wüster, W. and Thorpe, R. S. 1992. Asiatic cobras: Population systematics of the Naja naja species

complex (Serpentes: Elapidae) in India and central Asia. Herpetologica, 48 (1): 69-85. Wüster, W., Thorpe, R. S., Cox, M. J., Jintakune, P., and Nabhitabhata, J. 1995. Population systematics of

the snake genus Naja (Reptilia, Serpentes, Elapidae) in Indo-China - multivariate morphometrics and comparative mitochondrial-DNA sequencing (Cytochrome-Oxidase-I). Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 8 (4): 493-510.

Python reticulatus

18


REPTILIA PYTHONIDAE

SPECIES: Python reticulatus

SYNONYMS: Boa phrygia, Boa reticulata, Boa rhombeata, Broghammerus reticulatus, Broghammerus reticulatus, Coluber javanicus, Morelia reticulatus, Python schneideri

COMMON NAMES: Netpython (Dutch), Java Rock Python (English), Regal Python (English), Reticulated Python (English), Python réticulé (French), Pitón reticulada (Spanish), Nätpyton (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia, Vietnam

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for wild specimens from Indonesia first formed on 07/11/2000 and last confirmed on 29/02/2008. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Indonesia formed on 22/02/2000.

Current Article 4.6 (b) import suspension for wild specimens from Peninsular Malaysia first applied on 30/04/2004 and last confirmed on 10/09/2012. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Peninsular Malaysia formed on 05/09/2002.

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

Previous Article 4.6 (b) import suspension for wild specimens from India first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 07/09/2011.

Previous Article 4.6 (b) import suspension for wild specimens from Singapore first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 07/09/2011.

Python reticulatus

19

TRADE PATTERNS:

Python reticulatus from Indonesia and Vietnam was selected on the basis of high volume of trade, with trade levels increasing by 64 per cent between 2009 and 2010.

Indonesia: Indonesia published annual export quotas for wild-sourced Python reticulatus (live and skins) every year 2001-2011; the skin quotas published 2005-2011 also include skin products (Tables 1, 2). Indonesia has not published export quotas for 2012. According to trade data reported by Indonesia, Indonesia appears to have exceeded its quota for wild-sourced live animals in both 2004 and 2008, by 387 and 99 pythons, respectively (Table 1). The quotas were not exceeded according to importer-reported data. However, since Indonesia reports on actual trade, the discrepancy may reflect a lack of submission of annual reports from importers in those years. The format of the export permits recorded in Indonesia’s 2004 and 2008 annual reports suggest that the discrepancies are not due to year-end trade. Indonesia’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.

Table 1. CITES export quotas for live, wild-sourced Python reticulatus from Indonesia, and global direct exports as reported by the importers and exporter, 2001-2011. (Indonesia’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Quota 4500 4500 5000 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500

Importer-reported 1430 2092 1778 1732 1988 2074 2111 1647 1246 540 191

Exporter-reported 3842 4425 3901 4887 4272 3869 4353 4599 3816 2912

According to exporter-reported data, the quota for wild-sourced skins (including skin products from 2005 onwards) appears to have been exceeded every year 2005-2010, and according to importer-reported data in 2005 and 2008-2011 (Table 2). However, in its annual reports, Indonesia reports leather products (and occasionally skin pieces) with two quantities: one quantity representing the number of leather products/skin pieces traded, which is the quantity that is entered into the CITES Trade Database; and one quantity representing the number of skins that the products/pieces were derived from. If the latter quantities are added together with the number of raw skins reported by Indonesia, the totals do not exceed the 2005-2009 quotas. The 2010 quota would still be exceeded by 400 units; however, in 2010 Indonesia recorded 400 skin pieces with a comment “waste from snake skin processing, no quota allocated”. If these 400 skin pieces are excluded, the 2010 quota would not be exceeded either.

Table 2. CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Python reticulatus skins and skin products from Indonesia, and global direct exports as reported by the importers and exporter, 2001-2011. Figures in brackets represent trade in terms not included in the quota; figures do not include skins and skin pieces reported by length or weight. (Indonesia’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Quota for skins 157500 157500 157000 157500 - - - - - - -

Quota for skins and skin products - - - - 157500 157500 157500 157500 157500 157500 157500

Term skins Importer 36054 71374 54271 77327 165924 147212 140523 156340 153753 137954 142074

Exporter 155330 161408 153062 151479 152180 151425 154703 154655 154955 152997

skin

pieces

Importer (34)

(115) (69)

142 25 151

Exporter

(4600)

1 2

80817

small leather

products

Importer (766) (1324) (647) (9448) 3131 7409 14365 2509 21678 50319 26808

Exporter (9492) (7159) (3641) (9256) 7588 10430 18531 14426 36649 52601

large leather

products

Importer (335)

(4) 139 432 627 100 84 200 166

Exporter

garments Importer

1

9 1

70 4

Exporter

Total skins Importer 36054 71374 54271 77327 - - - - - - -

Exporter 155330 161408 153062 151479 - - - - - -

skins and skin

products

Importer - - - - 169195 155053 155524 159092 175540 188694 169052

Exporter - - - - 159768 161856 173236 169081 191604 286415

Python reticulatus

20

Direct exports of P. reticulatus from Indonesia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2011 primarily comprised wild-sourced skins, with notable quantities of wild-sourced leather products and live animals also traded, the majority for commercial purposes (Table 3). The principal importers of P. reticulatus were Italy and Spain, with France and Germany also featuring as key importers. Between 2010 and 2011, trade in skins increased by 58 per cent, while trade in leather products decreased by 39 per cent, according to importer-reported data. More detailed data on this direct trade to the EU-27, by EU Member State, is available in Table 1 of Annex I.

Indirect exports of P. reticulatus to the EU-27 originating in Indonesia 2001-2011 primarily comprised skins and small leather products, the vast majority of which were wild-sourced and traded for commercial purposes (Table 4). Large quantities of seized/confiscated skins were also reported 2004-2007. The principal importers were Italy, Germany, Spain and France; the main re-exporter was Singapore. There was an overall decrease in trade in skins between 2005 and 2009; however, trade increased in both 2010 and 2011. Trade in leather products reported by importers also increased between 2010 and 2011; very little trade was reported by exporters in 2011, possibly because key re-exporters (including Singapore) had not yet submitted their 2011 annual reports at the time of writing. More detailed data on this trade to the EU-27, by EU Member State, is available in Table 2 of Annex I.

Direct exports of P. reticulatus from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27 primarily comprised wild-sourced skins traded for commercial purposes; notable quantities of wild-sourced leather products, live animals and meat were also traded, although little trade in meat has been reported since 2007 (Table 5). The export of a large quantity of wild-sourced skin pieces was also reported by Indonesia in 2010. While trade in skins has remained relatively constant since 2005, trade in leather products more than doubled between 2009 and 2010 according to exporter-reported data; this trend was not observed in importer-reported data. The principal importer was Singapore, with Hong Kong, SAR and Japan also importing considerable quantities. Annual reports for 2011 had not yet been received from Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong or Japan at the time of writing.

Table 3. Direct exports of Python reticulatus originating in Indonesia to the EU-27, 2001-2011. Trade was primarily for commercial purposes. ‘Leather products’ includes both small and large leather products. (Indonesia’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

Term (units) Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

derivatives W Importer

61

61

Exporter

live C Importer 2

2

66 37 10 117

Exporter

6

141 128

275

F Importer

300 10 87 57 64 20

538

Exporter 4 6 59 244 116 62 70 59 69

689

I Importer

5

5

Exporter

W Importer 177 218 434 304 370 502 537 958 378 171 191 4240

Exporter 323 841 559 1223 741 1183 1011 1157 551 324

7913

skins F Importer

Exporter

30

30

W Importer 5032 45230 28815 42801 50772 27362 30233 37192 28434 29286 46327 371484

Exporter 12227 41510 37153 43491 46639 27674 32848 38112 33863 31361

344878

leather products

I Importer

320

320

Exporter

W Importer 341 174 4

1117 553 2318 1726 19799 44501 26974 97507

Exporter 909 204

315 401 1363 2633 8480 30134 35860

80299

garments W Importer

9 1

1 4 15

Exporter

skin pieces (kg)

W Importer 50

50

Exporter

skin pieces W Importer

Exporter

4600

1

1067

5668

Python reticulatus

21

Table 4. Indirect exports of Python reticulatus originating in Indonesia to the EU-27, 2001-2011. Trade was primarily for commercial purposes. ‘Leather products’ includes both small and large leather products. Figures rounded to one decimal place, where applicable. (Indonesia’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)


carvings W Importer

Exporter

185

384

569

derivatives W Importer

Exporter

816

816

live C Importer

12

12

Exporter

F Importer

5

5

Exporter

5

5

W Importer 6 3 15 3 50 40 65 34 35

255 506

Exporter

10 3 54 83 17 18 10

195

skins (m) W Importer

Exporter

2306.9 23 20

2349.9

skins C Importer

13

13

Exporter

27 200

10

237

I Importer

2782 17030

4189

24001

Exporter

8787 12000 597 4842

26226

W Importer 30140 51244 62641 125159 172579 112948 74643 83541 27092 46468 57322 843777

Exporter 31155 45859 69652 146298 188546 131532.1 83944 86295 38472 57893.5 67914.5 947561.1

leather products (m2) W Importer

38 38

Exporter

leather products C Importer 32 2 1 1 159 67 29 106 17 137 85 636

Exporter

30 1 24 12 19

168 8

262

I Importer

2 1480

3

1485

Exporter

41 22 1 3

67

O Importer

1

1

Exporter

R Importer

4

3

7

Exporter

1

1

U Importer

2

2

Exporter

61

61

Python reticulatus

22


W Importer 1925 4601 8302 5820 10631 7781 13348 16004 16177 11437 15274 111300

Exporter 3271 1364 9130 5741 10226 10557 17400 17183 13685 13352 98 102007

- Importer

46 3 4 1 6 3 2 3 198 118 384

Exporter

garments C Importer

1

1

Exporter

I Importer

11

11

Exporter

4

4

R Importer

Exporter

2

28

3

33

W Importer 23

13 10 33 840 273 52 18 57 21 1340

Exporter 14

61 86 87 111 374 89 94

916

skin pieces (kg) W Importer

2.5

2.5

Exporter

skin pieces C Importer

Exporter

2

2

W Importer 25

8 1200 1968 1 64 18 332 3616

Exporter

469 23

2000 43 150 100 6 2791

Subtotals skins Importer 30140 51244 62641 127941 189609 112961 78832 83541 27092 46468 57322 867791

Exporter 31155 45859 69652 155112 200746 132129.1 88786 86295 38472 57903.5 67914.5 974024.1

leather products Importer 1957 4649 8306 5825 10791 7858 14861 16116 16200 11775 15477 113815

Exporter 3271 1364 9160 5742 10311 10610 17441 17184 13856 13361 98 102398

Python reticulatus

23

Table 5. Direct exports of Python reticulatus originating in Indonesia to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2011. Trade was primarily for commercial purposes. ‘Leather

products’ includes both small and large leather products. Figures rounded to one decimal place, where applicable. (Indonesia’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been

received.)


bodies W Importer

10

10

Exporter

derivatives (kg) W Importer

Exporter

160

160

gall (kg) W Importer

65

65

Exporter

90 150 100 109

449

gall W Importer

40

40

Exporter

30

30

gall bladders W Importer

150

150

Exporter

live C Importer 15

23 50

8 78 19

193

Exporter

27

275 128

430

F Importer

13

121 187 139

38 63

561

Exporter

71 70 702 772 278 133 577 70 159

2832

W Importer 1253 1874 1344 1428 1618 1572 1574 689 868 369

12589

Exporter 3519 3584 3342 3664 3531 2686 3342 3442 3265 2588

32963

skins (m) W Importer

1100

1100

Exporter

skins C Importer 30

30

Exporter

300

300

I Importer

4080

4080

Exporter

W Importer 31022 26144 25456 34526 115152 119850 110290 119148 125319 108668 95747 911322

Exporter 143103 119898 115909 107988 105541 123751 121855 116543 121092 121636

1197316

leather products C Importer

134 36 12

182

Exporter

F Importer

12 11

23

Exporter

I Importer 3

557

6 229 20 134

949

Exporter

R Importer

4

4

Exporter

W Importer 760 1150 643 9452 2153 7288 12674 882.5 1963 6018

42983.5

Python reticulatus

24


Exporter 8583 6955 3641 8941 7187 9067 15898 5946 6515 15595

88328

- Importer

1278

1278

Exporter

meat (kg) W Importer 3000 6000 13230 20240 28470 15327.2 16730

102997.2

Exporter

19500 26250 31000 15750 12150

4000

108650

meat W Importer

500

500

Exporter

5000

2000

7000

garments W Importer

1

69

70

Exporter

skin pieces (kg) W Importer

210

210

Exporter

skin pieces (m) W Importer

Exporter 250

250


8

8

Exporter

I Importer

52

52

Exporter

W Importer 34

115 69

142 25 151

536

Exporter

2

79350

79352

skin scraps W Importer

Exporter

400

400

skulls W Importer

13

13

Exporter

specimens (kg) W Importer

35

35

Exporter

specimens W Importer

Exporter

145

145

Python reticulatus

25

Vietnam: Vietnam has not published any export quotas for Python reticulatus. Direct exports of P. reticulatus from Vietnam to the EU-27 2001-2011 primarily comprised skins, the majority of which were captive-bred and traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). Trade in skins showed an overall decrease 2007-2010; however, importer-reported trade in skins increased by 45 per cent between 2010 and 2011. Vietnam had not yet submitted an annual report for 2011 at the time of writing.

Indirect exports of P. reticulatus to the EU-27 originating in Vietnam 2001-2011 principally consisted of captive-bred leather products and skins, the majority of which were traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). Notable quantities of wild-sourced leather products and skins were also traded, although trade in wild-sourced skins decreased considerably from 2005 onwards. Small quantities of leather products and garments were reported as seizures/confiscations in 2008 and 2009. The principal importers were Germany, Italy, France and Spain; the major re-exporter was Singapore, with Malaysia and Switzerland also featuring as key re-exporters. Total trade in skins decreased between 2010 and 2011, while trade in leather products increased according to importer-reported data, following an overall increasing trend from 2004 onwards. The small quantity of exporter-reported trade in leather products in 2011 is likely to reflect lack of submission of annual reports by key re-exporters (including Singapore) at the time of writing. More detailed data on this indirect trade to the EU-27, by EU Member State, is available in Table 3 of Annex I.

Direct exports of P. reticulatus from Vietnam to countries other than the EU-27 2001-2011 principally comprised captive-bred skins; notable quantities of leather products were also traded, the majority of which were captive-bred with smaller quantities wild-sourced (Table 3). Trade was primarily for commercial purposes. The principal importer was Singapore, with Japan and Malaysia also importing a large proportion of trade. There has been an overall increase in trade in skins from 2005 onwards, while trade in leather products has decreased from 2007 onwards.

Python reticulatus

26

Table 1. Direct exports of Python reticulatus originating in Vietnam to the EU-27, 2001-2011. (Vietnam’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

Importer Term (units) Source Purpose Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Belgium live C T Importer 635

635

Exporter 300 800

1100

France small leather products C T Importer

3 3

Exporter

Germany skins (m) C T Importer

Exporter

3000

5000

8000

skins C T Importer

298 2427 14127 17152 16316 23575 17942 7233 7020 10812 116902

Exporter

6313 10070 17152 12750 15450 15240 11260 11900

100135

Italy skins (m) C T Importer

Exporter 10000 35000

9000

54000

skins C T Importer 1750 11093 9295 6071 21445 11995 15782 2470 4109 510 840 85360

Exporter

7143 6791 20475 16321 17335 4300 5294 347

78006

W T Importer 1029

1029

Exporter

Romania live W Q Importer

6

6

Exporter

6

6

skins C T Importer

1560

1560

Exporter

Spain skins (m) C T Importer

Exporter

19000

19000

skins C T Importer

5498 2049 3153

300 1000 1500 1450 14950

Exporter

1389 1803

300

2300

5792

Sweden live C T Importer

Exporter

50

50

skins (m) C T Importer

Exporter

6000

6000

United Kingdom small leather products I - Importer

1

1

Exporter

Subtotals (skins)

skins (m) C

Importer

Exporter 10000 57000 6000

14000

87000

skins C

Importer 1750 16889 13771 23351 38597 28311 40917 20712 12342 9030 13102 218772

Exporter

14845 18664 37627 29071 32785 19840 16554 14547

183933

W

Importer 1029

1029

Exporter

Python reticulatus

27

Table 2. Indirect exports of Python reticulatus originating in Vietnam to the EU-27, 2001-2011. The majority of trade was for commercial purposes. Only terms traded at levels above 50 items in total, as reported by the importers, are included and figures are rounded to one decimal place, where applicable. (Vietnam’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)


skins C Importer 5253 9910 12991 50121 9280 47984 77150 89834 39883 81094 57745 481245

Exporter 7784 9915 12531 52175 9696 37399 91812 90445 46435 63802 48457 470451

W Importer

2839 2300

3683 3 1

27

8853

Exporter

2839 1790

3685 140 65

8519

leather products C Importer 35 197 108 92 1895 5381 9204 10363 9923 10888 15156.5 63242.5

Exporter 35 198 217 153 3927 6634 7757 13271 14227 14308 21 60748

W Importer

3 5 131 155 149 401 141 746 565 2296

Exporter

4

5 159 120 112 1227 345 462

2434

- Importer

16

744

97 370 1227

Exporter

garments C Importer

2

1228 58 40 142 7 45 1358 2880

Exporter

7

21 1281 117 199 152 62

1839


2966 27

4 2997

Exporter

3 3 2968 19

2993

Table 3. Direct exports of Python reticulatus originating in Vietnam to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2011. Trade was primarily for commercial purposes. (Vietnam’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)


live C Importer 659 363 231

1253

Exporter 1132 1740 1112 100

60

200 5 50

4399

W Importer 29 120

149

Exporter

skins (m) C Importer 2500 2000 275 1000 5500

500

11775

Exporter 99195 45000 28275 8000 5500

185970

skins C Importer 8943 21353 33687 11275 8355 30904 88669 99936 60755 105551 113000 582428

Exporter

22095 14397 5455 46111 65169 73408 82300 97411

402846

small leather products C Importer

40 6 5578 600

14430 18729 3397 1049

43829

Exporter

9 6865 214

11096 14077 4677 272

37210

W Importer

788 1 2 3

794

Exporter

6254

6254

large leather products C Importer

265

265

Exporter

265

265


193

193

Exporter

Python reticulatus

28


W Importer

30

30

Exporter

Python reticulatus

29

TAXONOMIC NOTE

Auliya et al. (2002) called for clarification of the taxonomic status of Python reticulatus and suggested that two morphologically and genetically distinct subspecies occurred in Indonesia, P. r. jampeanus and P. r. saputrai. Sang et al. (2009) reported three subspecies: P. r. jampeanus, P. r. reticulatus and P. r. supatrai.


Python reticulatus is a Southeast Asian snake species, typically associated with humid forests, but also found in cultivated areas and near human habitation (Hvass, 1975; Cox et al., 1998). Clutch sizes of 10-100 eggs were reported by Stidworthy (1969), increasing with the size and age of the female (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1991).

The species’ range was reported to reach from Assam (northeast India) to eastern parts of Indonesia and the Philippines (O'Shea, 2007), covering Nicobar Islands, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Indo-Australian Archipelago (McDiarmid et al., 1999). Stidworthy (1969) considered the range to be narrower, from Thailand south to the Malay Archipelago and the Philippines, and Groombridge and Luxmoore (1991) regarded the occurrence in India as possible.

Groombridge and Luxmoore (1991) considered its population status poorly known, but noted that many populations may be locally depleted.

The main threats to P. reticulatus were reported to include habitat alteration and exploitation (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1991). Based on surveys conducted in West Kalimantan, Auliya (2006) suggested that the species may be highly dependent on thickly vegetated fringe habitats associated with cultivated areas and that the conversion of land to monocultures may threaten populations. The skins of P. reticulatus were reported to be in high demand by the leather industry (Shine et al., 1999), but the species was considered relatively tolerant to high rates of exploitation due to its generalist habitat requirements, rapid growth, early maturation, high reproductive rates, nocturnal habits and remote distribution of populations (Shine et al., 1999; ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN, 2012). However, a review of Southeast Asian trade in Python spp. raised concerns over the volume of illegal trade in pythons, suggesting that it may equal the volume in legal trade (ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN, 2012). Skins of Python spp. were reported to be smuggled with other shipments, mixed with legally sourced skins through stockpiling, or exported with misreported quantity, origin or source (ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN, 2012). Furthermore, laundering of wild-sourced P. reticulatus as captive-bred was also considered a potential problem (ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN, 2012). The production of large snakes in captivity on a commercial scale was considered to be uneconomic (Webb et al. 2011) and the cost of rearing P. reticulatus to a suitable size for the skin market (breeding, feeding and maintaining skins) appeared to surpass prices achieved on the market (ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN, 2012).

P. reticulatus was identified as a possible candidate for the CITES Review of Significant Trade at the 20th meeting of the Animals Committee in 2004 (TRAFFIC and IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme, 2004). A full review was however not considered necessary, as studies indicated that it was capable of tolerating the high levels of exploitation, and Indonesia had set quotas to control skin trade (TRAFFIC and IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme, 2004). The species was selected for the Review of Significant trade at the 25th meeting of the Animals Committee (AC26 Doc. 12.3) and it was retained in the process for a number of countries, including Indonesia and Vietnam at the 26th meeting of the Animals Committee (AC26 Summary Record).

Indonesia: Groombridge and Luxmoore (1991) considered P. reticulatus to be widespread in Indonesia, with the exception of New Guinea. Auliya (2006) reported occurrence in Sumatra and associated islands, Sulawesi and offshore islands, Lesser Sundas, West and east Kalimantan and offshore islands, Java (including Jakarta) and associated islands, Molucca islands, and Papua (unconfirmed records).

Indonesia was considered to be the most important supplier of Python spp. skins for the world market (Auliya, 2006; ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN, 2012). The species is reportedly caught in rural areas, forests and near water for the skin trade (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1991; Shine et al., 1999; Auliya, 2006). Shine et al. (1999) reported that even when not being caught for the skin trade, most P. reticulatus encountered by local people in Sumatra were killed for its meat or because they are considered nuisance

Python reticulatus

30

animals. Shepherd et al. (2004) found that in Sumatra small individuals were caught for the pet trade, but noted that the profit made from catching large individuals for the skin trade was much higher.

Groombridge and Luxmoore (1991) reported local population depletions caused by harvest. They noted that “in Indonesia, traders generally report little decrease in the availability of P. reticulatus skins, but to some extent this is because the area in which snakes are captured is continually expanding, and more people are involved in collecting” (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1991). Shine et al. (1999) studied the harvest of P. reticulatus in northern and southern Sumatra and concluded that commercial skin trade was unlikely to significantly threaten the populations within the country, although local extirpations may occur. However, Luiselli et al. (2012) cautioned that the rapid increase in the quantity of P. reticulatus legally exported from Indonesia combined with the decrease in forest cover may indicate that current rates of harvest are not sustainable and need to be investigated. Harvesting was thought to potentially have significant impacts on populations in Indonesia, due to the large numbers killed before reaching sexual maturity (ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN, 2012).

ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN (2012) described the illegal trade in P. reticulatus in Indonesia as follows: “hunters, out of necessity for income, ignore quotas and continue to illegally harvest snakes throughout the year and sell them to slaughterhouses. In order to maintain good business relationships with slaughterhouses, traders continue to purchase skins even after the quota is met”. Shepherd et al. (2004) conducted monthly surveys of the wildlife markets in Medan (province of North Sumatra) between 1997 and 2001, noting that the P. reticulatus traded there were not included in the Indonesian quota system. It was recommended that Indonesia should monitor the stockpiling of skins, and possibly establish a tagging system to control the potential laundering of illegally sourced skins through stockpiling (ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN 2012). There are reports of illegal trade in P. reticulatus skins from Indonesia via Singapore (TRAFFIC, 2011; ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN, 2012). However, the Management Authority of Indonesia (2011) reported success in the monitoring of illegal snake trade between 2006 and 2010.

At the CITES Asian Snake Trade Workshop in 2011, the CITES Management Authority of Indonesia (2011) considered further research into the population status, control of habitat destruction and trade, and educational programmes to be important conservation needs of P. reticulatus in the country.

P. reticulatus is not protected in Indonesia (Government Regulation No. 7-1999 on the Preservation of Flora and Fauna), but harvesting within protected areas is prohibited (Management Authority of Indonesia, 2011). Annual quotas are set for the export of skins (Iskandar and Erdelen, 2006), which are set separately for each province and take into account the recommendations of the Scientific Authority and information on population size and trends, age and size class, where available (CITES Management Authority of Indonesia, 2011). Snake collectors and exporters need to be registered and licensed under the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation in order to apply for CITES export permits (Management Authority of Indonesia, 2011).

It was reported that P. reticulatus was not bred in captivity for the skin trade, due to high production costs (Management Authority of Indonesia, 2011).

Vietnam: Sang et al. (2009) recorded the species along the north central coast (provinces of Ha Tinh, Quang Binh and Thua Thien-Hue), south central coast (municipality of Da Nang city and provinces of Quang Nam, Binh Dinh and Kanh Hoa), central highlands (provinces of Kon Tum, Gia Lai and Dak Lak), southeastern Vietnam (provinces of Binh Phuoc, Ba Ria-Vung Tau and Dong Nai), south-western (province of Tay Ninh) and southern Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh City and the provinces of Long An, Kien Giang and Ca Mau).

The species was categorised as ‘Vulnerable’ in the Red Data Book of Vietnam in 1994 (Ministry of Science Technology and Environment, 1992), and it was reported to have been uplisted to ‘Critically Endangered’ in 2004 (WWF and TRAFFIC, 2012).

P. reticulatus was reported to be used as food and for medicinal purposes, as well as for its skin (Ministry of Science Technology and Environment, 1992; Venkataraman, 2007; Van and Tap, 2008). Thomson (2008) reported that the species was being bred for commercial purposes since the 1980s, possibly even before that. According to Van and Tap (2008), the species was successfully bred in captivity in several farms in southern Vietnam, with captive-bred specimens being traded for medicinal

Python reticulatus

31

purposes. Thomson (2008) reported that wild-sourced breeding animals were regularly obtained for local food markets. Captive breeding was reported to be mainly aimed at the skin trade market, primarily to Europe, although breeding stock, meat and derivatives were also marketed locally (Thomson, 2008). The price of captive-bred mature individuals was reported to have increased significantly in 2005 from USD 6.30 to USD 12.60 per kg due to the high demand of skins in the world market (Thomson, 2008).

However, concerns were raised over the high number of reportedly captive-bred individuals exported from Vietnam ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN (2012), with operations breeding or ranching snakes in Vietnam requiring “thorough investigation” (Auliya, 2011). The authors pointed out that there was no evidence to prove that captive-breeding was economically viable, and noted that the CITES MA of Vietnam was unable to explain a discrepancy found between their export figures (40 000 individuals) and the figures reported to CITES (100 000 individuals). Illegally caught wild individuals were thought to potentially be exported from Indonesia and Malaysia, and re-exported from Singapore as captive-bred from Vietnam (ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN 2012).

P. reticulatus is listed as a Group II species (valuable species which have small populations in the wild or which are at risk of extinction) under the Government Decree 32/2006/ND-CP (Government of Vietnam, 2006a). The Decree specifies that the species may only be exploited for scientific purposes or under licence in designated special use forests for projects approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development or the Provincial People’s Committee (Government of Vietnam, 2006a). All facilities breeding CITES-listed species must be registered and approved by the CITES Scientific Authority under Government Decree 82/2006/ND-CP, which implements CITES in the country (Government of Vietnam, 2006b).

REFERENCES:

Auliya, M., Mausfeld, P., Schmitz, A., and Böhme, W. 2002. Review of the reticulated python (Python reticulatus Schneider, 1801) with the description of new subspecies from Indonesia. Naturwissenschaften, 89: 201-213.

Auliya, M. A. 2006. Taxonomy, life history and conservation of giant reptiles in West Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo). Natur und Tier - Verlag GmbH, Münster, Germany.

Auliya, M. 2011. Biology and conservation of Asian snakes. CITES Asian Snake Trade Workshop, Guangzhou, China 11-14 April 2011. Background paper - Topic 1.

Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J., and Thirakhupt, K. 1998. A photographic guide to snakes and other reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland, London, UK. 144 pp.

Daniel, J. C. 1983. The book of Indian reptiles. Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford University Press. Government of Vietnam. 2006a. Decree No. 32/2006/ND-CP of March 30, 2006, on Management of

Endangered, Precious and Rare Forest Plants and Animals. URL: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/vie64788.pdf .

Government of Vietnam. 2006b. Decree No. 82/2006/ND-CP of August 10, 2006, on management of export, import, re-export, introduction from the sea, transit, breeding, rearing and artificial propagation of endangered species of precious and rare wild fauna and flora URL: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/vie68031.pdf Accessed: 28-9-2010b.

Groombridge, B. and Luxmoore, R. 1991. Pythons in South-East Asia: A review of distribution, status and trade in three selected species, in CITES Secretariat, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Hvass, H. 1975. Reptiles and amphibians of the world. Methuen & Co Ltd. London. Iskandar, D. T. and Erdelen, W. R. 2006. Conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Indonesia: issues

and problems. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 4 (1): 60-87. ITC, TRAFFIC and IUCN. 2012. The trade in Southeast Asian Python skins. International Trade Centre,

TRAFFIC International and World Conservation Union. Geneva, Switzerland. Luiselli, L., Bonnet, X., Rocco, M., and Amori, G. 2012. Conservation implications of rapid shifts in the

trade of wild African and Asian pythons. Biotropica, 44: 569-573. Management Authority of Indonesia. 2011. Country Report of Indonesia. Snake trade and conservation.

CITES Asian Snake Trade Workshop, Guangzhou, China, April 11-14, 2011.

Python reticulatus

32

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.

Ministry of Science Technology and Environment 1992. Red Data Book of Viet Nam. Volume 1. Animals. Science and Technology Publishing House, Hanoi.

O'Shea, M. 2007. Boas and pythons of the world. New Holland, London. Sang, N. V., Cuc, H. T., and Truong, N. Q. 2009. Herpetofauna of Vietnam. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am

Main. Shepherd, C. R., Sukumaran, J., and Wich, S. A. 2004. Open season: An analysis of the pet trade in Medan,

Sumatra 1997-2001. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia. Shine, R., Ambariyanto, Harlow, P. S., and Mumpuni 1999. Reticulated pythons in Sumatra: biology,

harvesting and sustainability. Biological Conservation, 87 (3): 349-357. Stidworthy, J. 1969. Snakes of the world. Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., Feltham, Middlesex. Thomson, J. 2008. Captive breeding of selected taxa in Cambodia and Viet Nam: A reference manual for farm

operators and CITES Authorities. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Greater Mekong Programme. Ha Noi, Viet Nam.

TRAFFIC. 2011. Singapore incinerates seized reptile skins from Indonesia URL: http://www.traffic.org/home/2011/8/31/singapore-incinerates-seized-reptile-skins-from-indonesia.html Accessed: 15-10-2012.

TRAFFIC and IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme. 2004. Taxa identified as possible candidates for inclusion in the Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix-II species. Prepared by TRAFFIC and the IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme for the Twentieth Meeting of the CITES Animals Committee, Johannesburg (South Africa), 29 March-2 April 2004.

Van, N. D. N. and Tap, N. 2008. An overview of the use of plants and animals in traditional medicine systems in Viet Nam. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Greater Mekong Programme. Ha Noi, Viet Nam.

Venkataraman, B. 2007. A matter of attitude: The consumption of wild animal products in Ha Noi, Viet Nam. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Greater Mekong Programme. Ha Noi, Viet Nam.

Webb, G. J. W., Manolis, C. and Jenkins, R. W. G. 2011. Improving international systems for trade in reptile skins based on sustainable use. UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2011/7. United Nations Publications.

WWF and TRAFFIC. 2012. Most commonly traded protected animal species in Vietnam, WWF Greater Mekong and TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, URL: www.monre.gov.vn/MONRENET/Default.aspx?tabid=222&ItemID=10551 Accessed: 16-10-2012.

Mauremys sinensis

33


REPTILIA TESTUDINES

SPECIES: Mauremys sinensis

SYNONYMS: Emys bennettii, Emys sinensis, Ocadia sinensis

COMMON NAMES: Chinese Stripe-necked Turtle (English)

RANGE STATES: China, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Taiwan, Province of China, Vietnam

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: China, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Vietnam

IUCN RED LIST: Endangered

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: -

TRADE PATTERNS:

Mauremys sinensis, which is included in CITES Appendix III and EU Annex C, was selected for review from all range states on the basis of a sharp increase in trade. Whilst SRG opinions are not applicable to Annex C species, a review was recommended to assess whether the species might merit listing in Annex B; the species is specifically excluded from an uplisting proposal of species within the same genus, which is to be presented at the 16th Conference of the Parties to CITES (Proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II, updated 16 October 2012).

M. sinensis was included in CITES Appendix III and EU Annex C in 2005, therefore very little trade was reported prior to this date.

China (including Hong Kong, SAR and Taiwan, Province of China): China has not published any export quotas for Mauremys sinensis. Direct exports of M. sinensis from China to the EU-27 between 2005 and 2011 consisted entirely of live individuals, the majority of which were captive-bred and traded for commercial purposes (Table 1). While China’s annual report for 2011 had not been received at the time of writing, importer-reported trade in live individuals increased by 78 per cent between 2010 and 2011.

Indirect exports of M. sinensis to the EU-27 originating in China comprised 480 live, captive-bred individuals re-exported via Singapore to Italy in 2008 (reported by Singapore only), and 10 000 live, wild-sourced specimens re-exported via the United States to Portugal in 2010 (reported by Portugal only), all for commercial purposes.

Direct exports of M. sinensis from China to countries other than the EU-27 from 2005 onwards comprised live captive-bred and wild-sourced individuals traded for commercial purposes (Table 2). No trade was reported in either 2010 or 2011; China’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.

Mauremys sinensis

34

According to exporter-reported data, the principal importer was Japan; however, Japan did not confirm any of the trade. Imports were reported by Malaysia and the United States.

Table 1. Direct exports of Mauremys sinensis originating in China (including Hong Kong, SAR and Taiwan, Province of China) to the EU-27, 2005-2011. All trade was in live individuals. (No trade was reported prior to 2005; China’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

Importer Purpose Source Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Belgium T C Importer

Exporter

3100 2650

1000

6750

Czech Republic T C Importer

300

300

Exporter

Denmark T C Importer

Exporter

500 500

1000

Germany T C Importer 6600 4550 8200 9112 7955 8360 44777

Exporter

3800 1800 2100 1650

9350

U Importer 201 10000

10201

Exporter

W Importer

2000

2000

Exporter

Hungary T C Importer

700

700

Exporter

Italy T C Importer

Exporter

1750 300 500

2550

Portugal T C Importer

7400 7400

Exporter

W Importer

10

10

Exporter

- - Importer 1100

1100

Exporter

Spain T C Importer 9895 4000 500

900

15295

Exporter

4000

4000

United Kingdom - - Importer

600

600

Exporter

Subtotals

C Importer 16495 8550 9000 9812 8855 15760 68472

Exporter

10900 6200 2900 3650

23650

U Importer 201 10000

10201

Exporter

W Importer

2000

10

2010

Exporter

- Importer 1100

600

1700

Exporter

Mauremys sinensis

35

Table 2. Direct exports of Mauremys sinensis originating in China (including Hong Kong, SAR and Taiwan, Province of China) to countries other than the EU-27, 2005-2009. All trade was in live individuals for commercial purposes. (No trade was reported 2001-2004 or 2010-2011; China’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

Source Reported by 2005 2007 2008 2009 Total

C Importer

100

402 502

Exporter

100 1000 400 1500

W Importer 292

292

Exporter

Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Lao People’s Democratic Republic (hereafter referred to as Lao PDR) has not published any export quotas for Mauremys sinensis. No direct or indirect trade originating in Lao PDR has been reported 2001-2011. Lao PDR acceded to CITES in 2004; annual reports have been received for the years 2006-2009 only.

Vietnam: Vietnam has not published any export quotas for Mauremys sinensis. No direct or indirect trade originating in Vietnam has been reported 2001-2011. Vietnam’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.


Mauremys sinensis is a freshwater turtle that occurs in China, Taiwan, Province of China, Vietnam and Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Moll and Moll, 2004; Rhodin et al., 2010; van Dijk et al., 2011; Uetz, 2012). Chen et al. (2000) considered typical habitats to include still and slow-moving waters, including rivers, ponds, lakes and reservoirs. Using projected range maps, Buhlmann et al. (2009) estimated the range of the species to cover 559 352 km2.

Based on a study of the Taiwanese populations, the species was reported to lay one clutch of 7-17 eggs per year (Chen et al., 2000), however Bonin et al. (2006) reported a typical clutch size of three eggs.

M. sinensis was categorised as Endangered in the IUCN Red List (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000) and a updated assessments of its status was considered to be needed (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). The Asian Turtle Program (2012) noted that the species had “suffered a dramatic decline throughout its historic range in China and Viet Nam”.

Generally, trade was considered the main threat to all Asian freshwater turtles, and it was noted that a significant portion of the trade was illegal (Altherr and Freyer, 2000). Chen and Lue (2010) considered habitat loss and commercial exploitation the main threats to M. sinensis, with the species also being subject to illegal trade across borders and Fong and Chen (2010) listed genetic pollution from released trade animals as an additional threat.

China and the United States propose a list of taxa of the family Geoemydidae to be included in Appendix II at the 16th Conference of the Parties to CITES. M. sinensis was specifically excluded from the proposal, as “Mauremys reevesii and M. sinensis are excluded because they are the subject of the mass farming to supply the trade. Given the extensive farming of these species, harvest of wild specimens to supply the trade or to supply parental stock for farms is believed to be low and not of conservation concern” (Proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II, updated 16 October 2012).

China: Southern mainland China was considered to form the main part of the range of M. sinensis (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). The species was found in the provinces of Fujian in southeastern China and Guangdong, Guangxi and Hainan in the south (Zhao and Adler, 1993; Zhao, 1998; Rhodin et al., 2010; van Dijk et al., 2011), Jiangsu and Zhejiang in the east (Zhao and Adler, 1993; Zhao, 1998; Rhodin et al., 2010), Jiangxi in the southeast (van Dijk et al., 2011) and Hong Kong S.A.R. in the south (Zhao and Adler, 1993; Zhao, 1998). Pritchard (1979) considered it abundant on Hainan but rare on mainland China. It was considered to be widely distributed in Taiwan (Chen and Lue, 2008; Fong and Chen, 2010; Chen and Lue, 2010).

In trapping studies conducted across Taiwan during 2001-2007, Chen and Lue (2010) found M. sinensis to be the most abundant freshwater turtle species, accounting for 78.6 per cent of all turtle captures. However, it was noted that low numbers of the species were captured at most sites, suggesting that the

Mauremys sinensis

36

populations were considerably smaller compared to historic data (Chen and Lue, 2010). The species was most common in northern, central and southern parts of the country with only two individuals trapped in eastern Taiwan (Chen and Lue, 2010).

The species was categorised as Endangered in the China Red Data Book, and its status was considered to be ”much decreased mainly due to over collecting and destruction of habitats” (Zhao, 1998). The Taiwanese populations were categorised as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List (T. Chen, pers. comm. in Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). In a risk assessment of Chinese freshwater turtles by Zhou and Jiang (2008), M. sinensis was classified as Endangered based on its low annual reproduction rate and high value in trade.

China was considered to be the biggest consumer of turtles worldwide (Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006) with turtles commonly sold for food, medicine and as pets in the domestic market (Haitao et al., 2008; Gong et al., 2009; Chen and Lue, 2010). Concerns were raised over the heavy exploitation of all sources of wild turtles in an attempt to satisfy the unsustainable levels of trade (Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006). The high consumption in China was reported to have led to population declines in freshwater turtles (CITES CoP12 Inf. 8).

In a 35-month survey conducted in the markets of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou (southern China) during 2000-2003, Cheung and Dudgeon (2006) found that M. sinensis was one of the five most commonly traded pet turtle species in Shenzhen and Guangzhou (Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006). Surveys conducted in China’s largest pet market, the Yuehe Pet Market in Guangzhou in 2006-2008 confirmed these findings (Gong et al., 2009). The species was also reported to be sold in restaurants in China (Altherr and Freyer, 2000), and traded for its shell for traditional Chinese medicine (Chen et al., 2009). In Taiwan, M. sinensis was reported to be the most commonly used species in religious ceremonies, where turtles are bought for release in the wild - with associated issues including spread of disease and genetic pollution (Chen et al., 2000). Furthermore, turtles were reported to be rarely released in suitable habitats, with high mortality rates following release (Chen et al., 2000).

As a result of the high levels of demand and prices achieved, Haitao et al. (2008) reported that the number of freshwater turtle farms had increased rapidly in mainland China since the 1980s. Based on a survey of the officially recognized Chinese turtle farms in 2002, the size of the captive M. sinensis population was estimated at 1 487 400 individuals (Haitao et al., 2008). M. sinensis was also reported to be farmed in Taiwan to supply pet trade and religious ceremonies (Chen et al., 2000). Based on interviews conducted on Taiwanese turtle farms, Chen et al. (2000) reported that each of the at least five turtle farms in central and southern Taiwan could produce more than 30 000 hatchlings of the most commonly traded species per year (Chen et al., 2000). The farms on the mainland and in Taiwan were reported to be largely reliant on wild-caught breeding stock for the maintenance of reproductive capacity (Chen et al., 2000; Haitao et al., 2007), and Haitao et al. (2007) cautioned that the high intake of individuals from the wild indicated that the farming practices were not sustainable. They also reported that the turtle farming industry in China remained largely unregulated and that there was evidence of laundering of wild-caught turtles as captive-bred (Haitao et al., 2007). It was also noted that wild-caught individuals may fetch far higher prices in the Chinese market, maintaining natural populations under high pressure despite widespread turtle farming (Haitao et al., 2007). A further problem connected with turtle farming was considered to be genetic pollution (Haitao et al., 2008).

Habitat modification was considered another main threat to the species in Taiwan (Chen and Lue, 2008; Chen and Lue, 2010), particularly river management projects (Chen and Lue, 2008). Chen and Lue (2009) suggested that disturbance may restrict available habitat for the species, limiting population recruitment. Chen and Lue (2010) also noted that the male-biased sex ratio of M. sinensis was possibly a consequence of habitat modification and may lead to unstable populations.

Based on the high volumes of trade, Cheung and Dudgeon (2006) recommended that all Chinese turtles should be nationally protected species under the State Law for Protection of Wildlife (1988), which currently lists eight turtle species, but not M. sinensis (Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006). However, it was noted that Chinese enforcement actions failed to control trade in nationally protected species (Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006; Gong et al., 2009). M. sinensis is not listed in the Schedule of Protected Species under the Wildlife Conservation Act (Taiwan Forestry Bureau, 1989), and Chen and Lue (2010) noted that its use “has never been closely regulated in Taiwan”. Chen et al. (2000) reported that the release of pet

Mauremys sinensis

37

animals into the wild was banned under the Animal Protection Law in Taiwan, but that the legislation had never been enforced.

Lao People's Democratic Republic: Rhodin et al. (2010) and Uetz (2012) reported that M. sinensis occurred in Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and Jackson (2012) considered its occurrence in the country to be possible.

Stuart (1998) considered the collection of turtles for human consumption and unregulated export in the country as a significant threat.

M. sinensis was not listed as a protected species under the wildlife law (Lao PDR National Assembly, 2007).

No additional information on the conservation status of the species was found.

Vietnam: Pritchard (1979) and Bonin et al. (2006) reported occurrence in northern Vietnam, and Fritz and Havaš (2007) considered its range to reach westward from China to “at least” the Red River watershed in Vietnam.

In an eight-day trapping survey conducted in the lowlands of the Binh Son district in the Quang Ngai province of south central Vietnam in September 2011, the Asian Turtle Program (2012) recorded five individuals of the species. The surveyed habitats were considered to possibly be the “best remaining site for conservation” of the species, and it was set to be the focus of future conservation activities for the Asian Turtle Program (2012). Ziegler et al. (2006) recorded the species in the Phong Nha – Ke Bang National Park of the Quang Binh province in central Vietnam.

The Vietnamese populations of this species were described as modest, and classified as ‘Vulnerable’ (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group, 2000). The Asian Turtle Program (2012) noted that the species had “become increasingly rare in Viet Nam due to over collection”.

The species was reported to be offered for sale in local markets (Ziegler et al., 2006).

The species was not included in the list of endangered aquatic species under national protection (Viet Nam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2008).

REFERENCES:

Altherr, S. and Freyer, D. 2000. The decline of Asian turtles: Food markets, habitat destruction and pet trade drive Asia's freshwater turtles and tortoises to extinction. Pro Wildlife. Munich, Germany.

Asian Turtle Program. 2012. Chinese stripe necked turtles found during a field survey in the lowlands of central Vietnam URL: http://www.asianturtleprogram.org/pages/map_project/binh-son-trapping-sep11/bin-son-trapping-sep11.html Accessed: 8-10-2012.

Asian Turtle Trade Working Group. 2000. Mauremys sinensis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 5-10-2012.

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.

Chen, T.-H., Chang, H.-C., and Lue, K.-Y. 2009. Unregulated trade in turtle shells for Chinese traditional medicine in East and Southeast Asia: the case of Taiwan. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 8 (1): 11-18.

Chen, T.-H., Lin, H.-C., and Chang, H.-C. 2000. Current status and utilization of Chelonians in Taiwan. Chelonian Research Monographs, 2: 45-51.

Chen, T.-H. and Lue, K.-Y. 2008. Home ranges and movements of the Chinese stripe-necked turtle (Ocadia sinensis) in the Keelung River, northern Taiwan. Amphibia-Reptilia, 29: 383-392.

Chen, T.-H. and Lue, K.-Y. 2009. Changes in the population structure and diet of the Chinese Stripe-Necked Turtle (Mauremys sinensis) inhabiting a disturbed river in Northern Taiwan. Zoological Studies, 48 (1): 95-105.

Mauremys sinensis

38

Chen, T.-H. and Lue, K.-Y. 2010. Population status and distribution of freshwater turtles in Taiwan. Oryx, 44 (2): 261-266.

Cheung, S. M. and Dudgeon, D. 2006. Quantifying the Asian turtle crisis: market surveys in southern China, 2000-2003. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystens, 16: 751-770.

Fong, J. J. and Chen, T.-H. 2010. DNA evidence for the hybridization of wild turtles in Taiwan: possible genetic pollution from trade animals. Conservation Genetics, 11: 2061-2066.

Fritz, U. and Havaš, P. 2007. Checklist of chelonians of the world. Vertebrate Zoology, 57 (2): 149-368. Gong, S. P., Chow, A. T., Fong, J. J., and Shi, H. T. 2009. The chelonian trade in the largest pet market in

China: scale, scope and impact on turtle conservation. Oryx, 43 (02): 213-216. Haitao, S., Parham, J. F., Lau, M., and Tien-Hsi, C. 2007. Farming endangered turtles to extinction in

China. Conservation Biology, 21 (1): 5-6. Haitao, S., Parham, J. F., Zhiyong, F., Meiling, H., and Feng, Y. 2008. Evidence for the massive scale of

turtle farming in China. Oryx, 42: 147-150. Jackson, D. R. 2012. The Chinese stripe-necked turtle (Mauremys sinensis [Gray, 1834]) (Geoemydidae),

another introduced turtle species in Florida. IRCF Reptiles & Amphibians, 19 (1): 67-68. Lao PDR National Assembly. 2007. Wildlife and aquatic law No 07/NA. Vientiane Capital, dated 24

December 2007. Moll, D. and Moll, E. O. 2004. The ecology, exploitation, and conservation of river turtles. Oxford University

Press, New York. 393 pp. Pritchard, P. C. H. 1979. Encyclopaedia 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.

Stuart, B. 1998. A survey of amphibians and reptiles in Phou Louey National Biodiversity Conservation Area, Houaphanh Province, Lao PDR. Wildlife Conservation Society. Vientiane.

Taiwan Forestry Bureau. 1989. Schedule of protected species, Article 4 under the Wildlife Conservation Law (enacted June 23, 1989).

Uetz, P. 2012. Mauremys sinensis (GRAY, 1834) in: The Reptile Database URL: http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz Accessed: 5-10-2012.

van Dijk, P. P., Iverson, J. B., Shaffer, H. B., Bour, R., and Rhodin, A. G. J. 2011. Turtles of the world, 2011 update: Annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status, in Rhodin, A. G. J. et al., (eds.), Conservation biology of freshwater turtles and tortoises: A compilation project of the IUCN/SSC tortoise and freshwater turtle specialist group.

Viet Nam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. 2008. Decision No: 82/2008 regarding declaration of the list of endangered aquatic species in Vietnam which need protection, reproduction and development.

Zhao, E.-M. 1998. China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals - Amphibia and Reptilia. Science Press, Beijing.

Zhao, E.-M. and Adler, K. 1993. Herpetology of China. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Oxford, Ohio.

Zhou, Z. and Jiang, Z. 2008. Characteristics and risk assessment of international trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles in China. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 7 (1): 28-36.

Ziegler, T., Ohler, A., Thanh, V. N., Quyet, L. K., Thuan, N. X., Tri, D. H., and Thanh, B. N. 2006. Review of the amphibian and reptile diversity of Phong Nha - Ke Bang National Park and adjacent areas, central Truong Son, Vietnam, Herpetologia Bonnensis II. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica, M. Vences et al., eds., pp. 247-262.

Annex I: Detailed trade data tables

39

Annex I: Detailed trade data tables for Python reticulatus

Table 1. Direct exports of Python reticulatus originating in Indonesia to the EU-27, 2001-2011 ‘Leather products’ includes both small and large leather products. Figures rounded to one decimal place, where applicable. (Indonesia’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

Importer Term (units) Purpose Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Austria live T C Importer

10 10

Exporter

18

18

W Importer

20

10 30

Exporter

45

20 7

72

skin pieces T W Importer

Exporter

1

1

Belgium live T W Importer 10

10

Exporter 50

123

4

177

Cyprus leather products T W Importer 6

6

Exporter

Czech Republic live T C Importer

23 20

43

Exporter

52 30

82

W Importer

37 40 52 30

45 25 229

Exporter

6 50 69 80 30 30 30

295

leather products T W Importer

50 65 115

Exporter

150

150

Denmark leather products T W Importer

200 418 618

Exporter

200

200

France derivatives T W Importer

61

61

Exporter

live T C Importer

Exporter

6

6

F Importer

300

62 57 20 20

459

Exporter

46 158 116 52 45 39 69

525

W Importer 58 17 79 10

12 16 251 60

50 553

Exporter 58 17 29 35

12 56 131 50 25

413

skins T W Importer 25

291 316

Exporter 1

1

leather products P W Importer

4

4

Exporter

T W Importer

80

96 15848 38461 7673 62158

Exporter 1

4000 26029 24273

54303



40


Exporter

61

61

Germany live P C Importer 2

2

Exporter

W Importer

4 12

16

Exporter

S C Importer

2

2

Exporter

T C Importer

43 17

60

Exporter

45 62

107

F Importer

10

10

Exporter

6

10

16

W Importer 79 55 186 192 232 208 231 175 102 52 15 1527

Exporter 132 155 188 838 330 683 453 298 79 25

3181

skins T W Importer 1000 3500 267 500 200

3000

300

4000 12767

Exporter 500 3000 267 500 200

3000

300 1

7768

leather products P W Importer

3 3

Exporter

Q W Importer

Exporter

3

3

T W Importer

7 36 9 26 4 1467 3507 5056

Exporter

4

59 80 299 3 98 2623

3166

garments T W Importer

1 4 5

Exporter


Exporter

6

6

Greece live T W Importer

10 10

20

Exporter

10 10

20


Exporter

65

65

Hungary live T W Importer

Exporter

20

38

58

Ireland leather products T W Importer

Exporter

4

4

Italy live T W Importer

Exporter

432 30

20

482

skins T F Importer

Exporter

30

30


41


W Importer 2391 34701 15400 29916 23750 10971 9993 11600 7210 9691 20307 175930

Exporter 8896 31034 20000 30016 22393 10001 11698 13000 10494 13110

170642

leather products T W Importer 335 94 4

1107 517 1842 1378 3434 2663 10066 21440

Exporter 908

253 340 1218 1744 2634 2811 4210

14118

skin pieces (kg) T W Importer 50

50

Exporter


Exporter

4600

1000

5600

Malta leather products T W Importer

Exporter

9

9

Netherlands live T C Importer

Exporter

27 18

45

F Importer

17

17

Exporter

7

7

W Importer 4 16 75

22 14 54 91 276

Exporter 23 16 32 20

12 44

147


140

4881 5021

Exporter

845 154 2959

3958

Poland leather products T W Importer

Exporter

380

380

Romania leather products T W Importer

20

20

Exporter

5 20

25

Spain live T C Importer

Exporter

10

10

F Importer

25

10

35

Exporter

25

25

W Importer

69 29 20

20 69 6 20

233

Exporter 34 124 30 96 3 4 60 72 34 20

477

skins T W Importer 1616 7029 13148 12385 26822 16391 17240 25592 20924 19595 21729 182471

Exporter 2830 7476 16860 12972 24046 17673 18150 25092 23069 18250

166418


3

467 4 493 1656 361 2984

Exporter

200

2

467 530 1005 1396

3600

garments T W Importer

9 1

10

Exporter

Sweden live T W Importer

Exporter

104

104



42


Exporter

2

2

United Kingdom live T C Importer

Exporter

7

7

F Importer

10

7

17

Exporter 4

6 86

10

10

116

W Importer 26 61 55 72 101 238 206 391 196

1346

Exporter 26 97 97 173 254 415 342 564 339 180

2487

- I Importer

5

5

Exporter

skins T W Importer

Exporter

26 3

20

49


82

82

Exporter

62

120 83 2 49

316

- I Importer

320

320

Exporter

Subtotals (main terms only)

live

C Importer 2

2

66 37 10 117

Exporter

6

141 128

275

F Importer

300 10 87 57 64 20

538

Exporter 4 6 59 244 116 62 70 59 69

689

I Importer

5

5

Exporter

W Importer 177 218 434 304 370 502 537 958 378 171 191 4240

Exporter 323 841 559 1223 741 1183 1011 1157 551 324

7913

skins

F Importer

Exporter

30

30

W Importer 5032 45230 28815 42801 50772 27362 30233 37192 28434 29286 46327 371484

Exporter 12227 41510 37153 43491 46639 27674 32848 38112 33863 31361

344878

leather products

I Importer

320

320

Exporter

W Importer 341 174 4

1117 553 2318 1726 19799 44501 26974 97507

Exporter 909 204

315 401 1363 2633 8480 30134 35860

80299


43

Table 2. Indirect exports of Python reticulatus originating in Indonesia to the EU-27, 2001-2011. ‘Leather products’ includes both small and large leather products. Figures rounded to one decimal place, where applicable. (Indonesia’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)


Austria skins W T Importer

2 11 49 13 19 10 34

6 144

Exporter

6

32 12 32

3

85

- Importer

Exporter

2 42 12 18

74

leather products U T Importer

Exporter

1

1

W T Importer 14 2

50 61 247 83 29 85 14 585

Exporter

28 30 264 78 33 161

594

- Importer

Exporter

3

25

28


2

2

Exporter

2

30

32

- Importer

Exporter

1

1

skin pieces W T Importer

Exporter

14

6 20

Belgium leather products W P Importer

Exporter

2

2

T Importer 21

21

Exporter

10 5 80 151 316

562

- Importer

Exporter 31 37 15 5 1

89

- T Importer

6

6

Exporter

- Importer

46 3 4 1

3 2 3 198 118 378

Exporter


Exporter

15

3

18

Bulgaria leather products C T Importer

5

5

Exporter

W T Importer

1 10 32 10

53

Exporter

3 14 19

36

- Importer

Exporter

16

16



44


Exporter

1

1

- Importer

Exporter

3

3

Cyprus leather products W T Importer

2 2 5 9

18

Exporter

11 6 7 10

34


2

2

Exporter

2

2

Czech Republic leather products W T Importer

2

1 20 2

25

Exporter

3

1 38 6

48


3

3

Exporter

3

3

Denmark skins W T Importer

400 350 100

30 150 1030

Exporter

350 231

30 230 841

leather products W P Importer 2

2

Exporter

T Importer

82

236 321 13

652

Exporter 2

260

600 128

5 13

1008

garments R T Importer

Exporter

2

1

3

W T Importer

88 3

91

Exporter

3 3

6

skin pieces W T Importer 25

80 105

Exporter

Estonia leather products W T Importer

2 3 1

11 17

Exporter

3 1

4


Exporter

2

2

Finland live W T Importer

1

1

Exporter

1

1


Exporter

2

2

W T Importer

3 34 13 4 20 74

Exporter

1 3 34 13 4

55

- Importer

Exporter

2

2

France (including Guadeloupe and Reunion)

live C T Importer

12

12

Exporter


45


W T Importer 6 3

12 6 12 15 11

65

Exporter

6 3 10 9 6

34

skins I T Importer

Exporter

1000

1000

W T Importer 110 121 37 6 26 65 314 2140 1475 1697 766 6757

Exporter

1198 5 84 384 1975 1476 1699 600 7421

- Importer

Exporter 135 136 32 131 22

456

leather products (m2)

W T Importer

38 38

Exporter

leather products C T Importer 32

25 66

40 16 132 41 352

Exporter

10 19

168 8

205

- Importer

Exporter

4

4

I T Importer

3

3

Exporter

1 3

4

R T Importer

4

3

7

Exporter

U T Importer

Exporter

3

3

W P Importer

1

1

Exporter

T Importer 374 468 1449 1821 2004 2310 4161 8807 9265 8189 10845 49693

Exporter 176 12 231 734 591 3689 10807 9860 7564 9250 14 42928

- Importer

Exporter 433 334 1418 960 1284

4429

garments R T Importer

Exporter

27

3

30

W T Importer 9

1

773 24 1

21 15 844

Exporter

52 8 305 47 32

444

- Importer

Exporter 9

53 10

72


59

252 311

Exporter

461

31 25 100 100

717

Germany live W T Importer

10

4 28 53

4

99

Exporter

10

4 74 7

4

99

skins (m) W T Importer


46


Exporter

17

17

skins I T Importer

6000

4189

10189

Exporter

5000

597 3592

9189

W T Importer 843 7819 24255 20185 30323 20055 20126 26312 8981 27571 12503 198973

Exporter 838 7804 24255 22729 29453 19101 24328 24810 8987 28571 16083 206959

- Importer

Exporter 22 17 9 20 75

143

leather products C T Importer

3 25

2 30

Exporter

I P Importer

2

2

Exporter

W P Importer 2

3

2 1

8

Exporter

12

1

13

T Importer 87 288 689 337 1615 1826 987 1849 2991 1448 676 12793

Exporter 182 2 514 533 1390 1406 889 1605 3360 994 21 10896

- Importer

Exporter 19 147 28 54 101

349

garments I T Importer

7

7

Exporter

W T Importer

1 3 21 51 9 7 8

1 101

Exporter

16 12 7 17

52

- Importer

Exporter

3

3

skin pieces (kg) W T Importer

2.5

2.5

Exporter

Greece live F T Importer

5

5

Exporter

5

5

W T Importer

5

5

Exporter

skins W T Importer

3

3

Exporter

3

3


Exporter

18

18

W T Importer

Exporter 1

318 21 187 87 89 205

908

- Importer

Exporter 12

40

20

72


47



Exporter

6

6

- Importer

Exporter

2

2

Hungary skins W T Importer

Exporter

20 20

leather products W T Importer

25

8 1 1 35

Exporter

19 26 82 8 1

136

- Importer

Exporter

1

1

Italy live W Q Importer

1 1

Exporter

skins C T Importer

Exporter

200

10

210

I T Importer

6980

6980

Exporter

8000

1250

9250

W Q Importer

Exporter

289

289

T Importer 29183 29409 26241 82535 118220 66234 38090 43970 14376 12530 38785 499573

Exporter 30152 24587 31650 99817 130070 78756 45640 47251 21331 23932.5 44839 578025.5

- Importer

Exporter

1

1


1 100

23 36 1

42 203

Exporter

30 1

2

33

I T Importer

1480

1480

Exporter

41 20

61

U T Importer

Exporter

28

28

W P Importer

Exporter

8

26

3

37

Q Importer

Exporter

4

2

6

T Importer 1327 2868 6111 3546 6481 2678 5083 2642 1393 400 2412 34941

Exporter 1620 182 5881 2642 5251 2974 2762 2305 1659 526 41 25843

- Importer

Exporter 142 319 144 61 50

716

garments C T Importer

1

1


48


Exporter

W S Importer

10

10

Exporter

T Importer 14

12 6 8 11 148 28 10 26 4 267

Exporter

1 28 2 66 5 12 49

163

- Importer

Exporter 5

4 4

13


8

1968

5

1981

Exporter

8 23

1968 1 50

2050

Latvia leather products W T Importer

Exporter

2

1 5 2 4

14


Exporter

12

12

Lithuania leather products W T Importer

16 5 3

24

Exporter

2 36 12 5

55

Luxembourg leather products W T Importer

Exporter

2

1

3

Malta leather products W T Importer

2 1

3

Exporter

1 2

3

Netherlands live W T Importer

20

254 274

Exporter


Exporter

18

18

skins W - Importer

Exporter

2

2


14

1

15

Exporter

O Q Importer

1

1

Exporter

W T Importer

41 8 2

3 8 395 436 786 1679

Exporter

14

50 11 42 10 44 729

900

- Importer

Exporter

41 6 2 1

50


Exporter

6

6

Poland leather products W T Importer

7 156 230 197 7 42 639

Exporter

7 154 239 27 50

477


49



Exporter

5

5

Portugal skins W T Importer

1

9

3

13

Exporter

9

4 3

16

leather products W T Importer 4

1

10 375 4

3 397

Exporter

10 375 3

388

- Importer

Exporter 6

1

7

Romania skins C T Importer

13

13

Exporter


7 10 2 6 4 29

Exporter

29 8 11 2 6

56


1 1

Exporter

Slovakia leather products W T Importer

20 2

7 25 54

Exporter

10 2

7

19

Slovenia live W Q Importer

1

1

Exporter

skins W T Importer

86

86

Exporter

41

1

42


30 52 51 28 10 4 175

Exporter

52 34 28 10

124

Spain live W T Importer

25

25

Exporter

25

25

skins m W T Importer

Exporter

2306.9

2306.9

skins C T Importer

Exporter

27

27

I T Importer

2782 4050

6832

Exporter

2787 4000

6787

W T Importer 4 13893 12096 22384 23894 23861 14544 10985 2260 4622 5112 133655

Exporter 8 13277 13662 22384 27903 32490.1 11709 11995 6601 3640 6141 149810.1

- Importer

Exporter

6

1

7


1

1

Exporter

U T Importer


50


Exporter

9

9

W T Importer 44 821 44 63 258 585 1817 511 75 24 256 4498

Exporter 54 30 733 451 239 807 672 618 13 38

3655

- Importer

Exporter 2 198 37 6 20

263

garments I T Importer

4

4

Exporter

4

4

W T Importer

1 3

8

12

Exporter

3

20

23

- Importer

Exporter

1

1

skin pieces C T Importer

Exporter

2

2

W T Importer

18

18

Exporter

Sweden skins (m) W T Importer

Exporter

3

3


230 518 634 97 141 175 1795

Exporter

237 670 855 808 10 280

2860

- Importer

Exporter

18

18

United Kingdom (including Gibraltar)

carvings W T Importer

Exporter

185

384

569

derivatives W T Importer

Exporter

816

816

live W T Importer

3 8 6

18

35

Exporter

3 19 6

8

36


Exporter

5

5

skins W T Importer

103 2225 1200

15

3543

Exporter

1 998 1025 1223

73 15 1.5 3336.5

- Importer

Exporter

30

30


2

20 1 3 4

30

Exporter

20

20

I T Importer

Exporter

2

2


51


R T Importer

Exporter

1

1

U T Importer

2

2

Exporter

W P Importer

1

1

Exporter

T Importer 50 112

51 117 48 255 514 1297 644

3088

Exporter 347 2 7 6 533 262 455 913 599 742 22 3888

- Importer

Exporter 244 57 61 19 34

415


3

4

7

Exporter

8 4 21

7

40

- Importer

Exporter

6

6


1200

1

1201

Exporter

1 3

4


skins C

Importer

13

13

Exporter

27 200

10

237

I

Importer

2782 17030

4189

24001

Exporter

8787 12000 597 4842

26226

W

Importer 30140 51244 62641 1E+05 172579 112948 74643 83541 27092 46468 57322 843777

Exporter 31155 45859 69652 1E+05 188546 131532 83944 86295 38472 57893.5 67914.5 947561.1

leather products C

Importer 32 2 1 1 159 67 29 106 17 137 85 636

Exporter

30 1 24 12 19

168 8

262

I

Importer

2 1480

3

1485

Exporter

41 22 1 3

67

O

Importer

1

1

Exporter

R

Importer

4

3

7

Exporter

1

1

U

Importer

2

2

Exporter

61

61

W

Importer 1925 4601 8302 5820 10631 7781 13348 16004 16177 11437 15274 111300

Exporter 3271 1364 9130 5741 10226 10557 17400 17183 13685 13352 98 102007

-

Importer

46 3 4 1 6 3 2 3 198 118 384

Exporter


52

Table 3. Indirect exports of Python reticulatus originating in Vietnam to the EU-27, 2001-2011. ‘Leather products’ includes both small and large leather products. Figures rounded to one decimal place, where applicable.


Austria leather products C T Importer

39 200 65 71 87 9 31 502

Exporter

207 60 87 128 17

499

- Importer

Exporter

41

41

W T Importer

62 8 10

13 1 94

Exporter

62 10 37

16

125

Belgium leather products C T Importer

Exporter

24 1 292 207 302

826

W T Importer

Exporter

550 9 4

563

- T Importer

16

16

Exporter

- Importer

744

97 370 1211

Exporter


1

1

Exporter

5

5

Bulgaria leather products C T Importer

2

2

Exporter

2 3 30 2

37


Exporter

4

2

6

Cyprus leather products C T Importer

10 3 18 10 17 24 82

Exporter

29 10 25 32 18

114


5

5

Exporter

5

5

Czech Republic skins W T Importer

1

1

Exporter

1

1


1

2

3

Exporter

1

3

4

W T Importer

17

17

Exporter

17

17

Denmark leather products C T Importer

2 1 979 421 53 1456

Exporter

10 1 4 22

37


Exporter

15

15

Estonia leather products C T Importer

1

1

2


53


Exporter

1

1

2

Finland leather products C T Importer

7

2 9

Exporter

7

2

9

W T Importer

5

1

6

Exporter

10

1

11

France (including Guadeloupe and Reunion)

derivatives C T Importer

Exporter

106

106

live C T Importer

10

10

Exporter

W T Importer

3

3

Exporter

3

3

skins C T Importer

2950 509 1600 2030

10

2709 9808

Exporter

3000 505 1600 2030

10

2709 9854

leather products C Q Importer

3

3

Exporter

T Importer

25 1075 4562 5833 9191 6329 9253 12882.5 49150.5

Exporter

44 83 5605 5694 11737 9262 12436

44858

- Importer

Exporter

15 1712

4

1731

I T Importer

Exporter

5

5

W T Importer

3

6 77 25 267 55 634 343 1410

Exporter

28 16 468 185 373

1070

- Importer

Exporter

8

8


3

3 53 4 36 41 140

Exporter

1190 90 153 147 50

1630

- Importer

Exporter

3

3

6

W T Importer

26

1

27

Exporter

33 5 5 3 1

47


1 1

Exporter

Germany skins C T Importer 5223 5020 5380 20777 3768 20863 51379 59839 17569 62914 33414 286146

Exporter 7754 4025 5380 20777 4771 11640 62566 58852 19525 37658 25414 258362

W T Importer

Exporter

54

54


54


leather products C P Importer

2 1

3

Exporter

1

9

10

T Importer

3 223 836 361 293 26 161 1903

Exporter

1216 200 831 342 383 37

3009

- Importer

Exporter

3

3

W T Importer

4

54 6 26 65 46 201

Exporter

4

17 48

69

garments C P Importer

1

1

Exporter

T Importer

1210 44 2 2

1313 2571

Exporter

51 4 5

60

Greece leather products C T Importer

Exporter

68 47 84 174 128

501

- Importer

Exporter

17

17

W T Importer

Exporter

3 48

51

- Importer

Exporter

2

2


Exporter

7

7

Hungary leather products C T Importer

10

32 6 2 50

Exporter

11 13 2 44

70

W T Importer

Exporter

7

2

9

Ireland leather products C T Importer

2

2

Exporter

2

2

Italy skins C T Importer 30 4390 4754 23733 4083 22439 22941 29995 9304 3120 13918 138707

Exporter 30 5390 4754 25733 3500 21395 24336 29953 10900 8105 14650 148746

W T Importer

2839 2000

3300 3

27

8169

Exporter

2839 1000

3302 140 10

7291


Exporter

2

2

S Importer

6 2 8

Exporter

T Importer

197 108 67 656 277 2044 555 1275 602 1793 7574


55


Exporter

198 157 84 242 170 662 465 1282 723 20 4003

- Importer

Exporter

394

394

I T Importer

Exporter

1

1

W T Importer

1 100 15 10 51 20 30 151 378

Exporter

4

1 1 20 21 63 17 63

190

- Importer

Exporter

32

32


2

14 8 7 37 3 9 4 84

Exporter

2

3 7 22 2 12

48

- Importer

Exporter

2

18

20


2966 27

3 2996

Exporter

3 3 2968 12

2986

Latvia leather products C T Importer

Exporter

26 30 22

78


Exporter

6 1

1

8

Lithuania leather products C T Importer

12 2 3

17

Exporter

23

3

26


Exporter

3

3

Malta leather products C T Importer

1

1

Exporter

6

1

7

W T Importer

Exporter

2

2

Netherlands live C T Importer

37 37

Exporter


1 1

Exporter

T Importer

7

24 440 75 546

Exporter

2 7

1 441

451

W T Importer

4 1 4 9

Exporter

6 2 2

10

Poland leather products C T Importer

30 170 12 755 20 2 989

Exporter

61 163 12 756 20

1012


56


W T Importer

2 6 15

23

Exporter

2 7 15

24


Exporter

3

3

Portugal leather products C T Importer

2 1 16

2 21

Exporter

1 15

1742

1758

- Importer

Exporter

2

2

Romania skins C T Importer

1000 2000 3000

Exporter

1000

1000


32 3 8 51 94

Exporter

27 1 35 3 10

76

- Importer

Exporter

3

3

W T Importer

24 39

63

Exporter

30 33

63

Slovakia leather products C T Importer

8 42 50

Exporter

8

8

Slovenia leather products C T Importer

6 1 3 5 15

Exporter

1 24

25

W T Importer

20 20

Exporter

2

2

Spain skins (m) C T Importer

Exporter

60

60

skins C T Importer

500 2857 2661 920 1832 800

13000 14060 5704 42334

Exporter

500 2397 2665 920 1514 2880 1640 16000 17039 5684 51239

W T Importer

300

383

683

Exporter

790

383

1173

leather products C T Importer 35

81 45 159 54 4 52 28 458

Exporter 35

51 10

46 94 43 30 79

388

- Importer

Exporter

4

75

79

W T Importer

1 9

10

Exporter

3 9

12


28 48

76

Exporter



57


Exporter

21

21

Sweden leather products C T Importer

5 3

8

Exporter

29 9 12 2

52

- Importer

Exporter

21

21

W T Importer

Exporter

3

3


Exporter

4

4

United Kingdom (including Gibraltar)


Exporter

29.9

29.9

skins C T Importer

1250

1250

Exporter

1250

1

1251


Exporter

1

1

T Importer

39 32 39 52 116 15

293

Exporter

5

32 150 74 73 127 40 1 502

- Importer

Exporter

86

86

W T Importer

25

17 21 2

65

Exporter

4

5 28 19 3

59

- Importer

Exporter

112

112


2

2

Exporter

19

19

I - Importer

3

3

Exporter


Exporter

7

7


skins (m)

Importer

Exporter

89.9

89.9

skins

Importer 5253 12749 15291 50121 12963 47987 77151 89834 39910 81094 57745 490098

Exporter 7784 12754 14321 52175 13381 37539 91877 90445 46435 63802 48457 478970

leather products

Importer 35 197 111 97 2026 5552 9353 11508 10064 11731 16091.5 66765.5

Exporter 35 202 217 158 4086 6754 7869 14503 14573 14770 21 63188

Annex II: Key to purpose and source codes

58

Annex II: Key to purpose and source codes

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

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

review of species selected on the basis of the analysis...

Documents