Review of selected species subject to long-standing no opinions · 2017-01-23 · Cactaceae overview 4 Globally, cacti are threatened by collection for trade and loss of habitat (Boyle

UNEP-WCMC technical report

Review of selected species

subject to long-standing

no opinions

Part I: Plants

(Version edited for public release)

Review of selected species subject to long-standing no opinions: Part I Plants

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

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

Published January 2017

Copyright European Commission 2017

Citation UNEP-WCMC. 2017. Review of selected species subject to long-standing no opinions: Part I Plants.

UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

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

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

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

combining scientific research with practical policy advice.

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

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

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

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

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

Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

publication does not imply endorsement by UN Environment.

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

UN Environment promotes

environmentally sound

practices globally and in its

own activities. Printing on

paper from environmentally

sustainable forests and

recycled fibre is encouraged.

.

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

i

Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Cactaceae from Peru – Overview of status, management and trade ............................................................... 3

Corryocactus brevistylus II/B .............................................................................................................................. 7

Echinopsis pachanoi II/B ..................................................................................................................................... 10

Echinopsis peruviana II/B ................................................................................................................................... 14

Pachypodium horombense II/B ........................................................................................................................... 18

Swietenia macrophylla II/B ................................................................................................................................. 21

Aquilaria malaccensis II/B ................................................................................................................................. 29

Introduction

2

Introduction This document provides reviews of six species/country combinations of plant species currently subject to long-standing no opinions. The document is provided to inform discussions by the Scientific Review Group (SRG) as to whether these opinions may still be warranted.

The EU Wildlife Trade Regulations (Council Regulation EC No. 338/97) refer to the concept of

‘opinions’ of the Scientific Review Group (SRG) (e.g. in Articles 4.1a, 4.2a and 17.2b); however such

opinions are not defined by the Regulation. Historically, ‘no opinions’ were formed in a variety of

circumstances, including in the absence of trade, or when there was a lack of specific information on

which to form a confident positive or negative opinion for a particular taxon/country combination. In

order to standardise the use of No opinions, three different types of No opinion were defined by the

SRG in June 2011. From then onwards, the type of No opinion and its definition were included in the

SRG Summary of Conclusions and reflected in the UNEP-WCMC Database (www.speciesplus.net).

No opinion i) - no significant trade anticipated. The species is not currently (or is only

rarely) in trade, and no significant trade in relation to the conservation status of the species is

anticipated

No opinion ii) – decision deferred. There are insufficient data on the species.

No opinion iii) – referral to the SRG. The species is not currently (or is only rarely) in trade,

but significant trade in relation to the conservation status of the species could be anticipated.

http://www.speciesplus.net/

Cactaceae overview

3

Cactaceae from Peru – Overview of status, management and trade

A no opinion iii) for all Cactaceae species from Peru was formed on 30/11/2009.

Trade patterns

The family Cactaceae were listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife

Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997. Peru has submitted annual reports for years 2007-2015, but has not yet

submitted an annual report for 2006.

Direct exports of Cactaceae to the EU-28 primarily comprised moderate levels of artificially propagated

live plants and stems and wild-sourced stems exported for commercial purposes (Table 1). According to

trade data reported by the EU-28, no artificially propagated live plants were imported 2010-2014, and

reported imports in 2015 were much lower than in the years 2006-2009 (20 live plants in 2015 compared

to 1682 in 2009). No direct trade in wild-sourced stems to the EU-28 have been reported by importers

since 2012 or by Peru since 2013. Direct trade from Peru to countries other than the EU-28 was mainly

wild-sourced stems and artificially propagated live plants. There was no indirect trade in Cactaceae

originating in Peru to the EU-28 over the period 2006-2015.

Direct exports of Cactaceae from Peru to the EU-28 and the rest of the world comprised products from

107 species within 32 genera. Products were also reported in trade at the genera (10) and family level.

The majority of these taxa had low levels of trade over the period 2006-2015; only eight taxa had more

than 1000 units of any term exported over the 10 year period. Of these, four had trade of over 1000 units

of wild-sourced products: Corryocactus brevistylus, Echinopsis spp. E. pachanoi, and E. peruviana

(endemic to Peru). There are no provisions in Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP17) for trade in cacti

species to be accepted at the genus level and no trade at the genus level has been reported by EU

importers since 2007. Therefore, Corryocactus brevistylus, E. pachanoi and E. peruviana are reviewed in

the following sections.

Trade in cacti reported at the family level (Cactaceae spp.) for commercial purposes comprised five

artificially propagated live plants imported by the EU-28 in 2007 and moderate levels of live plants and

stems imported by countries other than the EU-28, mainly the United States. This trade is not discussed

further.

Conservation status

Peru is part of the second most diverse region for cacti globally (Oldfield, 1997), and, for its size, a large

number of cacti species occur in the country. There are currently 146 cacti species recorded in Peru

(Hunt, 2016), the majority of which are endemic. Many of Peru’s cacti species are found in the Andean

region (Oldfield, 1997).

Peru has been noted as a priority country for Cactaceae conservation (Ortega-Baes and Godínez-

Alvarez, 2006). Fifteen endemic taxa have been found in National Parks (Arakaki et al., 2006).

Of the Peruvian cacti species that have been assessed for the IUCN Red List (139 species), the majority

(59%) have been categorised as Least Concern. Approximately a fifth have been categorised as globally

threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered) and 19 species are Data Deficient (IUCN,

2016). The majority of species occurring in Peru (62%) are considered to have a globally stable

population (IUCN, 2016). Of the 93 endemic cacti, 31% are considered threatened (IUCN, 2016).

Cactaceae overview

4

Globally, cacti are threatened by collection for trade and loss of habitat (Boyle and Anderson, 2002).

Cacti in Peru face the same threats; collection for use as ornamental plants or as cacti products

(Goettsch et al., 2015) and by loss of habitat through land conversion (Ostolaza, 2014; IUCN, 2016). Peru

has been noted to have a high proportion of threatened cacti species (Goettsch et al., 2015). Thirty-four

species are categorised as threatened on Peru’s National Red List (Salazar, 20111).

Cacti are utilised in Peru, inter alia, for ornamental plants, food, medicine, and to make “rain sticks”

(dried stems of columnar cacti sealed and filled with sand, pebbles, or similar) (Ostolaza, 2014).

Stricter domestic measures on exports of fauna and flora have been applied by Peru since 28/08/1989.

According to Notification 2006/013 issued on 14/02/2006, the export of all specimens of wild cacti was

prohibited, with the exception of cut flowers, specimens for scientific purposes and artificially

propagated specimens. This notification was replaced by Notification No. 2009/046 in November 2009

and Notification No. 2009/053 in December 2009, reiterating these stricter domestic measures.

Notification 2009/053 was valid until at least 21/04/2015 as indicated by its inclusion in the list of valid

notifications contained in Notification 2015/022, but is no longer valid (it was not included in the list of

valid notifications contained in Notification 2016/001, issued on 18/01/2016). According articles 279 and

280 of supreme decree 014-2001-AG, the export of cacti species from Peru that are assessed as

threatened is permitted only for artificially propagated specimens from registered facilities with an

annual propagation plan (MINAM, 2010).

No further information could be found on the management of cacti in Peru.

1 http://www.minam.gob.pe/diversidadbiologica/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/02/Especies-de-Flora-Silvestre-Peruana-en-los-Ap%C3%A9ndices-de-la-CITES1.pdf

http://www.minam.gob.pe/diversidadbiologica/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/02/Especies-de-Flora-Silvestre-Peruana-en-los-Ap%C3%A9ndices-de-la-CITES1.pdf

http://www.minam.gob.pe/diversidadbiologica/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/02/Especies-de-Flora-Silvestre-Peruana-en-los-Ap%C3%A9ndices-de-la-CITES1.pdf

Cactaceae overview

5

Table 1: Direct exports of all Cactaceae spp. from Peru (reported at species, genus and family level) to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW) for commercial purposes, 2006-2015. Small quantities of trade for other purposes (B, G, P, S and unspecified) are not shown.

Importer Terms Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

EU bark (kg) W Importer

Exporter 20 10 30

dried plants W Importer 150 150

Exporter

dried plants (kg) W Importer

Exporter 1 1

live A Importer 370 2192 2464 1682 20 6728

Exporter 1463 2060 4441 1707 374 358 240 254 355 11252

- Importer

Exporter 40 40

W Importer

Exporter 30 30

powder (kg) W Importer 4 4

Exporter 57 26 36 74 32 14 19 258

A Importer

Exporter 1 1

powder W Importer

Exporter 9 9

A Importer

Exporter 2 2

stems W Importer 500 1010 430 60 2000

Exporter 1100 960 150 2210

A Importer

Exporter 1485 1485

stems (kg) W Importer

Exporter 5 5 3 2 15

timber W Importer 184 184

Exporter

RoW bark (kg) W Importer

Exporter 50 50

carvings W Importer 2418 1700 4118

Exporter

derivatives W Importer 570 570

Cactaceae overview

6

Importer Terms Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Exporter

RoW (cont.) dried plants W Importer 196 196

Exporter

dried plants (kg) W Importer

Exporter 28 28

live A Importer 491 615 1620 145 122 1604 222 2122 6941

Exporter 1523 2829 807 1040 169 1571 292 2464 2953 13648

W Importer 500 500

Exporter 195 2100 2295

I Importer 1006 1006

Exporter

powder A Importer

Exporter 8 8

W Importer

Exporter 6 6

powder (kg) W Importer

Exporter 80 164 201 76 43 14 1 579

A Importer

Exporter 5 5

stems W Importer 4848 800 1750 880 8278

Exporter 7294 4160 2075 5377 1390 710 2075 23081

A Importer

Exporter 1623 1623

stems (kg) W Importer

Exporter 125 74 27 4 5 235

A Importer

Exporter 3 3

timber (kg) W Importer 25 25

Exporter

Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 19th December 2016

Corryocactus brevistylus

7

CARYOPHYLLALES: CACTACEAE

Corryocactus brevistylus II/B

Trade patterns

Direct trade in Corryocactus brevistylus from Peru to the EU-28 was mainly comprised of wild-sourced

stems. Peru also reported the export of artificially propagated stems in 2010, but this trade was not

reported by importers (Table 2). In addition, small numbers of wild-sourced dried plants were reported

by importers in 2012; this was the same quantity as Peru reported stem exports in that year. All direct

trade was for commercial purposes.

Direct exports of C. brevistylus from Peru to countries other than the EU-28 mainly comprised of wild-

sourced stems for commercial purposes.

There was no reported indirect trade of wild-sourced C. brevistylus from Peru to the EU-28 over this

period.

SYNONYMS: Corryocactus brevispinus, C. krausii, C. pachycladus, C. puquiensis

RANGE STATES: Chile, Peru

UNDER REVIEW: Peru

EU DECISIONS: Current no opinion iii) for Cactaceae wild imports from Peru formed on 30/11/2009.

IUCN: Least Concern


8

Table 2: Direct exports of Corryocactus brevistylus from Peru to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2006-2015. All trade was for commercial purposes.

Importer Term (unit) Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 Total

EU dried plants W Importer 150 150

Exporter

stems A Importer

Exporter 1480 1480

W Importer 900 430 60 1390

Exporter 1100 60 150 1310

RoW carvings W Importer 1568 1300 2868

Exporter

live W Importer 460 460

Exporter 2100 2100

A Importer

Exporter 2 2

stems W Importer 2148 300 1350 3798

Exporter 4508 2050 735 1310 710 2075 11388

A Importer

Exporter 1540 1540

Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 19th December 2016.


9

Conservation status

Corryocactus brevistylus is a wide ranging cactus species found in the Arequipa [south-western Peru]

and Ayacucho [south-central Andes] regions of Peru (Cáceres et al., 2013). The species is found in semi-

arid habitats (de Mera and Carrión, 2001) between 2500 and 3000m (Arakaki et al., 2006).

C. brevistylus was categorised as globally Least Concern by the IUCN on the basis of a wide-ranging and

stable population (Cáceres et al., 2013). However, the species was reportedly not abundant and the

subpopulations were noted to be small (consisting of only a few specimens) and isolated (Cáceres et al.,

2013). Whilst the CITES Standard Reference (Hunt, 2016) does not include any subspecies for

C. brevistylus, in a checklist of CITES-listed Peruvian flora (Salazar, 2011), C. b. puquiensis was

categorised as ‘vulnerable’, meaning that there is “a risk of extinction in the medium term”, whilst

C. b. brevistylus was not considered threatened. In Peru’s national assessment of cacti, Ostolaza (2014)

considers both subspecies to be ‘vulnerable’.

International trade was not reported to be a threat to the species although the fruit and stems are

collected locally to make alcoholic drinks and shampoo respectively (Cáceres et al., 2013). It was also

reported that the stems are used to make rain sticks and the fruit is consumed locally in Arequipa and

Ayacucho, with commercial production of fruit into juices and jams (Ostolaza, 2014). The species was

reported to be threatened by a parasitic mistletoe species (Cáceres et al., 2013).

The species is found within several protected areas in Peru: in the Reserva Paisajística Potahuasi and

Parque Ecológico Regional de Alto Selva Alegre [south-western Peru] (Cáceres et al., 2013) and in the

Reserva Nacional Pampa Galeras - Barbara D’Achille [located in Ayacucho] (Arakaki et al., 2006). No

additional measures on management of the species in Peru were found.

Echinopsis pachanoi

10


Echinopsis pachanoi II/B

Trade patterns

Direct exports of Echinopsis pachanoi from Peru to the EU-28 consisted mainly of artificially propagated live plants for commercial purposes (Table 3). This trade was reported by Peru 2007-2013, but has not been reported by the EU since 2009. In addition, notable levels of wild-sourced powder by weight were reported by Peru in 2007 and 2010-2015.

Direct exports of E. pachanoi to countries other than the EU-28 mainly comprised wild sourced stems and powder for commercial purposes (Table 3).

No indirect trade of wild-sourced Echinopsis pachanoi originating in Peru to the EU-28 was reported 2006-2015.

SYNONYM: Trichocereus pachanoi

COMMON NAMES: San Pedro Cactus (EN)

RANGE STATES: Ecuador, Peru

UNDER REVIEW: Peru


IUCN: Least Concern

Echinopsis pachanoi

11

Table 3: Direct exports of Echinopsis pachanoi from Peru to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2006-2015. Quantities rounded to whole numbers, where appropriate.

Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

EU28 bark (kg) T W Importer

Exporter 20 10 30

dried plants (kg) T W Importer

Exporter 1 1

live T A Importer 320 75 788 305 1488

Exporter 75 400 305 150 150 200 50 1330

- A Importer 30 30

Exporter

powder (kg) T W Importer 4 4

Exporter 57 26 36 74 32 14 19 258

A Importer

Exporter 1 1

powder T W Importer

Exporter 9 9

A Importer

Exporter 2 2

stems (kg) T W Importer

Exporter 5 5 3 2 15

stems T A Importer

Exporter 5 5

RoW bark (kg) T W Importer

Exporter 50 50

derivatives T W Importer 200 200

Exporter

dried plants (kg) T W Importer

Exporter 28 28

live T A Importer

Exporter 116 261 5 382

powder (kg) T W Importer

Exporter 80 164 201 76 43 14 1 579

A Importer

Exporter 5 5

powder T A Importer

Exporter 8 8

W Importer

Exporter 6 6

stems (kg) T W Importer

Exporter 125 74 27 4 5 235

A Importer

Exporter 3 3

Echinopsis pachanoi

12


RoW (cont.) stems T W Importer 500 400 900

Exporter 1250 3406 4656

A Importer

Exporter 83 83

timber (kg) T W Importer 25 25

Exporter

Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 19th December 2016.

Echinopsis pachanoi

13

Conservation status

Echinopsis pachanoi is found in the Huancambra [north-western Peru] and Áncash [central Andes]

regions of Peru (Ostalaza et al., 2013a). It [Trichocereus pachanoi] was reported from the Marañón River,

Huánuco and in Mayocc, La Mejorada, Huancavelica and Ayacucho (Ostolaza, 2014) and was reported

to have been introduced in Arequipa (Ostalaza et al., 2013a). The species is found in dry shrublands

between 2500 and 3000m and is a fast-growing species (Ostalaza et al., 2013a) that may reach 6m in

height (Ostolaza, 2014).

E. pachanoi was categorised as globally Least Concern by the IUCN on the basis that the species is

widespread and abundant where it occurs, with a stable population (Ostalaza et al., 2013a). E. pachanoi

[Trichocereus pachanoi] was not considered to be threatened in a checklist of CITES-listed Peruvian

flora (Salazar, 2011) or Peru’s national assessment of cacti (Ostolaza, 2014).

International trade was not reported to be a major threat to the species (Ostalaza et al., 2013a). The

species was reported to be sold as an ornamental plant and for ritualistic use as a hallucinogen

(Bussmann and Sharon, 2006; Ostalaza et al., 2013a ; Ostolaza, 2014), and despite some specimens being

extracted from the wild for these purposes, cultivation of the species for these uses means this impact is

not considered a threat to the species (Ostalaza et al., 2013a).

According to the CITES Scientific Authority of Peru (2013), Echinopsis spp. was mainly harvested

around Matucana (during 2009-2010) and Huancayo (during 2010-2011), reportedly with harvesting

licences and approved management plans in all cases. Most E. pachanoi live plants were reported to be

exported from a single nursery (Vivero de plantas exóticas y ornamentales, Cineguilla) (Autoridad

Científica CITES Perú, 2013). Exports of powder were mainly by two exporting companies, one of which

was reported to have an approved management plan. Export of Echinopsis spp. from the wild is

restricted in Peru, with the exception of exports under resolution N°0033-2010-AG-DGFFS-ATFFS-

LIMA, which permits export of 31 200 Echinopsis pachanoi (Autoridad Científica CITES Perú, 2013).

E. pachanoi was not noted to occur in any protected areas in Peru (Ostalaza et al., 2013a).

Echinopsis peruviana

14


Echinopsis peruviana II/B

Trade patterns

Direct exports of Echinopsis peruviana from Peru to the EU-28 predominantly comprised artificially propagated plants for commercial purposes, the majority of which were reported in 2008 by the EU only (Table 4). The EU also reported imports of low levels of wild-sourced timber in 2011.

Direct exports of E. peruviana from Peru to countries other than the EU-28 mainly involved wild-sourced stems reported in 2006 by importers and 2007-2010 by Peru (Table 4). Additionally, importers reported 850 wild sourced carvings in 2007; this trade was not reported by Peru.

There was no reported indirect trade of wild-sourced E. peruviana from Peru to the EU-28 over this period.

SYNONYMS: Trichocereus peruvianus

COMMON NAMES: San Pedro Macho (EN)

RANGE STATES: Peru

UNDER REVIEW: Peru


IUCN: Least Concern


15

Table 4: Direct exports of Echinopsis peruviana from Peru to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2006-2015. All trade was for commercial purposes. No trade was reported in 2015.

Importer Term Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

EU28 live A Importer 440 20 460

Exporter 20 50 50 3 50 173

- Importer

Exporter 40 40

timber W Importer 184 184

Exporter

RoW carvings W Importer 850 850

Exporter

derivatives W Importer 370 370

Exporter

dried plants W Importer 196 196

Exporter

live A Importer

Exporter 123 94 217

stems W Importer 950 950

Exporter 500 2110 370 1561 4541



16

Conservation status

Echinopsis peruviana is endemic to Peru. It has been found in the inter-Andean valleys including the

River Fortaleza, River Cañete and River Chillón valleys in the Lima Region between 3000 and 3500m

(Ostalaza et al., 2013b) (Ostolaza, 2014).

E. peruviana was categorised globally as Least Concern by the IUCN on the basis of a wide range and a

stable, but not abundant, population (Ostalaza et al., 2013b). Whilst the CITES Standard Reference

(Hunt, 2016) does not include any subspecies for E. peruviana, in a checklist of CITES-listed Peruvian

flora (Salazar, 2011), the subspecies of E. peruviana puquiensis was categorised as ‘vulnerable’, whilst

E. peruviana peruviana was not considered threatened. In Peru’s national assessment of cacti, Ostolaza

(2014) recommended that E. peruviana peruviana [Trichocereus peruvianus peruviana] be considered as

‘endangered’.

The species was recorded as being threatened by collection for ritualistic use as a hallucinogen

(Ostalaza et al., 2013b) and traded as rain sticks (Sajeva et al., 2012).

According to the CITES Scientific Authority of Peru (2013), Echinopsis spp. was mainly harvested around

Matucana (during 2009-2010) and Huancayo (during 2010-2011), reportedly with harvesting licences and

approved management plans in all cases. E. peruviana was mainly harvested from the wild near the

Carretera Central road, especially around the locality of Matucana (Province of Huarochirí, Lima),

where the species was found to be abundant and with a healthy size distribution. Some of the cut

branches were found to show new growth and the species was used as hedging by some paths

(Autoridad Científica CITES Perú, 2013).

E. peruviana was noted to not occur in any protected areas in Peru (Ostalaza et al., 2013b).

References

Arakaki, M., Ostolaza, C., Caceres, F. and Roque, J. 2006. Cactaceae endémicas del Perú. Revista Peruana de Biologia, 13(2): 193–219.

Autoridad Científica CITES Perú 2013. ‘El San Pedro’ o ‘Achuma’: El género Echinopsis, Taxonomía, distribución y comercio. Ministerio del Ambiente, Lima, Peru. 33 pp.

Boyle, T. and Anderson, E. 2002. Biodiversity and Conservation. In: Cacti: Biology and Uses. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California. 125–142.

Bussmann, R.W. and Sharon, D. 2006. Traditional medicinal plant use in Northern Peru: tracking two thousand years of healing culture. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2: 47.

Cáceres, F., Roque, J., Ostalaza, C. and Walter, H.E. 2013. Corryocactus brevistylus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-1.RLTS.T152049A591311.en. [Accessed: 21/12/2016].

Goettsch, B., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Cruz-Pinon, G. 2015. High proportion of cactus species threatened with extinction. Nature Plants, 1(2015): 15142.

Hunt, D. 2016. CITES Cactaceae Checklist. 3rd Ed. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London, UK. 174 pp. IUCN 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at:

http://www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed: 9/12/2016]. de Mera, A.G. and Carrión, J.G. 2001. Las comunidades con cactaceas del sur del pero: nuevos datos

sobre la alianza Corryocaction brevistyli. Acta botánica malacitana, 26: 240–246. MINAM 2010. Compendio de la Legislación Ambiental Peruana, Vol. IV: Aprovechamiento sostenible de

les recursos naturales renovables. Ministerio del Ambiente, Peru, Lima, Peru. 244 pp. Oldfield, S. 1997. Cactus and succulent plants: Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC

Cactus and Succulent Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 226 pp. Ortega-Baes, P. and Godínez-Alvarez, H. 2006. Global diversity and conservation priorities in the

cactaceae. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15(3): 817–827. Ostalaza, C., Cáceres, F. and Roque, J. 2013a. Echinopsis pachanoi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-1.RLTS.T152445A637592.en. [Accessed: 21/12/2016].


17

Ostalaza, C., Cáceres, F. and Roque, J. 2013b. Echinopsis peruviana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-1.RLTS.T152559A650955.en. [Accessed: 21/12/2016].

Ostolaza, C. 2014. Todos los cactus del Perú. Ministerio del Ambiente, Lima, Peru. 538 pp. Sajeva, M., McGough, H.N., Garrett, L., Luthy, J., Tse-Laurence, M., Rutherford, C. and Sajeva, G. 2012.

CITES and cacti: a user’s guide. Kew Publishing, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, London, UK. 84 pp. Salazar, B.M. 2011. Listado de Especies CITES Peruanas Flora Silvestre. Ministerio del Ambiente, Lima,

Peru. 130 pp.

Pachypodium horombense

18

GENTIANALES: APOCYNACEAE

Pachypodium horombense II/B

Trade patterns

Pachypodium horombense was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975 and in Annex B of the EU

Wildlife Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997 as part of the genus listing for Pachypodium.

Madagascar has submitted annual reports for all years 2006-2015. Madagascar has never published an

export quota for the species.

Direct trade in P. horombense from Madagascar to the EU-28 2006-2015 comprised live plants, the vast

majority of which was wild-sourced for commercial purposes (Table 1). Direct trade to the EU-28 in 2015

was the highest level reported by importers in the ten-year period, representing a four-fold increase

compared to 2013, from 100 to 400 live plants.

The majority of direct trade in P. horombense to countries other than the EU-28 also comprised live

wild-sourced plants for commercial purposes; however, levels of trade were lower than those reported

to the EU-28.

There has never been any reported indirect trade in P. horombense to the EU-28 originating in

Madagascar.

SYNONYM: Pachypodium rosulatum var. horombense

RANGE STATES: Madagascar

UNDER REVIEW: Madagascar

EU DECISIONS: Current no opinion for wild specimens formed on 12/06/2006, replacing a negative opinion formed on 29/03/2006.

IUCN: Not assessed


19

Table 1: Direct exports of Pachypodium horombense from Madagascar to EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2006-2015.

Importer Term Purpose Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

EU live P A Importer

Exporter 3 2 5

W Importer

Exporter 2 2

S W Importer

Exporter 2 2

T A Importer

Exporter 1 1

W Importer 215 125 150 100 1 400 991

Exporter 490 225 200 100 1 400 1416

RoW live T A Importer 50 50

Exporter 50 50 50 150

W Importer 60 133 11 30 30 30 10 304

Exporter 163 158 20 30 30 30 1 34 88 554

- W Importer 3 3

Exporter

seeds T W Importer

Exporter 100 100

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


20

Conservation status

Pachypodium horombense is a succulent shrub endemic to southern Madagascar (Rapanarivo et al.,

1999; Newton and Rowley, 2001; Burge et al., 2013). It was reported to grow primarily on granite rock in

scrubland and savannah, reaching up to 60 cm high with a cactus-like trunk; the species flowers mainly

from July to September, fruiting from September to November (Rapanarivo et al., 1999).

The species was first collected from the Horombe plateau near Fianarantsoa [south-central

Madagascar], and further collections have been reported from areas to the south, between Ankaramena

[south-central] to Antanimora [south] (Rapanarivo et al., 1999; Burge, 2013).

The species was described as ‘quite common’ on the Horombe plateau and in the mountains of the

south of the country in 1934, found at altitudes of 500-1000 m above sea level (De La Bathie, 1934).

P. horombense does not have a current IUCN Red List assessment, but was categorised as ‘rare’ using

the pre-1994 IUCN classification system (Jenkins, 1987) and as ‘Near Threatened’ [as P. rosulatum var.

horombense] in 1997 (Oldfield, 1997). No further information about its status in the wild could be

found.

Madagascan Pachypodium species are popular in the international horticultural trade, and

P. horombense was noted to be one of the species present in trade in 1997 (Oldfield, 1997). In addition,

burning has been noted as a serious threat to grassland Pachypodium species in Madagascar (Oldfield,

1997). Dortort (2011) reported that “the rare Madagascan pachypodiums in general are caught between

overcollection and unremitting habitat destruction.”

Pachypodium species were reported to generally grow well from seed and not be particularly difficult to

cultivate (Dortort, 2011). P. horombense was reported to be difficult to distinguish from P. rosulatum

(De La Bathie, 1934) and P. densiflorum (Rapanarivo et al., 1999) when not in flower.

P. horombense is not explicitly named in the 2006 list of protected species in Madagascar, but the

document notes that all Pachypodium are included in the CITES Appendices (Ministère de

l’Environnement des Eaux et Forets, 2006).

References

Burge, D. 2013. Diversification of Pachypodium. Cactus and Succulent Journal, 85: 250–258. Burge, D.O., Mugford, K., Hastings, A.P. and Agrawal, A.A. 2013. Phylogeny of the plant genus

Pachypodium (Apocynaceae). PeerJ, 1(2): e70-359. Dortort, F. 2011. The Timber Press guide to succulent plants of the world: a comprehensive reference to

more than 2000 species. The Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. 344 pp. Jenkins, M.D. 1987. Madagascar: an environmental profile. IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre,

Cambridge. De La Bathie, H.P. 1934. Les Pachypodium de Madagascar. Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France,

81(2): 297–318. Ministère de l’Environnement des Eaux et Forets 2006. Manuel de procédures pour la gestion de la faune

et de la flore sauvages de Madagascar. 111 pp. Newton, L.E. and Rowley, G.D. 2001. CITES Aloe and Pachypodium checklist. Eggli, U. (Ed.). Städtische

Sukkulenten-Sammlung, The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Zurich, Switzerland. Oldfield, S. 1997. Status survey and conservation action plan: Cactus and succulent plants. IUCN/SSC

Cactus and Succulent Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 226 pp. Rapanarivo, S., Lavranos, J.J., Leeuwenberg, A. and Röösli, W. 1999. Pachypodium (Apocynaceae):

Taxonomy, Habitats and Cultivation. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Swietenia macrophylla

21

SAPINDALES: MELIACEAE

Swietenia macrophylla II/B

Trade patterns

Swietenia macrophylla was first listed in CITES Appendix III on 16/11/1995 by Costa Rica for all populations in the Americas. The population of Peru was listed in CITES Appendix III on 12/06/2001 and in Annex C of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 05/08/2001. All Neotropical populations were included in CITES Appendix II and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations on 15/11/2003.

Peru submitted annual reports for years 2007-2015, but has not yet submitted an annual report for 2006. Peru published export quotas for sawn wood for all years 2005-2011 and in 2014 (Table 1), but did not publish a quota in 2015. Quotas for S. macrophylla may have been exceeded according to importer reported trade data in 2008 and 2011; however a permit analysis indicates that some of the permits reported by importers in these years were noted by Peru to involve trade covered by the previous year’s quota. As such trade appears to have been within quota for all years.

COMMON NAMES: Big-leaf Mahogany (EN), Acajou d' Amérique (FR), Caoba (ES)

RANGE STATES: Belize, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana [FR], Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Martinique (introduced, distribution uncertain), Mexico, Montserrat (United Kingdom)(introduced, distribution uncertain), Panama, Peru, Saint Lucia (int.), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (introduced, distribution uncertain), Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

UNDER REVIEW: Peru

EU DECISIONS: Current no opinion ii) for wild specimens from Peru formed on 03/12/2010. Previous no opinion iii) for wild specimens from Peru formed on 26/09/2006, which replaced a positive opinion formed on 13/12/2004.

Current no opinion iii) for wild specimens from Brazil formed on 08/12/2014, for Nicaragua formed on 11/03/2011, and for Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Montserrat, Panama, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela formed on 25/10/2005.

Current positive opinions for wild specimens from Belize formed on 02/07/2015, for Guatemala last confirmed on 30/06/2009, and for Mexico formed on 12/03/2009.

Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Bolivia formed on 03/08/2010, and Brazil for any applications accompanied by CITES export permits issued under a court order, formed on 27/03/2015.

IUCN: Vulnerable (needs updating)


22

Direct trade in S. macrophylla from Peru to the EU-28 comprised low levels of wild-sourced timber for commercial purposes 2006-2011; no direct trade from Peru to the EU-28 has been reported since 2011 (Table 2). Direct trade from Peru to countries other than the EU-28 was predominately wild-sourced timber for commercial purposes. Exports to countries other than the EU-28 has declined over the ten year period.

Indirect trade originating in Peru to the EU-28 comprised low levels of wild-sourced timber for commercial purposes re-exported via the United States in 2006 (103 m3 reported by exporters) and 2007 (69 m3 reported by exporters and 103 m3 reported by importers).


23

Table 1: CITES export quotas of sawn wood for Swietenia macrophylla from Peru 2006-2015 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Peru 2006-2015. Trade data includes sawn wood and timber reported by volume.

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Quota (m3) 23239.57 4983 3475.548 5043.7345* 3565.547† 775.659 801.143+

Importers 17988 4709.379 3760.01 1832.66 1564.028 906.359 100 224 72 71.64

Peru 4262.933 3373.073 1873.86 1650.762 656.525 207.59 223.92 420.278 *Quota valid until May 2010 †Quota valid from 23 July 2010 until 22 July 2011 + According to MINAM (2016). Note that the CITES quota for this year was published as 801 143.


Table 2: Direct exports of Swietenia macrophylla from Peru to EU-28 and to the rest of the world (RoW), 2006-2015. Rounded to whole

numbers. All trade was for commercial purposes.

Importer Term (unit) Source Reported by 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

EU timber (m3) W Importer 269 31 28 19 30 377

Exporter 31 28 22 30 111

RoW timber (m2) W Importer 37 37

Exporter

timber (m3) W Importer 17719 4679 3732 1742 1545 876 100 224 72 72 30761

Exporter 4232 3345 1851 1651 627 208 224 420 212 12769

- Importer 91 91

Exporter

timber I Importer 2 2

Exporter

plywood (m3) W Importer

Exporter 11 11

veneer (m3) W Importer 6 6

Exporter



24

Conservation status

Swietenia macrophylla is a large timber tree with a widespread natural distribution across Central and

South America and the Caribbean (Saunders and Reeve, 2014). Its largest distribution is across Brazil,

Bolivia and Peru (Schneider, 2012), although little is known about its natural distribution on a local

scale (Grogan et al., 2008). It is also grown in plantations across South and Southeast Asia (Mayhew and

Newton, 1998).

The species grows in a wide variety of tropical forest types and soil types (Mayhew and Newton, 1998),

including at low densities in primary forests (Grogan and Schulze, 2008), but optimum conditions are

reportedly in tropical dry forests (Lamb, 1966). Mature trees are noted to grow up to 45m in height and

2.5m in diameter (Grogan and Schulze, 2008). Tree size has been reported to be associated with

fecundity, with evidence suggesting that trees over 75 cm diameter at breast height (dbh) produce

significantly more fruit than smaller trees (Snook et al., 2005). Whilst S. macrophylla provide direct

habitat for a range of protected Amazonian species (Mejía et al., 2008; Schneider, 2012), the species’ low

density (Grogan et al., 2010) means the impact of harvesting on other species is likely to be small.

S. macrophylla was categorised as globally Vulnerable by the IUCN in 1998, but this is noted to be in

need of updating (WCMC, 1998). It is considered the most commercially logged of the mahogany

species, with the estimated species’ range size of 220 million ha in 2000 considered 21% lower than its

historic range (Martinez et al., 2008). Estimates by Grogan et al. (2010), however, put the commercial

range of the species at 94 million ha, or 34% of its historic range.

Forest conversion and illegal logging were considered to be this species’ most pressing threats (WCMC,

1998; Schneider, 2012), with remaining commercial populations reported to only exist at very low

density, and predominantly in remote parts of its range (Grogan et al., 2010). Populations in Brazil, for

example, were predicted to become over-harvested in 60-90 years (two to three cutting cycles) at 1995-

2010 exploitation levels (Grogan et al., 2014). Illegal trade in S. macrophylla timber and timber products

is thought to be contributing to this threat, with some estimates putting illegal harvest at up to 200% of

legal harvest levels (Calvo, 2000).

The threat from over-harvesting is thought to be exacerbated by the species’ low regeneration capacity

in natural forests, high predation of seeds, inability to regrow and production of irregular fruits

(MINAM, 2015 in MINAM, 2016). The species is also threatened by the clearance of its habitat for

agriculture and grazing (Blundell, 2004).

Country-level management of S. macrophylla was noted as key to implementing the CITES Appendix II

listing but this was reported to have been weak due to a lack of capacity and clear procedures for

producing non-detriment findings (NDFs) (Blundell, 2007). Consequently, harvest protocols were

considered unsustainable in many places (Grogan et al., 2008). This includes protected areas, with S.

macrophylla distribution in protected areas decreasing from 4.3% in 2000 (Calvo et al., 2000) to 3% in

2004 (Blundell, 2004).

S. macrophylla was subject to the CITES Significant Review process 2009-2014. It was reviewed in 2010

for Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela (PC19 Doc. 12.3).

Peru

Distribution and status

The commercial range of S. macrophylla in Peru was reported to cover approximately 27 million ha in

2010 (Grogan et al., 2010) and to be limited to the Ucayali [central] and Madre de Dios [southern]

regions (MINAM, 2016). Despite having the smallest range decline amongst South American counties,


25

this was thought to be less than 50% of the species’ historic range (Grogan et al., 2010). Around 15% of

mahogany’s historic range in Peru is reportedly found in protected areas (Kometter et al., 2004).

Most of the extant Peruvian populations were predicted to be restricted to remote areas of the country,

predominantly in the eastern Amazonian regions of Loreto, Madre de Dios and Ucayali (Mejía et al.,

2008). Martinez et al. (2008) reported the highest densities of S. macrophylla in Peru to be between 0.1-1

trees/ha within the Alto Purús Reserved Zone and Manu National Park in the departments of Madre de

Dios and Ucayali [eastern Peru].

Madre de Dios and Ucayali were the only regions with commercial populations, with a combined

harvestable population size of 120 000-130 000 trees in 2016 (MINAM, 2016). Previous estimates had

been lower: 82 296 trees of harvestable size (dbh >75 cm) in 2007 (INRENA, 2007 in Mejía et al., 2008),

and 71 000-78 000 trees in 2009 (Gobierno de la República de Perú, 2009).

Threats

S. macrophylla was listed as vulnerable on Peru’s national red list in 2011 (Salazar, 2011). Selective

overharvesting, combined with very low regeneration, was considered a major threat to the species

(Gobierno de la República de Perú, 2009; MINAM, 2016).

Illegal logging was also considered to be a threat to S. macrophylla in Peru (Mejía et al., 2008; Urrunga

et al., 2012). Urrunga et al. (2012) estimated that 35% of S. macrophylla and Cedrela odorata (red cedar)

exports to the US in 2008-2011 included illegal timber. Illegal logging in the Alto Purús Reserved Zone

was considered particularly unsustainable (Groth, 2014).

Management & Legislation

In recent years, Peru´s CITES Scientific Authority (MINAM) has made its NDFs for mahogany publicly

available. In its 2016 NDF, it established that the annual harvest quota should not exceed 73 trees, with

all of these trees to be extracted from specified concessions in the Madre de Dios region (MINAM,

2016). This represents a considerably lower number of trees authorised for harvest than in the preceding

years (decreasing from 850 in 2009 to 109 in 2015). Authorised harvest volumes have also declined over

the past decade, from around 23 000 m3 in 2005 to around 5000 m3 in 2007 and to 425 m3 in 2015. Export

volumes have declined accordingly, from 23 500 m3 in 2005 to zero in 2015 (MINAM, 2016). The decline

in exports was considered to be primarily the result of a reduction of demand for the species, the high

harvest costs and the controls imposed by authorities (MINAM, 2016).

Peru´s CITES SA considered that, overall, management of the species in the country was adequate, and

that the proposed harvest level of 73 trees with dbh>75 cm was non-detrimental (MINAM, 2016). It

noted that biological considerations, particularly low or no natural regeneration and reduced cross-

pollination due to large distances between seed-producing trees, were some of the main concerns. It

proposed that such considerations should be taken into account as part of the management of the

species, including reassigning designated seed-producing trees and not harvesting trees from harvest

blocks with ≤5 useable trees, to promote natural regeneration. The CITES SA also drew attention to

some control aspects, particularly inconsistencies between mahogany volumes reported by concessions

in their Plans of Action (POAs) and those verified through inspections (MINAM, 2016).

Peru’s CITES SA also drew attention to recommendations from previous mahogany NDFs for which no

information was available on implementation progress by the CITES Management Authority, and called

for the MA to share this information (MINAM, 2016). These recommendations included new population

analyses, preliminary inventories of small trees, re-assigning timber-producing trees to reduce distances

between them and increasing control of forestry operations (MINAM, 2016).


26

Harvest of the species is managed via a system of large-scale, long-term concessions with strict rules for

minimum size at harvesting and proportion of trees to be set aside (Mejía et al., 2008). In 2013 the

management of these concessions fell under the new National Forest and Wildlife Policy. Policy

approaches to managing S. macrophylla, including international, domestic and bilateral initiatives, were

reportedly introduced following the large increase in exports from Peru in the early 2000s (Grogan et

al., 2008). This included a ten-year ban on exports from certain regions between 2001 and 2011 (Mejía et

al., 2008). By 2008, 55% of Peru’s exports of S. macrophylla were reported to be from certified forests

with a chain of custody (Mejía et al., 2008).

This was strengthened by the 2009 US-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA), under which Peru

agreed to adopt national legislation fulfilling their obligations to Multilateral Environmental

Agreements, including CITES. Both parties also commited to a series of actions to strengthen the

governance and sustainable management of Peru’s forest resources through Annex 18.3.4 of the

Agreement (see Del Gatto et al., 2009 for discussion). A review of the TPA in 2016 by the US and Peru

saw the agreement of further actions to address challenges of the timber trade, including improving

supply chain traceability (USTR, 2016).

A Mahogany Action Plan (Plan de Acción Estratégico para la implementación del Apéndice II de la

CITES para la Caoba en el Perú (PAEC-PERÚ) 2008-2012) was put in place for 2008-2012 to provide a

framework for implementing the CITES II listing of the species in Peru (Mejía et al., 2008). The main

objective of the plan was to contribute to the sustainable management of natural mahogany

populations and encourage the establishment of plantations (Mejía et al., 2008). This was followed in

2013 by a five-point Action Plan between Peru and the US, with particular emphasis on S. macrophylla

and C. odorata, to further Peru’s obligations under the TPA’s Annex on Forest Sector Governance. The

plan’s five points were to: (1) strengthen physical inspections of these two species in Plans of Action

(POA) prior to approval; (2) strengthen accurate POA development and implementation; (3) ensure

timely criminal and administrative proceedings; (4) improve systems to track and verify the chain of

custody of timber exports of these two species; and (5) strengthen the implementation of Peru’s

National Anti-Corruption Forest and Wildlife Sector Plan (Governments of the United States and Peru,

2013).

A project called UNALM-ITTO PD 251/03 was reportedly being used to develop NDF procedures for S.

macrophylla in 2007, by assessing commercial stocks and sustainable management procedures

(INRENA, 2007 in Mejía et al., 2008). A review of this project in 2009 found stocks to be overharvested

and slow to regenerate (Gobierno de la República de Perú, 2009). UNALM (2010) recommended that

the species should only be taken from areas where the commercial population was greater than 2000

individuals and in forest units with more than five individuals in the cutting area. One of the greatest

problems with establishing an NDF for S. macrophylla in Peru was noted to be a lack of information on

various factors, including regeneration and monitoring information on harvesting (Mejía et al., 2008).

Although the timber of S. macrophylla is noted to be difficult to distinguish from the closely related

S. humilis, the ranges of these species do not overlap in Peru (Valera, 1997). The species’ range does

overlap with that of S. mahogani, although the latter is primarily planted as an ornamental tree and is

rarely used for timber (CoP8 Prop. 93).

References

Blundell, A.G. 2004. A review of the CITES listing of big-leaf mahogany. Oryx, 38(1): 84–90. Blundell, A.G. 2007. Implementing CITES regulations for timber. Ecological Applications, 17(2): 323–30. Calvo, J.C. 2000. Diagnóstico de la caoba (Swietenia macrophylla King) en Mesoamérica: Visión General.

Centro Científico Tropical, Guatemala. Calvo, J.C., Bolaños, R., Watson, V. and Jiménez, H. 2000. Evaluation of mahogany (Swietenia

macrophylla King) in Mesoamerica: general overview. Tropical Science Centre, San Jose, Costa Rica.


27

Del Gatto, F., Halle, B.O., Buendía, B. and Keong, C.H. 2009. Trade liberalisation and forest verification: learning from the US-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. VERIFOR, London, UK.

Gobierno de la República de Perú 2009. Informe Final del Proyecto UNALM-ITTO PD 251/03 Rev. 3(F): Evaluación de las existencias comerciales y estrategia para el manejo sostenible de la caoba (Swietenia macrophylla) en el Perú. Universidad Nacional Agraria la Molina, Lima, Peru.

Governments of the United States and Peru 2013. U.S.-Peru Communiqué on Forest Sector Governance. Available at: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/01/20130115140976.html#axzz4Uu0g1tFe. [Accessed: 5/01/2017].

Grogan, J., Blundell, A.G., Landis, R.M., Youatt, A., Gullison, R.E., Martinez, M., Kómetter, R., Lentini, M. and Rice, R.E. 2010. Over-harvesting driven by consumer demand leads to population decline: big-leaf mahogany in South America. Conservation Letters, 3(1): 12–20.

Grogan, J., Jennings, S.B., Landis, R.M., Schulze, M., Baima, A.M.V., Lopes, J.D.C., Norghauer, J.M., Oliveira, L.R., Pantoja, F., Pinto, D. et al. 2008. What loggers leave behind: impacts on big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) commercial populations and potential for post-logging recovery in the Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 255(2): 269–281.

Grogan, J., Landis, R.M., Free, C.M., Schulze, M.D., Lentini, M. and Ashton, M.S. 2014. Big-leaf mahogany Swietenia macrophylla population dynamics and implications for sustainable management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(3): 664–674.

Grogan, J. and Schulze, M. 2008. Estimating the number of trees and forest area necessary to supply internationally traded volumes of big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) in Amazonia. Environmental Conservation, 35(1): 26–35.

Groth, A. 2014. Social and environmental impacts of big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) logging on Peruvian indigenous communities. MA dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, USA.

INRENA 2007. Plan de Acción Estratégico para la Implementación del Apéndice II de la CITES para la caoba en Perú (PAEC-Peru). Ministerio de Agricultura, Lima, Peru.

Kometter, R.F., Martinez, M., Blundell, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Steininger, M.K. and Rice, R.E. 2004. Impacts of unsustainable mahogany logging in Bolivia and Peru. Ecology and Society, 9(1).

Lamb, F.B. 1966. Mahogany of tropical America: its ecology and management. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Martinez, M., Blundell, A.G., Gullison, R.E. and Grogan, J. 2008. Historic range and current status of big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) in South America. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington DC, USA.

Mayhew, J.E. and Newton, A.C. 1998. The silviculture of mahogany. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. Mejía, E., Buitrón, X., Peña-Claros, M. and Grogan, J. 2008. Big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla)

in Peru, Bolivia and Brazil. Mexico 2008 NDF Workshop Case Studies, Mexico. MINAM 2016. Dictamen de extracción no perjudicial (DENP) de Swietenia macrophylla King (caoba).

Ministerio del Ambiente, Dirección General de Diversidad Biológica, Lima, Peru. MINAM 2015. Recuperación de las poblaciones de caoba y cedro en la región San Martin y Loreto.

Autoridad Cientifica CITES, Lima, Peru. Salazar, B.M. 2011. Listado de Especies CITES Peruanas Flora Silvestre. Lima, Peru. Saunders, J. and Reeve, R. 2014. The EU Timber Regulation and CITES. Chatham House, London, UK. Schneider, J. 2012. Sold into extinction: the global trade in endangered species. Praeger, California, USA. Snook, L.K., Cámara-Cabrales, L. and Kelty, M.J. 2005. Six years of fruit production by mahogany trees

(Swietenia macrophylla King): patterns of variation and implications for sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management, 206: 221–235.

UNALM 2010. Analisis de la situacion de las poblaciones de Swietenia macrophylla King en el Peru (base para el dictamen de extracción no perjudicial de las poblaciones de Swietenia macrophylla King para el cupo de exportación. Universidad Nacional Agraria a la Molina, La Molina, Peru.

Urrunga, J., Johnson, A., Orbegozo, I. and Mulligan, F. 2012. The laundering machine: how fraud and corruption in Peru’s concession system are destroying the future of its forests. Environmental Investigation Agency, Washington DC, USA.

USTR 2016. Joint statement of the meetings of the Peru - United States Environmental Affairs Council, Environmental Cooperation Commission and Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance. Available at: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2016/november/joint-statement-meetings-peru-us. [Accessed: 6/01/2017].

Valera, F.P. 1997. Genetic resources of Swietenia and Cedrela in the Neotropics: proposals for coordinated


28

action. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. WCMC 1998. Swietenia macrophylla. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.1998.RLTS.T32293A9688025.en. [Accessed: 11/11/2016].

Aquilaria malaccensis

29

MYRTALES: THYMELAEACEAE

Aquilaria malaccensis II/B

Trade patterns

Aquilaria malaccensis was listed in CITES Appendix II on 16/02/1995 and Annex B of the EU Wildlife

Trade Regulations on 01/06/1997. Indonesia have submitted annual reports for all years 2006-2015.

For the years 2006-2015 Indonesia have published export quotas for Aquilaria spp. agarwood, noting

that this includes A. beccariana, A. malaccensis, A. microcarpa and A. hirta (reported trade primarily

involved A. malaccensis, with low levels reported as Aquilaria spp.). In 2016, Indonesia published a

quota for Aquilaria spp. and did not specify which species this quota applied to, however a separate

quota for Aquilaria filaria was published in 2016, as had been done 2006-2015.

Export quotas appear to have been exceeded in 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013 as reported by both Indonesia

and importers, in 2010 and 2012 according to data reported by Indonesia and in 2007 according to data

reported by importers only (Table 1). However, it should be noted that additional information provided

by Indonesia in their annual reports indicate that powder is considered a waste product of agarwood oil

processing and is therefore not covered by the export quota. Furthermore, Indonesia also note trade

reported in 2008 included the export of accumulated stock piles from 2007 and that trade reported in

2010 included exports under the quota for 2009 and unused domestic quotas. When this is taken into

account, exports reported by Indonesia appear to be within quota for all years with the exception of

2008 and 2009.

COMMON NAMES: Aloewood (EN), Bois d'aigle de Malacca (FR), Madera de Agar (ES)

SYNONYMS: Agallochum malaccense, Aquilariella malaccense, Aquilari agallochi

RANGE STATES: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand

UNDER REVIEW: Indonesia

EU DECISIONS: Current no opinion iii) for Indonesia formed on 22/02/2000 and last confirmed on 25/06/2004. Previous no opinion ii) formed on 16/11/1999.

Current no opinion iii) for wild specimens from Thailand formed on 27/02/2014.

Current positive opinion for the genus Aquilaria for wild specimens from Malaysia - Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah formed on 02/07/2015.

Current negative opinion for wild specimens from Bangladesh confirmed on 07/12/2012.

IUCN: Vulnerable (needs updating)


30

Table 1: CITES export quotas of agarwood for Aquilaria spp. from Indonesia 2006-2016 and global direct exports, as reported by the countries of import and Indonesia 2006-2015. Includes all trade reported by weight of the following taxa: Aquilaria beccariana, A. malaccensis,

A. microcarpa, A. hirta and trade reported as Aquilaria spp.

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Quota (kg agarwood) 50000 30000 27000 173250 146250 162256 178482 178500 178500 178500 178500

Reported by importers 75213 109699 113928 95685 85406 179902 91922 193013 73385 - -

Reported by Indonesia 79066 23709 119674 124980 243417 169602 238882 202240 154451 96802 -

Direct trade in A. malaccensis from Indonesia to the EU-28 2006-2015 comprised 200 kg wild-sourced

chips in 2008, and 4 kg of wild-sourced chips and 4 kg timber in 2009, with no reported trade since

2009 (Table 2). Direct trade in A. malaccensis from Indonesia to countries other than the EU-28 was

reported in a number of terms but predominately comprised high levels of wild-sourced chips, powder

and timber for commercial purposes.

Indirect trade in A. malaccensis to the EU-28 originating in Indonesia principally consisted of low levels

of wild-sourced chips for commercial purposes, the majority of which were re-exported via the United

Arab Emirates (Table 3). No direct or indirect trade reported as Aquilaria spp. to the EU-28 was

reported 2006-2015.


31

Table 2: Direct exports of Aquilaria malaccensis from Indonesia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2006-2015. Quantities have

been rounded to whole numbers where appropriate.


EU timber (kg) W S Importer 4 4

Exporter

chips (kg) W P Importer

Exporter 4 4

T Importer

Exporter 200 200

RoW timber (kg) Q W Importer 8 8

Exporter

T A Importer 500 500

Exporter 600 1626 125 2351

W Importer 1450 1000 17834 22930 33371 31471 17195 125251

Exporter 2000 1800 4553 73645 69110 30149 24086 7243 212586

carvings (kg) T W Importer 1500 321 1821

Exporter 50 1500 1550

chips (kg) P W Importer

Exporter 8 3 11

S W Importer

Exporter 2 2

T A Importer 750 25495 26245

Exporter 4400 24867 2000 130 31397

O Importer 500 500

Exporter

W Importer 70191 91064 71078 69987 67131 142657 46005 105071 55381 575908

Exporter 59444 21709 52988 84514 148262 158799 108372 147363 127863 87059 996373

chips - W Importer 245 245

Exporter

T W Importer 590 200 213 1810 2813

Exporter

extract T W Importer

Exporter 21 21


32


gall T W Importer 300 300

RoW (cont.) Exporter

live (kg) T W Importer 825 825

Exporter

live T A Importer 10 10

Exporter

oil (kg) T W Importer

Exporter 3 5 8

powder (kg) T A Importer 2900 2900

Exporter 2900 2900

I Importer 3500 3500

Exporter

W Importer 5000 17600 37700 19051 9300 54978 143629

Exporter 19619 64686 35901 21455 9300 61400 24728 2500 2500 242089

powder T W Importer 4000 4000

Exporter



33

Table 3: Indirect exports of Aquilaria malaccensis from Indonesia to EU-28, 2006-2015. Rounded to two decimal places. No trade was reported in 2015.

Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported

by 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

timber (kg) T O Importer 0.91 1.02 0.36 2.29

Exporter 0.75 0.75

W Importer 0.17 0.19 0.36

Exporter

timber P W Importer 1 1

Exporter

chips (kg) T O Importer 0.75 0.75

Exporter 0.59 1.58 1 5.23 0.5 2.19 10 21.09

W Importer 7.35 0.14 0.45 0.08 0.03 240 8 256.05

Exporter 9.41 42.34 0.44 1.64 5.17 0.03 246.94 25.5 53 384.47

derivatives (kg) T O Importer 0.8 4.82 5.62

Exporter 7.18 1.61 0.61 9.4

W Importer 0.01 0.01 0.02

Exporter 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 0.2

extract (kg) T O Importer 0.61 0.61

Exporter

oil (kg) T O Importer 0.25 0.25

Exporter

W Importer

Exporter 0.25 0.25

oil (l) T O Importer

Exporter 0.5 0.5

W Importer 5 0.32 0.19 5.51

Exporter 5 0.82 5.82

powder (kg) T O Importer 10.07 2.74 4.2 17.01

Exporter

powder T O Importer

Exporter 456 456



34

Conservation status

Aquilaria malaccensis occurs in forests at the base of mountainous areas (Oldfield et al., 1998) within

the understorey (Donovan and Puri, 2004). Barden et al. (2000) reported that the species was widely

distributed in south and south-east Asia but that there was debate regarding the countries in which the

species occurs. A. malaccensis was reported to occur in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar,

Philippines and Singapore (Oldfield et al., 1998; Chua, 2008); Oldfield et al. (1998) also reported its

occurrence in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Iran and Thailand. Trees in the genus Aquilaria generally occur up to

1000 m above sea level (Donovan and Puri, 2004).

A. malaccensis produces seeds after 7-9 years (Chua, 2008). Some Aquilaria species are prized for their

resinous heartwood, known as agarwood or gaharu, which develops in response to wounding and/or

fungal infections and is used in traditional medicines and fragrances (Barden et al., 2000).

A. malaccensis was reported to be the principal source of agarwood (Soehartono and Newton, 2000),

which is one of the most valuable non-timber products harvested from tropical forests (Soehartono and

Newton, 2000; 2002).

A. malaccensis was categorised as Vulnerable by the IUCN (Asian Regional Workshop, 1998), however

this listing requires updating. In 2003, it was noted that there were no population estimates of

A. malaccensis known for any range state (PC14 Doc 9.2.2 A2).

Wild populations were considered threatened by unregulated and illegal harvest and trade (PC14 Doc

9.2.2). Barden et al. (2000) noted that as external signs of agarwood are not always present, trees are

often cut down indiscriminately and that the high value of agarwood had led to illegal harvest and trade

in several range countries. It was reported that whilst formerly only infected agarwood-producing trees

were harvested, when these were difficult to find, healthy trees with a lower quality of agarwood were

also being felled (CoP13 Prop. 49).

Indonesia: A. malaccensis was noted to be restricted to the islands of Sumatra and Borneo (East and

West Kalimantan) (Soehartono, 1999; Soehartono and Newton, 2000). Soehartono and Mardiastuti

(1997 in: Barden et al., 2000) considered the species to be virtually extinct in West Kalimantan and

populations were noted to be depleted in areas of Sumatra including North Bengkulu, Siberut

(Mentawai islands) (Roemantyo, 1992 in: PC14 Doc 9.2.2 A2) and East Kalimantan (Sumadiwangsa, 1997

in: PC14 Doc 9.2.2 A2).

Based on field surveys in Dea Sebadu-Buluh Kecamatan Mandor, West Kalimantan and Mentoko

Research station, Kutai National Park, East Kalimantan, the density of mature trees of A. malaccensis

and A. microcarpa (with a diameter at breast height of >10cm) was estimated to be 0.5 per ha

(Soehartono and Newton, 2000). Densities of approximately 2 mature A. malaccensis trees per hectare

have been recorded in Sumatra (Misran, 1987; Roemantyo, 1992 in: Soehartono and Newton, 2000). The

National Forest Inventory database was used to estimate population densities for the genus Aquilaria of

<1.2 individuals/ha with an estimated 2.6 million trees with a diameter at breast height of >10cm,

although it was noted that there were substantial errors associated with this estimate (Soehartono and

Newton, 2000).

An ethno-botanical survey in Ipuh, North Bengkulu in Sumatra surveyed four 0.25 ha observation

squares, in which an average of two trees, eight ‘poles’ and 11 seedlings of A. malaccensis were recorded

(Roemantyo, 1992 in: PC14 Doc 9.2.2 A2). Based on this, A. malaccensis was considered “neither

abundant nor evenly distributed” (CITES Management Authority of Indonesia, in litt. to the CITES

Secretariat, 2003 in: PC14 Doc 9.2.2 A2).

Soehartono (1999) inferred from trade data between 1986 and 1996 that the number of mature Aquilaria

trees had reduced by at least 20% on Sumatra and Kalimantan and considered that based on this


35

reduction, four species including A. malaccensis qualified for listing as “vulnerable to extinction”. The

genus Aquilaria was considered threatened in Indonesia by felling of trees for agarwood as well as by

habitat degradation and destruction (Barden et al., 2000).

In 2002, Soehartono and Newton (2002) considered that Indonesian trade in agarwood was not

sustainable and they noted that collectors reported agarwood to be becoming more difficult to find.

Soehartono and Newton (2001a) reported that estimates of the number of Aquilaria trees harvested was

between < 30 000 to > 100 000 trees, depending on the year. Based on interviews with agarwood

collectors, Soehartono and Newton (2002) noted that traditional methods for agarwood collection were

declining and that more intensive harvesting methods were increasingly being used. Illegal harvest of

Aquilaria from protected areas has been reported in Indonesia (Barden et al., 2000). Subehan et al.,

(2005) noted that collectors had reported that agarwood was becoming more difficult to find,

suggesting that stock was becoming exhausted.

A. malaccensis was included in the CITES Review of Significant Trade process following CoP11 in 2000

and Indonesia was categorised as “of possible concern”, with recommendations sent to Parties in 2004

(PC14 Doc.9.2.2; SC54 Doc. 42). Indonesia was removed from the process in 2006, following on-going

implementation of annual export quotas, harvest quotas defined by the CITES Scientific Authority at

the province level in consultation with external experts, and the development of chain of custody

management for the species under Decree no. 447 of 2003 (SC54 Doc. 42).

A. malaccensis is not listed as a protected species in Indonesia (Republic of Indonesia, 1999). According

to Forestry Regulation No. 28 of 1985 permits are required to fell all trees and to take or collect any

forest produce from state forests (Republic of Indonesia, 1985) although Soehartono and Mardiastuti

(1997 in: Barden et al., 2000) noted that this does not apply to local communities who depend on forest

resources for their livelihoods.

Cultivation of Aquilaria has been successfully carried out in several provinces (Barden et al., 2000) and

established plantations have also been reported in Riau in Sumatra and Lombok and Bogor in Java

(Wiriadinata, 1995 in: Barden et al., 2000). Soehartono and Newton (2001b) noted that although a

number of small scale plantations of Aquilaria had been established in Indonesia, none had provided a

commercial source of agarwood. More recently, Persoon (2008) reported a project to allow people to

gain a sustainable form of livelihood involving cultivation of Aquilaria trees, inoculation and harvesting

of agarwood.

References

Asian Regional Workshop (Conservation & Sustainable Management of Trees, Viet Nam, August 1996). 1998. Aquilaria malaccensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 1998: e.T32056A9677920. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/32056/0. [Accessed: 18 November 2016].

Barden, A., Anak, N.A., Mulliken, T. and Song, M. 2000. Heart of the matter: agarwood use and trade and CITES implementation for Aquilaria malaccensis. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.pp.

Chua, L. 2008. Agarwood (Aquilaria malaccensis) in Malaysia. NDF Workshop Case Studies, WG1 - Trees, (Taiwan 2004): 1–17.

Donovan, D.G. and Puri, R.K. 2004. Learning from traditional knowledge of non-timber forest products: Penan Benalui and the autecology of Aquilaria in Indonesian Borneo. Ecology and Society, 9(3).

Misran 1987. Laporan survei penelitian gaharu di hutan alam KPH Bengkulu Utara dan Selatan. Puslitbang Hutan Bogor, Bidang Pelestarian Alam.

Oldfield, S., Lusty, C. and MacKinven, A. 1998. The world list of threatened trees. World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK. 650 pp.

Persoon, G.A. 2008. Growing ‘The wood of the gods’: agarwood production in southeast Asia. In: Snelder, D.J. and Lasco, R.D. (Eds.). Smallholder tree growing for rural development and environmental services: lessons from Asia. Springer Science. 245–262.

Republic of Indonesia 1999. Indonesian Government Regulation No. 7 concerning the preservation of wild


36

plants and animals. Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, Indonesia. Republic of Indonesia 1985. The government regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 28. Roemantyo 1992. Telaah etnobotani gaharu (Aquilaria malaccensis) di Ipuh, Bengkulu Utara. In:

Prosiding Seminar Ethnobotani. Cisarua – Bogor. Soehartono, T. and Mardiastuti, A. 1997. The current trade in gaharu in West Kalimantan. Jurnal Ilmiah

Biodiversitas Indonesia, 1(1). Soehartono, T. and Newton, A.C. 2000. Conservation and sustainable use of tropical trees in the genus

Aquilaria I. Status and distribution in Indonesia. Biological Conservation, 96(1): 83–94. Soehartono, T. and Newton, A.C. 2001a. Conservation and sustainable use of tropical trees in the genus

Aquilaria II. The impact of gaharu harvesting in Indonesia. 29–41 pp. Soehartono, T. and Newton, A.C. 2001b. Reproductive ecology of Aquilaria spp. in Indonesia. Forest

Ecology and Management, 152: 59–71. Soehartono, T. and Newton, A.C. 2002. The gaharu trade in Indonesia: is it sustainable? Economic

Botany, 56(3): 271–284. Soehartono, T.R. 1999. Status and distribution of Aquilaria spp. in Indonesia, and the sustainability of the

gaharu trade. The University of Edinburgh. Sumadiwangsa, S. 1997. Kayu gaharu komoditi elit di Kalimantan Timur (Agarwood as a high-value

commodity in East Kalimantan). Duta Rimba, 20(193–194). Wiriadinata, H. 1995. Gaharu (Aquilaria spp.) Pengembangan dan Pemanfaatan yang Berkelanjutan.

Lokakarya Pengusahaan Hasil Hutan Non Kayu (Rotan, Gaharu, dan Tanaman Obat). Departemen Kehutanan.

Appendix

37

Appendix

Table 1: Purpose of trade

Code Description

B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation

E Educational

G Botanical garden

H Hunting trophies

L Law enforcement / judicial / forensic

M Medical (including bio-medical research)

N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild

P Personal

Q Circus and travelling exhibitions

S Scientific

T Commercial

Z Zoos

Table 2: Source of specimens

Code Description

W Specimens taken from the wild

R Specimens originating from a ranching operation

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

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

derivatives thereof

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

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

derivatives thereof

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

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

thereof

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

met, as well as parts and derivatives thereof

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

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

U Source unknown (must be justified)

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

Appendix

38

Table 3: Assessment of Swietenia macrophylla from Peru following protocol outlined in a nine-step process to support CITES Scientific Authorities making science-based non-detriment findings (NDFs) for tree species listed in CITES Appendix II.

Step Question/criteria Outcome Rationale

3.1 Is the harvest or the export of wild-harvested specimens of this species permitted by national or relevant sub-national legislation or regulation?

Yes Relevant legislation includes:

- National Forest and Wildlife Policy introduced in 2013 to guide the decentralized forest and wildlife management under Peru’s National Forest and Wildlife Service (Servicio Nacional Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre- SERFOR);

- US-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) introduced in 2009, and reaffirmed in 2016, most notably Annex 18.3.4 of the agreement, which commits Peru to strengthen governance and sustainable manage of their forest resources.

Quotas were published by Peru for the years 2005-2011 and 2014 (Table 1, pg. 26).

3.2 Are the timber specimens applied for covered by CITES Appendix II / the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation Annex B?

Yes Logs, sawn wood, veneer sheet and plywood for all neotropical populations were listed under CITES Appendix II on 15/11/2003 and the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation Annex B on 26/11/2003.

3.3 Has the Scientific Authority previously made a science-based NDF for this species that is still valid and sufficient to evaluate the current export permit application?

Peru’s 2016 NDF report for S. macrophylla has been made public by MINAM (2016).

4.1 Conservation status assessments Yes IUCN Red List: Vulnerable A1cd+2cd (1998), but in need of updating (WCMC, 1998).

National Red List: vulnerable (Salazar, 2011).

4.2 Severity of conservation concern relevant to harvest area

Medium Primary threats are from forest conversion and illegal logging (WCMC, 1998; Schneider, 2012; Blundell, 2004), resulting in habitat fragmentation (MINAM, 2016), and exacerbated by low regeneration, high seed predation, inability to regrow and production of irregular fruits (MINAM, 2015 in MINAM, 2016).

5 Potential Biological Risks Medium Geographic distribution: Neotropical timber species with a widespread natural distribution across Central and South America and the Caribbean (Saunders and Reeve, 2014).

National population size and abundance: 27 million ha in 2010, 49% of historic range (Grogan et al., 2010); national density estimated at 0.003-0.164 trees/ha at the landscape level (Mejía et al., 2008), but may reach <1 tree/ha in core protected areas (Martinez et al., 2008); most abundance in Madre de Dios and Ucayali regions (MINAM, 2016), where the only commercial populations in Peru remain.

Habitat specificity and vulnerability: reported to tolerate wide range of environmental conditions including both wet and dry tropical forests (Mayhew and Newton, 1998); vulnerability to illegal logging enhanced by habitat conversion to pasture and agriculture (Blundell, 2004).

Reproduction and regeneration: production of minimal quantities of fruit at dbh≤75 cm (Snook et al., 2005) and low regeneration in natural forests (MINAM, 2015 in MINAM, 2016) makes this species particularly vulnerable to excessive logging.

6 Harvest impacts Precautionary high

Impact on individual plants: harvesting is lethal.

Impact on national population: most extant population restricted to remote areas (Mejía et al., 2008); only two regions (Madre de Dios and Ucayali) contain commercial populations, with an estimated 120 000-130 000 harvestable trees in 2016 (MINAM, 2016).

Impact on other species: keystone species including giant otter (Pteronura brasiliensis) threatened by harvesting and conversion of S. macrophylla habitat (Schneider, 2012); provides direct habitat for range of protected Amazonian species

Appendix

39

Step Question/criteria Outcome Rationale

(Mejía et al., 2008), however low density of S. macrophylla trees (Grogan et al., 2010) means impact on other species is likely to be minimal.

7 Trade impacts (national level) Precautionary high

Magnitude and trend of legal trade: trade almost exclusively in timber (m3); global exports declined between 2006 and 2015; no exports to EU28 since 2011 (Table 2, pg. 26).

Magnitude of illegal trade: >12% of exports in 2005 considered to be illegal, with >83% of exporting companies dealing in some illegal timber (Mejía et al., 2008); 35% of S. macrophylla and C. odorata (red cedar) exports from Peru to the US in 2008-2011 reportedly included illegal timber (Urrunga et al., 2012); misuse of CITES export permits to launder illegally extracted timber (Urrunga et al., 2012); although difficult to distinguish from other Swietenia species, the Peruvian range of S. macrophylla’ doesn’t overlap with S. humilis (Valera, 1997) and S. mahogani is rarely traded as timber (Cop 8 Prop. 93).

At the global scale, illegal harvesting has been estimated to be <200% higher than legal harvesting levels (Calvo, 2000).

8 Management measures in place Moderate Mahogany action plan 2008-2012; followed by a five-point action plan from 2013 onwards covering the management of forests and forest resources, with particular emphasis on S. macrophylla and C. odorata.

Legal minimum diameter for harvesting is 75 cm dbh (Mejía et al., 2008; MINAM, 2016).

Recommendations in 2016 NDF to ensure natural regeneration in harvested plots (MINAM, 2016): no more than 73 trees should be harvested in 2016, and all should be from specified concessions in the Madre de Dios region; trees should remain <1km apart when harvesting; trees should not be harvested when there are ≤5 useable (standing) trees in a cutting block (MINAM, 2016).

Documents

Review of selected species subject to long-standing no opinions · 2017-01-23 · Cactaceae overview 4 Globally, cacti are threatened by collection for trade and loss of habitat (Boyle