Tanzania: A review of trade in CITES-listed speciesec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/reports/review... · 2016-06-09 · Between 1982-2004, exports of 42005.7kg teeth and 78680 teeth

United Republic of Tanzania: A review of trade in CITES-listed species

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the

European Commission Directorate General E - Environment

ENV.E.2. – Development and Environment

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

November, 2007

2

Prepared and produced by: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK ABOUT UNEP WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE www.unep-wcmc.org The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre is the biodiversity assessment and policy implementation arm of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world‟s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation. UNEP-WCMC aims to help decision-makers recognize the value of biodiversity to people everywhere, and to apply this knowledge to all that they do. The Centre‟s challenge is to transform complex data into policy-relevant information, to build tools and systems for analysis and integration, and to support the needs of nations and the international community as they engage in joint programmes of action. UNEP-WCMC provides objective, scientifically rigorous products and services that include ecosystem assessments, support for implementation of environmental agreements, regional and global biodiversity information, research on threats and impacts, and development of future scenarios for the living world. 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.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. CITES IN TANZANIA ........................................................................................................................ 4 3. SCIENTIFIC REVIEW GROUP OPINIONS ............................................................................................. 5 4. TRADE IN CITES-LISTED SPECIES FROM TANZANIA ........................................................................ 6 5. REVIEW OF SELECTED SPECIES ....................................................................................................... 10 SPECIES: Panthera leo ............................................................................................................... 10 SPECIES: Hippopotamus amphibius ......................................................................................... 18 SPECIES: Phelsuma dubia ......................................................................................................... 27 SPECIES: Bradypodion fischeri .................................................................................................. 31 SPECIES: Bradypodion tavetanum ............................................................................................ 36 SPECIES: Chamaeleo bitaeniatus ............................................................................................... 40 SPECIES: Chamaeleo dilepis ...................................................................................................... 43 SPECIES: Chamaeleo gracilis ..................................................................................................... 47 SPECIES: Chamaeleo melleri ..................................................................................................... 51 SPECIES: Chamaeleo rudis ........................................................................................................ 55 SPECIES: Cordylus tropidosternum .......................................................................................... 59 SPECIES: Varanus niloticus ...................................................................................................... 62 SPECIES: Prunus africana ......................................................................................................... 66 6. SPECIES REPORTED AS DIRECT EXPORTS TO THE EU-27 SINCE 1997 BUT NOT KNOWN FROM

TANZANIA OR OCCURRENCE UNCONFIRMED .................................................................................... 70 7. GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES REPORTED AS DIRECT EXPORTS TO EU-27 FROM TANZANIA

SINCE 1997 (EXCLUDING THOSE SPECIES NOT KNOWN TO OCCUR IN TANZANIA). .......................... 75 ANNEX 1. TRADE IN CITES-LISTED SPECIES FROM TANZANIA TO EU-27, 1977-2006, AS REPORTED

BY BOTH TRADING PARTNERS. ............................................................................................................ 79

4

1. OVERVIEW

The United Republic of Tanzania, hereafter referred to as Tanzania, is a major exporter of CITES-listed species, many of which are exported to the European Union (EU). For this reason, Tanzania was identified as a country where a review of trade in species listed in EC Regulation 1332/2005 would be useful to highlight any trade of concern. An analysis of trade levels from Tanzania to the EU-27 between 2001-2005 was undertaken in order to identify species that may warrant review. The analysis considered trade both to the EU and to other countries. Emphasis was on trade in wild and ranched specimens, but trade from other sources was also taken into account. Following this initial analysis and discussion with the European Commission, 13 highly traded or otherwise noteworthy species were selected for in-depth review (see Table 1.1.). An overview of trade from Tanzania is provided in section 4. Annex 1 summarises all trade from Tanzania since CITES reporting began.

2. CITES IN TANZANIA

Tanzania ratified CITES on the 29th of November 1979 and the Convention entered into force in that country on the 27th of February 1980. Tanzania has submitted annual reports every year since 1982.

In March 1984, the Management Authority of the Republic of Tanzania informed the CITES Secretariat that exports of Agapornis personata, the yellow-collared lovebird, would be banned until further notice due to observed population declines (CITES Notification No. 283). Following a Significant Trade Review of Animal Species included in Appendix II in 1992 the Standing Committee made recommendations at its 29th meeting in January 1993 that all Parties suspend imports from Tanzania for Agapornis fischeri and Malacochersus tornieri (in April and November 1993 and April 1994, CITES Notifications 737, 775, 800). Following another Significant Trade Review in 1993, the Standing Committee made recommendations at its 32nd meeting that all Parties suspend imports from Tanzania of Poicephalus cryptoxanthus, Poicephalus meyeri, Poicephalus rufiventris, Tauraco fischeri, Geochelone pardalis and Eryx colubrinus (CITES Notifications No. 833, No. 837, No. 898) in addition to the species already subject to a suspension (Agapornis fischeri and Malacochersus tornieri ). In 1998, at its 40th meeting, the Standing Committee‟s recommendations to suspend imports from Tanzania of Agapornis fischeri, Poicephalus cryptoxanthus, Poicephalus meyeri, Poicephalus rufiventris, Tauraco fischeri, Stigmochelys pardalis, Malacochersus tornieri and Eryx colubrinus were amended so that the suspension did not apply to specimens of the last three species produced from ranching/captive-breeding operations, for which the level of annual export quotas had to be agreed between the Management Authority and the Secretariat. This suspension also did not apply to the export in 1998 of the existing captive stock of 250 live specimens of Poicephalus meyeri and 40 live specimens of Poicephalus rufiventris provided that the permits were confirmed by the Secretariat before being accepted by the country of import (CITES Notification 1998/25). Recommendations by the Standing Committee to all Parties to suspend imports from Tanzania for the species listed and amended at the 28th, 32nd and 40th meeting have been renewed continuously between 1998 and 2007 (CITES Notification 1999/06; No. 1999/20; No. 2001/043; No. 2001/056; No. 2001/084; No. 2002/021 No. 2004/028; No. 2005/055; No. 2006/008; No. 2006/034; 2007/004).

5

In 1999, the Secretariat recommended that Parties suspend imports of leopard hunting trophies and skins from countries including the United Republic of Tanzania, until further notice due to problems relating to reporting requirements (No. 1999/99). The Secretariat withdrew recommendation No. 1999/99 in January 2000, after receiving copies of reports on the use of annual quotas for leopard from the CITES MA of the United Republic of Tanzania (CITES Notification 2000/006).

3. SCIENTIFIC REVIEW GROUP OPINIONS A number of opinions (positive and negative) as well as import suspensions have been formed by the SRG for Tanzania. Current opinions and suspensions are summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. List of current opinions and import suspensions referring to Tanzania

Species Opinion Suspension Date Notes

Agapornis fischeri b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Agapornis lilianae b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Aquila rapax (+) 07/11/2000

Balaeniceps rex b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Bradypodion fischeri (+) 27/01/1999

Bradypodion spinosum (+) 23/06/1999 F-1

Bradypodion tavetanum (+) 27/01/1999

Bubo vosseleri b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Bugeranus carunculatus b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Chamaeleo bitaeniatus (+) 23/06/1999 F-1

Chamaeleo bitaeniatus (+) 27/01/1999

Chamaeleo deremensis b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Chamaeleo fuelleborni b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Chamaeleo goetzei (+) 23/06/1999 F-1

Chamaeleo incornutus (+) 23/06/1999 F-1

Chamaeleo jacksonii (+) 09/10/1997 F-1

Chamaeleo jacksonii merumontanus (+) 23/06/1999 F-1

Chamaeleo laterispinis (+) 23/06/1999 F-1

Chamaeleo melleri (+) 23/06/1999 F-1

Chamaeleo melleri (+) 27/01/1999

Chamaeleo rudis (+) 23/06/1999 F-1

Chamaeleo tempeli (+) 23/06/1999 F-1

Chamaeleo werneri b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Cordylus tropidosternum (+) 27/01/1999

Falco fasciinucha b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Gongylophis colubrinus b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Gyps africanus (+) 07/11/2000

Hippopotamus amphibius (+) 31/08/2001

Lutra maculicollis b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

6

Species Opinion Suspension Date Notes

Loxodonta africana (+) 11/11/1997 hunting trophies

Papio anubis (+) 29/10/2001 18/07/2001

Papio cynocephalus (+) 29/10/2001 18/07/2001

Phelsuma dubia (+) 22/02/2000

Applicable after publication of EC Reg. No. 1988/2000 on

24/09/2000 Poicephalus

cryptoxanthus b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Poicephalus meyeri b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens Poicephalus rufiventris b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Polemaetus bellicosus (+) 07/11/2000

Prunus africana (+) 13/12/2004

Psittacus erithacus (+) 16/09/1999

Applicable after publication of EC Reg. No. 1988/2000 on

24/09/2000

Python sebae (+) 13/06/2005

Sagittarius serpentarius (+) 26/03/2001

Geochelone pardalis b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Geochelone pardalis (+) 29/10/2001 18/07/2001 F1 specimens <8cm

Tauraco fischeri b 01/10/2007 All wild specimens

Tauraco hartlaubi (+) 13/05/1998

Tauraco livingstonii (+) 13/05/1998

Terathopius ecaudatus (+) 26/03/2001

Torgos tracheliotus (+) 13/12/2004 26/03/2001

Varanus albigularis (+) 05/09/2002

Varanus niloticus (+) 05/09/2002

4. TRADE IN CITES-LISTED SPECIES FROM TANZANIA The main global exports from Tanzania (as reported by Tanzania) between 1976 and 2005 (excluding re-exports) were mammals‟ teeth and ivory, live birds and reptiles and bark (Table 4.1). EU-imports of CITES-listed species from Tanzania, from 1976-2005, as reported by both trading partners, are summarised in Annex 1.

It should be noted that Tanzania claims to report on the basis of actual trade rather than permits issued. Trade levels reported in annual reports should therefore be considered to be relatively realistic and representative of the trade that actually occurred, however it is known, from earlier work on the crocodilian industry, that Tanzania‟s reporting is incomplete.

7

Table 4.1. A summary of main global exports from Tanzania (excluding re-exports) as reported by Tanzania, 1976-2005.

Group Term Total

Mammals Tusks (kg) 96,595

Tusks 1,756

Teeth 78,794

Teeth (kg) 42,006

Ivory carvings and products 73,350

Live 28,406

Trophies 13,116

Birds Live 738,788

Reptiles Live 432,041

Skins 15,929

Invertebrates Live 4,212

Timber Bark (kg) 33,069

Extract (kg) 7,450

Mammals

All tusks reported as exported by Tanzania between 1982-2005 were Loxodonta africana (wild-sourced). In total 965,95.58kg were reported as exported, including 63,132 kg for commercial purposes representing 65% of the trade in tusks and 30,620.2 kg for hunting trophies (32%). Ninety-eight per cent of all ivory products and carvings (wild-sourced) were exported for personal purposes.

Most live mammal exports (98%) were from the family Cercopithecidae and mainly involved Chlorocebus aethiops and Papio hamadryas anubis. Exports of a total of 24,937 live C. aethiops (wild-sourced) were reported by Tanzania between 1982-2005. During that time, most live C. aethiops exports were for commercial purposes and 5989 animals exported in 1999 and 2000 were reported to be for biomedical research. A total of 1969 live Papio hamadryas anubis (wild-sourced) were exported between 1982-2005 for commercial and biomedical purposes and 1001 hunting trophies (wild-sourced) were exported between 1982-2005.

Between 1982-2004, exports of 42005.7kg teeth and 78680 teeth of Hippopotamus amphibius from wild sources, were reported by Tanzania, with 13% of teeth exported as hunting trophies and 87% exported for commercial purposes.. See species sheet for further information.

Exports from Tanzania of species in the Felidae family mostly constituted hunting trophies. Between 1982-2005, Panthera leo hunting trophies represented 47% of this trade and Panthera pardus hunting trophies represented 50%.

Imports reported by the EU from 1979-2005, reflected a similar pattern. However, the EU reported a relatively low number of live Cercopithecidae imports and Hippopotamus teeth compared to global exports reported by Tanzania.

The EU was a relatively large importer of ivory products and carvings from the African Elephant Loxodonta africana. In particular, the EU reported the import of 56,944 kg of tusks and 2,792 tusks from Tanzania between 1982-2005, >99% and 91% of which took place before from 1982-1989. EU-reported imports also showed that the EU was a significant importer of hunting trophies, with 1355 Panthera leo, 1828 P. pardus, and 1532 Hippopotamus amphibious trophies reported as imported, compared to 3238, 3470 and 1188, respectively, trophies of the same species reported as exported by Tanzania globally between 1980-2005. H. amphibius teeth were

8

reported as imported by the EU in large quantities with 70894.5 kg and 17452 teeth reported between 1987-2005.

Birds

All bird exports reported by Tanzania were wild-sourced live birds, and 99% were for commercial purposes. Species of Psittacidae accounted for 88% of all exports of live birds reported by Tanzania from 1982-2005; Agapornis fischeri Fischer's Lovebird and Poicephalus meyeri Meyer's Parrot (both Psittacidae family) accounted for 76% and 10%, respectively, of the live bird trade. Other bird families in trade included Estrildidae and Phoenicopteridae, which accounted for 5% and 6% of the live bird trade from Tanzania.

In contrast, between 1980-2005, species from the family Estrildidae represented 47% of imports of live birds reported by the EU and species from the family Psittacidae represented 35% of imports. However, Agapornis fischeri (Psittacidae) was still the most highly traded species into the EU (representing 27% of EU imports) followed by Uraeginthus bengalus Red-cheeked Cordonbleu (Estrildidae) (representing 16% of EU imports) and other Estrildidae species. EU-imports of live birds have remained above 14,000 per year since 1981 and reached a peak between 1988-1990 with over 100,000 imports per year. Imports remained between 16,000 and 29,000 live per year since 2003 until 2005. An import trade suspension for live, wild birds were put in place by the EU for veterinary reasons in 2005.

Reptiles

Globally, most reptile exports from Tanzania involved live animals, with significant levels of skins also reported. The Chamaeleonidae was the most highly traded family, representing 58% of exports followed by Cordylidae (21%), Testudinidae (9%), Varanidae (7%) and Gekkonidae (4%). The most highly traded species was Cordylus tropidosternum (Cordylidae) accounting for 17% of all live reptile exports reported by Tanzania from 1987-2005. Other species reported in trade by Tanzania in high numbers for the live trade between 1985-2005 were from Chamaeleonidae family including Chamaeleo dilepis (13%), Bradypodion fischeri (12%), and Chamaeleo melleri (8%). Most were wild-sourced (77%) and 5% originated from F1 populations. The purpose of trade was mainly commercial (99%). EU trade data showed similar patterns of species in the live reptile trade. The EU imported a significant proportion of live reptiles ranging between 30-40% of global exports from Tanzania. EU importer data showed that 10% of live reptiles were sourced from F1 populations and 75% were wild sourced. Reptile skin exports as reported by Tanzania between 1982-2005 consisted almost entirely of Crocodylus niloticus (>99%), for commercial purposes (99%) with no captive bred or ranched sourced skins reported (wild-sourced=49%, unspecified source=51%). EU reptile skin imports from Tanzania, as reported by the EU, indicated that between 1981-2005, the majority of Crocodylus niloticus were imported by the EU (14,542 skins) compared with exported skins reported by Tanzania globally (15,875 skins). EU importer data showed 46% were reported as wild-sourced, 1% were from ranching operations, and a further 1% from captive breeding.

Amphibians

Very low level exports of amphibians were reported by Tanzania between 1982-2005 - 15 specimens and four bodies of Nectophrynoides spp. (CITES Appendix I) were exported in total in the years 1990 and 2004 for scientific purposes. No imports of amphibians have been reported by EU countries since 1984.

9

Fish

Virtually no exports of fish were reported by Tanzania between 1982-2005. In 2005, the export of 105 specimens of Latimeria chalumnae was reported for scientific purposes. EU import data indicated that 35 specimens of Hippocampus spp. with an unspecified source were imported in 2003.

Invertebrates

Global exports of invertebrates reported by Tanzania, from 1998-2001, consisted entirely of live, wild-sourced Pandinus imperator for commercial purposes, with 4212 live exported during this period. All of the EU-reported imports of invertebrates were also of live P. imperator with 800 live specimens imported in the same period. This species does not occur in Tanzania.

Plants

Tanzania did not report the export of any plants from 1982-2005.

Timber

All timber exports reported by Tanzania between 1998-2005 involved wild-sourced Prunus africana (Rosaceae). Exports involved 40,519 kg of bark, mostly exported for commercial purposes (94%) or scientific purposes (6%).

The EU was a significant importer of Prunus africana; EU countries reported the import of 76,335kg bark between 1998-2005. These figures are much higher than the trade reported by Tanzania, mainly as a result of Tanzania failing to report exports of bark in 2004 when France and Spain reported importing 57,125kg.

10

5. REVIEW OF SELECTED SPECIES

REVIEW OF SELECTED SPECIES IN TRADE FROM TANZANIA

MAMMALIA: FELIDAE

SPECIES: Panthera leo SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: Lion (English), Lion d'Afrique (French), León

(Spanish), Simba (Swahili), lejon (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, (ex) Algeria, (ex) Angola, Benin,

Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, (ex) Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, (ex) Egypt, (ex) Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, (ex) Ghana, Greece, (ex) Guinea, ? Guinea-Bissau, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), (ex) Iraq, (ex) Israel, (ex) Jordan, (ex) Kenya, Kuwait, (ex) Lebanon, (ex) Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, (ex) Malawi, Mali, ? Mauritania, (ex?) Morocco, (ex) Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, (ex) Rwanda, (ex) Saudi Arabia, (ex) Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, (ex) Togo, Tunisia, (ex) Turkey, (ex) Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Western Sahara, (ex) Zambia, Zimbabwe

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: United Republic of Tanzania

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current suspension for Ethiopia (since 10th of May,

2006); previous negative opinion formed for Ethiopia on 1st of July 2004.

TRADE PATTERNS: According to CITES trade data, the main EU importers of lion products from the United Republic of Tanzania between 2000 and 2005 were Spain and France, with France reporting particularly high numbers of trophy imports in 2000 (Table 5.4). It should be noted that hunting trophies are often poorly reported so it is virtually impossible to estimate the number of animals killed. Whereas one country may report all the pieces of a single animal as one trophy, another may report the pieces separately, e.g. one skin and one skull, or even as two (or more) trophies. No export quotas for this species in Tanzania have been published on the CITES website.

11

Table 5.4. Exports* of Panthera leo from U.R. Tanzania to EU Member States, 2000-2005. Term Country Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

skins Austria W Importer 4 4

Exporter 0

Germany Importer 10 3 6 1 1 21

Exporter 1 1

Portugal Importer 2 2

Exporter 0

Spain Importer 1 1

Exporter 0

United Kingdom Importer 2 2

Exporter 0

skulls Austria W Importer 4 4

Exporter 0

Germany Importer 7 3 6 2 18

Exporter 0

trophies Austria W Importer 6 2 1 9

Exporter 11 3 2 4 2 22

Belgium Importer 2 4 5 2 13

Exporter 3 8 2 1 4 3 21

Czech Republic Importer 2 4 4 1 1 12

Exporter 4 3 3 1 11

Denmark Importer 5 2 2 3 1 13

Exporter 8 5 5 1 19

Finland Importer 0

Exporter 1 1

France Importer 98 32 10 10 4 2 156

Exporter 39 26 28 28 15 30 166


Exporter 10 4 12 8 5 9 48

Hungary Importer 6 6

Exporter 1 2 6 1 10

Italy Importer 5 1 3 9

Exporter 4 3 4 5 6 22

Luxembourg Importer 0

Exporter 1 1

Netherlands Importer 1 1

Exporter 2 1 2 5

Poland Importer 1 1 1 3

Exporter 1 1 2 4

Portugal Importer 1 1 2 4

Exporter 1 1 1 2 5

Spain Importer 24 20 22 26 10 27 129

Exporter 17 21 23 12 10 25 108

Sweden Importer 3 1 4

Exporter 1 1 2


Exporter 1 2 1 1 5

Total wild trophies imported 147 66 39 55 32 41 380

Total wild trophies exported 102 78 82 69 37 82 450

Total wild skins imported 12 6 6 0 5 1 30

Total wild skins exported 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Total wild skulls imported 7 3 6 0 4 2 22

Total wild skulls exported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12

Table 5.5. Exports/re-exports of Panthera leo from U.R. Tanzania to the rest of the world (non-EU Member States), 2000-2005.

Term Reported by Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

claws Importer W 0

Exporter W 15 15

skins Importer W 16 7 1 2 2 28

Exporter W 0

skulls Importer W 16 7 1 2 3 29

Exporter W 0

trophies Importer W 124 126 143 122 93 118 726

Exporter W 144 139 120 118 51 116 688

Trophies (origin ZA) Importer W 1 2 3

Exporter W 0

* No re-exports were reported.

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES: The lion is one of the flagship species of Africa for research, tourism and trophy hunting (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006). It was listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (VU A2abcd; Bauer and Nowell, 2004). The African lion has been extirpated from all the former high latitudes where it used to live, both in the Northern (North Africa) and Southern Hemisphere (the Cape) (Chardonnet 2002). It used to live in south-eastern Europe, the near-east, south-central Asia and the Indian sub-continent. Outside of Africa, it now remains only in the Sasan Gir forest in India (Ghose, 1994), having recently become extinct in Pakistan (Wilson & Reeder, 2005). In Africa, the lion disappeared more recently from the northern and southern tips of the continent. North of the Sahara, it was extirpated from Tunisia and Algeria about 1891, from Morocco in 1920. In southern Africa, it disappeared from most of the Cape Province during the 1860s as well as from the greater part of Natal (Smithers, 1983). The lion has been eliminated as wild grazers have been replaced by domesticated ones (Kingdon, 1997). Continuous extermination over the past century with a rapidly accelerating decline in the last two decades has had a dramatic effect on lion populations and lions now persist patchily in reserves and national parks (Kingdon, 1997). In a study of large African carnivores, the lion was ranked in the top four species in terms of vulnerability, threats and state of knowledge and although a high-profile, data-rich species it was considered a species in crisis (Ray et al., 2005).

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Lions are widespread in Tanzania, with populations reported from Lake Manyara National Park (Anon, 2004; Snelson, 1986), Mpingo (Gregory et al., 1999), the Eastern Arc mountains (Burgess et al., 2007), the West Kilombero Scarp of the Udzungwa mountains (Dinesen et al., 2001), Katavi National Park (Caro, 1999; Chardonnet, 2002), Ngorongoro Crater (Anon, 2004; Estes et al., 2006), Serengeti (Sinclair et al., 2007), Selous (Anon, 2004), Lake Natron GCA (Viljoen, 2002, cited by Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2002) Mkomazai, Moyowosi (Packer, 2001, cited by Bauer & Van Der Merwe, 2002), Tarangire and Ruaha ecosystem (Anon, 2004), Burigi, Ugalla, Mahale, and Kimisi (Chardonnet, 2002) and at very low density in the Masai Steppe (Lamprey, 1964). Lions were reported to be absent from Arusha National Park (Anon, 2007). In central and western Tanzania, lion populations were stable in protected areas. Numbers were probably declining outside protected areas due to competition with livestock. Lions were being locally destroyed through problem animal control and poisoning (Caro, 1999; Chardonnet, 2002).

13

The total lion population in Tanzania was estimated to be 14,432 (min. 10,408, max. 19,215; Chardonnet, 2002) and 7,073 (min. 5,323, max. 7,923) (Bauer and van der Merwe, 2004). The different estimates can be explained in part by the different methodologies used (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006). The Selous ecosystem (Selous GR, Mikumi National Park, Kilombero Valley and surrounding non-gazetted areas) is one of the main strongholds of the African lion, perhaps the most secure of all (Chardonnet, 2002). Population estimates were: Manyara NP, 20 (20-20); Ngorongoro Crater, 53 (53-53); Selous Game Reserve, 3750 (3000-4500); Buffer zone around Selous, 750 (500-1000); Serengeti ecosystem, 2500 (1750-3250); Tarangire and Ruaha ecosystem, present but not estimated (Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004). Burigi game reserve was reported to have a healthy lion population, and Kimisi was showing increasing reports of lion according to observations over 2 years (Chardonnet 2002).

In 1962 the Ngorongoro Crater lion population plummeted from 60-70 down to <10 due to an epizootic of Stomoxys calcitrans. Although numbers subsequently increased, there has been inbreeding and over 25 years the reproductive performance of Crater females has declined (Packer and Pusey, 1992). Lions in the Ngorongoro crater declined again in 1994 from 80 individuals to approximately 40 and to 30 in 1997 and 2003. Since 1994, disease and infanticide have kept the population under 60 with a low of 29 animals in 1998 (Kissui and Packer, 2004). According to references cited by Sinclair et al. (2007), lion populations on the Serengeti plains and adjacent woodlands, which have been monitored since the 1960s, increased, although numbers were not given. The most prevalent and serious threats to populations in eastern and southern Africa were considered to be indiscriminate killing of lions and depletion of their prey, followed by small lion population size. Habitat conversion and livestock encroachment also ranked as significant threats. Improperly managed trophy hunting, and problem animal control were considered to have an adverse impact on several lion populations (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2007). Frank et al. (2005) considered that the reduction in lion populations had been largely due to conflict with humans over livestock. Lions are easily poisoned and trapped by poachers using long-line snares (Whitman et al., 2007). They are often killed when they leave protected areas. This potentially creates a vacuum encouraging more animals to leave the populations in protected areas (Whitman et al., 2007). There are three forms of hunting in Tanzania: tourist trophy hunting; hunting with a licence (resident hunting) and unlicensed hunting for meat (local hunting) (Borgerhoff Mulder et al., 2007). In Tanzania, trophy hunting takes place on approximately 250 000 km2 of government-owned land in game reserves, open areas, wildlife management areas, and game-controlled areas (Whitman et al., 2007). Trophy hunting of lions is limited to males. Less than 50% of the total lion quotas are met each year, and Whitman et al. (2007) estimated that this represents <2% of the total population. Although sport-hunting makes a contribution to the economy, Whitman et al. (2007) cited several risk factors for overhunting of lion in Tanzania: a lack of transparency in hunting-block allocation; arbitrary division of hunting concessions and concomitant increases in quotas; and unethical behaviour by professional hunters. Creel & Creel (1997) examined trophy hunting in Selous Game Reserve, where between 1989 and 1994 2.7%-4.3% of adult males were taken annually, representing 40-50 lions per year. Although lion density was lower in areas where they were hunted, this could be explained by differences in prey density. An increased percentage of male cubs was observed, which may have been a way for the population to compensate for the removal of adult males. The sex-ratio

14

of adults was not altered, nor was reproduction disrupted, and culling trials and simulation models suggested that lion populations can compensate for this level of off-take (Smuts, 1978; Starfield et al., 1981; Venter & Hopkins, 1988, cited by Creel & Creel, 1997). However, the quotas at that time were for 10-16% of the adult male population. Creel & Creel (1997) concluded that although the level of hunting at the time was sustainable, the quotas could not be filled sustainably. Caro (1999) found that hunting was important in causing low densities of large mammals, including lions, in the Game Controlled Area (GCA) and Forest Reserve (FR) around Katavi National Park. Licences were issued for hunting of lions by tourists in the GCA whereas hunting licences for lions were not issued in the FR. Illegal hunting was known to occur in many places. Although the number of lions legally hunted by tourists in the GCA was low, averaging 2.4/year, Caro (1999) suggested that lion populations might be affected by such off-take. Legal hunting could not account for the lower densities found in the areas outside the National Park, and Caro asserted that the principal factor was illegal hunting by local people. Caro (1999) cited anecdotal accounts from park wardens that poaching was heavy in the FR, common in the open area and that poachers moved to the GCA in the wet season. Illegal hunting is also known to take place in the Udzungwa Mountains, including the West Kilombero scarp, where lions are found (Dinesen et al., 2001). Since trophy hunting typically takes 2-5% of adult males, it can be sustainable if well managed (Bond, 2004, cited by Lindsey et al., 2006), although Whitman et al. (2004) warned that the removal of a few individuals could harm the population as a whole. When male lions take over a pride, they typically kill all cubs under nine months of age and evict older sub adults. Trophy hunting will increase the takeover rate and lead to infanticide unless the young of hunted males are already independent (Whitman et al., 2004). Computer modelling predicted that taking only males of 5 years old or greater would not reduce the population's capacity to maintain a viable breeding population. Quota size was only important when immature males (under 5 years old) were taken (Whitman et al., 2007). Rather than suggesting quotas, Whitman et al. recommended a lower age limit of 6 years, which could be estimated by the hunter studying nose colouration. Other authors have complained that nose colouration is not necessarily a good indicator of age (Baldus and Cauldwell, 2004). The younger males would then be able to provide protection long enough for lionesses to raise the cubs to independence. The Tanzanian Hunting Operators Association passed a resolution in June 2004 that only lions of six years or over may be hunted, with tooth wear and skull dimensions being used to assess age for export permits (Baldus and Cauldwell, 2004; Packer, 2006). Caro (2007) argued against moving towards sustainable hunting based on behavioural studies. He noted that although it is known that killing male lions leads to incoming males killing the offspring of the deceased lion, it would require 'sensitive observations' before killing a lion to ascertain that he had already fathered independent offspring and independent verification would be required to enforce a rule based on this. Lindsey et al. (2006) proposed independent certification of hunting operators, the criteria for which might include consideration for ethical hunting, contribution to communities, anti-poaching and sustainability. Baldus (2004) considered lion hunting in Tanzania to be sustainable but in need of improvement, particularly in developing a sustainable hunting quota together with the industry. Most hunting quotas for lions are not reached, though in particular hunting blocks, the quota may be exceeded and the lions booked on the unused quota of another block, while unreported wounded, but not killed animals may account for under 10% of those legally killed (Baldus, 2004). Most legal trade in lion products consists of lion trophies; to ensure it takes place at sustainable levels it needs to be backed up by best practices in trophy hunting management and monitoring. Little data exist on illegal trade in lion cubs, skins, body parts and derivatives for traditional medicine, curios or souvenirs. Illegal trade was considered largely due to ineffective

15

law enforcement, which is in turn due to weak capacity and motivation within law enforcement agencies and a lack of knowledge on this trade. It was suggested that legal trade needs to be better regulated for sustainability through national laws, CITES implementation, and regional agreements (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006). Wildlife legislation for hunting of game animals in Tanzania has been in place since 1921 (Homewood and Rodgers, 1991). Tanzania became a signatory to CITES in 1979. Tanzania ratified the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in 1974 and in the same year brought out the Wildlife Conservation (Hunting of Animals) Regulations as amended and the Wildlife Conservation (Capture of Animals) Regulations. Lions were listed in Part I of the First Schedule, the Third Schedule (Big Game) and the Fourth Schedule (Dangerous Animals) of the Wildlife Conservation Act (no. 12 of 1974). Under the Act, a valid Game Licence is required to hunt scheduled animals and a Trapper’s Card and Permit to Capture Animals are required to capture live animals. Trophies must be registered and every trophy dealer must carry a valid Trophy Dealer’s Licence. Exports must be accompanied with a Trophy Export Certificate. Kenya proposed including Panthera leo in CITES Appendix I in 2004 (Anon, 2004), however Kenya withdrew the proposal following extensive debate, particularly among African range States, and the range States agreed to two regional lion conservation workshops: one for western and central Africa; and one for eastern and southern Africa. The latter was held between January 8-13, 2006 in Johannesburg, South Africa (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006).

REFERENCES: Anon 2004. Consideration of proposals for amendment of appendices I and II CoP13 Prop. 6. Anon 2007. Arusha National Park. http://www.tanzaniaparks.com/arusha.htm Accessed 15

October 2007. Baldus, R.D. 2004. Lion conservation in Tanzania leads to serious human – lion conflicts, with a

case study of a man-eating lion killing 35 people. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 41. Baldus, R.D., and Cauldwell, A. 2004. Lion hunting in: R.D. Baldus, (Ed). 2004. Lion

conservation in Tanzania leads to serious human – lion conflicts, with a case study of a man-eating lion killing 35 people. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 41.

Bauer, H. & Nowell, K. 2004. Panthera leo. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Accessed 01 October 2007.

Bauer, H. & Van Der Merwe, S. 2002. The African lion database. The African lion working group. Bauer, H. & Van Der Merwe, S. 2004. Inventory of free-ranging lions Panthera leo in Africa. Oryx

38(1): 26-31. Bond, I., Child, B., de la Harpe, D., Jones, B., Barnes, J & Anderson, H. 2004. Private land

contribution to conservation in South Africa. in Child, B. (Ed) Parks in transition. Earthscan, London.

Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Caro, T. & Msago, O.A. 2007. The role of research in evaluating conservation strategies in Tanzania: the case of the Katavi-Rukwa ecosystem. Conservation Biology 21(3): 647–658.

Burgess N.D., Butynski,T.M., Cordeiro, N.J., Doggart, N.H., Fjelds, J., Howell, K.M., Kilahama, F.B., Loader, S.P., Lovett, J.C., Mbilinyi, B., Menegon, M., Moyer D.C., Nashanda, E., Perking, A., Rovero F., Stanley, W.T. & Stuart, S.N. 2007. The biological importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Biological Conservation 134: 209-231.

Caro, T. 1999. Densities of mammals in partially protected areas: the Katavi ecosystem of western Tanzania. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 205-217.

Caro, T. 2007. Behavior and conservation: a bridge too far? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22(8): 394-400.

Chardonnet, Ph. (ed.), 2002. Conservation of the African Lion : Contribution to a Status Survey. International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife, France & Conservation Force, USA.

http://www.tanzaniaparks.com/arusha.htm

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

16

CIA 2007. CIA World Fact Book. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/faqs.html Accessed 8 October 2007.

Creel, S. and Creel, N.M. 1997. Lion density and population structure in the Selous Game Reserve: evaluation of hunting quotas and offtake. African Journal of Ecology 35: 83-93.

Dinesen, L., Lehmberg, T., Rahner, M.C. & Fjeldså, J. 2001. Conservation priorities for the forests of the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania, based on primates, duikers and birds. Biological Conservation 99: 223-236.

Estes, R.D., Atwood, J.L. & Estes, A.B. 2006. Downward trends in Ngorongoro Crater ungulate populations 1986-2005: conservation concerns and the need for ecological research. Biological Conservation 131: 106-120.

Frank, L., Hemson, G., Kushnir, H. & Packer, C. 2005. Lions, Conflict and Conservation in Eastern and Southern Africa. Background paper for the eastern and southern African lion conservation workshop, Johannesburg, South Africa. 11-13 January 2006.

Ghose, R.K. 1994. Asiatic Lion. In: P.K. Ghosh (Director). The Red Data Book on Indian Animals. Part I Vertebrata. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta. pp 123-125.

Gregory, A.-M., Ball, S.M.J. & Eziefula, U.E. 1999. Tanzanian mpingo '98: full report. Unpublished, Cambridge, Mpingo Project.

Homewood, K.M.,Rodgers, W.A. 1991. Maasailand Ecology: pastoralist development and wildlife conservation in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group 2006. Regional conservation strategy for the lion Panthera leo in eastern and southern Africa. Available at http://lynx.uio.no/lynx/catsgportal/bulletin-board/05_strategies/Lion%20Conserv%20Strat%20E&S%20Africa%202006.pdf

Kingdon, J., 1997. The Kingdon field guide to African Mammals. Academic Press, London and New York: Natural World.

Kissui, B.M. and Packer, C. 2004. Top-down population regulation of a top predator: lions in the Ngorongoro Crater. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 271: 1867–1874.

Lamprey, H., 1964. Estimation of the large mammal densities, biomass and energy exchange in the Tarangire Game Reserve and the Masai Steppe in Tanganyika. East African Wildlife Journal 2: 1-46.

Lindsey, P.A., Frank, L.G., Alexander, R., Mathieson, A. & Romaňach, S.S. 2006. Trophy hunting and conservation in Africa: problems and one potential solution. Conservation Biology 21(3): 880–883.

Packer, 2001. cited by Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2002). Source not given. Packer, C. 2006. “Best Practices” for trophy hunting of African Lions. Proceeding of the first

Tanzania lion and leopard conservation action plan workshop.20-22 February 2006, Tanzania Carnivore Unit, TAWIRI, Arusha, Tanzania. pp 7-15.

Packer, C. & Pusey, A. 1992. Annual report: Serengeti Lion Project 1990-1991 in: Serengeti Wildlife Research Centre, Scientific Report. Serengeti Wildlife Research Centre, Arusha, Tanzania.

Packer, C., Altizer, S., Appel, M., Brown, E., Martenson, J., O'Brien, S.J., Roelke-Parker, M., Hofmann-Lehmann, R. & Lutz, H. 1999. Viruses of the Serengeti: patterns of infection and mortality in African lions. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 1161-1178.

Packer, C., Ikanda, D., Kissui, B. & Kushnir, H. 2005. Conservation biology: Lion attacks on humans in Tanzania. Nature 436: 927-928.

Patterson, B, D., Kasiki, S.M., Selempo, E. & Kays, R.W. 2004. Livestock predation by lions (Panthera leo) and other carnivores on ranches neighboring Tsavo National Parks, Kenya. Biological Conservation 119: 507-516.

Ray, J.C., Hunter, L., and Zigouris, J. 2005.Setting Conservation and Research Priorities for Larger African Carnivores. WCS Working Paper No. 24. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York.

Sinclair, A.R.E., Mduma, S.A.R, Hopcraft, J.G.C., Fryxell, J.M., Hilborn, R & Thirgood, S. 2007. Long-term ecosystem dynamics in the Serengeti: lessons for conservation. Conservation Biology 21(3): 580-590.

Smithers, R.H.N. 1983. The mammals of the southern African subregion. University of Pretoria. Republic of South Africa. 736 pp.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/faqs.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/faqs.html

http://lynx.uio.no/lynx/catsgportal/bulletin-board/05_strategies/Lion%20Conserv%20Strat%20E&S%20Africa%202006.pdf

http://lynx.uio.no/lynx/catsgportal/bulletin-board/05_strategies/Lion%20Conserv%20Strat%20E&S%20Africa%202006.pdf

17

Smuts, G.L. .1978. Efects of population reduction on the travels and reproduction of lions in Kruger National Park. Carnivore 1: 61–72.

Snelson, D. 1986. Lake Manyara National Park. Tanzania National Parks in cooperation with the African Wildlife Foundation. Tanzania.

Starfield, A.M., Shiell, J.D. & Smuts, G.L. 1981. Simulation of lion control strategies in a large game reserve. Ecological Modelling 13: 17–28.

Venter, J. & Hopkins, M.E. 1988. Use of a simulation model in the management of a lion population. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 18: 126–130.

Viljoen, 2002. cited by Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2002). Source not given. Whitman, K., Starfield, A.M., Quadling, H.S. & Packer, C. 2004. Sustainable trophy hunting of

African lions. Nature 428: 175 – 178. Whitman, K.L., Starfield, A.M., Quadling, H. & Packer, C. 2007. Modeling the effects of trophy

selection and environmental disturbance on a simulated population of African lions. Conservation Biology 21(3): 591–601.

Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd Edition. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

18


MAMMALIA: HIPPOPOTAMIDAE

SPECIES: Hippopotamus amphibius SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: flodhest (Danish), Nijlpaard (Dutch), Hippopotamus

(English), Large Hippo (English), Virtahepo (Finnish), Hippopotame (French), Hippopotame amphibie (French), Flußpferd (German), Ippopotamo (Italian), Hipopótamo anfibio (Spanish), flodhäst (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Algeria, (ex) Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina

Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, (ex) Egypt, (ex) Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, ?Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, (ex?) Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

RANGE STATE UNDER REVIEW: United Republic of Tanzania


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for United Republic of Tanzania since the 31st of August 2001. Also current positive opinion for South Africa (18th July 2001), Zambia (18th July 2001) and Zimbabwe (29th October, 2001 and 18th July 2001). The positive opinion for Tanzania was formed on the basis of a Notification that was circulated by the European Commission on 16th August 2001 that stated: "The CITES Secretariat considers these to be cautious export quotas in terms of the conservation of the species. Consequently, the Commission proposes that the SRG forms a positive opinion in relation to imports from these combinations." A Notification confirming this decision was subsequently circulated on 31st August 2001. Current suspensions for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gambia, Malawi, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Togo. Previous suspension for Angola, Benin, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia and Senegal (22/12/1997 and 21/11/1998) which was removed on 19/09/1999. Also previous suspension for Liberia (since 22/12/1997), which was removed on 10/05/2006. Previous negative opinion for Ghana (01/02/2006), which was removed on 18/12/2006.

19

TRADE PATTERNS: The hippo has historically been hunted by man for meat and more recently for its teeth, which are taken for trophy value and for carvings or objects such as handles for knives or bottle openers (Eltringham, 1999; Williamson, 2004). The terms 'tusks' and 'teeth' are used interchangeably for the canines and incisors in the hippo ivory trade. At first glance, carved hippo canines are difficult to distinguish from small elephant tusks and it appeared that traders use hippo teeth as a substitute for elephant ivory (Weiler et al., 1994). There is also international trade in hippo bones, skulls, leather and feet (Williamson, 2004). The skin, bones and feet are made into souvenirs such as ashtrays and some parts are used in traditional medicine (Eltringham, 1999). Slices of collagen from the hide are oiled until translucent and used as windows or are dried to use as a shield (Eltringham, 1999). Hippo ivory is mainly exported as large bulk shipments for commercial resale (Williamson, 2004). The amount of hippo teeth in trade has increased since 1989, possibly as a consequence of the prohibition on the sale of elephant ivory when the African elephant was added to Appendix I of CITES (Eltringham, 1999). Hippo ivory imports to the USA between 1995 and 2002 vastly outweighed those of elephant ivory (1436 kg hippo vs. 125 kg elephant; Williamson, 2004). Legal commercial trade in elephant ivory is restricted to antiques, whereas that of hippo ivory continues to be supplied from range States. The hippo was listed in Appendix II of CITES in 1995, and since then international trade in hippo parts has continued under close monitoring. All trade in hippo reported to CITES between 2000 and 2005 was of wild origin (Tables 5.2 and 5.3). Tanzania appeared to be the principal African source of hippopotamus teeth in international trade (Weiler et al., 1994). Williamson (2004) reported that international trade is mainly through Hong Kong, although sometimes direct from the African nation and the USA is a significant importer of hippo products. Reported trade in hippo products to the EU from 2000-2005 was relatively small compared to trade to the rest of the world (Tables 5.2 and 5.3), with the major EU importers being Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Export quotas of hippo parts have been in place in Tanzania since 2001. The quotas, resulting from recommendations of the Animals Committee and the Standing Committee, currently amount to 10598 kg of teeth and hunting trophies from 1200 animals per year (Table 5.1) and a report by UNEP-WCMC (2006) to CITES on quota compliance in 2004 indicated that Tanzania had not exceeded the quota in that year. The main importer of hippo teeth from Tanzania is Hong Kong importing around 5000 kg annually. Table 5.1. CITES quotas for Hippopotamus amphibious from Tanzania

Year Quota Notes

2007 10598 kg teeth and hunting trophies from 1200 animals





2002 10598 kg teeth

2002 4800 pieces of skin (from 1 200 animals)

2001 10598 kg teeth

2001 4800 pieces of skin (from 1 200 animals)

Eltringham (1999) reported that there was evidence of widespread illegal trade. Analysis of data on customs seizures of hippo ivory determined that most seizures were from individuals (perhaps tourists) importing individual pieces or small lots for non-commercial reasons,

20

although the majority of ivory seized comes from commercial sources (Williamson, 2004). Williamson noted that these commercial sources were often the same as those which reported legal shipments, and therefore advised continuing vigilance. Some poaching was known to occur in Selous (Samuels, in litt cited by Eltringham, 1999) and the Cambridge Tanzania Expedition (1988) found eight teeth hidden by poachers in Selous. Caro (1999) cited anecdotal accounts from park wardens that poaching in Katavi was heavy in the FR (Forest Reserve), common in the OA (Open Area) and that poachers moved to the GCA (Game Controlled Area) in the wet season.

Table 5.2. All reported exports* of Hippopotamus amphibius from U.R. Tanzania to EU Member States, 2000-2005.

Term Country Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

feet France W Importer 4 4

Exporter 0

Germany Importer 5 4 9

Exporter 0

Portugal Importer 4 4

Exporter 0

Sweden Importer 2 2

Exporter 0

skin pieces France W Importer 0

Exporter 0

Germany Importer 6 4 10

Exporter 0

skins Austria W Importer 1 1 3 1 6

Exporter 0

Belgium Importer 1 1

Exporter 0

France Importer 1 1

Exporter 0

Germany Importer 6 6

Exporter 0

Sweden Importer 1 1

Exporter 0

skulls Austria W Importer 2 1 1 4

Exporter 0

Denmark Importer 1 1

Exporter 0

France Importer 1 1

Exporter 0

Germany Importer 3 8 2 1 1 2 17

Exporter 1 1

small leather products

Austria W Importer 0

Exporter 2 2

Germany W Importer 0

Exporter 6 6

21


teeth Austria W Importer 83 84 24 60 12 263

Exporter 167 84 251

Belgium Importer 12 24 36

Exporter 36 84 120

Czech Republic Importer 12 12

Exporter 0


Exporter 30 12 42

France Importer 233 203 24 12 472

Exporter 251 341 592


Exporter 83 36 119

Hungary Importer 0

Exporter 24 12 36

Italy Importer 36 36

Exporter 60 36 96

Portugal Importer 14 36 12 12 74

Exporter 24 24

Spain Importer 24 36 2 62

Exporter 251 372 12 635

Sweden Importer 0

Exporter 12 12

United Kingdom Importer 12 16 28

Exporter 28 28

trophies Austria W Importer 32 1 33

Exporter 13 3 4 2 22

Belgium Importer 29 1 14 1 45

Exporter 12 1 1 4 3 1 22

Czech Republic Importer 2 1 1 4

Exporter 1 1 2 1 5

Denmark Importer 1 1 1 3

Exporter 3 2 5

Finland Importer 1 1

Exporter 0

France Importer 108 13 3 3 10 137

Exporter 17 5 35 23 30 51 161

Germany Importer 2 15 3 20

Exporter 6 5 7 10 4 11 43


Exporter 1 3 2 6


Exporter 3 5 7 1 8 24

22


Netherlands Importer 0

Exporter 1 1 2

Poland Importer 1 1 2

Exporter 1 5 6

Portugal Importer 0

Exporter 4 1 5

Spain Importer 24 28 30 35 21 44 182

Exporter 2 4 31 18 22 47 124

Sweden Importer 1 1

Exporter 2 1 1 4

United Kingdom Importer 0

Exporter 1 1

carvings Austria W Importer 2 2

Exporter 0

specimens Germany W Importer 6 6

Exporter 0

tails Germany W Importer 1 1

Exporter 0

Total feet wild imported 9 4 6 0 0 0 19

Total feet wild exported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total skin pieces wild imported 0 6 0 0 4 0 10

Total skin pieces wild exported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total skins wild imported 1 8 1 1 3 1 15

Total skins wild exported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total skulls wild imported 5 10 2 2 1 3 23

Total skulls wild exported 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total trophies wild imported 171 73 33 87 53 64 481

Total trophies wild exported 56 17 92 74 64 127 430

Total teeth wild imported 178 443 356 26 179 121 1303

Total teeth wild exported 914 1029 0 0 12 0 1955

Total small leather products wild imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total small leather products wild exported 0 8 0 0 0 0 8

* no re-exports were reported

23

Table 5.3. All reported exports* of Hippopotamus amphibius from U.R. Tanzania to the rest of the world (non-EU Member States), 2000-2005.

Term Source Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

feet W Importer 2 20 3 1 26

Exporter 0

skin pieces W Importer 1 1 2

Exporter 222 222

skins W Importer 5 5 49 59

Exporter 194 194

skulls W Importer 8 11 2 2 2 1 26

Exporter 0

small leather products W Importer 0

Exporter 85 85

tails W Importer 1 1

Exporter 0

teeth W Importer 273 62 138 120 118 160 871

Exporter 1876 978 2854

teeth (kg) W Importer 6391 5402 5393 5551 4631 3106 30474

Exporter 2205 5436 2167 450 10258

trophies W Importer 90 106 123 110 102 100 631

Exporter 51 29 115 126 54 112 487


CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES: The Common Hippo Hippopotamus amphibius is now confined to mainland sub-Saharan Africa, although its distribution is much more restricted than it was a few decades ago (Eltringham, 1999). Being amphibious, they are confined within their range to areas with sufficient water and their distribution is discontinuous and patchy (Smithers, 1983). The status of hippos globally has declined and hippos were listed as Vulnerable A4cd in the most recent IUCN Red List (Lewison and Oliver, 2006). Previously, in 1996, hippos were assessed to be Lower Risk/Least Concern (Baillie and Groombridge 1996), however in 2006 Lewison and Oliver reported a 7-20% decline in hippo populations over the previous 10 years and predicted that decline would exceed 30% over the next 30 years. Although the causes of the population decline are known (exploitation and habitat loss), the threats have not ceased, nor is there evidence the threats will be removed in the near future. In 1999, the main threat was considered to be hunting for meat (Eltringham, 1999). More recently, Lewison and Oliver (2006) considered the primary threats to Common Hippos to be illegal and unregulated hunting for meat and ivory (found in the canine teeth) and habitat loss. In a survey by Eltringham (1999) two main complaints were made against the hippo – that it attacked fishermen and that it damaged crops. Hippos raid crops when larger hippo populations occur near human settlements. The damage is caused by eating and trampling the crop and this can lead to conflict (Eltringham, 1999).

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: The hippo was reported to be common throughout

Tanzania with the largest numbers present in the Selous Game Reserve (Eltringham, 1999). The Significant Trade Review by the CITES Animals Committee (1999) found that hippo populations were stable in Tanzania. In estimating the total population for the country, Eltringham (1999) allowed for 20,000 hippos in Selous and 5,000 elsewhere, deriving a total of

24

25,000 hippos in Tanzania, though he described this figure as 'something of a guess'. Games (in Lewison and Oliver, 2006) estimated a figure of 20,000 – 30,000. These two estimates are roughly in agreement which each other. Hippos were reported to be difficult to count as some individuals may be submerged at any given time (Caro et al., 1998a; Eltringham, 1999; Stoner et al., 2007). Games (1990; unpublished technical report cited by Eltringham, 1999) counted 6,866 hippos by an aerial count over the Rufigi River in Selous Game Reserve, which he extrapolated to an estimated 20,598 for the whole reserve. This is similar to earlier estimates by the same author of 15,843 in 1986 and 24,169 in 1989. Douglas-Hamilton (in litt. cited by Eltringham, 1999) estimated 16,900 (s.e. 6,397) in 19861. A hippo count in Selous (Cambridge Tanzania Expedition, 1988) revealed a total of 254 animals along 12 km of the Rufigi and Ulanga rivers. A large population has been known to occur on the Akagera River and associated lakes on the border between Tanzania and Rwanda. The total counted from the air in 1969 was 671 (Spinage et al., 1972, cited by Eltringham, 1993). Homewood and Rodgers (1991) reported counts ranged from zero to 47 hippos in the Ngorongoro Crater between 1964 and 1978 (after Estes and Small, 1981). There was some suggestion of a decline between 1963 and 1999 by comparison of counts along limited sections of river with hippos /km at 20.8 in 1963 dropping to 7.8 in 1988 and 7.7 in 1990 (Eltringham, 1999), but another source (Samuels, in litt. cited by Eltringham, 1999) estimated 16.5 hippos /km in 1987. In a combination of aerial censuses and ground transects, Caro (1999) found significantly lower densities of hippo populations in a Game Controlled Area (GCA; legal hunting of 1 animal per year out of a population of 0.09 km-2) than in the adjacent Katavi National Park and no hippos were found in the Forest Reserve (FR) or Open Area (OA) also adjacent to the National Park. No licences issued for hunting hippos were issued in the FR or OA. In a census of eleven zones from around Tanzania, Caro et al. (1998a) also found that National Parks and Game Reserves contained significantly higher densities of hippo than in GCAs and OAs. Although counts were attempted between three and seven times in each of seven parks across Tanzania between the late 1980s and early 2000s, difficulties in counting hippos meant that Stoner et al. (2007) did not attempt to assess general trends in population size for this species. However they did record declines in Katavi GCA, Ugalla (not the Game Reserve) and Selous-Mikumi GCA. Elsewhere in these ecosystems, including the NPs, and in Greater Ruaha and Serengeti there was either no significant change observed, or too few grid cells were occupied to detect any change. Hippos have been recorded as present in most national parks and reserves with suitable habitat (Eltringham, 1999). They were recorded in: the West Kilombero Scarp of the Udzungwa mountains (Dinesen et al., 2001); Lake Manyara National Park (Lewison and Oliver, 2006; Snelson, 1986); the Mkwaja Ranch in the Saadani Game Reserve (Tobler et al., 2003); Greater Ruaha, Katavi, Serengeti, Selous, Mikumi (Lewison and Oliver, 2006; Stoner et al., 2007); Rubondo Island National Park (Anon, 2007; Lewison and Oliver, 2006); Ugalla (Stoner et al., 2007); Arusha NP; Taragire NP; Burigi GR; Biharamulo GR; Maswa GR; Moyowozi GR; and Ngorongoro CA (Lewison and Oliver, 2006). Hippos were not listed in an inventory of Mpingo (Gregory et al., 1999). Tanzania ratified the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in 1974 and in the same year brought out the Wildlife Conservation (Hunting of Animals) Regulations as amended and the Wildlife Conservation (Capture of Animals) Regulations. Hippos are listed in Part II of the First Schedule as well as the Third Schedule (Big Game) and Fourth Schedule (Dangerous Animals). Hippos enjoy full legal protection under Tanzanian law

1 Eltringham (1993) gave the different figures of an estimate of 20,589 in Selous (1990), 15,483

(1986) and 16,900 (s.e. 6,307) in 1986.

25

and enforcement was judged to be fair (Lewison and Oliver, 2006). Under the Wildlife Conservation Act (Act no. 12 of 1974), a valid Game Licence is required to hunt scheduled animals and a Trapper’s Card and Permit to Capture Animals are required to capture live animals. Trophies must be registered and every trophy dealer must carry a valid Trophy Dealer’s Licence. Exports must be accompanied with a Trophy Export Certificate. Culling of 300 hippos took place in the Rufiji Delta in Tanzania between April and June of 1994 (K. Leggett, in litt. cited by Eltringham, 1999). Caro et al. (1998b) reported a total of 392 hippos killed by tourist hunters between 1988 and 1992 across nine census zones in Tanzania, the majority of which (281) were in Selous. This fell below the level of 10% of the population: a figure that was used to suggest that they were under-exploited (the authors chose 10% as a generous figure of exploitation for their study of various species, given the other effects on populations – starvation, natural predators, disease and legal resident hunters - although they did doubt whether 10% was appropriate off take for all species).

REFERENCES: Anon 2007. Rubondo Island National Park. http://www.tanzaniaparks.com/rubondo.htm

Accessed 15 October 2007. Baillie, J. & Groombridge, B. (compilers and editors) 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened

Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Cambridge Tanzania Expedition 1988. Selous '88: final report. A student expedition to the

Selous Game Reserve, Southern Tanzania to assess and expose the poaching in 'The last great wilderness in Africa' July-September 1988.

Caro, T.M., Pelkey, N., Borner, M., Campbell, K.L.L., Woodworth, B.L., Farm, B.P., Ole Kuwai, J., Huish, S.A. & Severre, E.L.M. 1998a. Consequences of different forms of conservation for large mammals in Tanzania: preliminary analyses. African Journal of Ecology 36: 303-320.

Caro, T.M., Pelkey, N., Borner, M., Severre, E.L.M., Campbell, K.L.L., Huish, S.A., Ole Kuwai, J., Farm, B.P. & Woodworth, B.L.1998b. The impact of tourist hunting on large mammals in Tanzania: an initial assessment. African Journal of Ecology 36: 321-346.

Caro, T. 1999. Densities of mammals in partially protected areas: the Katavi ecosystem of western Tanzania. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 205-217.

Dinesen, L., Lehmberg, T., Rahner, M.C. & Fjeldså, J. 2001. Conservation priorities for the forests of the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania, based on primates, duikers and birds. Biological Conservation 99: 223-236.

Eltringham, S.K. 1993. Chapter 3.2 The common hippopotamus. In: Oliver, W.L.R. (Ed.) 1993 Pigs, Peccaries and Hippos Status Survey and Action Plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. pp 43-55.

Eltringham, S.K. 1999. The Hippos: Natural History and Conservation. T & AD Poyser Natural History. Academic Press, London. 184 pp.

Estes, R.D. and Small, R. 1981. The large herbivore populations of Ngorongoro Crater. African Journal of Ecology 19(1-2): 175-185.

Games, I. 1990. A survey of hippopotamus in the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Unpublished consultancy report to the Director of Wildlife. 4pp.

Gregory, A.-M.,Ball, S.M.J. & Eziefula, U.E. 1999. Tanzanian Mpingo '98: full report. Unpublished, Cambridge, Mpingo Project.

Homewood, K.M. & Rodgers, W.A. 1991. Maasailand Ecology: pastoralist development and wildlife conservation in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Lewison, R. & Oliver, W. 2006. Hippopotamus amphibius. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 15 October 2007.

Smithers, R.H.N. 1983. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

Snelson, D. 1986. Lake Myanmara National Park. Tanzania National Parks in cooperation with the African Wildlife Foundation. Tanzania.

Spinage, C. A., Guinness, F., Eltringham, S. K. and Woodford, M. H. 1972. Estimations of large mammal numbers in the Akagera National Park and Mutara Hunting Reserve, Rwanda. Terre & Vie 4: 561-570.

http://www.tanzaniaparks.com/rubondo.htm

26

Stoner, C., Caro, T., Mduma, S., Mlingwa, C., Sabuni, G. & Borner, M. 2007. Assessment of effectiveness of protection strategies in Tanzania based on a decade of survey data for large herbivores. Conservation Biology 21(3): 635–646.

Tobler, M.W., Cochard, R. & Edwards, P.J. 2003. The impact of cattle ranching on large-scale vegetation patterns in a coastal savannah in Tanzania. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 430–444.

UNEP-WCMC (2006) Assessment of compliance with quotas set by the Conference of the Parties, Standing Committee and Animals Committee 2004 – a report to the CITES Secretariat.

Weiler, P., De Meulenaer, T. & Vanden Blook, A. 1994. Recent trends in international trade of hippopotamus ivory. TRAFFIC Bulletin 15(1): 47-49.

Williamson, D. F. 2004. Tackling the Ivories: The status of the US trade in elephant and hippo ivory. TRAFFIC North America. Washington D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.

27


REPTILIA: GEKKONIDAE SPECIES: Phelsuma dubia SYNONYMS: COMMON NAMES: Bright-eyed Day Gecko (English), Dull-green Day

Gecko (English), Zanzibar Day Gecko (English), Gecko diurne de Zanzibar (French), Gecko diurne sombre (French), Phelsume de Zanzibar (French), Palmen-Taggecko (German), Felsuma dubbia (Italian), Geco diurno de Zanzíbar (Spanish), brun daggecko (Swedish), guldögondaggecko (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Mayotte (to France),

Mozambique, United Republic of Tanzania

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: United Republic of Tanzania has a current positive opinion formed on 22 February 2000. Previously an Article 6(4) b suspension for wild specimens was in force since 22 December 1997 but subsequently removed on 24 September 2000. A current Article 6(4) b suspension for wild specimens from Comoros is in place following a negative opinion formed on 23 September 2002. A current Article 6(4) b suspension for wild specimens is also in place for Madagascar, first applied on 22 December 1997. Mozambique had an Article 6(4) b suspension first applied on 22 December 1997 and removed on 24 September 2000.

TRADE PATTERNS: Historically, Madagascar has been the source of most of the day geckos in international trade, with exports of tens of thousands annually reported in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Jenkins and Rakotomanampison, 1994 in Anon. 2006a). However since 1994, the CITES Standing Committee has recommended that importing countries do not accept commercial imports from Madagascar of any Phelsuma species except for P. laticauda, P. lineata, P. madagascariensis and P. quadriocellata, for each of which annual quotas of 2,000 a year have been maintained. This has probably led to increased demand for Phelsuma species from other countries (Anon., 2006). P. dubia is now highly popular in the pet trade. Tanzania began exporting the species in 1992 and the first imports by the EU took place in 1995. During the period 2000-2007 the Tanzanian export quotas for wild P. dubia were 2,000 animals per year (see Table 5.6). Export quotas for captive bred (F1) P. dubia were 50 in 2002, 40 from 2004-2006 and increased by 15% to 55 in 2007 (see Table 5.6.). However between 2000 and 2005, all exports of P. dubia from Tanzania were of wild-caught individuals when trade data reported by importing countries are considered and exports of only 20 F1 individuals were reported by Tanzania (to Germany in 2005) (see Table 5.7). It would appear that the export quota for wild specimens was considerably exceeded every year between 2002 and 2005 according to data reported by importers and it would further appear likely that Tanzania‟s reporting, at least for the years 2003 and 2004 was very

28

incomplete. The peak of 4,324 lizards reported by importers worldwide was reported in 2003, more than twice the country‟s export quota. The EU is a major importer of wild P. dubia and reported the import of 4,049 individuals of the species from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005 (see Table 5.7). Germany was the main EU importer, accounting for 1,234 P. dubia imported from Tanzania from 2000 to 2005, 30.4% of individuals of the species imported by the EU during that time. Other EU countries importing large numbers of P. dubia in the period were France (616 individuals, 15.2% of EU imports), Netherlands (571 individuals, 14.1% of EU imports) and Spain (490 individuals, 12.1% of EU imports).

Table 5.6. Export quotas for Phelsuma dubia from Tanzania, 2000-2007

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Wild 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

F1 specimens 50 40 40 40 55

Table 5.7. Direct exports of Phelsuma dubia from Tanzania, 2000-2005* to the EU Member States.


live Belgium W Importer 44 44 22 17 127

Exporter 44 44 22 110


Exporter 0

Denmark Importer 88 55 66 22 231

Exporter 88 33 22 22 165

France Importer 88 104 105 57 262 616

Exporter 154 99 44 18 120 435


Exporter 160 112 248 125 278 923


Exporter 22 22

Italy Importer 44 100 144

Exporter 2 2

Lithuania Importer 10 10

Exporter 0

Netherlands Importer 132 272 152 15 571

Exporter 154 67 50 22 293

Poland Importer 90 66 134 22 312

Exporter 134 202 40 46 22 22 466

Spain Importer 100 194 174 22 490

Exporter 22 122 22 152 44 362

United Kingdom Importer 18 30 128 104 280

Exporter 20 44 44 182 290

Germany F Importer 0

Exporter 20 20

Total live wild imported 66 288 648 1070 889 4059 0

Total live wild exported 202 580 637 504 712 3068 0

* No re-exports were reported.

Table 5.8. Direct exports of Phelsuma dubia from Tanzania, 2000-2005* to the rest of the world (non-EU Member States).


live W Importer 1376 1209 2088 3226 1927 1589 11415

Exporter 1630 1414 2503 1470 83 1214 8314

29

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES:

Phelsuma dubia is a diurnal gecko of medium-size, about 15 cm in length. The species is widespread and occupies the largest distribution area within the genus. It occurs in north-west Madagascar, the Comoro Islands, Mozambique Island off northern Mozambique, coastal Tanzania and Zanzibar Island (Broadley and Howell, 1991); Mombassa and Nyali (northernmost record) in Kenya (Spawls et al., 2002), and Mayotte (Baars, undated), The species occurs at sea level or very low altitude in coastal areas (Spawls et al., 2002). The species is considered probably introduced to mainland Africa and Zanzibar (Anon., 2004, Bakker, 1997). It probably arrived recently by cargo vessel as the main distribution area is around the ports of Mombassa, Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar (on Zanzibar Island) (Anon., 2004). The global conservation status of P. dubia has yet to be assessed by IUCN‟s Global Reptile Assessment. Little is known of the species‟ population status (Luxmoore et al., 1988). The CITES 2006 Significant Trade Review of the species considered that the species is at least locally abundant, although the total population size was unknown and no published population densities for the species have been located (Anon., 2006a).

P. dubia is a very adaptable species occurring in a variety of habitats, including secondary habitats: palms, banana plants, trees and buildings (Anon., 2004), gardens (Baars, undated) and trees next to the sea and plantations (Kilian, undated). Habitats on Madagascar include Pandanus which grow along small streams, and on palm trees, even in cities (Glaw and Vences, 1994). P. dubia is oviparous and has a potentially high reproductive rate. After a single copulation, a female can produce up to six clutches of two eggs. The clutches are laid at intervals of two to four weeks and the eggs hatch after 40-45 days (Osadnik, 1984 in Glaw and Vences, 1994).

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: P. dubia occurs at sea level or very low altitude in the

coastal plain on mainland Tanzania from the region of Bagamoyo (70 km north of Dar es Salaam south to Singino near the mouth of the Rufiji River, and the island of Zanzibar (Spawls et al., 2002). The species has a high density around Dar es Salaam (Anon., 2004) and is common in coastal forests of Ras Kutani which lie 50 km of Dar es Salaam (Anon., 2007). It was considered probably introduced to Tanzania (Anon., 2004; Bakker, 1997). In Tanzania P. dubia is known mostly from coconut palms and other trees and in Dar es Salaam, where coconut plantations have been cleared to make way for housing, it inhabits buildings (Spawls et al., 2002). No total population estimates or population density data could be located for the species in Tanzania. However, the recent CITES Significant Trade Review concluded for Tanzania that it was „Least concern. Quotas set. Locally abundant and probably introduced. High reproductive rate. Trade levels unlikely to be a threat' (Anon., 2006a). The Animals Committee agreed with this assessment (Anon. 2006b). REFERENCES: Anon. 2004. Phelsumania. www.phelsumania.com/public/introduction.html Accessed 24

October 2007. Anon. 2006a. CITES Significant Trade Review for Phelsumia dubia.

www.cites.org/eng/com/aC/22/E22-10-2-A5a.pdf Accessed 24 October 2007. Anon. 2006. Summary Record of the 22nd meeting of the Animals Committee, Lima Peru.

www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/22/E-AC22-summary-record.pdf Accessed 1 November 2007.

http://www.phelsumania.com/public/introduction.html

http://www.cites.org/eng/com/aC/22/E22-10-2-A5a.pdf

http://www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/22/E-AC22-summary-record.pdf

30

Anon. 2007. Herping Safaris in Tanzania and Kenya. Conservation Safaris. http://www.conservationsafaris.com/Herping.html Accessed 25 October 207.

Baars, C. (undated) My search for Phelsumas in Mayotte. www.phelsumaweb.com/eng/mayotte.html, Accessed 24 October 2007.

Bakker, A. 1997. Phelsuma General Information. www.angelfire.com/pa/phelsuma/phelgeninfo.html Accessed 24 October 2007.

Broadley, D. G. & Howell, K. M. 1991. A checklist of the reptiles of Tanzania, with synoptic keys. Syntarsus 1:1-70. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: The National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.

Glaw, F. & Vences, M. 1994. A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. 2nd edition. Leverkusen and Köln: Moos Druck and FARBO. 480 pp.

Jenkins, M. D. & Rakotomanampison, A. 1994. L‟exportation des plantes et des animaux sauvages à Madagascar : les conséquences pour les suivies des espèces. Study presented to ANGAP and USAID by Tropical Research and Development, Inc. (TR&D).

Kilian, G. undated. Phelsuma dubia – Rotpunkt palms Day Gecko. www.reptilien-import.de/terraristik/phelsuma_dubia.htm Accessed 24 October 2007.

Loveridge, A. 1942. Revision of the Afro-Oriental geckos of the genus Phelsuma. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 89 (10):439-482.

Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. & Broad, S. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife. A review of selected species in CITES Appendix II. Vol. 2. Reptiles and invertebrates. Lausanne: CITES Secretariat.

Osadnik, G. 1984. An investigation of egg laying in Phelsuma (Reptilia: Sauriaa: Gekkonidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 5:125-134.

Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R. & Ashe, J. 2002. A field guide to the reptiles of East Africa. London: Academic Press. 543 pp.

http://www.conservationsafaris.com/Herping.html

http://www.phelsumaweb.com/eng/mayotte.html

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/phelsuma/phelgeninfo.html

http://www.reptilien-import.de/terraristik/phelsuma_dubia.htm

http://www.reptilien-import.de/terraristik/phelsuma_dubia.htm

31


REPTILIA: CHAMAELEONIDAE SPECIES: Bradypodion fischeri SYNONYMS: Chamaeleo fischeri, Chamaeleo tenuis excubitor,

Chamaeleon affinis embuensis, Chamaeleon fischeri, Chamaeleon tornieri, Kinyongia fischeri

COMMON NAMES: Fischers Kameleon (Dutch), Fischer's Chameleon

(English), Uluguru Two-horned Chameleon (English), Usambara Two-horned Chameleon (English), Caméléon nain de Fischer (French), tvåhornad dvärgkameleont (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania

IUCN RED LIST: Not Evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: A positive opinion was formed for all countries on

9th October 1997 and for the United Republic of Tanzania on the 27th of January 1999.

TRADE PATTERNS: Bradypodion fischeri was considered to be the most highly exported species from the Tanzania, representing 26% of trade in chameleon species from 1977-2001 with 33,560 reported as exported from Tanzania during that period, making Tanzania the main global exporter of this species for that period (Carpenter et al., 2004). A report by IIED and TRAFFIC (2002) also highlighted the species as being one of the most highly traded species from Tanzania between 1990 to 2001. In particular, trade rose from negligible numbers in 1991 to several thousands per year from 1993 (IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC, 1999). The average prices for Bradypodion fischeri between 1990-2001 were found to be the following: US$0.16 (collector‟s price) US$0.82 (middleman‟s price; mark-up: x5.1), US$6 (minimum export price; mark up: x7.3) US$78 (US Retail price; mark-up: x13.0) (IIED and TRAFFIC, 2002). Recent prices found on-line for Bradypodion fischeri from Tanzania were found to be US$8 (F.O.B) (Tegeta Avifauna Farm, 2007). The quota for wild-taken B. fischeri has remained at 3,000 specimens since 1997. The quota for F1 specimens has varied between 400 in 1998-2000 and 135 in 2007 (see Table 5.9). According to importer data the export quota for wild specimens was exceeded in every year between 2000 and 2005, except 2001. Data from Tanzania indicate that the quota was exceeded between 2000 and 2002 and a detailed analysis of export permit numbers suggests that Tanzania‟s reporting was incomplete during 2003 and 2004. The large majority of trade in B. fischeri from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005 refers to wild-taken specimens with low level trade in C and F specimens. The EU is a major importer of wild-caught B. fischeri and imported 7,779 individuals of the species from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005 (see Table 5.10). Germany was the main EU importer, accounting for 2,972 wild-taken B. fischeri imported from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005, 38.2% of individuals imported by the EU from the country during that time. The second largest EU importer was the Netherlands, accounting for 1,451 wild-taken individuals, 18.7% imported by the EU in the period (see Table 5.10).

32

The EU imported 537 F1 specimens of B. fischeri from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005 including 339 specimens (63.1% of the total) imported by Germany (see Table 5.10). No F1 specimens were recorded as imported from Tanzania by the rest of the world (see 5.11). Table 5.9. Export quotas for Bradypodion fischeri from U.R. Tanzania from 1997-2005.

Year 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

Wild-taken 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Ranched 453

F1 specimens 135 189 242 311 210 374 332 400 400

Table 5.10. All reported exports* of Bradypodion fischeri from U.R. Tanzania to EU Member States from 2000-2005.

Term Source Importer Reported by 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

live W Belgium Importer 308 132 74 198 13 33 758

Exporter 258 157 107 26 548

Czech Republic Importer 20 33 73 20 146

Exporter 32 10 20 62


Exporter 25 25 20 23 93

France Importer 160 111 109 123 114 112 729

Exporter 95 156 127 63 79 54 574


Exporter 330 241 409 495 264 533 2272


Exporter 15 33 48


Exporter 58 30 88

Netherlands Importer 120 389 145 483 106 208 1451

Exporter 70 381 238 251 34 149 1123

Poland Importer 20 20

Exporter 10 20 30 20 80

Slovakia Importer 30 30

Exporter 30 30

Spain Importer 153 58 30 155 231 112 739

Exporter 171 58 95 65 231 96 716

United Kingdom Importer 101 68 116 179 179 62 705

Exporter 96 68 67 20 55 120 426

F Germany Importer 10 40 33 30 141 85 339

Exporter 10 40 10 85 145


Exporter 10 10

United Kingdom Importer 12 26 20 58

Exporter 6 20 26

Total live wild Imported 1320 949 867 1816 1610 1433 7995

Total live wild Exported 1128 1081 1160 940 673 1078 6060

Total F1 specimens Imported 10 0 0 46 10 115 181

Total F1 specimens Exported 10 40 33 42 217 195 537

*no re-exports were reported

33

Table 5.11. All reported exports* of Bradypodion fischeri from U.R. Tanzania to rest of the world (non-EU Member States) from 2000-2005.


bodies W Importer 9 2 11

Exporter 0

live C Importer 55 75 14 144

Exporter 0

F Importer 0

Exporter 25 5 30

W Importer 1782 1570 2993 3427 2581 2048 14401

Exporter 2500 2079 3383 1634 1223 1890 12709


CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES Recorded only from Tanzania and Kenya (Klaver & Böhme, 1997; Uetz et al., 2001). Occurs in forests and high woodland (Spawls et al., 2002). The subspecies B. f. multituberulatum was reportedly more common in disturbed areas than forest (IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC, 1999). Necas (1999) stated that “Bradypodion fischeri lives in forest borders and surrounding plantations and gardens, in elevations of 800-1,700 m a.s.l....” It was not included in the IUCN Red list (IUCN, 2007). At the 22nd Animals Committee meeting in 2006, it was reported that the taxonomy of B. fischeri was in need of revision. The Kenyan taxon excubitor is currently treated by CITES as a subspecies of B. fischeri but Spawls et al. (2002) treated it as a separate species. The CITES Nomenclature Committee considered this at its 2006 meeting but made no recommendation to change the taxonomy. If excubitor is treated as a separate species, then B. fischeri (with three subspecies) will be a Tanzanian endemic species. In 2006, at SRG 37 a modified risk list included this species listing it with criteria 3 and 4 of EU import suspension / negative opinion and „known to occur in illegal trade‟.

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Occurs in the United Republic of Tanzania (Broadley &

Howell, 1991; Klaver & Böhme, 1997) in the Nguru Mountains, Western and Eastern Usambara Mountains, and Uluguru Mountains (Broadley & Howell, 1991; Uetz et al., 2001). Terra typica: Nguru Berge Mountains (Usagara), Tanganika (Klaver & Böhme, 1997; Uetz et al., 2001). Was recorded in the Tanganika territory but not Zanzibar during the British colonial period (Loveridge, 1924). In 1999, a significant trade review by IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC, (1999) stated that although “export levels from Tanzania were unlikely to be a problem”…”in the absence of population data and given the rapid rate of deforestation in the Eastern Arc mountains of Tanzania this cannot be stated with complete certainty”. Spawls et al. (2002) highlighted that B. fischeri could be regarded as a flagship species for Tanzania, “for their habitat is restricted and under grave threat from logging and agricultural development.” B. f. multituberulatum was reportedly more common in disturbed areas than forest (IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC. 1999). In 1999, the 15th meeting of the Animals Committee recorded that the species is restricted to forests, which are declining; little population data are available; concerns relate to the scientific basis for the quota and for the level of exports (Anon., 1999). At the 16th Animals Committee

34

meeting in 2000 a primary recommendation was made to Tanzania to provide the CITES Secretariat with detailed information on: i) the distribution and abundance of this species in its country; ii) the justification, or the scientific basis by which it has established that the quantities

currently exported will not be detrimental to the survival of the species; and iii) mechanisms that are in place to ensure that established annual quota are no longer

exceeded (Anon., 2000). Tanzania‟s response was recorded at the 45th meeting of the Standing Committee in 2001. The Management Authority of Tanzania stated that: i) much of the range of the species is covered by protected areas where no offtakes are allowed; ii) quotas take account of observations on the status of the species in harvesting areas, information obtained from trapping records and exports, and its abundance in tea and coffee plantations. The Secretariat was satisfied that adequate measures were in place to implement Article IV for exports of the species and undertook to help the Management Authority to refine the current system of monitoring trapping effort. An explanation of the quota control system was also provided, which the Secretariat was satisfied with, but which would need to be tested in practice when future annual reports were submitted (Anon., 2001). The Secretariat believed that no further action was required provided that the annual export quota for this species was maintained at the 2001 level and that regular surveys be done to monitor the status of the species in harvesting areas (Anon., 2001). Carpenter et al. (2004) suggested that the species was potentially of concern as a result of the live chameleon trade, especially as B. fisheri had a restricted range and considered endemic to Kenya and Tanzania. Kim Howell (cited in IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC, 1999) noted the existence of captive breeding operations in February 1999 rearing the species however, it was unclear whether these were captive bred or represented clutches laid by wild-caught gravid females or were simply wild collected individuals. It was also unclear what scale these operations were taking place.

REFERENCES: Anon. 1999. Proceedings of CITES Animals Committee Fifteenth meeting, Antananarivo,

Madagascar, 5-9 July 1999. http://www.cites.org/common/com/ac/15AC-Proceedings.pdf Viewed 2 November 2007.

Anon. 2000. Sixteenth meeting of the Animals Committee, Shepherdstown (United States of America), 11-15 December 2000. Progress on the implementation of phase IV of the review of Significant Trade.

http://www.cites.org/common/com/AC/16/E16-07-1.pdf Viewed 2 November 2007. Anon. 2001. Forty-fifth meeting of the Standing Committee Paris (France), 19-22 June 2001.

Interpretation and implementation of the Convention. Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix-II species. http://www.cites.org/eng/com/SC/45/E45-12.pdf Viewed 2 November 2007.

Anon. 2006. Twenty-second meeting of the Animals Committee, Lima (Peru), 7-13 July 2006. Progress Report from the Co-Chairman of the Nomenclature Committee. AC22 Doc. 23. http://www.cites.org/eng/com/ac/22/E22-23.pdf Accessed on 3 November 2007.

Broadley, D. G. & Howell, K. M. 1991. A checklist of the reptiles of Tanzania, with synoptic keys. Syntarsus 1: 1-70. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: The National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.

Carpenter, A.I., Marcus Rowcliffe, J. & Watkinson, A.R. 2004. The dynamics of the global trade in chameleons. Biological Conservation 120 (2): 295-305.

Howell, K. Comments from K. Howell, African Representative on request of Marinus Hoogmoed, 10 June 2002, CC02/296A.

IIED & TRAFFIC. 2002. Making a Killing or Making a Living? Wildlife trade, trade controls and rural livelihoods Biodiversity and Livelihoods Issues No.6.

http://www.cites.org/common/com/ac/15AC-Proceedings.pdf%20Viewed%202%20November%202007

http://www.cites.org/common/com/ac/15AC-Proceedings.pdf%20Viewed%202%20November%202007

http://www.cites.org/common/com/AC/16/E16-07-1.pdf

http://www.cites.org/eng/com/SC/45/E45-12.pdf

http://www.cites.org/eng/com/ac/22/E22-23.pdf

35

IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC. 1999. Review of significant trade in animal species included in CITES Appendix II. Detailed reviews of 24 species. Report to the CITES Animals Committee, July 1999.

IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 29 October 2007.

Klaver, C. J. J. & Böhme, W. 1997. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien, Chamaeleonidae. Das Tierreich 112: i-xiv, 1-85 Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, New York..

Loveridge, A. 1924. Checklist of the Reptilia recorded from the British Territories in East Africa. Journal of the East African and Uganda Natural History Society Special publ. 3:1-16.

Necas, P. 1999. Chameleons – Nature’s hidden jewels. Frankfurt am Main: Chimaira Verlag. 348pp.

Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R. & Ashe, J. 2002. A field guide to the reptiles of East Africa. London: Academic Press.

Tegeta Avifauna Farm Ltd. 2007. URL: http://www.avifaunafarm.com/reptiles.htm Accessed on the 2nd November 2007.

Uetz, P., Etzold, T. & Chenna, R (comps.). 2001. The EMBL Reptile Database.URL: http://www.reptile-database.org/ Accessed on 8th October 2007.

http://www.avifaunafarm.com/reptiles.htm

http://www.reptile-database.org/

36


REPTILIA: CHAMAELEONIDAE SPECIES: Bradypodion tavetanum

SYNONYMS: Chamaeleo abbotti, Chamaeleo fischeri tavetanus,

Chamaeleo tavetanus, Chamaeleon tavetanus, Kinyongia tavetana

COMMON NAMES: Mount Kilimanjaro Two-horned Chameleon

(English), Caméléon nain de Matschie (French) RANGE STATES: Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: A positive opinion was formed for the United

Republic of Tanzania on the 27th of January 1999.

TRADE PATTERNS: An analysis presented by Carpenter et al. (2004) indicated that 8,756 Bradypodion tavetanum were exported from Tanzania between 1977-2001, making Tanzania the only exporter of this species for that period. The species is one of the seven main chameleon species in trade from Tanzania (Carpenter et al., 2004). An example of a recent price found on-line for B. tavetanum from Tanzania was US$8 (F.O.B) (Tegeta Avifauna Farm, 2007). The export quota for wild-taken B. tavetanum has remained at 3,000 specimens since 1997 (see Table 5.12). The quota for F1 specimens varied between 81 in 1999 and 170 in 2003. Between 2006 and 2007 the quota for F1 specimens increased from 83 to 87 F1 specimens. According to data from importing countries, export quotas for wild-taken specimens were exceeded in 2000, 2002 and 2003. Data from Tanzania also indicated export volumes over quota in 2000 and 2002. A detailed analysis of export permit numbers suggested that Tanzania‟s annual reports to CITES were very incomplete in 2003 and 2004. Table 5.12. Export quotas for Bradypodion tavetanum from U.R Tanzania

Year 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

Wild-taken 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

Ranched specimens 91

F1 specimens 87 83 108 100 170 109 159 170 81

The large majority of reported trade in B. tavetanum between 2000 and 2005 refers to wild-taken specimens with low level trade in specimens with sources C and F. The maximum number of individuals imported worldwide from Tanzania was 3,438 in 2002 (see Tables 5.13 & 5.14). The EU is a major importer of wild-taken B. tavetanum and reported the import of 5,934 individuals from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005 (see Table 5.13). The numbers of B. tavetanum imported by the EU from Tanzania varied between a maximum of 1,257 chameleons in 2003 and a minimum of 754 in 2001 (see Table 5.13). Germany was the main EU importer, accounting for 2,454 wild-taken B. tavetanum imported from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005, 41.4% of individuals imported by the EU from the country (see Table 5.13). The Netherlands is the second largest EU importer, accounting for 991 B. tavetanum, 16.7% of the species imported by the EU during the period (see Table 5.13). A total of 302 F1 specimens

37

was imported by the EU from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005; 230 of these (76.2%) were imported by Germany (see Table 5.13). Table 5.13. All reported exports* of Bradypodion tavetanum from U.R. Tanzania to EU Member States from 2000-2005.


live F Germany Importer 20 50 10 30 90 30 230

Exporter 25 60 60 30 175


Exporter 50 50

United Kingdom Importer 10 12 22

Exporter 10 12 22

W Belgium Importer 149 87 132 33 30 33 464

Exporter 298 145 132 26 601


Exporter 20 20


Exporter 15 15

France Importer 70 109 89 88 74 78 508

Exporter 50 137 77 92 52 54 462


Exporter 142 79 68 23 40 75 427


Exporter 253 162 349 321 221 465 1771


Exporter 33 33

Italy Importer 0

Exporter 38 50 88


Exporter 109 287 99 70 71 40 676

Poland Importer 17 47 50 114

Exporter 36 39 40 115


Exporter 25 25

Spain Importer 97 86 45 90 185 93 596

Exporter 81 86 30 35 197 96 525

Total wild live imported 837 754 837 1257 1233 1016 5934

Total wild live exported 971 896 841 621 654 775 4758

Total F1 specimens imported 20 50 20 42 90 80 302

Total F1 specimens exported 25 70 0 60 0 92 247


38

Table 5.14. All reported exports* of Bradypodion tavetanum from U.R. Tanzania to the rest of the world (non-EU Member States) from 2000-2005.


bodies W Importer 0

Exporter 6 6

live C Importer 25 25

Importer 14 14

F Importer 14 14

Exporter 30 44 5 79

W Importer 2223 1291 2601 2234 1529 1096 10974

Exporter 2587 1654 2694 1226 831 1331 10323


CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES Recorded only from Tanzania and Kenya (Broadley & Howell, 1991, Klaver & Böhme, 1997; Uetz et al., 2001). Recorded from the Taita Hills in Kenya (Uetz et al., 2001, Welch, 1982). Usually found in forest and woodland on mountains and hill ranges (1000-2200m altitude) and also gardens, hedges and plantations (Spawls et al., 2002).

TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa (in litt., Anon. 2004a) reported that its range is vulnerable to deforestation. TRAFFIC and the IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme recommended in 2004 that the Animals Committee might seek information from Tanzania on the basis for its non-detriment findings in view of the species‟ distribution and potential vulnerability of its habitat (Anon. 2004a). After closer examination of the data, the species was excluded as a possible candidate for review by UNEP-WCMC (Anon. 2004b), and this recommendation was accepted by the Animals Committee (Anon., 2005). B. tavetanum was not included in the IUCN Red list (IUCN, 2007).

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Occurs in the United Republic of Tanzania (Klaver &

Böhme, 1997) mainly in the north eastern Tanzania (Spawls et al., 2002) in the South and North Pare Mountains, Arusha area, Kilimanjaro (Broadley & Howell, 1991; Klaver & Böhme, 1997; Razzetti. & Msuya, 2002; Uetz et al., 2001) and Taita Hills (Welch, 1982). The species was observed during a survey on the trees around Seneto Post (Razzetti. & Msuya, 2002) and Loveridge (1957) reported about a series of specimens collected on the Meru for C.J.P. Ionides by Col. J. Minnery. Carpenter et al. (2004) suggested that the species was potentially of concern as a result of the live chameleon trade, especially as B. tavetanum has a restricted range and considered endemic to Kenya and Tanzania. No information on population or conservation status could be identified.

REFERENCES: Anon. 2004a. Taxa identified as possible candidates for inclusion in the review of significant

trade in specimens of Appendix-II species. Prepared for the Twentieth meeting of the CITES Animals Committee, Johannesburg (South Africa), 29 March – 2 April 2004 by TRAFFIC and IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme. http://www.cites.org/common/com/ ac/20/E20-inf-12.pdf

Anon. 2004b. Review of Significant Trade. Volume 2. Animals. Prepared for the CITES Animals Committee, CITES Secretariat by UNEP-WCMC, January 2004. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/species/sca/pdfs/E20-08-5-A.pdf

http://www.cites.org/common/com/%20ac/20/E20-inf-12.pdf

http://www.cites.org/common/com/%20ac/20/E20-inf-12.pdf

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/species/sca/pdfs/E20-08-5-A.pdf

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/species/sca/pdfs/E20-08-5-A.pdf

39

Anon. 2005 Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix-II species. Twenty-first meeting of the Animals Committee, Geneva (Switzerland), 20-25 May 2005. http://www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/21/E21-10.2.pdf

Broadley, D. G. & Howell, K. M. 1991. A checklist of the reptiles of Tanzania, with synoptic keys. Syntarsus, 1: 1-70. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: The National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.


IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 1st November 2007.

Klaver, C. J. J. & Böhme, W. 1997. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien, Chamaeleonidae. Das Tierreich, 112: i-xiv 1 - 85. Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, New York.

Loveridge, A. 1957. Checklist of the reptiles and amphibians of east Africa (Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Zanzibar). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 117 (2): 153-362

Razzetti, E. & Msuya, C. A. 2002. Field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Arusha National Park (Tanzania). Tanzania National Parks. 1-84.



TRAFFIC East/South Africa in litt., to Anon. 2004a. Taxa identified as possible candidates for inclusion in the review of significant trade in specimens of Appendix-II species. Prepared for the Twentieth meeting of the CITES Animals Committee, Johannesburg (South Africa), 29 March – 2 April 2004 by TRAFFIC and IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme.


Welch, K. R. G. 1982. Herpetology of Africa: a checklist and bibliography of the orders Amphisbaenia, Sauria and Serpentes. Florida: Krieger.

http://www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/21/E21-10.2.pdf




40


REPTILIA: CHAMAELEONIDAE SPECIES: Chamaeleo bitaeniatus SYNONYMS: - COMMON NAMES: Montane Chameleon (English), Side-striped

Chameleon (English), Two-lined Chameleon (English), Caméléon à deux bandes (French), Camaleón de dos bandas (Spanish), tvåbandad kameleont (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya,

Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: A positive opinion was formed for Democratic

Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and United Republic of Tanzania on 27th of January. A positive opinion for F1 specimens was formed for the United Republic of Tanzania on the 23rd of June 1999.

TRADE PATTERNS: An analysis presented by Carpenter et al. (2004) indicated that 5,154 Chamaeleo bitaeniatus were exported from Tanzania between 1977-2001, making Tanzania the second largest exporter of this species for that period, after Kenya. An example of a recent price found on-line for Chamaeleo bitaeniatus from Tanzania was US$7 (F.O.B) (Tegeta Avifauna Farm, 2007). The export quota for wild-taken C. bitaeniatus has remained at 1000 since 1997 and the quota for F1 specimens varied each year between a low of 95 in 2006 and a high of 291 in 2001 (see Table 5.15). Following a detailed analysis based on export permit numbers it appears that according to importers data the quota for wild-caught specimens was exceeded in 2002, 2003 and 2004 whilst according to Tanzania‟s data the quota was exceeded in 2000, 2001 and 2002. It was apparent that Tanzania‟s reporting for 2003 and 2004 was very incomplete. The EC reported total imports of 2,945 wild-caught specimens and 80 F1 specimens between 2000 and 2005 with the main importers being Germany, Netherlands Spain and United Kingdom. Imports reported by non-EC countries amounted to 3340 live wild specimens (see Table 5.16).

Table 5.15 Export quotas for Chamaeleo bitaeniatus from U.R Tanzania from 1997-2007.

Year 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

F1 specimens 104 95 152 139 204 - 291 222 189

Ranched 164

Wild-taken 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

41

Table 5.16 All reported exports* of Chamaeleo bitaeniatus from U.R. Tanzania to EU Member States from 2000-2005.


live W Belgium Importer 76 44 22 142

Exporter 43 55 98

Czech Republic Importer 8 11 19

Exporter 8 8

Denmark Importer 11 11 22

Exporter 11 11


Exporter 43 39 10 22 11 125


Exporter 122 52 154 230 106 188 852


Exporter 0


Exporter 89 81 92 116 34 97 509

Poland Importer 0

Exporter 4 20 24


Exporter 13 13

Spain Importer 58 70 20 114 135 51 448

Exporter 45 90 42 64 155 31 427


Exporter 61 20 21 54 33 189

F Germany Importer 80 80

Exporter 0


Exporter 6 6

bodies W Germany Importer 3 3

Exporter 3 3

Total live wild reported by Importer 492 220 269 604 864 496 2945

Total live wild reported by Exporter 407 243 431 420 371 384 2256

Total live F1 reported by Importer 0 0 0 0 0 80 80

Total live F1 reported by Exporter 0 0 0 6 0 0 6


Table 5.17. All reported exports* of Chamaeleo bitaeniatus from U.R. Tanzania to the rest of the world (non-EU Member States) from 2000-2005.


bodies W Importer 10 10

Exporter 0

live F Importer 10 10

Exporter 45 30 75

W Importer 346 608 764 575 652 395 3340

Exporter 714 760 823 401 194 434 3326


42

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES

Widespread in Eastern Africa (Luxmoore et al., 1988). Terra typica is Lake Naivasha, Kenya (Broadley & Howell,1991; Klaver & Böhme, 1997; Uetz et al., 2001). Usually distributed in medium to high altitude open savannah and grassland from 100-2000m or higher, woodlands and isolated hills in dry country (Spawls et al., 2002). Medium size chameleon usually 11-14cm, maximum 16cm (Spawls et al., 2002). Between 6-15 young can be born, although 25 young have been recorded from one individual (Spawls et al., 2002). Although international trade was said to be the only known threat to the species in the wild, Luxmoore et al. (1988) stated they did not believe the level of reported global trade in the early 1980s to be cause for significant concern. However, with no information on conservation status population size or life history characteristics in the wild available at the time, Luxmoore et al (1988) noted that no conclusions could then be drawn as to the effect of trade on conservation status. Spawls et al. (2002) noted that Chamaeleo bitaeniatus “may be abundant in some areas, but populations seem to peak and crash”. The author added “this may be connected to the fact that the species gives live birth, and possibly also with predation by birds”. It was not included in the IUCN Red list (IUCN, 2007).

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Occurs in the United Republic of Tanzania (Klaver &

Böhme, 1997; Uetz et al., 2001). Rand, 1963 and Howell, 1986 (in Luxmoore et al., 1988) stated the species was restricted to Longido West. Distribution also noted in west Tanzania (Welch, 1982). Sporadic records have noted its presence in north-eastern Tanzania including in Ngorongoro, Arusha, Mount Longido and Lake Victoria (Spawls et al., 2002). No information on population or conservation status could be identified.

REFERENCES: Broadley, D. G. & Howell, K. M. 1991. A checklist of the reptiles of Tanzania, with synoptic

keys. Syntarsus 1: 1-70. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: The National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.


IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 01 November 2007.

Klaver, C. J. J. & Böhme, W. 1997. Chamaeleonidae. Das Tierreich. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. & Broad, S. 1988. The significance of trade in selected species listed in

CITES Appendix II. Vol. 3. Reptiles and invertebrates. Lausanne: CITES Secretariat. Rand, A. S. 1963. Notes on the Chamaeleo bitaeniatus complex. Bulletin of the Museum of

Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. 130 (1): 1-29. Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R. & Ashe, J. 2002. A field guide to the reptiles of East Africa.

London: Academic Press. Tegeta Avifauna Farm Ltd. 2007. URL: http://www.avifaunafarm.com/reptiles.htm

Accessed on the 2nd November 2007. Uetz, P., Etzold, T. & Chenna, R (comps.). 2001. The EMBL Reptile Database.URL:

http://www.reptile-database.org/ Accessed 8th October 2007. Welch, K. R. G. 1982. Herpetology of Africa: a checklist and bibliography of the orders Amphisbaenia,

Sauria and Serpentes. Florida: Krieger.




43


REPTILIA: CHAMAELEONIDAE SPECIES: Chamaeleo dilepis SYNONYMS: Chamaeleo angusticoronatus, Chamaeleo bilobus,

Chamaeleo capellii, Chamaeleo planiceps, Chamaeleon dilepis, Chamaeleon petersii kirkii

COMMON NAMES: Lappenkameleon (Dutch), Flap-necked Chameleon

(English), Caméléon bilobé (French), Caméléon de Leach (French), Camaleón lobulado (Spanish), flikkameleont (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Congo,

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Swaziland, ? Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: A positive opinion was formed all countries on the

9th of October 1997 and a positive opinion was subsequently confirmed for Cameroon on the 25th October 2005.

TRADE PATTERNS: An analysis presented by Carpenter et al. (2004) indicated that 3,1577 Chamaeleo dilepis were exported from Tanzania between 1977-2001, making it the second largest exporter of this species after Burundi. The species is one of the seven main chameleon species in trade from the country and represents 24% of all trade in chameleons exported from Tanzania (Carpenter et al., 2004). The average prices for Chamaeleo dilepis between 1990-2001 were found to be the following: US$0.05 (collector‟s price) US$0.16 (middleman‟s price; mark-up: x3.2), US$5 (minimum export price; mark up: x31.3) US$40 (US Retail price; mark-up: x8.0) (IIED and TRAFFIC, 2002). An example of a recent price found on-line for C. dilepis from Tanzania was US$7 (F.O.B) (Tegeta Avifauna Farm, 2007). Export quotas for wild-taken specimens remained constant since 1997, whereas those for F1 specimens have changed from year to year, most notably in 2002 when it decreased to 254 from 861 in 2001 (see Table 5.18). Following a detailed analysis based on export permit numbers it appears that according to importers data the quota for wild-caught specimens has been exceeded in every year since 2002 and as remarked upon earlier, it was apparent that Tanzania‟s reporting for 2003 and 2004 was very incomplete.

44

Table 5.18. Export Quotas for Chamaeleo dilepis from U.R Tanzania between 1997-2007 (UNEP-WCMC, 2007).

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Wild-taken 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000

Ranched 953

F1 specimens 953 953 861 254 234 208 220 140 165

Table 5.19 All reported exports* of Chamaeleo dilepis from U.R. Tanzania to EU Member States between 2000-2005.


Live W Belgium Importer 294 165 167 220 97 31 974

Exporter 343 254 189 32 818

Denmark Importer 20 20 59 38 29 166

Exporter 20 31 11 25 22 109

France Importer 182 121 118 162 145 87 815

Exporter 181 160 102 74 85 29 631


Exporter 252 188 390 557 314 611 2312


Exporter 10 10 20


Exporter 64 100 164


Exporter 150 279 349 272 70 125 1245

Poland Importer 78 50 128

Exporter 20 59 89 20 12 200

Spain Importer 185 110 50 305 244 227 1121

Exporter 196 110 60 154 264 188 972


Exporter 136 79 30 54 32 170 501

F France Importer 0

Exporter 30 30

Germany Importer 4 120 30 154

Exporter 4 30 34


Exporter 30 30


Exporter 12 12


Exporter 9 9



Total live F1 specimens imported 0 4 0 0 170 72 246

Total live F1 specimens exported 0 4 0 0 30 72 106


45

Table 5.20. All reported exports* of Chamaeleo dilepis from U.R. Tanzania to the rest of the world (non-EU Member States) from 2000-2005.


live C Importer 84 67 85 14 250

Exporter 0

F Importer 10 10

Exporter 80 60 10 150

W Importer 2474 2253 3554 3775 3069 2997 18122

Exporter 3415 2778 3779 1588 1157 2311 15028

bodies W Importer 4 6 6 16

Exporter 0

specimens W Importer 2 2

Exporter 0


CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES Its range extends to most of the savannas of tropical Africa. It is found in moist and dry savannah and bushland (Razzetti & Msuya, 2002; Spawls et al., 2002). Found from sea level to altitudes of about 1500-1800m (Spawls et al., 2002). A large (20-24 cm) species of chameleon, with a gular crest on the median line of the throat and on the belly (Razzetti & Msuya, 2002). Maximum size is 43 cm (Spawls et al., 2002). Breeding is usually in the early rains. Egg development takes 3-4 months and in the dry season the female lays 25-50 small eggs that hatch in approximately 150 days (Razzetti & Msuya, 2002). It was not included in the IUCN Red list (IUCN, 2007).

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: The subspecies C. dilepis martensi is endemic to Pemba Island (Broadley & Howell, 1991; Klaver & Böhme, 1997). The subspecies C. dilepis dilepis and C. dilepis roperi are also found in Tanzania (Broadley & Howell, 1991; Klaver & Böhme, 1997). Considered a widespread and common species in Tanzania, found in a variety of habitats (Howell et al., 2000). It is widely distributed throughout the country although records lack from Kagera, the Serengeti area and from the hinterland in the Tabora and Rovuma regions (Spawls et al., 2002). The species was listed as possibly present in Arusha National Park as although it has never been observed in the park, it is common in different areas in north Tanzania (Razzetti & Msuya, 2002). It is present in the Rufiji floodplain and delta (Howell et al., 2000) coastal forests of Kichi Hills, Selous Game Reserve, Kiwengoma (Broadley & Howell in press in Howell et al., 2000) and found in Nawenge Forest Reserve (Broadley & Howell in press in Howell et al., 2000; Bracebridge, 2004). Although the level of trade in C. dilepis was considered to be relatively high, Carpenter et al., 2004 noted that high trade can be positively correlated with range size and abundance. The species was found to be widely distributed. However, the authors highlighted that “…any species currently traded at high annual volumes, such … C. dilepis should be of concern to conservationists as there is a lack of information concerning the biology of the species and harvesting impacts. As far as we are aware, none of the species traded have monitoring programs associated with their harvesting, something that urgently needs to be addressed.” (Carpenter et al., 2004).

REFERENCES: Bracebridge, C. 2004. Results of Fauna. In: Nawenge Forest Reserve: A biodiversity survey. Pp.

14-17. Frontier-Tanzania Enviromental Research Report 109. Society for Environmental

46

Exploration UK, University of Dar es Salaam, Forest and Beekeeping Division, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Broadley, D. G. & Howell, K. M. 1991. A checklist of the reptiles of Tanzania, with synoptic keys. Syntarsus 1: 1-70. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: The National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.


Howell, K.M., Msuya, C.A. & Kihaule, P.M. 2000. A preliminary biodiversity (fauna) assessment of the Rufiji floodplain and delta. Technical report no. 9. Rufiji Environment Management Project.

IIED & TRAFFIC, 2002. Impacts of wildlife trade regulations. Making a Killing or Making a Living? Wildlife trade, trade controls and rural livelihoods. Biodiversity and Livelihoods 6: Chapter 7 pp 73-81.

IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 29 October 2007.

Klaver, C. & Böhme, W. 1997 Chamaeleonidae. Das Tierreich, Part 112. Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. New York. 85 pp.

Razzetti, E. & Msuya, C.A. 2002. Field guide to the amphibians of Arusha National Park (Tanzania). TANAPA Arusha.




47


REPTILIA: CHAMAELEONIDAE SPECIES: Chamaeleo gracilis SYNONYMS: Chamaeleo burchelli, Chamaeleo granulosus, Chamaeleo

simoni COMMON NAMES: Schone Kameleon (Dutch), Graceful Chameleon

(English), Gracile Chameleon (English), Slender Chameleon (English), Spur-heeled Chameleon (English), Caméléon gracile (French), Camaleón grácil (Spanish), sporrkameleont (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Angola, ?Benin, Cameroon, Central African

Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: A positive opinion was formed for all countries on the 2nd of September 1997. A positive opinion was formed for Cameroon on the 25th October2005. A negative opinion was formed for ranched specimens from Togo on the 23rd of June 1999 resulting in trade suspensions from 24/09/2000 until 10/05/2006. On 01/10/2007 this was removed for ranched specimens with a snout to vent length of less than 8 cm. A negative opinion was formed on the 20th December 2005 for wild specimens from Togo. A negative opinion was formed on the 15th of May 2002 for Benin and was followed by a trade suspension from the 18th of February 2005 until the time of writing.

TRADE PATTERNS: An analysis by Carpenter et al. (2004) indicated that 2,316 specimens were exported from Tanzania between 1977-2001, making Tanzania the sixth main exporter of this species for that period, after Ghana, Togo, Benin, Kenya and Cameroon. It appeared that Tanzania (along with Togo) became one of the main exporters of this species, following legislation in 1985 to ban the trade in Kenya which had previously been the principal exporter (Luxmoore et al., 1985; IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC, 1996). Recent prices found on-line for Chamaeleo gracilis from Tanzania were found to be US$7 (F.O.B) (Tegeta Avifauna Farm, 2007). The export quota for wild-taken C. gracilis has remained at 1000 every year since 1997 and the quota for F1 specimens varied between a low of 20 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and a high of 77 in 2002 with no quota being set in 1997-2000 (see Table 5.21). Following a detailed analysis based on export permit numbers it appears that the quota for wild-caught specimens was exceeded by 42 specimens in 2004 but not in other years. As remarked above, it was apparent that Tanzania‟s reporting for 2003 and 2004 was very incomplete.

48

The EC reported total imports of 1747 wild-caught specimens between 2000 and 2005 with the main importers being Belgium, Germany and Netherlands. Imports reported by non-EC countries amounted to 2854 live wild specimens (see Table 5.22). There appeared to have been no trade in F1 specimens. Table 5.21. Export quotas for Chamaeleo gracilis from U.R Tanzania from 1997-2007.

Year 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

wild-taken 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

F1 specimens 20 20 20 24 41 77 70

Table 5.22. All reported exports* of Chamaeleo gracilis from U.R. Tanzania to EU Member States from 2000-2005.



Exporter 137 22 66 225

Czech Republic Importer 22 20 42

Exporter 0


Exporter 21 21

France Importer 20 20

Exporter 20 20


Exporter 30 20 142 127 115 149 583


Exporter 88 78 22 11 53 252

Poland Importer 0

Exporter 8 23 31

Spain Importer 22 11 21 51 20 125

Exporter 72 21 71 164


Exporter 55 10 19 20 20 124

Total live wild reported imported 340 102 229 362 449 265 1747

Total live wild reported exported 390 153 230 188 237 222 1420

* no re-exports were reported Table 5.23. All reported exports* of Chamaeleo gracilis from U.R. Tanzania to the rest of the world (non-EU Member States)


live W Importer 279 474 494 361 632 614 2854

Exporter 603 530 555 225 245 644 2802

* no re-exports were reported CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES: Considered to be a wide-ranging species (Luxmoore et al., 1988) extending throughout tropical Africa from Senegal to Angola and Sudan to Northern Tanzania (Luxmoore et al., 1988; Klaver & Böhme, 1997). Terra typica is Liberia, Western Africa (Broadley & Howell, 1991; Uetz et al., 2001). Occurs in moist and dry savanna and is mainly arboreal, often found in acacia trees (Spawls et al., 2002). This widespread species can be found in different habitats including wet and dry forest, forest borders and bushlands, but humid areas are usually avoided (Razzetti & Msuya, 2002).

49

A large chameleon (up to 40 cm) that greatly resembles Chamaeleo dilepis (Razzetti & Msuya, 2002). After mating, the female digs a small hole in the ground and lays 20-30 eggs that will hatch after 240-300 days (Razzetti & Msuya, 2002). Although international trade was said to be the only known threat to Chamaeleo gracilis in the wild, Luxmoore et al. (1988) did not believe it was sufficient to cause concern for the overall status of the species. The authors did note however that „accessible populations‟ could have been affected, particularly post-1985 when the level of trade increased. But, with no information on conservation status, population size or life history characteristics in the wild available at the time, conclusions could not then be drawn as to the effect of trade on conservation status (Luxmoore et al., 1988). A Significant Trade Review in 1996 remarked that although trade had increased since 1987 and local populations could possibly have been adversely affected, no field data was available at the time (IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC, 1996). The review concluded that the reported trade could not be having a significant impact on the species as a whole, arguing that it had a wide-ranging distribution which was not limited to scarce or fragile habitat (IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC, 1996). More recently, the high levels of C.gracilis trade were once again regarded as “probably not associated with conservation concern, as the species is widespread which is possibly correlated with high abundance the species” (Carpenter et al., 2004). Information on population levels seem to be lacking throughout its range. It was not included in the IUCN Red list (IUCN, 2007).

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Occurs in the United Republic of Tanzania (Loveridge,

1924; Klaver & Böhme, 1997; Uetz et al., 2001) in particular northern Tanzania (Broadley & Howell, 1991, Klaver & Böhme, 1997). Was recorded in the Tanganika territory but not in Zanzibar during the British colonial period (Loveridge, 1924). Later the species was recorded as restricted to Longido and Mount Meru in northern Tanzania (Loveridge, 1957; Howell, 1986 in Luxmoore et al., 1988). Other „sporadic‟ records exist from northern Tanzania in Lake Manyara, Arusha, Longido (Spawls et al., 2004). No population information was available for U.R Tanzania (IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC, 1996). No recent information could be identified on population or conservation status in the wild.

REFERENCES: Broadley, D. G. & Howell, K. M. 1991. A checklist of the reptiles of Tanzania, with synoptic



IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 01 November 2007.

IUCN, TRAFFIC & WCMC. 1996. Review of Significant Trade in Animal Species included in CITES Appendix II. Detailed reviews of 24 Species. Final Report to CITES Animals Committee, Cambridge UK.

Klaver, C. J. J. & Böhme, W. 1997. Chamaeleonidae. Das Tierreich. Loveridge, A. 1924. Check list of the Reptilia recorded from the British Territories in East

Africa. Journal. of the east African and Uganda natural history Society Special publ. 3:1-16. Loveridge, A. 1957. Check list of the reptiles and amphibians of east Africa (Uganda, Kenya,

Tanganyika, Zanzibar). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University,Cambridge (Massachusetts) 117 (2): 153-362


50

Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. & Broad, S. 1988. The significance of trade in selected species listed in CITES Appendix II. Vol. 3. Reptiles and invertebrates. Lausanne: CITES Secretariat.

Razzetti, E. & Msuya, C. A. 2002. Field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Arusha National Park (Tanzania). Tanzania National Parks. 1-84.






51


REPTILIA: CHAMAELEONIDAE SPECIES: Chamaeleo melleri SYNONYMS: Ensirostris melleri COMMON NAMES: Mellers Kameleon (Dutch), Giant One-horned

Chameleon (English), Meller's Chameleon (English), Caméléon de Meller (French), Camaleón de Meller (Spanish), Mellers kameleont (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Malawi, Mozambique, United Republic of Tanzania IUCN RED LIST: Not Evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: A positive opinion was formed for Mozambique and

the United Republic of Tanzania on the 27th of January 1999. A positive opinion was formed for F-1 specimens from the United Republic of Tanzania on the 23rd of June 1999.

TRADE PATTERNS: An analysis presented by Carpenter et al. (2004) indicated that Tanzania was the main exporter for this species with 16,531 exported from Tanzania between 1977-2001. The average prices for Chamaeleo melleri between 1990-2001 were found to be the following: US$1.15 (collector‟s price), US$2.46 (middleman‟s price; mark-up: x2.1), US$15 (minimum export price; mark up:x6.1), US$109 (US Retail price; mark-up: x7.3) (IIED and TRAFFIC, 2002). An example of a recent price found on-line for C. melleri from Tanzania was US$30 (F.O.B) (Tegeta Avifauna Farm, 2007) which was apparently the most highly priced species on this particular website, up to six times the price of other chameleon species. Export quotas have remained at 3000 for wild specimens since 1997 and rose from 91 to 307 F1 specimens from 1998-2001 and then varying between 54 and 162 between 2002-2007 (see Table 5.24). Following a detailed analysis based on export permit numbers it appears that according to importers data the quota for wild-caught specimens has been exceeded in 2002, 2003 and 2004 and as remarked upon earlier, it was apparent that Tanzania‟s reporting for 2003 and 2004 was very incomplete. Tanzania‟s data showed exports in excess of quota in 2000 and 2002. Imports reported were of 18586 wild-collected specimens with the EC accounting for 6328. The main EC importers were Germany, Netherlands and Spain (see Table 5.25). Table 5.24. Export quotas for Chamaeleo melleri from U.R Tanzania from 1997-2007.

Year 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

wild-taken 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

ranched 91

F1 specimens 81 54 81 81 162 131 307 262 98 -

52

Table 5.25. All reported exports* of Chamaeleo melleri from U.R. Tanzania to EU Member States from 2000-2005.


live W Austria Importer 0

Exporter 10 10

Belgium Importer 225 106 86 229 71 33 750

Exporter 231 127 143 22 523

Czech Republic Importer 20 33 58 50 161

Exporter 33 30 63


Exporter 14 43 8 15 80

France Importer 71 81 99 92 44 96 483

Exporter 69 92 86 53 32 48 380


Exporter 154 152 314 261 351 335 1567

Hungary Importer 5 3 8

Exporter 3 3

Italy Importer 0

Exporter 56 80 40 176


Exporter 0


Exporter 140 234 200 192 64 120 950

Poland Importer 10 10

Exporter 10 15 25

Slovakia Importer 4 43 47

Exporter 20 20

Spain Importer 81 94 60 240 336 194 1005

Exporter 116 112 94 51 368 96 837


Exporter 90 34 68 21 43 78 334

F Germany Importer 1 5 6

Exporter 1 5 6

United Kingdom Importer 18 10 20 48

Exporter 6 18 12 23 59






53

Table 5.26. All reported exports* of Chamaeleo melleri from U.R. Tanzania to rest of the world (non-EU Member States) between 2000-2005.


live C Importer 25 15 60 14 114

Exporter 0

F Importer 0

Exporter 20 35 55

W Importer 1768 1658 2438 2538 2200 1656 12258

Exporter 2385 1841 2626 1181 815 1918 10766

bodies W Importer 1 1 2

Exporter 0

specimens W Importer 1 1

Exporter 0

* no re-exports were reported CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES Recorded from Tanzania, northern Mozambique and Malawi (Klaver & Böhme, 1997; Uetz et al., 2001). Terra typica is East Africa, on the mountains of the interior (Klaver & Böhme, 1997). The largest chameleon in Africa (Spawls et al., 2002), it is arboreal and can be found up to 10 metres high in trees (Spawls et al., 2002). Distribution range said to be the “mountains in the interior of East Africa” (Loveridge, 1957). C. melleri occurs in savannah along the east coast from north-east Tanzania nearly to the Zambezi and extends inland to southern Malawi (Broadley, 2000) It was not included in the IUCN Red list (IUCN, 2007).

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Occurs in the United Republic of Tanzania (Broadley & Howell, 1991; Klaver & Böhme, 1997; Uetz et al., 2001 et al., 2001). Was recorded in the Tanganika territory but not in Zanzibar during the British colonial period (Loveridge, 1924). Sporadic records exists from eastern and southern Tanzania, with other records from Mtai Forest reserve and along the coast near Dar es Salaam and also inland at Morogoro, Kilosa and the Ulguru Mountains (Spawls et al., 2002), and the Selous Game Reserve, Kiwengoma (Howell et al., 2000). In Tanzania, it is usually found in well-wooded savannah (Broadley & Howell, 1991) and woodland (not high forest) at relatively low altitude from sea level up to 1500 metres (Spawls et al., 2002). Spawls et al. (2002) stated that this species “is probably not under any threat”, despite its popularity in the pet trade, as it has a relatively wide distribution range and can be bred fairly easily in captivity. However, Carpenter et al., (2004) suggested that C. melleri was potentially of concern as a result of the live chameleon trade, especially due to its restricted range.

REFERENCES: Broadley, D. G. 2000. BFA Seminar series no. 19. The Reptiles of the East African Coastal

Mosaic. Broadley, D. G. & Howell, K. M. 1991. A checklist of the reptiles of Tanzania, with synoptic



54

Howell, K.M., Msuya, C.A. and Kihaule, P.M. 2000. A preliminary (fauna) assessment of the Rufiji floodplain and delta. Technical report No. 9. Rufiji Envrionemtn Management Project.

IIED and TRAFFIC, 2002. Making a Killing or Making a Living? Wildlife trade, trade controls and rural livelihoods Biodiversity and Livelihoods Issues No.6

IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 01 November 2007.

Klaver, C. J. J. and Böhme, W. 1997. Chamaeleonidae. Das Tierreich. Loveridge, A. 1924. Check list of the Reptilia recorded from the British Territories in East

Africa. Journal. of the east African and Uganda natural history Society Special publ. 3:1-16. Loveridge, A. 1957. Check list of the reptiles and amphibians of east Africa (Uganda, Kenya,

Tanganyika, Zanzibar)., Cambridge (Massachusetts), 117 (2): 153-362 Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R. & Ashe, J. 2002. A field guide to the reptiles of East Africa.

London: Academic Press. Tegeta Avifauna Farm Ltd. 2007. URL: http://www.avifaunafarm.com/reptiles.htm

Accessed 2nd November 2007. Uetz, P., Etzold, T. & Chenna, R (comps.). 2001. The EMBL Reptile Database.URL:

http://www.reptile-database.org/ Accessed 8th October 2007.




55


REPTILIA: CHAMAELEONIDAE SPECIES: Chamaeleo rudis SYNONYMS: Chamaeleo sternfeldi, Chamaeleon bitaeniatus graueri,

Chamaeleon bitaeniatus rudis, Chamaeleon bitaeniatus tornieri, Chamaeleon burgeoni, Chamaeleon rudis

COMMON NAMES: Coarse Chameleon (English), Ruwenzori Side-

striped Chameleon (English), Caméléon rude (French), storfjällskameleont (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo,

Ethiopia, ?Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: A positive opinion was formed for F1 specimens from

the United Republic of Tanzania on the 23rd of June 1999.

TRADE PATTERNS: An analysis presented by Carpenter et al. (2004) indicated that 7,055 animals were exported from Tanzania between 1977 and 2001 (Carpenter et al., 2004), so that Tanzania accounted for 97% of global trade in the species over this period. An example of a recent price found on-line for Chamaeleo rudis from Tanzania was US$7 (F.O.B) (Tegeta Avifauna Farm, 2007). Quotas have remained at 1000 for wild-taken specimens species since 1997. The quota for F-1 specimens varied from 188-245 between 1999-2001, increasing to 353 in 2003 and decreasing from then until 2007 (see Table 5.27). Following a detailed analysis based on export permit numbers it appears that according to importers data the quota for wild-caught specimens has been exceeded in all years between 2000 and 2005 except for 2001, whilst Tanzania‟s data showed exports in excess of quota in all years between 2000 and 2003. It was apparent that Tanzania‟s reporting for 2003 and 2004 was very incomplete. Imports reported were of 8264 wild-collected specimens with the EC accounting for 3370 wild specimens between 2000 and 2005 (See Tables 5.28 and 5.29). The main EC importers were Germany, Spain and United Kingdom (UNEP-WCMC, 2006). Table 5.27 Export quotas for Chamaeleo rudis from U.R Tanzania from 1997-2007.

Year 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

wild-taken 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

F1 specimens 238 264 240 310 353 - 245 298 188

56

Table5.28. All reported exports* of Chamaeleo rudis from U.R. Tanzania to EU Member States from 2000-2005.



Exporter 48 52 55 155


Exporter 6 6


Exporter 11 11


Exporter 22 90 28 36 176


Exporter 168 109 178 279 80 194 1008


Exporter 10 10


Exporter 47 46 60 62 10 44 269

Poland Importer 0

Exporter 38 5 43

Spain Importer 56 53 60 139 142 71 521

Exporter 50 53 89 60 150 22 424


Exporter 33 26 11 30 62 52 214

F Germany Importer 50 100 70 80 180 85 565

Exporter 55 135 40 111 40 85 466


Exporter 40 40

United Kingdom Importer 12 12 12 35 71

Exporter 12 51 63


Exporter 4 4






Table 5.29. All reported exports* of Chamaeleo rudis from U.R. Tanzania to the rest of the world (non-EU Member States) from 2000-2005.


live C Importer 30 14 44

Exporter 0

F Importer 10 10

Exporter 56 75 75 21 227

W Importer 628 596 739 1413 779 739 4894

Exporter 885 697 1022 643 349 618 4214


57

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES Two widely separated populations occur in East Africa: one in the high country of the mountains and crater highlands in northern Tanzania (Kilimanjaro, Mount Meru, Ngorongoro, Embagai); the other population is in the Albertine Rift Valley, from Bujumbura north through to Rwanda to the Rwuwenzori range in Uganda and it was reported to be common in the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (Spawls et al., 2002). Considered endemic in the Albertine rift (Plumptre et al., 2003). Terra typical: Mt. Ruwenzori, Uganda (Uetz et al., 2001). Its range was described as “restricted but often abundant”, with the ability to adapt well to “suburbia and farm areas, so not under any threat” (Spawls et al., 2002).

A small and “robust” chameleon with snout-vent length 62-85 mm, it has a stocky body, short and broad head (Razzetti & Msuya, 2002; Spawls et al., 2002). It has no cranial horns or sail-like dorsal crest (Razzetti & Msuya, 2002). It is a mountain species usually found over 2500m (Razzetti and Msuya, 2002) which is capable of surviving sub-zero temperatures (Spawls et al., 2002). The subspecies, Chamaeleo rudis sternfeldi, was considered to be a separate species (Klaver and Böhme, 1997, cited by Razzetti & Msuya, 2002; Spawls et al., 2002). However, the status of several subspecies and certain populations was still under discussion and disputed (Spawls et al., 2002). It was not included in the IUCN Red list (IUCN, 2007).

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Occurs in the U.R Tanzania (Loveridge, 1924; Broadley & Howell, 1991; Klaver & Böhme, 1997; Razzetti & Msuya, 2002; Spawls et al., 2002; Uetz et al., 2001 ). Found in Arusha National Park at Mt. Meru at “Laikinae” (by Ionides, 1957) and on the eastern slope (by Cooper, both in Rand, 1963, cited by Razzetti & Msuya, 2002). The populations on Mt Meru were considered to be relict populations belonging to the Chamaeleo rudis sternfeldi subspecies (Razzetti & Msuya, 2002), but more recently this has been considered to be invalid as a subspecies (Spawls et al., 2002). Carpenter et al. (2004) considered that Chamaeleo rudis in Tanzania was of potential concern, as it is a species of restricted range and even a low level of trade represents a high rate of extraction and may increase the risk of extinction.

REFERENCES: Broadley, D. G. and Howell, K. M. 1991. A checklist of the reptiles of Tanzania, with synoptic

keys. pp. 1-70. Syntaurus. Carpenter, A.I., Marcus Rowcliffe, J., Watkinson, A.R. 2004. The dynamics of the global trade in

chameleons. Biological Conservation 120 (2): 295-305. IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on

29 October 2007. Klaver, C. J. J. & Böhme, W. 1997. Chamaeleonidae. Das Tierreich. Loveridge, A. 1924. Check list of the Reptilia recorded from the British Territories in East

Africa. Journal. of the east African and Uganda natural history Society Special publ. 3:1-16. Plumptre, A.J., Behangana, M., Davenport, T., Kahindo, C., Kityo, R., Ndomba, E., Nkuutu,

D., Owiunji, I., Ssegawa, P., Eilu, G., 2003. The Biodiversity of the Albertine Rift. Albertine Rift Technical Reports No. 3.

Rand, A.S. 1963. Notes on the Chamaeleo bitaeniatus complex. Bulletin of the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology 130(1): 1-29.

Razzetti, E. & Msuya, C.A. 2002. Field guide to the amphibians of Arusha National Park (Tanzania). TANAPA Arusha.

Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R. and Ashe, J. 2002. A field guide to the reptiles of East Africa. London: Academic Press.

58





59


REPTILIA: CORDYLIDAE SPECIES: Cordylus tropidosternum

SYNONYMS: Cordylus cordylus tropidosternum, Zonurus frenatus,

Zonurus parkeri, Zonurus tropidosternum COMMON NAMES: East African Spiny-tailed Lizard (English), Tropical

Girdled Lizard (English), Tropical Spiny-tailed Lizard (English), Cordyle de Cope (French), Lézard à queue épineuse de Cope (French), tropisk gördelödla (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Malawi,

Mozambique, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: A current positive opinion is in place for Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Malawi, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe which was formed on 27 January, 1999. A negative opinion was formed for Mozambique on 31 August 2001, following a positive opinion formed on 27 January 1999. An Article 6(4) b suspension for wild specimens was subsequently applied on 1 March 2003, which is still current (01/10/2007).

TRADE PATTERNS: The Tanzanian export quota for wild specimens has remained at 5000 individuals per year between 2000 and 2007 (see Table 5.30). Export quotas for F1 specimens have varied since 2000, between a minimum of 20 individuals in 2000, 120 individuals in 2003 and a maximum of 160 individuals in 2007 (see Table 5.30). It would appear that the export quota for wild specimens was considerably exceeded every year between 2002 and 2005 according to data reported by importers and it would further appear likely that Tanzania‟s reporting, at least for the years 2003 and 2004 was very incomplete. All reported trade in C. tropidosternum from Tanzania during the period 2000 and 2005 refers to wild specimens. The EU is a major importer of wild C. tropidosternum and imported 11,870 individuals of the species from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005 (see Table 5.31). This is 34% of the total number of 34,601 C. tropidosternum reported imports worldwide from Tanzania during the period. Germany was the main EU importer, accounting for the import of 4,691 C. tropidosternum from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005 and accounting for 39.5% of individuals imported by the EU from Tanzania during that time (see Table 5.31). Other EU countries importing large numbers of C. tropidosternum in this period were the Netherlands (1,637 individuals, 13.8% of EU imports), the UK (1,190 individuals, 10% of EU imports), Spain (1,158 individuals, 9.8% of EU imports) and France (1,118 individuals, 9.4% of EU imports) (see Table 5.31).

60

Table 5.30 Export quota for Cordylus tropidosternum from Tanzania, 2000-2007

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Wild 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000

F1 specimens 20 25 81 120 52 50 45 160

Table 5.31. Direct exports of Cordylus tropidosternum from Tanzania, 2000-2005* to the EU Member States.


live W Belgium Importer 185 111 216 215 55 782

Exporter 135 161 241 537

Czech Republic Importer 20 10 72 102

Exporter 10 10

Denmark Importer 30 80 55 165

Exporter 80 80

France Importer 130 95 220 308 110 255 1118

Exporter 185 120 205 178 80 45 813


Exporter 511 382 811 587 322 723 3336


Exporter 75 55 20 150


Exporter 80 80


Exporter 0


Exporter 250 265 310 242 50 86 1203


Exporter 194 327 570 64 45 1200

Spain Importer 190 160 80 260 352 116 1158

Exporter 245 121 180 30 267 116 959


Exporter 66 95 125 30 120 279 715



*No re-exports were reported. Table 5.32. Direct exports of Cordylus tropidosternum from Tanzania, 2000-2005* to the rest of the world (non-EU Member States).


live W Importer 2950 3498 3322 5129 4272 3470 22641

Exporter 3989 3423 3977 1953 1878 3561 18781

*No re-exports were reported.

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES C. tropidosternum is a diurnal lizard of medium size, with an average length of 14-17 cm (Spawls et al., 2002). It occurs from south-eastern Kenya and Tanzania, west through northern Zambia to the southern Democratic Republic of Congo (Katanga Province), south through Malawi and Mozambique to north-eastern Zimbabwe, reaching its southern limit on the Save River in Mozambique (Broadley, and Branch, 2002).

61

Very little is known of the species‟ population status and most of the information is dated. Switak (1995) in Fleming (1999) reported generally that habitat destruction and over-collection for the pet trade were threatening Cordylus lizards. C. tropidosternum occurs in the coastal zone and upland savannah (Anon., 2004). The species is usually found in holes and hollows of trees or under loose bark on dead trees (Broadley and Branch, 2002; Fitzsimmons, 1943). It has also been recorded in cracks in boulders along the shore of Lake Malawi, and single individuals were found in a hut wall and a tank crevice in Zimbabwe (Broadley and Branch, 2002). Three were taken from holes in a wall (Anon., 2004). C. tropidosternum is oviparous. The number of young produced at a time varies between one and five (Broadley and Branch, 2002), and is usually about four (Fitzsimmons, 1943).

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: In East Africa C. tropidosternum inhabits trees in coastal

forest, woodland and moist well-wooded savannah, from sea level to 1800 m (Spawls et al., 2002). Little information is available on the species‟ status in Tanzania. Anon. (2004) reported that it may generally be considered scarce in East Africa, except perhaps at Morogoro (190 km west of Dar es Salaam) where eleven were taken in a year. It was reported to be common in coastal forests of Ras Kutani which lie 50 km south of Dar es Salaam (Anon., 2007). There is little information on threats to the species in Tanzania REFERENCES: Anon. 2004. Cordylus tropidosternum. www.tallbo.com Accessed 23 October 2007. Anon. 2007. Herping Safaris in Tanzania and Kenya. Conservation Safaris.

http://www.conservationsafaris.com/Herping.html Accessed 25 October 2007. Broadley, D. G. and Branch, W. R. 2002. A review of the small east African Cordylus (Sauria:

Cordylidae), with the description of a new genus. African Journal of Herpetology 51(1): 9-34. http://www.wits.ac.za/haa/Broadley%2051(1)%209-34.pdf Accessed 23 October 2007.

Fitzsimons, V. F. 1943. The lizards of South Africa. Transvaal Museum Memoir, No. 1, Pretoria, South Africa.

Fleming, E. in litt., 1999 to TRAFFIC International. Information compiled by TRAFFIC for the CITES Animals Committee Significant Trade Review, Phase IV 1998-1999.

Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R. and Ashe, J. 2002. A field guide to the reptiles of East Africa. London: Academic Press. 543 pp.

Switak, K. H. 1995. Girdle-tailed lizards of the genus Cordylus. Reptiles 3(6):8-24.


http://www.wits.ac.za/haa/Broadley%2051(1)%209-34.pdf

62


REPTILIA: VARANIDAE

SPECIES: Varanus niloticus SYNONYMS: Lacerta capensis, Lacerta nilotica, Monitor elegans

senegalensis, Monitor pulcher, Stellio saurus COMMON NAMES: African Small-grain Lizard (English), Nile Monitor

(English), Varan du Nil (French), Varano del Nilo (Spanish), nilvaran (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi,

Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Cameroon has a current positive opinion formed on 25 October 2005. Chad also has a current positive opinion formed on 10 September 1998. United Republic of Tanzania has a current positive opinion formed on 5 September 2002. Benin has a current negative opinion formed on 20 December 2005 for wild specimens and a current Article 6(4) b suspension for ranched specimens first applied on 22 December 1997. Burundi and Mozambique have a current Article 6(4) b suspension for wild specimens that was first applied on 22 December 1997. Togo has a current negative opinion for wild specimens, first applied on 20 December 2005 and an Article 6(4) b suspension for ranched specimens first applied on 22 December 1997. Previously Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho, Mauritania, Rwanda, Swaziland had an Article 6(4) b were subject to an import suspension, first applied on 22 December 1997, and subsequently removed on 24 September 2000.

TRADE PATTERNS: Since 2000 the export quota for F1 specimens has varied between a minimum of 10 in 2001 and a maximum of 50 in 2003 (see Table 5.33). The export quota for wild-caught V. niloticus has also varied during the period, from 1,000 to 3,000 animals (see Table 5.33). Table 5.33. Export quotas for Varanus niloticus from U.R Tanzania, 2000-007

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Wild 3000 3000 3000 1000 3000 3000 3000

F1 specimens 29 10 25 50 30 30 30 20

63

Table 5.34. Direct exports of Varanus niloticus from Tanzania, 2000-2005 to the EU Member States.*


live W Austria Importer 0

Exporter 30 30

Belgium Importer 30 35 210 42 31 348

Exporter 33 140 62 235


Exporter 34 34

Denmark Importer 0

Exporter 10 10

France Importer 25 46 20 32 22 30 175

Exporter 34 50 30 22 10 146


Exporter 37 42 111 140 36 119 485

Lithuania Importer 15 15 30

Exporter 8 8

Netherlands Importer 19 27 192 20 258

Exporter 49 62 90 201


Exporter 21 22 29 5 77

Spain Importer 42 49 122 172 195 5 585

Exporter 106 49 181 80 170 5 591

United Kingdom Importer 10 15 30 30 110 195

Exporter 3 53 18 155 229

F Germany Importer 2 2

Exporter 0



*No re-exports were reported. Table 5.35. Direct exports of Varanus niloticus from Tanzania, 2000-2005 to the rest of the world (non-EU Member States).*


live W Importer 262 1284 1493 1266 775 776 5856

W Exporter 429 1045 1934 867 449 693 5417

*No re-exports were reported. All V. niloticus exported from Tanzania between 2000 and 2005 were wild-caught. Following a detailed analysis of export permit numbers it appears that the reduced export quota of 1,000 individuals for 2004 and 2005 may have been slightly exceeded (by 99 specimens) in 2004, however exports appear to have been within quota for all other years. It would also appear likely that Tanzania‟s reporting, at least for the years 2003 and 2004 was very incomplete The EU is a major importer of wild, live V. niloticus and imported 2,260 individuals between 2000 and 2005 (see Table 5.34). The numbers of V. niloticus imported by the EU from Tanzania varied between a peak of 867 in 2003 and a minimum of 140 in 2000. In 2004, the EU imported 482 V. niloticus from Tanzania, nearly half (48.2%) of the total export quota (see Table 5.34).

64

Germany and Spain were the main EU importers between 2000 and 2005, accounting for 588 and 585 V. niloticus respectively imported from Tanzania during the period (see Table 5.34). These represent 26% and 25.6% respectively of individuals of the species imported by the EU during that time. Other EU countries importing large numbers of V. niloticus in the period were Belgium (348 individuals, 15.4% of EU imports) and the Netherlands (258 individuals, 11.4% of EU imports).

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES

V. niloticus is a versatile, diurnal monitor lizard which is active in water and on the ground (Spawls et al., 2002). The species can grow to a very large size; a maximum length of 2.4 m has been recorded in South Africa (Lenz, 2004). Despite its abundance, size and economic importance, V. niloticus is very poorly known (Bennett, 2003). The species has the widest distribution of any African lizard (Spawls et al., 2002). Its distribution extends over the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, from 180N longitude to the most southern part of the subcontinent. Additionally, it extends along the River Nile up to Egypt (Böhme and Ziegler, 1997). The species has been recorded as high as 2000 m above sea level in Ethiopia (Spawls et al., 2002). In the West and Central African rain forest (Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Togo, Zaire) it is replaced by V. ornatus (Böhme and Ziegler, 1997). The species is widespread throughout East Africa where there are suitable water sources; known localities include all lakes and major perennial river systems below 1600 m down to sea level. It is widespread on the East African coast, and known from all the big islands, except Pemba (Tanzania) (Spawls et al., 2002). The presence of Nile Monitors is tied to a few necessary habitat structures, which can be variably shaped in different habitats and vegetation zones. The different habitats consist of forest-savannah mosaic, woodland, dry savannah, bush land and thickets, evergreen thickets, scrub, swamps, mangroves, lakes and rivers. Exposed and poorly covered areas, such as sandy banks form an essential part of the habitat, serving as basking localities. In areas altered by humans, roofs, streets and walls are used. The (at least) temporary availability is essential (Bayless, 1997 in Lenz, 2004). It will readily inhabit human settlements and cultivation where not persecuted (Bennett, 2003).

Because of its wide food range V. niloticus finds prey in nearly all vegetation and climatic zones, even in localities with a reduced fauna (e.g. urban areas, mangroves) (Lenz, 2004). Luxmoore et al. (1988) considered that “Utilization for food and skin is widespread and the latter in particular poses a threat to local populations…. While the species as a whole is not threatened, exploitation appears to be a cause of local depletion”. However Spawls et al. (2002) reported that while in parts of Africa they are heavily exploited for their skins, which make a durable leather and they may be under threat because of this; the proliferation of dams in parts of Africa has provided extra habitat for the species and they thrive in such places.

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: The occurrence of V. niloticus in Tanzania was reported by

Broadley and Howell (1991) and Uetz et al., (2005). Bayless (2002) listed 57 localities for mainland Tanzania, and also listed Zanzibar. Records from western and south-western Tanzania are sporadic (Spawls et al., 2002). Very little up to date information could be found on the monitor‟s status in Tanzania. In 1986 it was reported to be common in many parts of the country and apparently not widely exploited for food or skins (Howell in litt., 1986 in Luxmoore et al., 1988). Recently it was reported to be common in Ruaha National Park, Serengeti Plains National Park and Selous Game Reserve and locally common on Zanzibar (Anon., 2007) and also common in Lake Manyara National Park (Shemdoe, 2003).

65

V. niloticus lays the large number of 20-60 eggs, often in active termite nests; hatchlings have been observed in northern Tanzania in July (Spawls et al., 2002).

REFERENCES: Anon. 2007. Herping Safaris in Tanzania and Kenya. Conservation Safaris.

http://www.conservationsafaris.com/Herping.html Accessed 27 October 2007. Bayless, M. K. 1997. The distribution of African lizards (Sauria: Varanidae). African Journal of

Ecology 35:374-377. Bayless, M. K. 2002. Monitor lizards: a pan-African check-list of their zoogeography (Sauria:

Varanidae: Polydaedalus). pp. 1643-1701. Journal of Biogeography 29:1643-1701. Bennett, D. 2003. Online Little book of monitor lizards. Varanus niloticus.

http://mampam.50megs.com/monitors/niloticus.html Accessed 27 October 2007. Böhme, W. & Ziegler, T. 1997. A taxonomic review of the Varanus (Polydaedalus) niloticus

(Linnaeus 1766) species complex. Herpetol. J. 7:155-162. Broadley, D. G. & Howell, K. M. 1991. A checklist of the reptiles of Tanzania, with synoptic

keys. Syntarsus 1:1-70. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: The National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.

Howell, K. in litt.15 March 1986 in Luxmoore et al. (1988). Lenz, S. 2004. Varanus niloticus pp.133-138 in Pianka, E. R., King, D. R. and King, R. A. (eds.)

Varanoid lizards of the world. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 588pp. Luxmoore, R., Groombridge, B. and Broad, S (eds.). 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of

selected species in CITES Appendix II. Vol. 2 Reptiles and invertebrates. Lausanne: CITES Secretariat.

Shemdoe, R. S. 2003. The role of local institutions in the management of biodiversity: A case study of Lake Manyara National Park, Tanzania. Research report to UNESCO-MAB Young Scientist Programme. www.unesco.org/mab/bursaries/mysrept/2002/shemdoe/report.pdf Accessed 29 October 2007.


Uetz, P., Chenna, R., Etzold, T. & Hallermann, J. 2005. The EMBL Reptile Database. www.tigr.org/reptiles/species.php?genus=Varanus&species=niloticus Accessed 27 October 2007.


http://mampam.50megs.com/monitors/niloticus.html

http://www.unesco.org/mab/bursaries/mysrept/2002/shemdoe/report.pdf

http://www.tigr.org/reptiles/species.php?genus=Varanus&species=niloticus

66


ROSACEAE SPECIES: Prunus africana

SYNONYMS: Pygeum africanum COMMON NAMES: African cherry (English), kanda stick (English), red

stinkwood (English)

RANGE STATES: Angola (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Burundi

(Hall et al. 2000, Schippmann 2001), Cameroon (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Comoros (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), ?Côte d‟Ivoire (Kalkman 1965, but doubted by Schippmann 2001), Democratic Republic of the Congo (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Equatorial Guinea (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Ethiopia (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), ?Ghana (occurrence reported in CITES listing proposal (1994) but doubted by Schippmann 2001), Kenya (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Madagascar (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Malawi (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Mozambique (Hall et al. 2000, Schippmann 2001), Nigeria (Hall et al. 2000, Schippmann 2001), Rwanda (Hall et al. 2000, Schippmann 2001), São Tomé and Principe (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Somalia (Dawson et al. 2000), South Africa (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Sudan (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965?), Swaziland (Hall et al. 2000, Schippmann 2001), Uganda (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), United Republic of Tanzania (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Zambia (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965), Zimbabwe (Hall et al. 2000, Kalkman 1965)


PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current positive opinion for United Republic of Tanzania (13th December 2004). Current positive opinion also in place for Equatorial Guinea (15th December 1997 and 13th December 2004), Kenya (27th January 1999), and Madagascar (26th September 2006, 13th June 2005, 15th March 2005, 27th January 1999). Current positive opinion for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (13th December 2004) which was preceded by a negative opinion (1st July 2004) and a previous positive opinion (27th January 1999). Current negative opinion for Cameroon (14th September 2007) which was preceded by positive opinions formed on 18th December 2006, 9th of March 2006, 13th of June 2005, 15th of March 2005, and on the 15th of December 1997.

67

TRADE PATTERNS: Cunningham et al. (1997) reported that:

„The company Afro Scan International, based in Dar es Salaam, have advertised Prunus africana bark internationally through their catalogue. Price of bark varies between 2-10 US$/kg. The company reportedly harvests 120 tonnes per year. Information on the montane forest sources of this bark is not available. Montane forests above 1,500 m are few in Tanzania, and likely source areas would be forests in the Southern Highlands (Mount Rungwe and Mdando forests), forests along the scarp of the Udzungwa mountains, and possibly forests around Mt. Meru and Mt. Kilimanjaro. Another possibility is that this bark is exported into Tanzania from Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaïre). Further examination of the Tanzanian export trade is required.‟

Cunningham et al. (1997) included a table comparing CITES reported trade data with data from other sources that noted that 120 tonnes of bark were exported from Tanzania in 1995, with importing country given as Spain (?) but the source of this information was not given. Schippmann (2001) stated that „Cunningham et al. (1997) report that annual exports of 120 tonnes to ES and other EU countries take place but it remains unclear whether this material is collected in TZ or rather re-exported from CG [sic – should be CD = DRC]. No records for TZ exist in the CITES trade data.‟ However, see Tables 5.36 and 5.37 for 1998-2000 trade data.

Table 5.36. Exports of Prunus africana bark from the U. R. of Tanzania, 1998-2005 to the EU Member States.

Term Source Country Reported by 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

bark (kg) W Belgium Importer 1

5 6

Exporter

0

France Importer 4450

20025 11760 36235

Exporter 4450

4450

Spain Importer

37100 37100

Exporter

37100 37100

Total bark (kg) wild imported 4450 1 0 0 0 5 57125 11760 73341

Total bark (kg) wild exported 4450 0 0 0 0 0 37100 0 37100

Table 5.37. Exports of Prunus africana bark from the U. R. of Tanzania, 1998-2005 to the rest of the world (non- EU Member States).

Term Source Reported by 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

bark (kg) W Importer 5565 5000 1 25000 35566

bark (kg) W Exporter 3000 2565 5501 3 25000 36069

CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Hall et al. (2000) mapped the distribution of the species and plotted it in 27 localities widely distributed throughout the uplands of Tanzania. They noted that it was mainly restricted to the Afromontane Rain Forest but that it also occurred in forest associated with drainage lines – as a component of fringing forest (Zambesian riparian forest) and seepage areas remote from any Afromontane forest communities and often at relatively low elevation. This situation applied through an appreciable part of the range of the species, including the area between the Eastern Arc mountains and the Western Rift in Tanzania. They do not discuss the status of the species or its exploitation in Tanzania, implying that it was not known to be a source of commercial exports.

68

Lyaruu et al. (2000) studied the flora in a dry Afromontane forest in the Kondoa Irangi Hills and found that Prunus africana occurred at a very low density and was declining (characterised by an absence of juveniles and possibly the biggest size classes). Dino (2004) studied the species in the Rombo district on the slopes of Mt Kilimanjaro. It was noted that the farmers in the area were unaware of the potential of using bark from this species for commercial purposes. The species was used locally for medicine, timber, tool-making, fodder, poles and withies and, despite the lack of commercial harvesting, its population was declining because of poor harvesting methods. The species was more abundant in the upper zones of the area, with maxima of 35 trees and 101 saplings per hectare, and averages of 8 trees and 18 saplings per hectare in the upper zones. Dino (2005) reported on an ethnobotanical study on this species carried out in four districts of northern Tanzania. He found that the species was found in home gardens and in the surrounding natural forests but was not deliberately planted in the study area. The tree was mainly used for fuel wood, although it was also important for timber, fodder and medicine. It was used to treat a variety of illnesses, including urinary complications, malaria, stomach pains, coughs, fire burns and toothache. The bark of the tree was also used to treat bacterial infections in meat and milk. A database of species distributions in the Eastern Arc mountains listed the species as occurring in the East Usambara mountains, North Pare mountains, South Pare mountains and the West Usambara mountains (Ngari, 2005). Nshubemuki and Mbwambo (2007) referred to the successful domestication of Prunus africana as a medicinal plant in miombo woodlands. The species is listed as one of „the more common species‟ in the Southern Highlands by the Southern Highlands Conservation Programme (2007). Hall et al. (2000) provided a number of general recommendations for maintaining Prunus africana as a resource and ensuring that harvests are sustainable. The most important in relation to Tanzania are the following:

„At national level a planting programme implemented according to a defined and specific national strategy is needed for each country providing bark for the pharmaceutical sector. National Prunus africana Working Groups, or their equivalent, in which Government, industry and local communities participate, should develop strategies. Review and revision of bark harvesting quotas should be the responsibility of the National Prunus africana Working Group, or its equivalent. There should be certification (green-labelling) of bark from populations shown by monitoring to have been harvested strictly in accordance with the prevailing recommendations.‟ „Population structure and status of exploited populations of Prunus africana should be clarified through inventory and reflected in exploitation schedules. Because Prunus africana tends to occur in groups or patches, between which its occurrence is relatively sparse, conventional systematic inventory methods are not appropriate and Adaptive Cluster Sampling, recently implemented in Cameroon (Mount Cameroon), is more suitable and cost-effective.‟ „Because the basis for setting bark harvesting quotas for Prunus africana is weak, unsustainable quotas may be contributing to tree mortality. As a matter of urgency, monitoring of post-harvest tree health under formal, statistically robust, survey protocols, is needed. Monitoring should be annual and on-going through at least three harvesting cycles. Interim revised bark harvesting quotas for Prunus africana at

69

individual tree and population levels should be determined following two years of formally monitoring post-harvest tree health. Bark harvesting quotas should be reviewed, and if appropriate revised, in the light of the post-harvesting health survey findings, two years after monitoring commences and thereafter at five-year intervals.‟ „Exploitation of natural populations should be on the basis of land units containing equal amounts of resource and opened for harvest in rotation. After harvesting, a unit would not be re-opened until an appropriate interval, provisionally eight years, had elapsed.‟ „Prunus africana in natural populations is a difficult species to manage successfully – being sparsely distributed and with many populations in remote localities inaccessible by road. There is a need for more on-farm planting and planted stands to simplify, and reduce the cost of, management activity and enable more effective supervision of labour.‟ „In countries currently supplying bark to the pharmaceutical sector, natural stocks of Prunus africana are dwindling. Here, much increased levels of planting activity, using nursery material raised from seed of known origin, are needed urgently.

REFERENCES: Cunningham, M., Cunningham, A. B. and Schippmann, U. (1997) Trade in Prunus africana and

the implementation of CITES. Results of the R+D-Project 808 05 080. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.

Dawson, I., Were, J. and Lengkeek, A. (2000) Conservation of Prunus africana, an over-exploited African medicinal tree. Forest Genetic Resources 28.

Dino A. (2004) Traditional knowledge, use and management of Prunus africana in chagga home gardens in relation to the tree‟s ecology. British Ecological Society Bulletin

Dino A. (2005) Ethnobotanical study and variation of Prunus africana populations found in northern Tanzania. http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/articles/grants/reports/OB367_395/OB367_395.doc/

Hall, J. B., O‟Brien, E. M. and Sinclair, F. L. (eds) (2000) Prunus africana, a monograph. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences Publication No. 18, Bangor.

Kalkman, C. (1965) The Old World species of Prunus subg. Laurocerasus including those formerly referred to Pygeum. Blumea 13: 1-115.

Lyaruu, H. V., Eliapenda, S. and Backéus, I. (2000) Floristic, structural and seed bank diversity of a dry Afromontane forest at Mafai, central Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:241-263.

Ngari, A. (2005) Managing CEPF‟s outcomes database for the Eastern Arc mountains and coastal forests (EACF) of Tanzania and Kenya biodiversity hotspot. Final report for the period January and February 2005. http://www.cepf.net/xp/cepf/static/pdfs/Final.EANHS.outcomes.database.pdf

Nshubemuki, L. and Mbwambo, L. (2007) Trees to promote in the management of miombo woodlands in Tanzania: species, sizes and qualities. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 50: 57-63.

Schippmann, U. (2001) Medicinal Plants Significant Trade Survey. CITES Projekt S – 109. Plants Committee Document PC9 9.1.3 (rev.). German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.

Southern Highlands Conservation Programme (2007) The Southern Highlands. http://www.southernhighlandstz.org/southernhighlands.html [Downloaded 31 October 2007]

http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/articles/grants/reports/OB367_395/OB367_395.doc/

http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/articles/grants/reports/OB367_395/OB367_395.doc/

http://www.cepf.net/xp/cepf/static/pdfs/Final.EANHS.outcomes.database.pdf

http://www.southernhighlandstz.org/southernhighlands.html

70

6. SPECIES REPORTED AS DIRECT EXPORTS TO THE EU-27 SINCE 1997

BUT NOT KNOWN FROM TANZANIA OR OCCURRENCE UNCONFIRMED

Mammals Primates Cercopithecidae

Papio hamadryas ursinus (Annex B, LR/lc). Known to occur in Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Direct exports of Papio hamadryas ursinus from Tanzania to the EU-27, 1997-2006. Source W, Purpose H.

Importer Term Reported by 1997 1998 1999

Austria trophies Importer 1

Exporter

Denmark trophies Importer 1

Exporter

Germany skins Importer 2

Exporter

skulls Importer 1 3

Exporter

Italy trophies Importer 1

Exporter

Artiodactyla Bovidae Damaliscus lunatus (C, LR/cd). Known to occur in Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique (ex), Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland (ex, reint), Zambia, Zimbabwe. Direct exports of Damaliscus lunatus from Tanzania to the EU-27, 1997-2006. Source W, Purpose H.

Importer Term Reported by 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Denmark trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter

Germany skins Importer 2 1

Exporter

skulls Importer 2 1 1

Exporter

trophies Importer 2

Exporter

Portugal trophies Importer 1

Exporter

Spain skulls Importer 3

Exporter

trophies Importer 9 18 2 13 1 2 2

Exporter

Birds Passeriformes Fringillidae Serinus canicapillus (Annex C, LC). Known to occur in Angola, Benin (br?), Botswana, Burkina Faso (br?), Cameroon (br?), Central African Republic (br?), Côte d'Ivoire (br), Democratic

71

Republic of the Congo (br), Ghana (br?), Guinea (br), Lesotho, Mali (br?), Mozambique, Niger (br?), Nigeria (br), Sierra Leone (br?), South Africa, Sudan (br?), Swaziland, Togo (br), Uganda (br?), Zambia, Zimbabwe. The Netherlands reported the import of 250 live birds (Source and Purpose unspecified) from Tanzania in 1998. Tanzania did not report this transaction. Italy reported the import of 970 live birds (Source and Purpose unspecified) and 50 live birds (Source W, Purpose T) from Tanzania between 2001-2003 and in 2005, respectively. Tanzania did not report this trade. Serinus hypostictus (D, LC). Known to occur in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan. Germany reported the import of 150 live birds (Source W, Purpose T) from Tanzania in 2004. Tanzania did not report this transaction. Estrildidae

Estrilda caerulescens (Annex C, LC). Known to occur in Benin (br), Burkina Faso (br), Cameroon (br?), Central African Republic (br?), Chad (br?), Côte d'Ivoire (br), Gambia (br), Ghana (br?), Guinea (br), Guinea-Bissau (br), Liberia (v), Mali (br?), Niger (br?), Nigeria (br), Senegal (br?), Togo (br?), United States (br). Belgium and the Netherlands reported the import of 160 live birds (Source W, Purpose T) and 150 live birds (Purpose and Source unspecified), respectively, from Tanzania in 2000. Tanzania did not report any of these transactions. Lagonosticta larvata vinacea (Annex C, NE). Known to occur in Benin (br?), Burkina Faso (br?), Cameroon (br?), Central African Republic (br?), Chad (br?), Congo (br), Côte d'Ivoire (br), Democratic Republic of the Congo (br?), Ethiopia, Gambia (br?), Ghana (br?), Guinea, Guinea-Bissau (br), Mali (br?), Niger (br?), Nigeria (br?), Senegal (br?), Sierra Leone (br?), Sudan (br), Togo (br?), Uganda (br?). The Netherlands reported the import of 50 live birds (Source and Purpose unspecified) from Tanzania in 2000. Tanzania did not report this transaction. Nigrita bicolor (Annex C, LC). Known to occur in Angola (br), Benin, Cameroon (br?), Central African Republic (br), Congo (br), Côte d'Ivoire (br), Democratic Republic of the Congo (br), Equatorial Guinea (br), Gabon (br), Gambia (v), Ghana (br), Guinea (br), Guinea-Bissau, Kenya (br?), Liberia (br), Mali (br?), Nigeria (br), São Tomé and Principe (br?), Senegal (br?), Sierra Leone (br), Togo (br?), Uganda (br?). The Netherlands reported the import of 13 live birds (Source and Purpose unspecified) from Tanzania in 2000. Tanzania did not report this transaction.

Spermophaga haematina (Annex C, LC). Known to occur in Angola (br?), Benin, Cameroon (br?), Congo (br?), Côte d'Ivoire (br), Democratic Republic of the Congo (br?), Equatorial Guinea (br?), Gabon (br), Gambia (br), Ghana (br), Guinea (br), Guinea-Bissau, Liberia (br), Mali (br?), Nigeria (br), Senegal (br?), Sierra Leone (br), Togo (br?). The Netherlands reported the import of 100 live birds (Source and Purpose unspecified) from Tanzania in 2000. Tanzania did not report this transaction. Ploceidae

Euplectes franciscanus (Annex C, LC). Known to occur in Benin (br), Bermuda (int, br), Burkina Faso (br), Cameroon (br?), Central African Republic (br), Chad (br), Côte d'Ivoire (br), Democratic Republic of the Congo (br), Eritrea (br), Ethiopia (br), Gambia (br), Ghana (br), Guinea (br), Guinea-Bissau (br), Kenya (br), Mali (br), Martinique (int, br), Mauritania (br), Niger (br), Nigeria (br), Puerto Rico (int, br), Senegal (br), Sierra Leone (br?), Somalia (br), Sudan (br), Togo (br), Uganda (br?). Direct exports of Euplectes franciscanus from Tanzania to the EU-27, 1997-2006.

72

Importer Term Source Purpose Reported by 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Belgium live W T Importer 300

Exporter

Czech Republic live W T Importer 80

Exporter

Germany live W T Importer 626 1055 1815 2050 800 3150 750 370 350

Exporter

Italy live W T Importer 1500

Exporter

- - Importer 450 750 1550 3570

Exporter

Netherlands live W T Importer 6314 600 450

Exporter

- Importer 2450

Exporter

- - Importer 1050 5250

Exporter

Spain live W T Importer 350

Exporter

United Kingdom live W T Importer 300

Exporter

Malimbus nitens (Annex C, LC). Known to occur in Angola (br), Benin (br?), Burkina Faso (br?), Cameroon (br?), Central African Republic (br?), Congo (br), Côte d'Ivoire (br), Democratic Republic of the Congo (br), Equatorial Guinea (br?), Gabon (br), Ghana (br), Guinea (br), Guinea-Bissau (br), Liberia (br), Mali (br?), Niger (br?), Nigeria (br), Senegal (br), Sierra Leone (br), Sudan (br?), Togo (br?), Uganda (br?). The Netherlands reported the import of 10 live birds (Source and Purpose unspecified) from Tanzania in 2000. Tanzania did not report this transaction. Vidua orientalis (Annex C, NE). Known to occur in Benin, Burkina Faso (br), Chad (br), Eritrea (br?), Ethiopia (br?), Gambia (br), Guinea (br), Guinea-Bissau, Mali (br), Mauritania (br), Niger (br?), Nigeria (br?), Senegal (br?), Sudan (br). Direct exports of Vidua orientalis from Tanzania to the EU-27, 1997-2006. Live specimens, Source W, Purpose T.

Importer Reported by 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


Exporter

Italy Importer 100

Exporter

Spain Importer 40

Exporter


Exporter

Reptiles Sauria Chamaeleonidae

73

Brookesia minima (Annex B, NE). Known to occur in Madagascar. Italy reported the import of 20 live specimens (Source and Purpose unspecified) from Tanzania in 2002. Tanzania did not report this transaction. Chamaeleo senegalensis (Annex B, NE). Known to occur in Benin , Burkina Faso , Cameroon , Côte d'Ivoire , Gambia , Ghana , Guinea , Guinea-Bissau , Liberia , Mali , Nigeria , Senegal , Sierra Leone , Togo. The United Kingdom reported the import of 8 live individuals (Source I, Purpose unspecified) from Tanzania in 2002. Tanzania did not report this transaction. Varanidae

Varanus exanthematicus (Annex B, NE). Known to occur in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya , Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Togo, Uganda. Belgium and the Netherlands reported importing 36 and 38 live individuals (Source W, Purpose T), respectively, from Tanzania in 1998. Tanzania did not report these transactions.

Invertebrates Scorpiones Scorpionidae Pandinus imperator (Annex B, NE). Known to occur in Benin, Côte d‟Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Togo.

Direct exports of Pandinus imperator from Tanzania to the EU-27, 1997-2006. Live specimens, Source W, Purpose T.

Importer Reported by 1998 1999 2001 2002

Czech Republic Importer 300

Exporter 300

Germany Importer

Exporter 200

Netherlands Importer

Exporter 100

Spain Importer 300 200

Exporter 300

United Kingdom Importer

Exporter 100

75

7. GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES REPORTED AS DIRECT EXPORTS

TO EU-27 FROM TANZANIA SINCE 1997 (EXCLUDING THOSE SPECIES

NOT KNOWN TO OCCUR IN TANZANIA). MAMMALIA Carnivora Felidae

Acinonyx jubatus (Annex A, VU). Tanzania reported the export of 10 specimens (Source W, Purpose S) to the United Kingdom between 2003-2004. The United Kingdom did not report this transaction. Panthera leo (Annex B, VU). See species sheet. Proboscidea Elephantidae Loxodonta africana (Annex A/B, VU) Direct exports to the EC of Loxodonta africana from Tanzania, 1997-2006.

Importer Term Source Purpose Reported by 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Austria trophies W H Importer 1 1 1

Exporter

P Importer 4 1 1 8

Exporter

tusks W H Importer 2 2

Exporter 28.5 2 2 2 6

Belgium trophies W H Importer 1 1

Exporter

tusks W H Importer 2

Exporter 2 2

Czech Republic trophies W H Importer 1 1

Exporter

tusks W H Importer

Exporter 2

Denmark trophies W H Importer 1 1 1 1

Exporter

tusks W H Importer

Exporter 2 4 2

Finland tusks W H Importer

Exporter 2

France ears W H Importer 2

Exporter

feet W H Importer 4 4

Exporter

skins W H Importer 1

Exporter

skulls W H Importer 1

Exporter

tails W H Importer 1

Exporter

76


trophies W H Importer 3 6 48 41 13 65 31 94 9

Exporter 1

P Importer 1 3 9

Exporter

tusks W H Importer 18 10 2 6 3 1 6

Exporter 367.5 4 8 12 12 14 23 15 34

- H Importer 2

Exporter

Germany ears W H Importer 1

Exporter

ivory products W S Importer

Exporter 50


Exporter

specimens W S Importer 100 200 600 26 17

Exporter 500 4 350 350 1

tails W P Importer 1

Exporter

trophies W H Importer 1 1 1 1

Exporter

P Importer 1

Exporter

tusks W H Importer 2 2 2 2 4

Exporter 35.2 2 4 2 6

P Importer 1

Exporter

Greece ivory carvings O P Importer 15

Exporter

W P Importer 65

Exporter

Italy ivory products W P Importer 29

Exporter

trophies W H Importer 1 3 1 5 2 1 3

Exporter

P Importer 3

Exporter


Exporter 46 3 6 6 4 8 2

Luxembourg tusks W H Importer 2

Exporter 2

Poland tusks O - Importer 4

Exporter

Portugal trophies W H Importer 10

Exporter

Spain skin pieces W H Importer 2

Exporter


Exporter

teeth W H Importer 4

77


Exporter

trophies W H Importer 78 5 3 5 7 5 2 6 15

Exporter 1 1

tusks W H Importer 24 2 16

Exporter 320 12 16 8 18 24 7 6

Sweden trophies W H Importer 3

Exporter

tusks W H Importer

Exporter 4 2

United Kingdom ears W H Importer 2

Exporter

feet W H Importer 4

Exporter

ivory carvings I - Importer 6

Exporter

skin pieces W H Importer 3

Exporter

tails W H Importer 1

Exporter

trophies O P Importer 1

Exporter

W H Importer 5

Exporter


Exporter 2

P Importer 2

Exporter

Artiodactyla Hippopotamidae Hippopotamus amphibius (Annex B, VU). See species sheet. AVES

Ciconiiformes Balaenicipitida Balaeniceps rex (Annex B, VU). Belgium reported the import of 4 live individuals (Source W, Purpose Z) from Tanzania in 2003. The Czech Republic reported the import of 5 live individuals (Source W, Purpose Z) from Tanzania in 2004. Tanzania did not report these transactions. Falconiformes Accipitridae Neophron percnopterus (Annex A, EN). Austria reported the import of four live individuals (Source W, Purpose Z) from Tanzania in 1998. Tanzania did not report this transaction. Trigonoceps occipitalis (Annex B, VU)

78

Direct exports to the EC of Trigonoceps occipitalis from Tanzania, 1997-2006. Live specimens, Source W.

Importer Purpose Reported by 1999 2000 2003

Austria Z Importer 4

Exporter 4

Greece Z Importer 4

Exporter 4

United Kingdom T Importer 1

Exporter

Z Importer 1

Exporter 7 1

REPTILIA Testudines Testudinidae Malacochersus tornieri (Annex A, VU) Direct exports to the EC of Malacochersus tornieri from Tanzania, 1997-2006.

Importer Term Source Purpose Reported by 1999 2000 2001 2003

Czech Republic live F T Importer 100

Exporter

France live F T Importer

Exporter 10 25

Germany live F T Importer

Exporter 5

Netherlands live F T Importer

Exporter 215

Spain live F T Importer

Exporter 120

United Kingdom live F T Importer 40

Exporter

Cheloniidae Chelonia mydas (Annex A, EN). The United Kingdom reported the import of one carapace (Source I, Purpose unspecified) from Tanzania in 2003. Tanzania did not report this transaction. FLORA Rosaceae

Prunus africana (Annex B, VU). See species sheet for further details

79

ANNEX 1. TRADE IN CITES-LISTED SPECIES FROM TANZANIA TO EU-27, 1977-2006, AS REPORTED BY BOTH TRADING

PARTNERS. The following abbreviations are used: √ Species does occur in Tanzania x Species does not occur in Tanzania Red List CR Critically Endangered EN Endangered VU Vulnerable NT Near Threatened LC Least Concern LR/nt Lower Risk/near threatened LR/lc Lower Risk/least concern DD Data Deficient NE Not Evaluated / Not applicable (genus level)

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List

Reported by EC as imports from

TZ 1977-1996 (% global trade)

Reported by TZ as exports to the

EC 1977-1996 (% global trade)





Notes:

MAMMALIA

PRIMATES

Galagidae

Galago spp. √ B / 1 body (100%) 41 live (44%)

Galago senegalensis √ B LR/lc 27 live (13%) 38 live (15%)

Lemuridae

Otolemur crassicaudatus √ B LR/lc 63 live (16%) 6 live (4%) 1 live (20%)

80

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Cercopithecidae

Cercopithecus spp. √ A/B / 126 live (93%)

Cercopithecus mitis √ B LR/lc 52 live (37%) 120 live (47%)

12 live (55%) 1 skin (50%) 1 trophy (20%) 12 live (18%)

Chlorocebus aethiops √ B NE 2489 live (65%) 1961 live (19%)

15 live (21%) 1 skin (50%) 1 trophy (50%)

6 live (0%) 1 skull (100%) 1 trophy (20%)

Colobus spp. √ A/B / 10 live (20%)

Colobus angolensis √ B LR/lc 63 live (34%) 90 live (55%)

Colobus guereza √ B LR/lc 10 live (63%)

Colobus polykomos x B LR/nt 60 live (86%)

Papio spp. √ B /

1 skin (50%) 1 skull (50%) 3 trophies (15%)

2 skins (100%) 9 skulls (100%) 30 trophies (32%)

Papio anubis √ B LR/lc

1 body (100%) 47 live (14%) 6 skins (67%) 44 skulls (77%) 95 trophies (36%)

1 live (<1%) 2 skins (33%) 5 skulls (50%) 102 trophies (44%)


59 live (4%) 1 skull (100%) 23 specimens (3%) 257 trophies (33%)

Papio cynocephalus √ B LR/lc

1 skin (100%) 9 skulls (90%) 11 trophies (35%)

1 skull (50%) 10 trophies (71%)

1 skin piece (100%) 1 skin (33%) 3 skulls (60%) 53 trophies (34%)

4 teeth (80%) 63 trophies (36%)

Papio hamadryas √ B LR/nt

1 skin (100%) 5 skulls (83%) 1 trophy (33%)

3 skins (50%) 13 skulls (76%) 59 specimens (100%) 9 trophies (7%)

Papio hamadryas papio x B LR/nt 1 skull (100%)

Papio hamadryas ursinus x B LR/lc 9 trophies (8%) 2 skins (50%)

81

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

4 skulls (80%) 3 trophies (20%)

Hominidae

Pan troglodytes √ A EN 10 live (91%)

RODENTIA

Hystricidae

Hystrix cristata √ A LC 2 trophies (50%) 2 trophies (33%) 2 trophies (15%)

CETACEA

Delphinidae

Tursiops truncatus √ A/B DD 57 teeth (100%)

CARNIVORA

Mustelidae

Mellivora capensis √ C LR/lc 1 live (100%) 2 live (17%) 1 trophy (5%)

Viverridae

Civettictis civetta √ C LR/lc


1 live (50%) 4 skins (80%) 4 trophies (29%)


1 specimen (17%) 74 trophies (46%)

One imported trophy reported by the EC in 2000 had origin South Africa

Felidae

Acinonyx jubatus √ A VU 1 handbag (100%)

1 handbag (20%) 3 skins (60%) 1 skull (100%) 10 specimens (83%)

Caracal caracal √ A/B LC 2 trophies (22%) 2 trophies (33%)

Felis silvestris √ A LC 1 skin (100%) 4 trophies (33%)

6 live (86%) 3 trophies (43%) 7 trophies (23%) 4 trophies (24%)

Felis silvestris libyca √ A NE 4 live (100%) 5 trophies (31%) 2 trophies (25%)

82

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Leptailurus serval √ B LC


10 live (100%) 14 trophies (32%)

2 skins (40%) 1 skull (25%) 30 trophies (29%)

7 specimens (70%) 31 trophies (29%)

Panthera spp. √ A/B / 1 skin (100%)

Panthera leo √ B VU

7 bodies (100%) 7 claws (3%) 4 handbags (100%) 2 skin pieces (100%) 60 skin scraps (100%) 1 skin/leather item (14%) 309 skins (93%) 165 skulls (86%) 698 trophies (36%) 4 unspecified (100%) 16 wallets (100%)

4 bodies (33%) 26 claws (21%) 37 handbags (70%) 9 live (53%) 39 shoes (83%) 1 skin piece (33%) 17 skin/leather items (71%) 190 skins (30%) 151 skulls (27%) 624 trophies (48%) 7 wallets (47%)

16 claws (94%) 4 skin pieces (100%) 115 skins (65%) 107 skulls (63%) 900g + 625ml + 310 specimens (99%) 12 teeth (100%) 658 trophies (38%)

146 claws (88%) 1 large leather product (50%) 1 skin (100%) 619 specimens (98%) 804 trophies (42%)

One imported body reported by the EC in 1993 had origin South Africa, and one imported trophy reported by the EC in 2003 had origin unknown

Panthera pardus √ A LC

2 bodies (67%) 4 handbags (33%) 3 skin pieces (100%) 1 skin scraps (100%) 303 skins (90%) 161 skulls (90%) 1 tooth (25%) 692 trophies (39%) 9 wallets (56%)

2 belts (50%) 4 bodies (40%) 20 bones (100%) 4 feet (80%) 25 handbags (34%) 1 live (100%) 180 skins (36%) 146 skulls (37%) 693 trophies (52%) 18 wallets (31%) 2 watchstraps (33%)

2 bodies (33%) 1 skin piece (100%) 10 skin/leather items (37%) 151 skin (65%) 125 skulls (63%) 6 specimens (86%) 1138 trophies (48%)

1 skin (33%) 1 skull (100%) 6 specimens (100%) 849 trophies (40%)

Two imported trophies reported by the EC in 2002 had origin South Africa. Two imported handbags and two imported wallets reported by the EC in 1983 had origin unknown

PROBOSCIDEA

Elephantidae

Elephantidae spp. √ A/B / 7 kg ivory carvings (17%) 1 ivory carving (100%)

83

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Loxodonta africana √ A/B VU

6 bones (100%) 1 carving (1%) 258 ears (96%) 247 feet (87%) 3 hairs (100%) 565 hair products (100%) 1 handbag (100%) 6189g + 1883kg + 5 pairs + 14 sets + 4564 ivory carvings (77%) 3616kg + 442 ivory products (41%) 1kg + 41 ivory scraps (100%) 5 m2 + 54 skin pieces (66%) 36 skins (0%) 2 skulls (67%) 46 tails (94%) 16 teeth (73%) 45kg + 675 trophies (60%) 56962.6kg + 2671 tusks (66%) 16 unspecified (57%) 2 wallets (100%)

7 bones (47%) 424 ears (48%) 511 foot (52%) 4 hair products (0%) 54 kg + 8 sets + 2634 ivory carvings (4%) 784 ivory products (95%) 2 live (67%) 106 skin pieces (59%) 1 skin scraps (100%) 17 skin/leather items (31%) 30 skins (55%) 3 skulls (33%) 80 tails (53%) 18 teeth (45%) 421 trophies (13%) 58918kg + 1017 tusks (62%)

5 ears (28%) 12 feet (33%) 86 ivory carvings (42%) 29 ivory products (100%) 5 skin pieces (38%) 10 skins (42%) 1 skull (25%) 200g + 600ml + 143 specimens (100%) 3 tails (33%) 4 teeth (80%) 517 trophies (75%) 121 tusks (66%)

50g ivory products (100%) 700g + 500ml + 5 specimens (100%) 3 trophies (33%) 797.2kg + 294 tusks (54%)

45 ivory carvings and one tusk imported in 1979-1981 were reported by the EC as of origin Africa. One exported tusk reported by TZ in 1986 had origin Kenya. One imported ivory carving reported by the EC in 1981 had origin Liberia. 7 imported skins reported by the EC in 1999 had origin Namibia. 8 imported ivory carvings reported by the EC in 1982 had origin unknown.

PERISSODACTYLA

Equidae

Equus zebra hartmannae x B / 2 belts (100%) 2 skins (67%)

Rhinocerotidae

84

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Rhinocerotidae spp. √ A/B / 4 horns (100%)

Diceros bicornis √ A CR 2 horns (100%) 8 feet (50%) 1 horn carving (100%)

ARTIODACTYLA

Hippopotamidae

Hippopotamus amphibius √ B VU

37 bone carvings (1%) 2 sets + 913 carvings (21%) 27 feet (71%) 2 horns (100%) 19 skin pieces (100%) 9 skins (75%) 24 skulls (38%) 1 tails (100%) 3697 kg + 10745 teeth (46%) 783 trophies (74%) 25 tusks (41%) 2 wallets (100%) 6 watchstraps (100%)

6 carvings (100%) 19 feet (58%) 2 skin pieces (40%) 2 skins (0%) 2 skulls (67%) 4327 teeth (5%) 55 trophies (42%) 1 unspecified (100%)

2 carvings (<1%) 31 foot (45%) 47 skin pieces (87%) 6 skin/leather items (38%) 28 skins (30%) 36 skulls (45%) 7 small leather products (100%) 6 specimens (100%) 3 tails (75%) 3395 teeth (6%) 749 trophies (46%) 44 tusks (37%)

1 skull (100%) 13 small leather products (12%) 4955 teeth (12%) 468 trophies (44%)

Bovidae

Damaliscus lunatus x C LR/cd

18 skins (90%) 50 skulls (77%) 3 tails (100%) 42 trophies (12%)


Damaliscus pygargus pygargus x B / 1 trophy (20%)

Kobus leche x B LR/cd 1 skull (100%)

Tragelaphus spp. √ C/- 1 skin (100%) 1 skull (100%)

2 feet (100%) 1 skin (100%) 1 skull (100%)

85

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Tragelaphus spekii √ C LR/nt

1 foot (100%) 1 horn (100%) 2 skins (100%) 2 skulls (67%) 22 trophies (31%)


AVES

CICONIFORMES

Ardeidae

Ardea goliath √ C LC 19 live (100%) 6 live (100%)

Bubulcus ibis √ A LC 22 live (85%)

Balaenicipitidae

Balaeniceps rex √ B VU 11 live (48%) 4 live (100%) 9 live (21%)

Ciconiidae

Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis √ C LC 344 live (76%) 2 trophies (50%) 204 live (75%) 134 live (84%) 20 live (56%)

Leptoptilos crumeniferus √ C LC 611 live (89%) 139 live (53%) 262 live (78%) 4 live (15%)

Threskiornithidae

Bostrychia hagedash √ C LC 340 live (97%) 15 live (60%) 97 live (90%)

Threskiornis aethiopicus √ C LC 654 live (100%) 60 live (61%) 107 live (92%)

Phoenicopteridae

Phoenicopteridae spp. √ A/B / 8 live (15%) 332 live (81%)

Phoeniconaias minor √ B 2 bodies (100%) 8720 live (76%) 13396 live (68%)

4 bodies (100%) 4283 live (66%) 5076 live (62%)

Phoenicopterus ruber √ A LC 494 live (22%) 5191 live (54%) 350 live (11%) 659 live (17%)

Phoenicopterus ruber roseus √ A LC 1530 live (84%) 412 live (70%) 103 live (44%) 6 live (12%)

ANSERIFORMES

Anatidae

86

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Alopochen aegyptiaca √ C LC 1 skin (100%)

1 body (100%) 1 skin (100%) 3 trophies (7%)

Plectropterus gambensis √ C LC 2 bodies (100%) 15 live (83%) 12 live (41%)

4 live (100%) 1 skin (100%) 1 trophy (6%) 4 live (100%)

Sarkidiornis melanotos √ B LC 1 trophy (25%) 1 skin (50%)

FALCONIFORMES

Falconiformes spp. √ A/B/C/- / 1 body (100%) Origin unknown

Accipitridae

Accipiter gentilis x A LC 1 live (100%)

Accipiter nisus √ A LC 6 live (100%) 3 live (100%)

Accipiter rufiventris √ B LC 1 live (100%) 1 live (100%)

Accipiter tachiro √ B LC 2 bodies (100%)

1 body (100%) 4 skins (100%) 8 specimens (100%)

Aquila spp. √ A/B / 3 live (20%) 3 live (100%)

Aquila rapax √ B LC 38 live (48%) 73 live (43%) 2 live (100%)

Aquila verreauxii √ B LC 2 live (5%) 2 live (100%)

Busarellus nigricollis x B LC 1 body (100%) Origin unknown

Buteo augur √ B LC 2 live (100%)

Buteo rufinus √ A LC 20 live (95%)

Buteo rufofuscus x B LC 2 live (20%)

Elanus spp. √ A/B / 1 body (100%) Origin unknown

Geranospiza caerulescens x B LC 1 body (100%) Origin unknown

Gypaetus barbatus √ A LC 8 live (100%)

Gyps africanus √ B NT 2 live (5%) 40 live (45%)

87

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Gyps bengalensis x B CR 1 live (100%)

Gyps rueppellii √ B NT 26 live (81%) 41 live (67%) 1 live (33%) 8 live (100%)

Haliaeetus vocifer √ A LC 27 live (55%) 61 live (70%) 30 live (79%) 14 live (58%)

Hieraaetus spilogaster √ B LC 6 live (67%) 6 live (60%) 2 live (100%) 3 live (100%)

Hieraaetus wahlbergi √ B 9 live (64%) 9 live (90%)

Kaupifalco monogrammicus √ B LC 1 live (100%)

Lophaetus occipitalis √ B LC 17 live (89%) 13 live (87%)

Melierax metabates √ B LC 1 live (100%)

Micronisus gabar √ B 1 live (100%) 1 live (50%)

Milvus migrans √ A LC 2 live (33%) 2 live (29%)

Necrosyrtes monachus √ B LC 21 live (46%) 25 live (33%) 2 skins (40%) 1 trophy (100%) 2 live (100%)

Neophron percnopterus √ A EN 7 live (47%) 25 live (74%) 4 live (29%)

Polemaetus spp. √ B / 2 live (100%)

Polemaetus bellicosus √ B LC 2 live (29%) 2 live (33%) 25 live (53%) 30 live (88%)

Rostrhamus spp. x B / 1 body (100%) Origin unknown

Spizastur melanoleucus x B LC 1 body (100%) Origin unknown

Stephanoaetus coronatus √ B LC 3 live (100%) 2 live (100%)

Terathopius ecaudatus √ B LC 57 live (59%) 133 live (67%) 42 live (88%) 15 live (71%)

Torgos tracheliotus √ B 7 live (39%) 9 live (39%) 5 live (71%) 13 live (68%)

Trigonoceps occipitalis √ B VU 7 live (39%) 18 live (55%) 10 live (91%) 16 live (100%)

Sagittaridae

Sagittarius serpentarius √ B LC 55 live (31%) 89 live (32%) 73 live (52%) 28 live (31%)

Falconidae

Falco biarmicus √ A LC 6 live (55%)

Falco cherrug √ A EN 2 live (100%)

88

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Falco tinnunculus √ A LC 2 live (100%)

Herpetotheres cachinnans x B LC 1 body (100%) Origin unknown

Polihierax semitorquatus √ B LC 13 live (52%) 13 live (100%) 24 live (92%)

GRUIFORMES

Gruidae

Balearica pavonina x B NT 985 live (90%) 3964 live (85%)

Balearica regulorum √ B LC 2833 live (94%) 590 live (62%) 382 live (67%) 2 skins (100%) 237 live (51%)

Bugeranus carunculatus √ B NE 2 live (100%) 5 live (17%) 16 live (26%)

Otididae

Ardeotis spp. √ A/B / 8 live (100%)

Ardeotis kori √ B LC 90 live (100%) 4 skins (57%) 137 live (93%)

5 bodies (100%) 32 live (94%)

5 bodies (71%) 20 live (45%)

Eupodotis senegalensis √ B LC 233 live (94%) 65 live (14%) 18 live (53%) 9 live (26%)

Lissotis melanogaster √ B NE 20 live (100%) 18 live (100%) 2 live (100%)

Lophotis gindiana √ B NE 12 live (35%) 2 live (8%)

Lophotis ruficrista x NE 40 live (100%)

Neotis denhami √ B NT 22 live (100%)

COLUMBIFORMES

Columbidae

Oena capensis √ C LC 495 live (100%) 218 live (82%)

Streptopelia decipiens √ C LC 6 live (100%)

Streptopelia senegalensis √ C NE 73 live (100%) 7 live (100%)

Treron calvus √ C LC 266 live (100%) 40 live (67%)

Turtur afer √ C LC 50 live (100%)

Turtur tympanistria √ C LC 756 live (100%) 265 live (35%) 706 live (95%)

89

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

PSITTACIFORMES

Psittacidae

Agapornis canus x B LC 294 live (27%)

Agapornis fischeri √ B NT 161965 live (54%) 336141 live (69%) 2 live (100%)

200 imported live individuals reported by the EC in 1986 had origin Indonesia.

Agapornis lilianae √ B NT 200 live (100%)

Agapornis personatus √ B LC 7234 live (44%) 12270 live (59%)

Agapornis pullarius √ B LC 1000 live (96%) 1200 live (94%)

Cacatua galerita x B LC 1 live (100%) Origin Sri Lanka

Poicephalus spp. √ B / 35 live (9%) 299 live (77%)

Poicephalus cryptoxanthus √ B LC 4359 live (68%) 6750 live (81%)

Poicephalus gulielmi √ B LC 2760 live (82%) 7168 live (83%) 40 live (54%) 69 live (67%)

Poicephalus meyeri √ B LC 26056 live (61%) 41430 live (67%) 230 live (82%) 250 live (83%)

Poicephalus robustus √ B LC 1367 live (85%) 3004 live (60%) 12 live (55%) 12 live (55%)

Poicephalus rufiventris √ B LC 4739 live (37%) 10786 live (54%) 21 live (14%) 40 live (59%)

Poicephalus senegalus x B LC 9 live (2%) 1 live (100%)

One live individual reported by the EC had origin Gambia.

Psittacula eupatria x B LC 1 live (100%)

Psittacula krameri x C LC 100 live (100%)

Psittacus spp. √ B / 1 live (100%)

Psittacus erithacus √ B NT 10 live (15%) 13 live (24%) 1 live (2%) 2 live (22%) Of the EC-reported live

90

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

individuals, two had origin Burundi, one had origin Congo Dem. Rep. and two had origin Nigeria. Of the TZ-reported live individuals, one had origin Germany, one had origin Kenya, and two had origin Nigeria.

CUCULIFORMES

Musophagidae

Musophaga violacea x B LC 23 live (100%)

Tauraco corythaix x B LC 38 live (66%)

Tauraco fischeri √ B NT 100 live (18%) 4 live (100%)

Tauraco hartlaubi √ B LC 384 live (81%) 705 live (82%) 979 live (50%) 889 live (42%)

Tauraco livingstonii √ B LC 10 live (9%) 143 live (40%) 761 live (63%) 700 live (51%)

Tauraco porphyreolophus √ B LC 24 live (39%) 36 live (35%)

STRIGIFORMES

Tytonidae

Tyto spp. √ A/B / 2 live (100%)

Tyto alba √ A LC 1 live (8%) 1 live (100%)

Strigidae

Bubo lacteus √ B LC 4 live (57%) 3 live (75%)

91

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Strix spp. √ A/B / 1 body (100%) Origin unknown

PASSERIFORMES

Fringillidae

Serinus spp. √ C/D/- / 1038 live (100%)

Serinus canicollis √ D LC 410 live (100%)

Serinus canicapillus x C LC 745 live (100%) 1270 live (100%)

Serinus hypostictus √ D LC 150 live (100%)

Serinus leucopygius x C LC 710 live (100%)

Serinus mozambicus √ C LC 17169 live (94%) 350 live (18%) 24427 live (96%)

Estrildidae

Estrildidae spp. √ / 150 live (100%)

Amadina fasciata √ C LC 32794 live (77%) 13130 live (98%)

Amandava subflava √ C LC 15011 live (100%) 185 live (5%) 18638 live (89%)

Cryptospiza reichenovii √ D LC 450 live (100%)

Estrilda spp. √ C/D / 1300 live (100%)

Estrilda astrild √ C LC 44834 live (72%) 232 live (3%) 10205 live (97%)

Estrilda caerulescens x C LC 150 live (100%) 310 live (100%)

Estrilda quartinia √ D NE 200 live (100%)

Estrilda troglodytes x C LC 358 live (52%)

Hypargos niveoguttatus √ D LC 2163 live (100%)

Lagonosticta spp. √ C/- / 250 live (100%)

Lagonosticta larvata vinacea x C NE 300 live (100%) 50 live (100%)

Lagonosticta rara x C LC 70 live (100%)

Lagonosticta rubricata √ C LC 48203 live (74%) 900 live (7%) 14364 live (99%)

Lagonosticta senegala √ C LC 22755 live (84%) 17427 live (99%)

Lonchura spp. √ C/D / 240 live (100%)

92

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Lonchura bicolor √ C LC 4788 live (100%) 100 live (10%) 650 live (97%)

Lonchura cantans √ C LC 5729 live (100%) 498 live (100%)

Lonchura cucullata √ C LC 6820 live (65%) 38 live (6%) 440 live (100%)

Lonchura fringilloides √ C LC 680 live (100%) 250 live (100%)

Lonchura griseicapilla √ D LC 447 live (100%)

Mandingoa nitidula √ C LC 10603 live (93%) 500 live (21%) 5342 live (90%)

Nesocharis capistrata x C LC 70 live (100%)

Nigrita bicolor x C LC 50 live (100%) 13 live (100%)

Nigrita canicapilla √ C 2 live (100%) 5 live (100%)

Ortygospiza atricollis √ C LC 1897 live (100%) 1685 live (100%)

Pytilia hypogrammica x C LC 270 live (100%)

Pytilia phoenicoptera x C LC 120 live (100%)

Spermophaga haematina x C LC 100 live (100%)

Uraeginthus spp. √ C/- / 300 live (100%)

Uraeginthus bengalus √ C LC 84287 live (77%) 800 live (6%) 61851 live (83%)

Ploceidae

Ploceidae spp. √ C/- / 1154 live (100%)

Amblyospiza albifrons √ C LC 20 live (100%) 60 live (100%)

Anaplectes melanotis √ C NE 100 live (100%)

Bubalornis albirostris x C LC 93 live (100%)

Euplectes spp. √ C/- / 150 live (100%) 60 live (100%)

Euplectes afer √ C LC 834 live (100%) 732 live (100%)

Euplectes ardens √ C LC 520 live (100%) 2079 live (84%)

Euplectes franciscanus x C LC 21665 live (100%) 35930 live (99%)

Euplectes hordeaceus √ C LC 3038 live (100%) 4284 live (100%)

Euplectes jacksoni √ - NT 300 live (100%)

93

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Euplectes macroura √ C LC 435 live (100%) 280 live (100%)

Malimbus nitens x C LC 10 live (100%)

Passer griseus √ C LC 320 live (100%)

Plocepasser superciliosus x C LC 100 live (100%)

Ploceus spp. √ C/- / 2150 live (100%) 100 live (100%)

Ploceus aurantius √ C LC 2660 live (100%) 270 live (100%)

Ploceus cucullatus √ C LC 2223 live (100%) 3589 live (97%)

Ploceus heuglini x C LC 150 live (100%)

Ploceus luteolus √ C LC 2395 live (100%)

Ploceus melanocephalus √ C LC 1130 live (100%) 150 live (100%)

Ploceus nigerrimus √ C LC 140 live (100%)

Ploceus pelzelni √ C LC 520 live (100%)

Ploceus superciliosus √ C LC 40 live (100%)

Ploceus vitellinus √ C LC 220 live (95%)

Quelea erythrops √ C LC 100 live (100%) 300 live (23%)

Sporopipes frontalis √ C LC 1166 live (93%) 1542 live (100%)

Vidua spp. √ C/- / 1270 live (100%)

Vidua chalybeata √ C LC 787 live (100%) 65 live (100%)

Vidua macroura √ C LC 3699 live (74%) 2 live (0%) 2015 live (86%)

Vidua orientalis x C NE 6299 live (98%) 5 live (1%) 4335 live (92%)

Vidua raricola x C LC 5 live (100%)

Sturnidae

Cosmopsarus regius √ D LC 425 live (100%)

REPTILIA

TESTUDINATA

Testudinidae

94

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Testudinidae spp. √ A/B / 1 live (100%)

Geochelone spp. √ A/B / 150 live (100%)

Geochelone pardalis √ B NE 1 carapace (50%) 4145 live (19%)

11 carapaces (85%) 4501 live (35%)

6 bodies (100%) 10281 live (59%) 7089 live (51%)

Kinixys belliana √ B NE 573 live (31%) 351 live (34%) 155 live (58%) 425 live (96%)

Malacochersus tornieri √ A VU 855 live (8%) 1172 live (28%) 140 live (3%) 375 live (8%)

Manouria impressa x B VU 20 live (100%)

Testudo spp. x A/B / 50 live (56%)

Cheloniidae

Chelonia spp. √ A / 5kg + 6 carapaces (65%)

Chelonia mydas √ A EN 3 carapace (33%) 11 carapace (6%) 1 carapace (100%)

One imported carapace reported by the EC in 1983 had origin Kenya, and another imported carapace reported by the EC the same year had origin unknown.

Eretmochelys imbricata √ A CR 40 kg scales (100%) 1kg + 2 carapace (2%)

Pelomedusidae

Pelomedusa subrufa √ C NE 200 live (35%) 20 live (7%) 50 live (100%)

CROCODYLIA

Crocodylidae

Crocodylus spp. √ A/B / 1 small leather product (100%)

Crocodylus niloticus √ A/B LR/lc 1 belt (100%) 1 belt (100%) 4 feet (67%) 8 bodies (80%) One skull and one

95

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

1 body (50%) 2 feet (100%) 1300 kg meat (100%) 1 skin piece (100%) 10774 skins (100%) 14 skulls (93%) 249 trophies (81%) 1 watchstrap (100%)

200 live (100%) 8481 skin (100%) 4 skulls (67%) 193 trophies (74%)

1 skin piece (100%) 3768 skins (38%) 19 skulls (42%) 266 trophies (33%)

2 skin pieces (100%) 3142 skins (43%) 375 trophies (45%)

trophy imported by the EC in 2003 and 2004, respectively, had origin unknown.

SAURIA

Gekkonidae

Phelsuma spp. √ A/B / 50 live (100%)

Phelsuma dubia √ B 200 live (26%) 5305 live (26%) 3904 live (21%)

Agamidae

Uromastyx aegyptia x B NE 108 live (100%)

Chamaeleonidae

Bradypodion spp. √ B / 91 live (5%) 2 live (0%)

Bradypodion fischeri √ B NE 4676 live (24%) 4352 live (21%) 13127 live (38%) 10541 live (33%)

Bradypodion oxyrhinum √ B NE 50 live (85%) 24 live (100%) 16 live (42%)

Bradypodion spinosum √ B NE 46 live (96%) 28 live (57%)

Bradypodion tavetanum √ B NE 491 live (57%) 1382 live (35%) 9425 live (42%) 8173 live (36%)

Bradypodion tenue √ B NE 30 live (22%) 46 live (100%) 46 live (68%)

Bradypodion uthmoelleri √ B NE 4 bodies (100%) 40 live (100%)

4 bodies (100%) 24 live (35%)

Brookesia minima x B NE 20 live (100%)

Calumma brevicornis x B NE 10 live (59%)

Chamaeleo spp. √ A/B / 5 bodies (100%) 180 live (5%) 750 live (12%) 72 live (10%)

Chamaeleo bitaeniatus √ B NE 268 live (30%) 419 live (38%) 3 bodies (23%) 3 bodies (100%)

96

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

4763 live (49%) 3999 live (41%)

Chamaeleo deremensis √ B NE 8 live (2%) 8 live (8%) 479 live (11%) 628 live (14%)

Chamaeleo dilepis √ B NE 3905 live (26%) 3847 live (23%) 9 bodies (36%) 14517 live (36%)

9 bodies (100%) 11638 live (31%)

Chamaeleo ellioti √ B NE 7 live (100%)

Chamaeleo fuelleborni √ B NE 817 live (38%) 817 live (31%) 3834 live (41%) 3770 live (37%)

Chamaeleo goetzei √ B NE 154 live (94%) 146 live (74%)

Chamaeleo gracilis √ B NE 420 live (68%) 100 live (45%) 2165 live (39%) 1942 live (33%)

Chamaeleo hoehnelii x B / 37 live (100%) 65 live (39%)

Chamaeleo incornutus √ B NE 108 live (80%) 51 live (59%)

Chamaeleo jacksonii √ B NE 1494 live (16%) 2369 live (19%) 1216 live (31%) 2169 live (43%)

Chamaeleo jacksonii merumontanus √ B NE 2068 live (82%)

Chamaeleo laterispinis √ B NE 26 live (100%) 26 live (100%) 25 live (100%) 17 live (100%)

Chamaeleo marshalli x B NE 4 live (100%)

Chamaeleo melleri √ B NE 1305 live (21%) 2682 live (27%) 9873 live (38%) 8586 live (33%)

Chamaeleo rudis √ B NE 341 live (33%) 548 live (29%) 4 bodies (100%) 5949 live (43%)

4 bodies (100%) 4753 live (35%)

Chamaeleo senegalensis x B NE 8 live (30%)

Chamaeleo tempeli √ B NE 200 live (100%) 200 live (100%) 206 live (72%) 221 live (52%)

Chamaeleo werneri √ B NE 340 live (53%) 342 live (53%) 785 live (19%) 888 live (23%)

Cordylidae

Cordylus spp. √ B / 960 live (42%)

Cordylus cordylus x B NE 1253 live (33%) 2019 live (20%)

Cordylus peersi x B NE 100 live (100%)

Cordylus tropidosternum √ B NE 6744 live (25%) 4373 live (17%) 17264 live (34%) 14076 live (28%)

Cordylus ukingensis √ B NE 236 live (100%) 51 live (8%) 35 live (13%)

97

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

Varanidae

Varanus spp. √ A/B / 20 live (59%)

Varanus albigularis √ B NE 151 live (48%) 1 skin (100%) 1107 live (15%) 2761 live (27%) 2329 live (22%)

Varanus exanthematicus x B NE 468 live (10%) 58 live (29%) 74 live (13%)

Varanus niloticus √ B NE 722 live (39%) 1 trophy (100%)

1444 live (34%) 1 skin (100%) 3161 live (34%)

2980 live (32%) 1 skin (100%)

Varanus salvator x B NE 24 live (100%)

SERPENTES

Pythonidae

Python spp. √ A/B / 1 skin (50%)

Python sebae √ B NE

7 live (2%) 7 skins (64%) 1 trophy (100%)

1 body (100%) 103 live (39%) 12 skins (60%) 4 trophies (9%)

198 live (69%) 2 skin/leather items (100%) 3 skins (75%) 1 trophy (20%)

222 live (60%) 6 skins (86%)

Boidae

Gongylophis colubrinus √ B NE 786 live (24%) 567 live (13%) 82 live (77%) 88 live (68%)

AMPHIBIA

ANURA

Bufonidae

Nectophrynoides spp. √ A / 18 bodies (100%) 14 unspecified (100%)

Nectophrynoides minutus √ A EN 4 bodies (100%)

ACTINOPTERYGII

SYNGNATHIFORMES

Syngnathidae

Hippocampus spp. √ B / 35 bodies (100%)

98

Taxon Occurs in TZ

EC Annex IUCN

Red List









Notes:

ARACHNIDA

SCORPIONES

Scorpionidae

Pandinus spp. √ B/- / 350 live (100%)

Pandinus imperator x B NE 838 live (22%) 1000 live (24%)

38 imported live individuals reported by the EC in 1999 had origin unknown.

MOLLUSCA

BIVALVIA

Tridacnidae

Tridacnidae spp. √ B / 4 shells (44%)

Tridacna spp. √ B / 3 shells (100%)

Tridacna squamosa √ B LR/cd 1 shell (100%) Origin unknown

CNIDARIA

ANTHOZOA

Scleractinia spp. √ B / 0.9 kg + 18 raw corals (49%)

MILLEPORINA

Millepora spp. √ B / 3 raw corals (100%)

FLORA

ORCHIDACEAE

Orchidaceae spp. √ A/B / 2 dried plants (100%)

ROSACEAE

Prunus africana √ B VU 73340 kg bark (67%)

1 kg dried plants (100%)

4450 kg bark (11%) 1 + 2 kg dried plants (100%)

99

Documents

Tanzania: A review of trade in CITES-listed speciesec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/reports/review... · 2016-06-09 · Between 1982-2004, exports of 42005.7kg teeth and 78680 teeth