review of non-cites amphibia species that are known or likely to be ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3. Number of amphibian species within each of the IUCN Red List categories. Source: IUCN (2007). IUCN Red List Category Number of Amphibian species CR 441 EN 737 VU 630 NT 369 LC 2277 DD 1426 EW 1 EX 34 Total 5915 The IUCN Red List also provides a classification of causes of species decline. Assessors are asked to indicate the threats that triggered the listing of the taxon concerned at the finest level possible. These threats could be in the past and/or present and/or future, using a timeframe of three generations or ten years, whichever is the longer (not exceeding 100 years in the future). Threats are subdivided in a hierarchical system. For the purposes of this report, threat number 3 (Harvesting) is the most relevant one. It is subdivided in the following way: 3. Harvesting [hunting/gathering] 3.1. Food 3.1.1. Subsistence use/local trade 3.1.2. Sub-national/national trade 3.1.3. Regional/international trade 3.2. Medicine 3.2.1. Subsistence use/local trade 3.2.2. Sub-national/national trade 3.2.3. Regional/international trade 3.3. Fuel 3.3.1. Subsistence use/local trade 3.3.2. Sub-national/national trade 3.3.3. Regional/international trade 3.4. Materials 3.4.1. Subsistence use/local trade 3.4.2. Sub-national/national trade 3.4.3. Regional/international trade 3.5. Cultural/scientific/leisure activities 3.5.1. Subsistence use/local trade 3.5.2. Sub-national/national trade 3.5.3. Regional/international trade 3.6. Other 3.7. Unknown 1.3. THE IMPACT OF TRADE ON AMPHIBIANS Although habitat loss and degradation, pollution and the fungal disease chytridiomycosis are considered to be the greatest threats to amphibians at present, over-harvesting and trade have also been identified as major causes of decline for a number of species (Gibbons et al., 2000, Young et al., 2004; Gascon et al., 2007; IUCN et al., 2007). 6
The effect of trade on wild amphibian populations, however, is often unclear (e.g. Young et al., 2001; Beebee & Griffiths, 2005), both because trade levels of species are generally not known (Schlaepfer et al., 2005; Silvano & Segalla, 2005) and/or because there are usually insufficient data on wild populations and their trends (Gascon et al., 2005). In addition, several threats can interact in different ways, for instance there is strong evidence that the global trade in amphibians is driving the emergence of chytridiomycosis (Fisher & Garner, 2007) and in some cases also resulting in the introduction into the wild of invasive species that may in turn impact on native ones (Gascon et al., 2005). The most comprehensive available data on the status of amphibian species and on the threats affecting them were gathered by the Global Amphibian Assessment team and used for the IUCN Red List. According to these data, threat 3 of the IUCN Red List (Harvesting - hunting/gathering-) was considered to be a major threat type for 283 amphibian species (IUCN, 2007). More specifically, regional/international trade (threats 3.1.3, 3.2.3, 3.3.3., 3.4.3, and 3.5.3) was a major threat type for 134 of those species. These species are traded for food (17 species), medicine (10 species), or cultural/scientific/leisure activities –mostly the pet trade- (114 species). Out of the 134 species for which regional/international trade was considered to be a major threat, 54 are globally threatened, and 46 are listed in CITES (Annex 1). 29 species, however, are globally threatened but not listed in CITES (see Section 1.4). 1.4. SELECTION OF SPECIES FOR REVIEW 1.4.1. Current review (SRG 42) This report aimed to identify species of amphibian that might be threatened by trade and review those species which might be most affected by the trade. Table 4 presents the globally threatened (CR/EN/VU) amphibian species that are not listed in CITES or the Annexes to the EU wildlife trade Regulations and for which regional and/or international trade has been identified as a major threat by the Global Amphibian Assessment team. Table 5 summarises those species that were not considered to be globally threatened, but for which trade was nonetheless considered to be a major threat. Species were selected from both these groups (Tables 4 and 5) for in-depth review. The selection was based on preliminary information on the trade in the species (giving priority to species for which international trade is a known ongoing threat) and on the threat status of species (giving higher priority to the most threatened species). Five globally threatened species were initially selected for review to see whether they may warrant listing in the annexes of the EU wildlife trade regulations. Eight additional species from Table 5 were also selected for review. Further details on the review methodology are provided in section 3.1. 1.4.2. Potential future review A further 15 threatened and 25 non-threatened species were identified as species that may warrant future review on the basis of their threat status and nature of the trade. These have been highlighted in Tables 4 and 6 with a ‘?’ in the right hand column. It is suggested that a number of these species could be selected by the SRG for future review to assess whether they meet the criteria for listing in the annexes to Council Regulation 338/97. The species selected for this review and those flagged for potential future review are species considered to be threatened by international trade by IUCN et al. (2007). It has been noted during the preparation of this report, however, that a number of species which are not considered to be threatened by international trade, and which are therefore not considered 7
Page 1 and 2: REVIEW OF NON-CITES AMPHIBIA SPECIE
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .
Page 5: Order Family Species CITES Appendix
Page 9 and 10: ANURA Table 4. Non-CITES globally t
Page 11 and 12: Taxon Common name Range states IUCN
Page 13 and 14: Table 5. Non-CITES-listed amphibian
Page 15 and 16: Taxon Common name Range States Horn
Page 17 and 18: Taxon Common name Range States Newt
Page 19 and 20: 1.5. REFERENCES AmphibiaWeb. 2006.
Page 21 and 22: (ii) which is in a genus of which m
Page 23 and 24: CONSERVATION STATUS in range states
Page 27 and 28: Kusrini (2005) found low numbers of
Page 31 and 32: Habitat loss as a result of wood ex
Page 33 and 34: IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF): Within
Page 35 and 36: CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES
Page 37 and 38: IUCN, Conservation International, a
Page 39 and 40: CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES
Page 43 and 44: Reichle, S. 2007b. Distribution, di
Page 45 and 46: It was listed as Near Threatened
Page 47 and 48: Considered to be threatened by trad
Page 49 and 50: Ziegler, T., Unger, J., Feiler, A.
Page 51 and 52: APN (2007). M. s. fulvoguttatus was
Page 57 and 58:
HONG KONG, CHINA: Miller (2004) rep
Page 59 and 60:
REVIEW OF NON-CITES AMPHIBIA SPECIE
Page 61 and 62:
Lucindo Gonzales (pers. comm. 2007)
Page 63 and 64:
ANURA ANNEX 1. Overview of amphibia
Page 65 and 66:
Taxon Fejervarya cancrivora Common
Page 67:
ANNEX 2. Country codes. AD Andorra
show all

review of non-cites amphibia species that are known or likely to be ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?