Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2015 CITES export quotas - UNEP-WCMC technical report
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
UNEP-WCMC technical report
Review of species
selected on the basis of
the Analysis of 2015
CITES export quotas
(Version edited for public release)Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2015 CITES
export quotas
Prepared for
The European Commission, Directorate General Environment, Directorate E - Global & Regional
Challenges, LIFE ENV.E.2. – Global Sustainability, Trade & Multilateral Agreements, Brussels, Belgium
Prepared November 2015
Copyright
European Commission 2015
Citation
UNEP-WCMC. 2015. Review of species selected on the basis of the Analysis of 2015 CITES export quotas.
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity
assessment of the United Nations Environment Programme, the world’s foremost intergovernmental
environmental organization. The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, combining scientific
research with policy advice and the development of decision tools.
We are able to provide objective, scientifically rigorous products and services to help decision-makers
recognize the value of biodiversity and apply this knowledge to all that they do. To do this, we collate
and verify data on biodiversity and ecosystem services that we analyze and interpret in comprehensive
assessments, making the results available in appropriate forms for national and international level
decision-makers and businesses. To ensure that our work is both sustainable and equitable we seek to
build the capacity of partners where needed, so that they can provide the same services at national and
regional scales.
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP, contributory
organisations or editors. 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, editors or publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city area or its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of a commercial
entity or product in this publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP.
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(UNEP-WCMC)
219 Huntingdon Road,
UNEP promotes
Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
environmentally sound
Tel: +44 1223 277314
practices globally and in its
www.unep-wcmc.org
own activities. Printing on
paper from environmentally
sustainable forests and
recycled fibre is encouraged.Contents
Introduction and summary ............................................................................................................................... 2
Varanus spp. .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Overview of status and management of corals in Fiji ...................................................................................13
Astreopora spp.............................................................................................................................................. 19
Leptoseris spp. .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Pachyseris rugosa ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Catalaphyllia jardinei .................................................................................................................................. 26
Euphyllia paraancora .................................................................................................................................. 28
Tubastraea faulkneri ................................................................................................................................... 30
Tubastraea micranthus ................................................................................................................................ 31
Diploastrea heliopora ................................................................................................................................... 33
Favia spp. . .................................................................................................................................................... 35
Goniastrea spp. ............................................................................................................................................ 38
Leptastrea spp. ............................................................................................................................................. 41
Acanthastrea spp. .........................................................................................................................................43
Symphyllia spp. ............................................................................................................................................ 45
Acrhelia spp. ............................................................................................................................................... 47
Galaxea fascicularis ..................................................................................................................................... 49
Echinophyllia spp. ........................................................................................................................................52
Oxypora spp. ................................................................................................................................................ 56
Pectinia spp. ................................................................................................................................................. 58
Psammocora spp. ........................................................................................................................................ 60
Overview of status and management of corals in Malaysia ........................................................................ 68
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................... 77
1Introduction and summary
This report presents a review and overviews or overviews of 73 taxa selected on the
basis of the Analysis of 2015 CITES export quotas and provides an update of new and
increased 2015 CITES export quotas published since the production of this Analysis.
National export quotas for CITES listed taxa are an important tool to manage and monitor wildlife trade.
The establishment or revision of an export quota should be based on a non-detriment finding (NDF) by
the Scientific Authority of the exporting country and the NDF should be reviewed annually (Resolution
Conf. 14.7 (Rev. CoP15)). Once such annual quotas are established, the need for a NDF for each
individual shipment of the species concerned is eliminated.
The EU, through stricter measures outlined in the Wildlife Trade Regulations, requires an NDF by
importing Member States and therefore monitors newly established quotas and changes to previous
quota levels to assess the situation where necessary, or to reassess SRG opinions or EU decisions.
Similarly, by assessing the new quotas early each year, the SRG can advise on the treatment of
anticipated import applications within the EU.
Export quotas are usually established by each Party to CITES unilaterally on a voluntary basis, but they
can also be set by the Conference of the Parties, or result from recommendations of the Animals and
Plants Committees. To ensure that national quotas are effectively communicated and implemented on
permits and certificates, countries should inform the CITES Secretariat when they establish national
export quotas for CITES species (Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP16)). In turn, the Secretariat informs the
Parties by publishing a list of national export quotas of which it has been informed
(www.cites.org/eng/resources/quotas/index.php).
In 2015, quotas were published on the CITES website (www.cites.org) on 02/02/2015 and were updated
31/03/2015, 30/04/2015, 01/06/2015, 01/07/2015, 14/07/2015, 21/08/2015, 31/08/2015 and 01/10/2015.
Based on the quotas that were available on 29/05/2015, UNEP-WCMC analysed the 2015 CITES export
quotas to identify:
a) Quotas that were newly established in 2015 (i.e. 2014 quotas for particular
species/country/term/source combinations that have not previously been subject to a
quota, or have not been subject to a quota for at least the last 5 years);
b) Quotas that increased or decreased in 2015 compared with 2014 quotas (or compared with
2013 quotas if no quota was published in 2014).
A list of 73 taxa/country combinations that may warrant review was presented and the following
taxon/country combinations are reviewed in this report:
Five species and eight genera of corals from Fiji (new quotas)
One species and four genera of corals from Fiji (increased quotas)
Echinophyllia spp./Indonesia (new quota, 1500 live)
Varanus spp./Malaysia (Sabah) (new quota, 3000 all [terms])
Seven species and 46 genera of corals from Malaysia (new quotas)
2Update since Analysis of 2015 CITES export quotas
Since the publication of the Analysis of 2015 export quotas, additional CITES export quotas have been
published on the CITES website. Of these, the following relate to increased quotas for wild sourced
specimens: an increase in Strombus gigas meat from Jamaica from 400 000 kg in 2014 to 450 000 kg meat
in 2015; an increase in Panthera leo trophies from Mozambique from 53 in 2014 to 60 in 2015; an increase
in Papio cynocephalus trophies from 616 in 2014 to 658 in 2015 and an increase in individuals of
Crocodylus niloticus from 347 to 1800. While the increase in the quota for wild-sourced C. niloticus from
Mozambique might initially appear to warrant review, this species is categorised as Least Concern by the
IUCN and wild-sourced EU imports of this species from Mozambique over the period 2004-2013 have
been minimal (Table 1). Therefore, this species/country combination was not considered a priority for
further review.
Table 1: Direct exports of Crocodylus niloticus from Mozambique to the EU-28, 2004-2013.
Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
bodies H R Importer
Exporter 100 100
T R Importer
Exporter 100 100
leather products T R Importer 2 2
(small) Exporter
live T R Importer
Exporter 200 200
skin pieces H W Importer
Exporter 1 5 6
skins H R Importer
Exporter 3553 3553
W Importer 2 2 1 5
Exporter 7 10 29 26 15 87
T R Importer 63 20 83
Exporter 63 4 20 87
W Importer 21 21
Exporter 21 21
skulls H W Importer 1 2 3
Exporter 1 4 26 17 15 63
teeth H W Importer 15 15
Exporter
trophies H W Importer 7 12 10 16 9 5 7 2 15 5 88
Exporter 16 36 20 20 14 22 23 151
P W Importer 3 1 4
Exporter
Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 13/11/20
3REPTILIA: VARANIDAE
Varanus spp. II/B
UNDER REVIEW: Malaysia
SPECIES (IUCN): Varanus dumerilii: not yet assessed
Varanus indicus: LC
Varanus rudicollis: not yet assessed
Varanus salvator: LC
EU DECISIONS Current positive opinion for wild specimens of Varanus salvator from Malaysia
(MALAYSIA): formed on 05/09/2002 and last confirmed on 02/12/2011.
Taxonomic note
Due to morphological similarities, it has been noted that there was a risk of misidentifying V. rudicollis
as either V. dumerilii (Sprackland, 1993) or V. salvator (Koch et al., 2007).
V. salvator was considered a species complex (Böhme, 2003 – CITES Standard Reference), comprising of
a number of subspecies, with estimates that have ranged from four subspecies (Koch et al., 2007), seven
(Gaulke and Horn, 2004) to eight (Böhme, 2003). Four subspecies from the Philippines, cumingi,
marmoratus, nuchalis, and togianus, were later elevated to species level and the Southeast Asian
V. salvator macromaculatus revalidated (Koch et al., 2010a).
A V. salvator subspecies, V. s. scutigerulus, was reported to have been erroneously classified, based on a
melanistic specimen of V. rudicollis (Koch et al., 2007 – CITES Standard Reference).
Trade patterns
Varanus spp. was listed in CITES Appendix II on 01/07/1975, and in Annex B of the EU Wildlife Trade
Regulations on 01/06/1997. Malaysia have submitted annual reports for all years 2004-2013.
Malaysia published export quotas for V. salvator for 15 000 ‘all’ from Sabah for the years 2011 and 2012,
and for live specimens and skins from Peninsular Malaysia for 2013 and 2014 (Table 1). In 2015 an export
quota of 3000 ‘all’ was published at the genus level for Sabah only. The quota was reported to have been
set at the genus level to “quantify all types of Varanus species found in Sabah, Malaysia” (CITES
Authority of Sabah, Malaysia, pers. comm., to UNEP-WCMC, 2015). While all quotas of this genus apply
to specific regions, trade data is captured at the national level and therefore it is not possible to
determine the origin region of the trade. The full dataset is available here: https://db.tt/YZusKGJH.
Table 1. Export quotas published by Malaysia for Varanus 2011-2015 and trade levels 2011-2013;
2014 data is incomplete.
Reported by 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Varanus salvator
Quota all (Sabah only) 15000 15000
Quota live (Peninsular Malaysia) 18000 18000
Trade live (Malaysia) Importer 6843 6117 4816
Exporter 7023 6632 829
Quota skins (Peninsular Malaysia) 166500 165000
Trade skins (Malaysia) Importer 90695 84127 31216
Exporter 79733 85127 9344
Varanus spp.
Quota all (Sabah only) 3000
4All direct exports of Varanus spp. from Malaysia to the EU-28 2004-2013 comprised V. salvator, the vast
majority of which consisted of high levels of trade in wild-sourced skins for commercial purposes (Table
2). Trade in wild-sourced skins peaked in 2011 at over 16 000 skins according to exporters and 29 000
skins according to importers, and subsequently declined to below 6 000 skins in 2013.
Varanus salvator also accounted for the vast majority of direct exports of Varanus spp. from Malaysia to
the rest of the world 2004-2013. A very high level of wild-sourced commercial trade in skins and high
levels of trade in meat (reported by weight) and live animals was reported 2004-2013. In addition, one
scientific specimen of V. rudicollis and two skins reported as ‘Varanus spp.’ were reported in 2005 and
2009, respectively.
Indirect trade in Varanus originating in Malaysia to the EU-28 2004-2013 primarily comprised very high
levels of wild-sourced skins for commercial purposes, the vast majority of which were re-exported via
Singapore (Table 3). The EU-28 also imported a high levels wild-sourced small leather products
originating in Malaysia, which were also traded for commercial purposes (Table 3).
5Table 2: Direct exports of Varanus salvator from Malaysia to the EU-28 (EU) and the rest of the world (RoW), 2004-2013. Very small amounts of
wild-sourced trade in gall, gall bladders and leather products for commercial purposes and wild-sourced and source I specimens for commercial
and scientific purposes have been excluded.
Importer Term (unit) Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
EU small leather products T W Importer 1 1
Exporter
live T W Importer 30 45 113 70 25 25 20 328
Exporter 30 97 107 101 35 20 390
skins T W Importer 7000 3000 4400 200 50 3000 29500 9500 5200 61850
Exporter 7000 3000 4400 250 16000 16500 11500 3200 61850
RoW live Q W Importer 65 2 4 8 4 83
Exporter 30 2 32
T C Importer
Exporter 30 400 11 14 10 465
W Importer 7215 18952 19475 13506 14590 15098 14353 6843 6097 4816 120945
Exporter 12406 22825 19074 13677 16177 17737 13273 7023 6612 829 129633
Z W Importer 20 15 60 95
Exporter 10 15 25
meat (kg) T W Importer 50460 40288 43798 24796 17350 10488 4932 8897 4200 2600 207809
Exporter 52524 40254 42393 10338 2850 10688 1230 9500 169777
meat T W Importer
Exporter 3 4738 397 4200 9338
skin pieces T W Importer 600 600
Exporter
skins P W Importer
Exporter 5000 5000
S W Importer 8 8
Exporter
- Importer
Exporter 8 8
T W Importer 208009 232671 164087 97975 105649 76915 66173 61187 74627 26016 1113309
Exporter 213442 161444 152112 75331 104474 67165 59562 63225 73627 6144 976526
- W Importer
Exporter 152 2000 2152
Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 28/09/2015
6Table 3: Indirect exports of Varanus originating in Malaysia to the EU-28, 2004-2013.
Taxon Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Varanus niloticus leather products (small) T W Importer 7 8 31 46
Exporter 1 1
Varanus salvadorii leather products (small) T W Importer 30 30
Exporter
Varanus salvator cloth T W Importer
Exporter 2 2
derivatives T W Importer
Exporter 14 14
garments T W Importer 6 3 2 10 1 2 6 2 32
Exporter 7 4 10 2 1 24
leather products (large) T C Importer
Exporter 1 1
W Importer 70 13 363 2 4 1 3 456
Exporter 6 19 27 7 1 1 6 67
- Importer 2 2
Exporter
leather products (small) E W Importer
Exporter 2 2
P W Importer 1 1
Exporter 5 5 2 1 13
T C Importer 52 12 14 17 8 4 107
Exporter 1 1 7 8 5 22
I Importer 16 16
Exporter 1 1
O Importer
Exporter 1 1
W Importer 85 3756 7455 10295 9746 2872 4714 5874.5 6381 7170 58348.5
Exporter 150 46 2097 1205 5045 2343 934 3354 2790 638 18602
- W Importer
Exporter 45 1828 1873
- Importer 600 600
Exporter
7Taxon Term Purpose Source Reported by 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Varanus salvator (cont.) live Q W Importer
Exporter 1 1
T W Importer 1 1
Exporter
skin pieces E W Importer
Exporter 1 1
T W Importer 3174 1 2 8 3185
Exporter 10 4002 4 6 4022
- Importer
Exporter 14000 14000
skins Q W Importer 1 1
Exporter
T I Importer
Exporter 21 21
W Importer 20621 81319 50965 53260 38903 17850 36230 33781 36201 5806 374936
Exporter 76007 70324 29063 73668 33801 16305 30599 43631 33282 4345 411025
Varanus spp. skins E W Importer
Exporter 1 1
Source: CITES Trade Database, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, downloaded on 28/09/2015
8Conservation status
The genus Varanus had a widespread native range across Africa, central and southern Asia and Australia
(Pianka et al., 2004), and five species, V. exanthematicus, V. indicus, V. niloticus, V. salvator and
V. teguixin, were also reported to have been introduced to North America (Witmer and Fuller, 2011).
Species in this genus range in length from 0.2 m to over 3 m, have been reported as terrestrial, arboreal,
or semi-aquatic (Pianka, 1995), and have been found in a diverse range of habitats encompassing desert,
savannah, and tropical forests (Losos and Greene, 1988). Varanus was considered an ecologically diverse
genus (Pianka et al., 2004).
The genus Varanus comprises 73 species (UNEP-WCMC, 2012), five of which were recorded in Malaysia
(UNEP-WCMC, 2012; Zakaria and Rajpar, 2015). Four of these, V. dumerilii, V. indicus, V. rudicollis, and
V. salvator, were confirmed present in Sabah (Pianka et al., 2004; Zakaria and Rajpar, 2015). No further
information on the distribution of these species within Sabah was identified and the CITES Authority of
Sabah, Malaysia (pers. comm., to UNEP-WCMC, 2015) confirmed that no details on their distribution
was available.
The CITES Authority of Sabah, Malaysia (pers. comm., to UNEP-WCMC, 2015) confirmed that the 2015
quota was based on a Non-detriment-finding (NDF) completed in 2013, but no further details in relation
to this NDF were provided upon further clarification being sought. No information on population
monitoring was identified. The CITES Authority of Sabah, Malaysia (pers. comm., to UNEP-WCMC,
2015) noted that no information was available on population monitoring and the impact of trade, but
noted that they had neither issued any permits in 2015 nor used any of the 2015 quota, as no trading
partners had expressed any interest to date.
Except for noting very low levels of domestic trade, the CITES Authority of Sabah (Malaysia, pers.
comm., to UNEP-WCMC, 2015) reported that they had no information on illegal trade in Varanus spp.
Varanus dumerilii
V. dumerilii was reported to have a global range across Burma [Myanmar], Thailand, the Malay
Peninsula and the islands of Sumatra and Borneo (Bennett, 2004a). It was thought to mainly inhabit
coastal mangroves and inland forests (Bennett, 2004a), and has been found in both primary and
secondary forests (Bennett and Liat, 1995). Although it has also been recorded in degraded and
agricultural areas, it was rarely observed in areas with high human populations (Bennett, 2004a).
This species has not yet been assessed by the IUCN (IUCN, 2015), but anecdotal evidence from the 1990s
noted it as uncommon (Bennett and Liat, 1995). The reported reliance of this species on primary and
secondary forest habitat was believed to indicate that it may be sensitive to deforestation and
degradation (Bennett and Liat, 1995).
Due to morphological similarities it was noted that V. dumerilii may be misidentified as V. rudicollis, and
previous cases of specimen misclassification have been reported for these two species (Sprackland,
1993).
Malaysia (Sabah): This species was reported as present in Sabah (Bennett, 2004a), although no
records have been reported from surveys of specific sites, or from areas where other Varanus species
were confirmed (Boonratana, 1997; Robbins et al., 2006; Zakaria and Rajpar, 2015). No information on
the population size, distribution, conservation status and trends was identified for Malaysia. No details
of population monitoring or assessment were available (CITES Authority of Sabah, Malaysia, pers.
comm., to UNEP-WCMC, 2015).
9Varanus indicus
V. indicus was reported to have the second largest global distribution of all Varanus species (Koch et al.,
2013), ranging across northern Australia, and from eastern Indonesia up to Japan, including Papua New
Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomon Islands (Dryden and Ziegler, 2004; Bennett et al.,
2010; Koch et al., 2013). It was also reported to have been introduced into North America (Witmer and
Fuller, 2011).
V. indicus was considered abundant across much of its range (Koch et al., 2013), where it was reported to
primarily inhabit the intertidal zone in tropical swamps and mangroves (Dryden and Ziegler, 2004), but
had also been reported in areas of human habitation and agriculture (Wiles et al., 1990).
V. indicus was categorised as Least Concern by the IUCN because of its large range and abundance
(Bennett and Sweet, 2010). This species is widespread at the global level, however was reported to be
widely traded (Pernetta, 2009), and Koch et al. (2013) noted that there was little information about the
potential effects of this trade on local populations. The potential for some V. indicus subspecies to be
reclassified as species has also been identified as a potential future concern for the conservation status of
this species, particularly as some may be island endemics (Bennett and Sweet, 2010).
Malaysia (Sabah): This species was recorded as present in Sabah, based on a record from Marudu
Bay in the north of the region (Zakaria and Rajpar, 2015). No information on the population size,
distribution, conservation status and trends was identified for Malaysia.
Varanus rudicollis
V. rudicollis was reported to have a global range across southern Burma [Myanmar] and Thailand, the
Malay Peninsula, and the islands of Sumatra and Borneo (Bennett, 2004b). This species was thought to
exclusively inhabit mangrove and evergreen forest throughout its range (Bennett, 2004b), and had been
recorded in both primary and secondary forests (Bennett and Liat, 1995).
V. rudicollis has not yet been assessed by the IUCN (IUCN, 2015), although anecdotal evidence
considered this species to be uncommon (Bennett and Liat, 1995).
This species was considered at risk from deforestation and degradation due to its reliance on specific
forest habitats (Bennett and Liat, 1995).
Malaysia (Sabah): This species was recorded as present across Sabah (Bennett, 2004b), with
records confirmed from the east of the region in the Danum Valley (Boonratana, 1997), Malua
(Boonratana, 1997), and Tawai (Wong, 2008). The species was however found at only one of seven study
sites in the Danum Valley (Boonratana, 1997). No information on the population size, distribution,
conservation status and trends was identified for Malaysia.
Varanus salvator
V. salvator was reported to have a widespread global distribution from eastern India across to southern
China and down to the south of the Malay Peninsula on the mainland, as well as reported presence on
Sri Lanka (endemic subspecies S. s. salvator, Gaulke and Horn, 2004), the Andaman Islands (endemic
subspecies V. s. andamanensis, Gaulke and Horn, 2004), the Philippines (subspecies V. s. cumingi,
V. s. marmoratus, and V. s. nuchalis, Gaulke and Horn, 2004), and many other islands in the Indo-
Australian Archipelago including Sumatra and Borneo (Gaulke and Horn, 2004; Koch et al., 2010a). It
was also reported to have been introduced into North America (Witmer and Fuller, 2011).
10Across its global range, V. salvator was noted to favour mangrove swamps and wetlands (Gaulke and
Horn, 2004), but had also been recorded in primary forests (Gaulke and Horn, 2004), flood plains (Cota
et al., 2009), upland forests and riparian habitats (Weijola and Sweet, 2010), as well as in areas with high
human disturbance (Gaulke et al., 1999) and habitation (Stanner, 2010).
V. salvator was categorised as Least Concern by the IUCN (Bennett et al., 2010). The species was
considered widespread and abundant (Koch et al., 2013), although anecdotal reports suggested that local
populations may have declined in some areas as a result of harvesting for trade (Gaulke, 1992). The
species was considered to be the more abundant and commonly traded sister taxon of the other Varanus
species (Ast, 2001).
Whilst extensively traded from wild sources, mainly live or as skins (Pernetta, 2009), it had been argued
that its high reproductive rate, generalist diet, and flexible ecology meant that V. salvator could sustain
high levels of wild harvest (Shine et al., 1996). Taxonomic uncertainty, and the potential for some
subspecies to be reclassified as species (Koch et al., 2010b), has also been identified as a potential future
concern for the conservation status of this species complex (Bennett et al., 2010), particularly as some
recognised subspecies are island endemics (e.g. V. s. andamanensis and S. s. salvator, Gaulke and Horn,
2004).
Malaysia (Sabah): This species was recorded as present across Sabah (Gaulke and Horn, 2004),
with records confirmed from eastern Sabah in the Danum Valley (Boonratana, 1997) and Malua
(Boonratana, 1997), from Marudu Bay (Zakaria and Rajpar, 2015) in the north, and from an unspecified
locality (Robbins et al., 2006). In the 1990s, the species was found in over 70% of study sites (five of
seven) surveyed in the Danum Valley (Boonratana, 1997). At the SAFE (Stability of Altered Forest
Ecosystems) research sites along the southern edge of the Maliau Basin Conservation Area, V. salvator
was considered “commonly seen” (SAFE, 2015), and was reported as present at 83% sites (five of six)
surveyed (Twining, 2015). This species was recorded as particularly prevalent in more human disturbed
habitats, such as oil palm plantations (Twining, 2015).
References
Ast, J.C. 2001. Mitochondrial DNA evidence and evolution in Varanoidea (Squamata). Cladistics, 17(3):
211–226.
Bennett, D. 2004a. Varanus dumerilii. In: Pianka, E.R., King, D.R. and King, R.A. (Eds.). Varanoid Lizards
of the World. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, USA. 172–175.
Bennett, D. 2004b. Varanus rudicollis. In: Pianka, E., King, D. and King, R. (Eds.). Varanoid Lizards of the
World. Indiana University Press, Indiana. 230–233.
Bennett, D., Gaulke, M., Pianka, E.R., Somaweera, R. and Sweet, S. 2010. Varanus salvator. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species 2010. Version 2015.3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. [Accessed:
9/09/2015].
Bennett, D. and Liat, L.B. 1995. A note on the distribution of Varanus dumerilii and V. rudicollis in
Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal, 49: 113–116.
Bennett, D. and Sweet, S. 2010. Varanus indicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010. Version
2015.3. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/. [Accessed: 10/09/2015].
Böhme, W. 2003. Checklist of the living monitor lizards of the world (family Varanidae) – Zoologische
Verhandelingen. Leiden, 341: 1-43.
Boonratana, R. 1997. A Statewide Survey to Estimate the Distribution and Density of the Sumatran
Rhinoceros, Asian Elephant and Banteng in Sabah, Malaysia.
CITES Authority of Sabah, Malaysia. 2015. Siti Nur’ain Ampuan Acheh, pers. comm. to UNEP-WCMC,
23/09/2015.
Cota, M., Chan-Ard, T. and Makchai, S. 2009. Geographical distribution and regional variation of
Varanus salvator macromaculatus in Thailand. Biawak, 3(4): 134–143.
Dryden, G. and Ziegler, T. 2004. Varanus indicus. In: Pianka, E., King, D. and King, R. (Eds.). Varanoid
Lizards of the World. Indiana University Press, Indiana. 184–188.
11Gaulke, M. 1992. Distribution, population density, and exploitation of the water monitor (Varanus
salvator) in the Philippines. Hamadryad, 17: 21–27.
Gaulke, M., Erdelen, W. and Abel, F. 1999. A radiotelemetric study of the water monitor lizard (Varanus
salvator) in North Sumatra, Indonesia. Mertensiella, 11: 63–78.
Gaulke, M. and Horn, H. 2004. Varanus salvator (Nominate Form). In: Pianka, E.R., King, D. and King,
R. (Eds.). Varanoid Lizards of the World. Indiana University Press, Indiana. 244–257.
IUCN 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
[Accessed: 7/09/2015].
Koch, A., Auliya, M., Schmitz, A., Kuch, U. and Böhme, W. 2007. Morphological studies on the
systematics of South East Asian water monitors (Varanus salvator complex): nominotypic
populations and taxonomic overview. Mertensiella, 16: 109–180.
Koch, A., Auliya, M. and Ziegler, T. 2010a. Updated checklist of the living monitor lizards of the world
(Squamata: Varanidae). Bonn Zoological Bulletin, 57(2): 127–136.
Koch, A., Gaulke, M. and Böhme, W. 2010b. Unravelling the underestimated diversity of Philippine
water monitor lizards (Squamata: Varanus salvator complex), with the description of two new
species and a new subspecies. Zootaxa, 2446: 1–54.
Koch, A., Ziegler, T., Bohme, W., Arida, E. and Auliya, M. 2013. Pressing problems: distribution, threats
and conservation status of the monitor lizards (Varanidae: Varanus spp.) of Southeast Asia and the
Indo-Australian Archipelago. Herpelogical Conservation and Biology, 8(3): 1–62.
Losos, J.B. and Greene, H. 1988. Ecological and evolutionary implications of diet in monitor lizards.
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 35: 379–407.
Pernetta, A.P. 2009. Monitoring the trade: using the CITES database to examine the global trade in live
monitor lizards (Varanus spp.). Biawak, 3(2): 37–45.
Pianka, E.R. 1995. Evolution of body size: varanid lizards as a model system. American Naturalist, 146(3):
398–414.
Pianka, E.R., King, D.R. and King, R.A. 2004. Varanoid lizards of the world. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington, USA.
Robbins, R.G., Phong, B.D., McCormack, T., Behler, J.L., Zwartepoorte, H.A., Hendrie, D.B. and Calle,
P.P. 2006. Four new host records for Amblyomma geoemydae (Cantor) (Acari: Ixodida: Ixodidae)
from captive tortoises and freshwater turtles (Reptilia: Testudines) in the Turtle Conservation
Center, Cuc Phuong National Park, Vietnam. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Washington, 108: 726–729.
SAFE 2015. Water monitor lizard (Varanus salvator). Available at: http://www.safeproject.net/animal-
sightings/water-monitor-lizard-varanus-salvator/. [Accessed: 6/11/2015].
Shine, R., Harlow, P.S. and Keogh, J.S. 1996. Commercial harvesting of giant lizards: The biology of water
monitors Varanus salvator in southern Sumatra. Biological Conservation, 77(2-3): 125–134.
Sprackland, R.G. 1993. The taxonomic status of the monitor lizard. The Sarawak Museum Journal, 44:
113–121.
Stanner, M. 2010. Mammal-like feeding behavior of Varanus salvator and its conservational implications.
Biawak, 4(4): 128–131.
Twining, J. 2015. Investigating the ecology of a large squamate (Varanus salvator macromaculatus) in
altered forest ecosystems, Sabah, Borneo, Malaysia. Imperial College London.
UNEP-WCMC 2012. Taxonomic Checklist of all CITES-listed Coral Species, based on information compiled
by UNEP-WCMC 2012. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Weijola, V. and Sweet, S. 2010. A new melanistic species of monitor lizard (Reptilia: Squamata:
Varanidae) from Sanana Island, Indonesia. Zootaxa, 32: 17–32.
Wiles, G., Rodda, G., Fritts, T.H. and Taisacan, E.M. 1990. Abundance and habitat use of reptiles on
Rota, Mariana Islands. Micronesica, 23(2): 153–166.
Witmer, G. and Fuller, P. 2011. Vertebrate species introduction in the United States and its territories.
Current Zoology, 57: 559–567.
Wong, T. 2008. Varanus rudicollis (Rough-necked monitor) occurrence. Biawak, 2(4): 171–172.
Zakaria, M. and Rajpar, M. 2015. Assessing the Fauna Diversity of Marudu Bay Mangrove Forest, Sabah,
Malaysia, for Future Conservation. Diversity, 7(2): 137–148.
12Overview of status and
management of corals in Fiji
Fiji is a biodiversity hotspot for corals within the South West Pacific, and is the second
largest exporter of corals globally. This section provides background information on
the status and trends of corals within the country, the threats affecting corals, and
management actions taken to ensure sustainability of the trade. This section has
previously been presented here and is provided here in full, for ease of reference.
Status and trends
The Fiji Island Archipelago includes 320 islands and over 500 islets and cays and over 1000 reefs (Quinn
and Kojis, 2008) within a coral reef area of over 10 000 km 2 (Morris and Mackay, 2008). The two largest
islands are Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, with the largest continuous reef of 100 km occurring along the
Coral Coast of the southern shore of Viti Levu (Spalding et al., 2001). Fiji’s reefs are diverse, including
fringing, barrier, platform, oceanic, ribbon and drowned reefs (Sykes and Morris, 2009) and contain high
coral biodiversity of over 350 species (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). Fiji was reported to account for
approximately 10% of corals in international trade over the period 2000-2010 (Wood et al., 2012), and is
the largest coral exporter in the Pacific region (Cumming et al., 2002).
Coral reefs in the South West Pacific were generally considered to be in good condition (Wilkinson,
2004). The status of coral reefs in Fiji is relatively well documented; monitoring has taken place since
2000 through the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), coordinated by the University of
the South Pacific (Sykes and Morris, 2009). A volunteer network including the Fiji Locally Managed
Marine Area Network (FLMMA) was reported to undertake annual point intercept and belt transects at
13 core locations and other sites opportunistically (Sykes and Morris, 2009). Monitoring between 1997
and 2007 showed considerable variability in coral cover, reflecting the diversity of reefs between areas;
whilst signs of decline in coral cover between 1999 and 2001 were apparent at all sites surveyed, this was
reported to be followed by rapid recovery to 2007 (Sykes and Morris, 2009). Live coral cover was
reported to have increased at Rotuma Island (465 km north of the main Fiji Islands) between 2004 and
2006 (Mckay, 2007). Cumming et al. (2002) reported that reefs in Fiji were in relatively good condition.
Fiji’s reefs were reported to have an average live coral cover of 45% (range 8-60%) and be able to cope
reasonably well with natural and human stressors (Morris and Mackay, 2008). Sykes and Lovell (2009)
reported that Fiji’s reefs were remarkably resilient to sudden catastrophic events. The general status of
Fiji’s coral reefs was considered be stable, with reefs recovering following disturbance events, and with
little evidence of widespread and prolonged stress, damage or loss of coral cover (Chin et al., 2011). The
Great Astrolabe Reef, south of Viti Levu was considered to remain relatively pristine and minimally
impacted (Shah, 2008). However, whilst reefs were found to show strong resilience, some coastal
fringing reefs were reported to exhibit signs of degradation (Chin et al., 2011). Beqa Barrier Reef was
shown to have a particularly slow recovery rate (Lovell et al., 2004).
Threats
Key threats to coral reefs near urban centres were identified as pollution, eutrophication and coastal
development (Cumming et al., 2002; Chin et al., 2011). Ninety percent of Fiji’s population were reported to
live on Viti Levu and Vanua Levu (Cumming et al., 2002) and the Coral Coast of Viti Levu was reported to
be an area of major tourist activity (Shah, 2008). At all reef sites of Viti Levu, overfishing and sediment
damage were assessed as a high threat (Sykes and Morris, 2009).
13Two thirds of Fiji’s reefs were assessed as being threatened by local activities, with 34% of reefs at medium
threat, 21% at high threat and 10% at very high threat; reefs sites around Viti Levu, especially around Suva
city were considered most at risk (Sykes and Morris, 2009; Chin et al., 2011). Vuki et al. (2000) reported that
the most acutely disturbed areas were Suva Harbour and Laucala Bay (pollution, euthophication, loss of
habitat due to reclamation, overfishing and outbreak of Crown of thorns seastars (Acanthaster planci)
(COTS); Lautoka Harbour and Nadi Bay were noted to be similarly disturbed.
Most of the reefs in Fiji were reported to be moderately heavily fished (Vuki et al., 2000). Although
destructive fishing methods, such as the use of poisons and dynamite were reported to be prohibited by
law (Lovell, 2001), these practices were considered a possible threat to coral reefs (Nair et al., 2003).
Dynamiting was reported common in western Viti Levu (Vuki et al., 2000) and this practise had reportedly
caused serious damage in some parts of Fiji (Vuki, et al., 2000; Cumming et al., 2002). However, in a later
report, Sykes and Morris (2009) stated that that such practises were rarely used.
Coral harvesting for the curio trade (dead coral skeletons) and for the live aquarium trade was also
reported a threat (Cumming et al., 2002). The selling of ornamental corals was reported to continue at
local handicrafts stalls in Fiji despite a ban on this trade (Cumming et al., 2002). Lal and Cerelala (2005)
reported to growing international concern relating to the environmental effects of coral harvest. The
collection of reef resources for the aquarium trade was thought to be of potential concern (Chin et al.,
2011). Teh et al. (2007, 2008) stated that international trade in Fiji's coral reef resources was likely
exacerbating overexploitation of already stressed reef ecosystems.
Fiji’s reefs are also affected by natural degradation, including cyclones, coral bleaching and predator
outbreaks (Cumming et al., 2002). Mass bleaching was experienced in 2000 in all regions except from
the far north, with 64% of all colonies surveyed bleached and around 10-40% coral mortality (Cumming
et al., 2000). Climate change induced bleaching was noted as the main threat to the Great Astrolabe Reef
and North Astrolabe Reef (Obura and Mangubhai, 2003). However, mass bleaching events had not
affected the entire country’s reef system and some areas and habitats were reported to have elements
which minimize bleaching effects allowing repopulation of affected areas (Lovell and Sykes, 2008). It
was reported that Fijian reefs had strong resilience and recovery potential after coral bleaching (Lovell
and Sykes, 2008; Sykes and Morris, 2009). Predation by COTS and Drupella snails were reported (Chin et
al., 2011); COTS were reported to have significantly degraded reefs off Suva (Vuki et al., 2000). Prasad
(2010) reported that permanent monitoring sites had been established in Makogai for coral bleaching
and disease monitoring.
Burke et al. (2011) considered integrated local threats to Fijian coral reefs to be low for 34% of reefs; with
medium threat levels facing 34% of reefs, a high level of threat for 21% of reefs and very high threat level for
10% of reefs. In socio-economic terms, Fiji was identified as one of nine countries that globally are most
vulnerable to the effects of coral reef degradation, due to high threat exposure, high reef dependence to
low adaptive capacity with high priority needed to reduce reef threats (Burke et al., 2011).
Protection and management
Regulatory background
Relevant legislative measures in Fiji include the Endangered and Protected Species Act (2003), in addition
to the Fisheries Act (1992) and the Environmental Management Act (2005) which are administered by the
Departments of Fisheries and Environment, respectively (Sykes and Morris, 2009). The Fisheries Act does
not specifically refer to coral collection, and a lack of empowerment of the Fisheries Division within the
Fisheries Act to regulate the industry through punitive powers was previously identified as a problem
(Lovell, 2001). Updating of the Act was called for by Lovell and Whippy-Morris (2008). Management of the
aquarium trade was reportedly achieved through the setting of policy and guidelines within the broader
14Fisheries Act (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). The aquarium trade must also comply with the
Endangered and Protected Species Act (2002) (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008) which lays down the
requirements of permits for CITES listed species.
The coastal governance system in Fiji is a Dual Tenure System, with responsibilities for the management of
aquarium products residing with both the Fisheries Division and the customary marine tenure of the
i qoliqoli (Lovell, 2001). This system acknowledges that villagers have exclusive fishing rights to specified
inshore areas that have traditionally belonged to them, although it was unclear whether the Fisheries
Division had a legal right to prevent collection in the i qoliqoli (Lovell, 2001).
Most coral reef management in Fiji was reported to be at the community level (Chin et al., 2011).
Customary law determines access to collection areas, as well as benefit sharing and enforcement. The
requirement to revise the legislative basis to govern trade in corals and other marine products for the
aquarium trade was highlighted by Manoa (2008).
Protected areas
Reef management in Fiji is largely driven by traditional communities establishing their own marine
protected areas (Cumming et al., 2002; Burke et al., 2011; Chin et al., 2011). There were reportedly 205
Locally Managed Marine Areas (FLLMAs) with varying degrees of protection, and although full
government gazetting had reportedly been slow, they were recognized at provincial council level (Sykes
and Morris, 2009). FLLMA protection was reported to range from ‘no-take’ to collection for a limited
duration or specific species only (Sykes and Morris, 2009). Whilst FLLMAs were not considered
supported through legislation (Chin et al., 2011 171 were reported to have management plans (Govan,
2009).
Around a third of Fiji’s reef area was reported to be included within marine protected areas (MPAs),
however management was reportedly effective for 0.3% of reefs; partially effective for 21%, not effective
for 0.2% and of unknown effectiveness for 11% (Chin et al., 2011). A commitment to include 30% of the
marine environment within a comprehensive and ecologically representative network of MPAs by 2020
was made in 2008 (Sykes and Morris, 2009; Govan, 2009), and it was considered that a large part of this
commitment would be met through government support of FLMMAs (Sykes and Morris, 2009).
Altogether, Fiji’s LMMAs have 10 800 km2 under management and almost 600 km2 protected as no-take
zones (Govan, 2009).
Coral reef management actions
The aquarium fishery in Fiji is co-managed by the Departments of Fisheries and Environment with the
CITES Scientific Council (Scientific Authority) and Management Authority situated within the
Department of Environment (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). Lovell (2001) reported that
management actions in Fiji were a partnership between central Government and traditional custodians
of the reef areas; although the legal status of the relationship was unclear. However, coral harvesting
guidelines had been set by the Fisheries Division and control of the fishery was based on adherence to
these guidelines (Lovell, 2001). According to Lovell (2001), they included measures for all types of coral
extraction, such as:
1. required written approval by the legal authority (i qoliqoli) endorsed by the provincial
administration and sent to the Fisheries Division;
152. a map of demarcated reef is allocated to licensed divers for coral harvest;
3. concentration of collection in areas of good growth, preferably on barrier reefs not shoreline reefs;
4. actual (continuation of) coral harvesting will be dependent on the favourable outcome of a survey
report. Periodic monitoring will determine whether harvest is sustainable;
5. the Fisheries Division should be notified of new collection areas prior to harvesting so that surveys can
be carried out to assess the total allowable harvest;
6. Fisheries Division will consult with collectors in management measures and give notice of over-
exploitation, if it occurs;
7. Export Permits from the Fisheries Division will be issued upon presentation of a list of corals and
following inspection of the consignment.
Under the management arrangements, a restriction of the number of companies permitted to harvest
live corals was in place; this was limited to two (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). Fiji was reported to
have limited one aquarium company to each collection area to promote effective conservation (Lovell
and Whippy-Morris, 2008). Additional measures included collecting only approved species and
quantities outlined in the national quotas, not damaging other corals or invertebrates, minimising
mortality through best practise collection techniques and propagating corals through mariculture
(Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008).
Using the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) criteria, efforts to develop ‘Collection Area Management
Plans’ for certification by MAC had been underway (Lovell, 2003b). Whilst the two live coral exporters
were previously MAC certified, it was reported that the Marine Aquarium Council no longer exists
(Lovell, pers. comm. to UNEP-WCMC, 2014).
Progress in implementing management plans for the marine aquarium fishery in Fiji were previously
reported to have been very slow (Hand et al., 2005). Vuki et al (2000) reported that the Fiji Fish Division
was not able to effectively monitor coral harvesting activities because of limited resources, and noted
concerns relating to coral harvest on reefs. Similar concerns about the ability of the government to
monitor the harvesting and trade of coral due to low capacity and inadequate financial resources were
noted by Lovell (2001). More recently, Chin et al. (2011) indicated that further information would be
needed to assess the effectiveness of management efforts in Fiji.
Coral harvest
The main coral collection sites in Fiji were reported to be located off the coasts of Viti Levu: offshore
from Lautoka in the north, with collection mainly between the islands of Naviti and Waya and the
fringing reefs of Vatukarasa and Namada villages adjacent to Sovi and Tamanua Bay, and Namoli for the
Walt Smith International (WSI) company (Lovell, 2003b). In addition, the collection area for the
Aquarium Fish Fiji (AFF) Company is offshore from Deuba in the Beqa lagoon in the south (Lovell, 2001;
Nand, 2008). Collection areas were reported to have been divided into zones for active collection and
areas for which rights have been obtained but collection is not active; the area including the east and
west Motunikeasulua Reefs was reported to be subject to highest collection levels (Lovell, 2003b).
The proportion of harvest of coral species from collection areas was believed to range from 0-3%,
depending on the species characteristics, abundance and size of the site (Parry-Jones, 2004). Total coral
numbers for the WSI and AFF collection sites were estimated as 586 million and 41 million respectively,
with the number of eligible corals for collection (due to size and appearance) estimated as 31 million and
168 million for WSI and AFF respectively (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). In 2006, the removal rate of over
48 000 coral pieces at the Aquarium Fish Fiji site was estimated at 0.12% of all corals within the
collection area (or 1.2 corals in 1000) (Lovell and McLardy, 2008). Similarly for the Walt Smith
International collection site, the removal rate for export was estimated at about 0.01% in 2006 (Lovell and
McLardy, 2008).
Nand (2008) reported that there had been no research undertaken on natural coral stocks since the
establishment of the aquarium trade in 1984 and non-detriment findings for coral harvest were required.
Coral export quotas are set by the CITES Scientific Council working with the Fisheries Department
(Manoa, 2008). Quotas were initially introduced in 2004 to provide limits on harvesting and trade, but
they were reported to have been derived arbitrarily (Manoa, 2008). While a scheme for quota setting
based on abandance of taxa had been developed for Fiji based on size of the collecting area, state of
luxuriance, colony form, growth rate, reproductive mode, relative community abundance and vulnerability
(Parry-Jones, 2004), quotas had not been rationalized with regard to resource assessment (Lovell and
Whippy-Morris, 2008). In 2007, a 25% reduction of export quotas for live coral was recommended by the
Scientific Council (Nand, 2008; Lovell and McLardy, 2008).
Figure 1. Map of the Fiji Islands (Source: Institute of Applied Science, University of the South Pacific, Fiji). From Lovell and
McLardy (2008).
Preliminary results for coral stock assessments in relation to non-detriment findings were reported by
Nand (2008) through work undertaken by the Fiji Department of Fisheries and the Institue of Marine
Resources of the University of the South Pacific. Coral surveys were based in the two main collection
sites and covered Beqa, Yanuca, Pacific Habour and Serua reefs in the southern part of Fiji (Aquarium
Fish Fiji) and Lautoka to the Yasawa group of islands in the western part of Fiji (Walt Smith
International) (Nand, 2008), and the methodology was reported to be approved by the Fijian CITES
Authorities (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008).
AFF sites showed little variability and species were similar, although WSI sites were reported to cover
different reef types and coral species composition (Nand, 2008). Coral belt transects were used to obtain
coral abundance estimates and these were extrapolated across similar sites (Nand, 2008). On the basis
that greater coral abundance was found at collection sites than non-collection sites for 60% and 80% of
AFF and WSI sites respectively, Nand (2008) concluded that the impact of the aquarium industry
appeared to be non-detrimental to coral stocks in Fiji. However, the author recommended further study
of other collection sites, long-term monitoring and improvement of the survey methods would be
required to confirm preliminary results (Nand, 2008).
17Quotas were reviewed in 2009 by the Fiji Department of Fisheries and the University of the South Pacific’s
Institute of Marine Resources (IMR) by undertaking coral assessments at WSI and AFF sites using survey
methods approved by the Fijian Scientific Authority (Kinch et al., 2011). Densities based on corals counted
along belt transects (by genus or species category) were extrapolated to the wider collection area for the
reef flat habitat and compared to percentage of corals collected by AFF in 2007 (Kinch et al., 2011). A
further 25% reduction in export quotas was imposed in 2009 (Kinch et al., 2011).
Similarly, Lovell and Whippy-Morris (2008) reported that the percentage removal of coral colonies for the
aquarium trade was 0.00085% of the total estimated colonies on the reef flat, or 0.0014% reduction in
living coral of the reef flat. It was concluded coral extraction impact was minimal in terms of reduction of
species, reduction in coral cover and impact on ecosystems (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). Elements of
the fishery which were thought to “promote sustainability” were: the small size of corals exported (3-15 cm
diameter) making the removal of coral cover small, large coral reef collection areas to minimize overall
impact, high diversity of reefs within collection areas, large areas of uncollected coral reef area to ensure
recruitment and customary fishing right areas (Lovell and Whippy-Morris, 2008). However, Dee et al.
(2014) considered that whilst Fiji had implemented quotas for individual coral species, no stock
assessments for marine ornamentals, including corals had been undertaken.
Mariculture
Cultivation of live coral was reported to have been successfully initiated in Fiji, with two farms located at
Vunaqiliqili and Cakauvaka-I-Yata Reefs where cultivation of coral fragments had taken place (Lovell,
2003a). Lal and Cerelala (2005) reported that coral mariculture in Fiji was not well developed, and
though exports of six-month cultured corals had taken place, it was considered that price increases for
cultured corals would need to be assured before mariculture became financially viable. Only WSI was
reported to have exported cultured corals from Fiji (Lal and Cerelala, 2005).
Reviews of corals from Fiji
This section provides an overview of the status of, and trade in, seven species and 12
genera from Fiji: Astreopora, Leptoseris, Leptastrea, Acanthastrea, Symphyllia,
Echinophyllia, Oxypora, Psammocora, Acrhelia, Favia, Goniastrea, Pectinia and the
species Galaxea fascicularis, Pachyseris rugosa, Catalaphyllia jardinei; Euphyllia
paraancora, Tubastraea faulkneri, Tubastraea micranthus and Diploastrea heliopora.
In order to assess overall trade volumes in these genera, a number of conversions have been run on the
data. For all trade tables, sources have been combined (‘mariculture’ contains sources C, F and R; source W
contains sources W, U and unspecified; see (Wood et al., 2012)). Purposes other than purpose T have also
been combined as ‘other’. Trade reported at both the genus and species level for each genus has been
aggregated. For genera included within this review, the majority of trade was reported at the genus level.
The full dataset is available here: https://db.tt/ifdhKehs.
18SCLERACTINIA: ACROPORIDAE
Astreopora spp. II/B
UNDER REVIEW: Fiji
SPECIES (IUCN): Fiji: Six species: one VU and five LC.
EU DECISIONS No current or previous decisions.
(FIJI):
Taxonomic note
Astreopora elliptica has been reported from Fiji, however, the species was not recognised by Veron
(2000) and its taxonomic status was considered uncertain (IUCN, 2015). The species is treated as a
synonym of A. myriophthalma in the CITES Standard Reference (UNEP-WCMC, 2012).
Trade patterns
In 2015 Fiji published an export quota for 2065 live or dead corals. No direct trade in Astreopora spp.
from Fiji to the EU-28 was reported 2004-2013. Direct trade in Astreopora spp. from Fiji to countries
other than the EU-28 2004-2013 comprised one live source ‘I’ coral traded for commercial purposes in
2009, as reported by importers.
No indirect trade in Astreopora spp. originating in Fiji to the EU-28 was reported 2004-2013.
Conservation status
Astreopora are zooxanthellate1 colonies and colonies are massive, laminar or encrusting (Veron, 2000).
The genus is comprised of 14 species (UNEP-WCMC, 2012), by far the most common of which was
reported to be A. myriophthalma (Veron, 2000). The genus Astreopora was reported to occur from the
Indo-Pacific, eastern Australia, Eastern China Sea and Japan Sea (Veron, 2000) 2.
The IUCN Red List classified one of the Fijian species, A. cucullata, as Vulnerable, five as Least Concern
(IUCN, 2015).
General threats to species of the genus Astreopora were reported to include: bleaching, coral diseases,
ocean acidification, strengthening of El Niño Southern Oscillation events and storms, and a range of
localized threats such as fisheries, development, pollution, sedimentation, invasive species, tourism, and
changes in native species dynamics (IUCN, 2015). It was reported that members of Astreopora, with the
exception of A. randalli, have a low resistance and low tolerance to bleaching and disease, and are slow
to recover (IUCN, 2015). Observations in the Gulf of Oman during 2002 indicated that Astreopora
inhabiting shallow water were particularly affected by bleaching, although little or no coral mortality
resulted (Wilkinson, 2004). It was reported that A. cucullata may not be particularly susceptible to
1
Not symbiotic with microalgae.
2
Global distribution information for all genera is sourced from Veron (2000) who provided distribution maps as a guide only; the
species may be found outside of the reported range.
19You can also read
