Yes, formal but regular non compliance

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Illegal/Unregulated Logging and Wood Extraction

Hunting and/or Trapping of live Terrestrial and Aerial Animals

Fire

Additional Details (if available)

The birds depend on old-growth quebracho forests for nesting habitat, which are being lost to logging and overgrazing. During winter, the blue-fronted amazon may cause damage in citrus orchards in northwest Argentina. For that reason, it has legal pest status in several provinces, allowing its unlimited exploitation or destruction.

Population Trend

Decreasing

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Expert opinion of six studied populations indicated that the main threats to the species are agro-industry farming, wood and pulp plantations, agro-industry grazing, capture for the pet trade (local and international), large-scale and selective logging and climate change (Berkunsky et al. 2017a).

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Amazona aestiva

Common Name(s)

Blue-fronted Amazon

Turquoise-fronted Amazon

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Non-Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

Details of parts/products taken

Capture of blue-fronted amazons usually involves removal of the entire brood from the nest, destruction of nesting sites, and often felling of trees

How is the primary use carried out?

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Keeping, display or breeding live animals and plants (e.g., pets, horticulture, zoos, botanic gardens)

Amount

340000.00

Units Of Measurement

Number of individuals

Time period over which this has been recorded

1981 to 1990

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Additional Details (if available)

Controlling use is practically impossible. The provinces are responsible for wildlife management, but there is no coordination among them or with the federal government. Wildlife agencies do not have enough money, equipment or trained staff, and these problems are aggravated by corruption. Argentina is a signatory to CITES; but weak enforcement of domestic laws makes it difficult to
implement international agreements.

Geographic Location

South America

Country

Argentina

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Management

State Managed

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is negatively affecting the status (e.g., population is declining; extraction effort is increasing)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Yes, negative (e.g., it destroys/ degrades it due to over-use)

Additional Details (if available)

The pet trade contributes to forest destruction and loss of nest sites. To obtain
nestlings, campesinos usually make a hole in the trunk, or even fell the tree, which leaves 95% of the cavities unusable for future nesting attempts. This practice is widespread in the Argentine Chaco and is now extending
to the Paraguayan side (Bucher et al. 1993), steadily destroying prime breeding habitat. Preferred nesting trees are also valuable timber species.

Details of assessment carried out

It is obvious from the widespread and prolonged trends of shrinking range, population fragmentation, and loss or degradation of breeding and wintering habitats that current capture rates are unsustainable.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

If financial benefits accrue disproportionately toward some actors, please explain why

Buyers in the field ("acopiadores") pay the hunters US$4-US$6 per parrot. The birds are transported to Buenos Aires by road or air and resold to intermediaries for about US$8 each. Blue-fronted amazons can fetch US$400 or more in pet
stores in industrial countries.

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management

Absent

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Absent

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Is this use legal or illegal?

Source Reference(s)

Prescott-Allen, Robert, and Prescott-Allen, Christine (Eds.) (1996). Assessing the Sustainability of Uses of Wild Species - Case Studies and Initial Assessment Procedure. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. pp. iv + 135.

Capture of blue-fronted amazons in Argentina.
Enrique H. Bucher

it is obvious from the widespread and prolonged trends of shrinking range, population fragmentation, and loss or degradation of breeding and wintering habitats that current capture rates are unsustainable.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Illegal/Unregulated Logging and Wood Extraction

Direct Persecution

Who is involved in the use?

Additional details of specific groups

Nestlings are collected by rural people, both residents ("puesteros") and axe-men ("hacheros") who work temporarily in the forest as loggers.

How are local community members involved?

As collectors

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

IUCN National Red List Category

IUCN Global Red List Category

Near Threatened (NT)

Green Status Global Category

Not Evaluated

Yearly Financial Flows

Amount (single figure or range)

$4-$6 per parrot

Amount (single figure or range)

$8 per parrot

No assessment recorded

Yes, considered unsustainable

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species?

Unknown/not recorded

Country reference

Argentina

Keeping_Union Island Gecko_Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Emma_Hemmerle — Tue, 08 Feb 2022 14:15:32 +0000

Keeping_Union Island Gecko_Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Emma_Hemmerle Tue, 02/08/2022 - 14:15

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Tue, 02/08/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Wholesaler, retailers, exporters

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

A case for listing the Union Island Gecko Gonatodes daudini in the Appendices of CITES

Stable

Is the species endemic HIDE

Yes

Population Status

Uncommon and only found within narrow areas of distribution

Formal international protection in place

International Level

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Transportation and Service Corridors

Hunting and/or Trapping of live Terrestrial and Aerial Animals

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

This species occurs in a small area of forest that was protected from agricultural development by its historical inaccessibility. The construction of a road in 2005 has, however, opened up this area, which is at imminent risk from further development. he introduction of exotic mammals, particularly feral goats which destroy understorey vegetation and cats which are known to prey on small reptiles, also represents a severe threat to this species; An earlier Red List assessment of this species (Powell and Henderson 2011) predicted that additional pressure on this rare and attractive gecko from commercial exploitation could have a dramatic effect on the population, and subsequently this species has been offered for sale in Europe and imported into the United States (Noseworthy 2017, Shepherd et al. 2019). At least two thirds of animals advertised for sale were male (with a further 17% of "unknown sex") (Shepherd et al. 2019). If this reflects a genuine collection bias rather than small sample size, it could be of significant conservation concern if males are selectively removed from the population ;

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Gonatodes daudini

Common Name(s)

Union Island Gecko

Grenadines Clawed Gecko

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Non-Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

Details of parts/products taken

Illegal trade in this species was first reported in 2011 and over-harvesting for the international pet trade is now considered the single most important threat to the continued survival of this species.

How is the primary use carried out?

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Yes

The overwhelming presence of males (compared to females) in international trade; more males are harvested that females;

Purpose of Use

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Keeping, display or breeding live animals and plants (e.g., pets, horticulture, zoos, botanic gardens)

Amount

36.00

Units Of Measurement

union geckos found in advertisments

Time period over which this has been recorded

September 2014 - December 2018

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Additional Details (if available)

without a permit granted by the Chief Wildlife Officer, Article 15 of the Wildlife Protection Act prevents any person from, (1) hunting any species of wildlife, (2) disturbing, damaging or destroying the nest or eggs of any species of wildlife, or (3) holding possession any species of wildlife;

Geographic Location

Caribbean Islands

Country

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Sub region/state

Union Island

Name

Union Island

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Management

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

International external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is negatively affecting the status (e.g., population is declining; extraction effort is increasing)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Absent

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Absent

Abundant population of target species

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Is this use legal or illegal?

Source Reference(s)

Shepherd, C., Janssen, J., & Noseworthy, J. (2019). A case for listing the Union Island Gecko Gonatodes daudini in the Appendices of CITES. Global Ecology And Conservation, 17, e00549. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00549

Recent surveys suggest a sharp (80%) decline in the most accessible habitats of the wild population and any offtake could have detrimental consequences. The overwhelming presence of males (compared to females) in international trade is of potential conservation concern

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Who is involved in the use?

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

IUCN Global Red List Category

Green Status Global Category

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Yearly Financial Flows

Other

Human Intrusions and disturbances

No assessment recorded

No assessment has been recorded

Country reference

Fishing_Queen conch_Colombia

Emma_Hemmerle — Wed, 02 Feb 2022 15:55:46 +0000

Fishing_Queen conch_Colombia Emma_Hemmerle Wed, 02/02/2022 - 15:55

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Wed, 02/02/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Entire value chain

Record Source

“Grey” literature (e.g., NGO reports, case studies, non-detriment studies; project documents etc. (not necessarily peer-reviewed))

Non-detrimental Findings For The Queen Conch (Strombus gigas) In Colombia.

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

Formal international protection in place

International Level

National Level

Formal national protection in place

The Ministry of Environment included the spe- cies in a national red list, thus allocating funds to promote more sustainable management

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Targeted fishing harvesting/exploiting or collecting wild aquatic resources

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Strombus gigas

Common Name(s)

Queen conch

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

Details of parts/products taken

Three different products are obtained from the queen conch fishery: the conch fillet, conch pearls and conch shells

How is the primary use carried out?

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Basic subsistence (meeting day to day essential needs)

Income generation from trade at individual or household or community

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

Additional Details (if available)

Conch pearls are considered jewelry, and therefore are by far the most valued of the conch products, while the conch shells are decorative pieces

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Ornamentation, decoration and apparel

Amount

6960.00

Units Of Measurement

conch pearls legally exported

Time period over which this has been recorded

2000-2008

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Increasing

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Additional Details (if available)

The queen conch is legally harvested in Colombia by free diving. The use of any autonomous diving gear is prohibited. The fishing unit consists in one canoe and three fishermen, one operator and two divers

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

According to the CITES national office (Vladimir Puentes, personal communication), the proportion of legal exports of conch fillet between en 2000 and 2004 totaled 571.5 mt and represented an annual increa- sed of 10%, with Miami and New York as the major destination (Figure 7). During the time of CITES export restriction imposed in Honduras and the Dominican Republic, it estimated that approximately 29.3 mt of illegally harvested queen conch was transshipped through Colombia, and in precaution a complete closure of the fishery was ordered in 2004, until better controls on illegal trade can be implemented.

Geographic Location

South America

Country

Colombia

Sub region/state

San Andres Archipelago

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Management

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

National / local private sector

International private sector

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

Conch fillet is the most commonly traded product in international markets, with approximately 90% of the harvest being exported. National consumption of the queen conch meat was estimated in 5% of national fish production (Gallo y Valderrama 1995), but most probably this percentage has increased since then.

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Source Reference(s)

Prada, M. et al. (n.d.) NDF Workshop Case Studies WG 9 – Aquatic Invertebrates: Non-detrimental Findings For The Queen Conch (Strombus gigas) In Colombia.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Pollution

Who is involved in the use?

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

IUCN Global Red List Category

Green Status Global Category

Yearly Financial Flows

No assessment recorded

No assessment has been recorded

Country reference

Colombia

Harvesting_Bushman's hat_South Africa

Emma_Hemmerle — Tue, 01 Feb 2022 17:07:52 +0000

Harvesting_Bushman's hat_South Africa Emma_Hemmerle Tue, 02/01/2022 - 17:07

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Tue, 02/01/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

“Grey” literature (e.g., NGO reports, case studies, non-detriment studies; project documents etc. (not necessarily peer-reviewed))

Use of Hoodia gordonii in South Africa.

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Unknown

Population Status

Common and wildly distributed

Formal international protection in place

International Level

National Level

Formal national protection in place

The species is nationally listed as protected under NEM:BA (National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No. 10 of 2004, TOPs Regulations of 2007).

Hoodia is protected in five on the nine Provinces in South Africa, namely the Western Cape, Free State, North West, Northern Cape and Kwazulu Natal Provinces.

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Additional Details (if available)

Habitat loss/degradation (human induced), invasive alien species (directly affecting the species), harvesting (illegal gathering), accidental mortality (e.g. bycatch), natural die-back and climatic events appear to be important threats.
Of all the threats listed, illegal gathering is regarded the most impor- tant, followed by agricultural activities.

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Formal sub-national protection in place

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Hoodia gordonii

Common Name(s)

Bushman's hat

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

Details of parts/products taken

No harvesting prescripts are given to cultivated material collection as they mostly harvest the entire plant anyway.

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Basic subsistence (meeting day to day essential needs)

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

Additional Details (if available)

Traditionally it was used by the San while hunting to suppress appetite, thirst and to maintain their energy levels. They ate portions of the fresh stems of about 180-250g per day. The commercial uses are similar, with dieting and energy boosting (cyclists) being the major consumer markets (300-400mg per day, three times per day). Interestingly, the Patent actually includes anti-diabetic and prevention of aspirin induced gastric damage characteristics.
Limited cultural and traditional use still continuous today.

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Medicine/Pharmaceutical (human/veterinary)

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

From 2005 until March 2008 a total of 15.7 tonnes of dry illegal mate- rial have been confiscated. Anecdotal data indicate that it could be more (more than 41 tonnes dry weight), but it is unconfirmed. It is suggested that only 10-15% of illegal trade is reported and/or caught. Legal harvesting peaked in 2007 at 45-50 tonnes of dry material being collected (2005 until March 2008 adds to 70-75 tonnes dry weight). (Exports and CITES records are being double checked).

Geographic Location

Sub-Saharan Africa

Country

South Africa

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Management

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

National / local private sector

International private sector

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

Most exports from the Northern Cape were to the UK (Phytopharm) and the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Others include the USA, US Texas and North America.

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Details of assessment carried out

Legal wild harvesting appears not to be a local threat at this stage as harvested sites have not died-back, and harvested plants are sprouting again.
Lack of cooperation between provinces prevents proper management and monitoring of material/permits, enabling illegal trade via ‘less- strict’ provinces.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Absent

Support from Government

Present

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Present

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Present

Is this use legal or illegal?

Source Reference(s)

Swart, E. (n.d.) NDF Workshop Case Studies WG 3 – Succulents and Cycads: Use of Hoodia gordonii in South Africa.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Who is involved in the use?

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

IUCN National Red List Category

IUCN Global Red List Category

Green Status Global Category

Yearly Financial Flows

Other

Gathering terrestrial plants;

No assessment recorded

Sustainability not determined

Country reference

South Africa

Fishing_Napoleon Fish_Indonesia

Emma_Hemmerle — Tue, 01 Feb 2022 08:09:21 +0000

Fishing_Napoleon Fish_Indonesia Emma_Hemmerle Tue, 02/01/2022 - 08:09

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Tue, 02/01/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

“Grey” literature (e.g., NGO reports, case studies, non-detriment studies; project documents etc. (not necessarily peer-reviewed))

CITES Non Detriment Findings Case Study for Napoleon Fish Use from Indonesia;

Decreasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Uncommon but wildly distributed

Formal international protection in place

International Level

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Targeted fishing harvesting/exploiting or collecting wild aquatic resources

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Threats include:

1) Intensive and species-specific removal for the live reef food fish export trade of a naturally uncommon and vulnerable species;
2) Readily accessible to spearfishing at night with SCUBA or hookah (i.e., compressed air) gear, and easy to catch with cyanide, or other poisons such as Derris trifoliata, due to predictable adult habitat and shallow depth range;
3) Lack of coordinated, consistent national and regional management largely due to limited management capacity and the sometime secretive nature of traders – in particular there is no relevant regional fishery management authority to address problems with this species;
4) Selective fishing, in particular the intensive take of juveniles for direct export sale and for grow-out (also referred to as ‘culture’ – the species cannot be hatchery reared; and
5) Illegal, unregulated, or unreported (IUU) fisheries (Donaldson and Sadovy 2001).

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Cheilinus undulatus

Common Name(s)

Napoleon Fish

humphead wrasse

Napoleon Wrasse

Maori Wrasse

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

How is the primary use carried out?

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Basic subsistence (meeting day to day essential needs)

Income generation from trade at individual or household or community

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Additional Details (if available)

Law/decree/regulations for Napoleon fish exist as well as a policy framework for management of harvest and export regulations. However, these are not yet sufficiently implemented to be effective

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

Illegal (unpermitted and illegal size) exports by sea and air continue as determined by seizures in Hong Kong of shipments without permits and fish of illegal size according to Indonesian regulation. Illegal movement of fish, including some of illegal size, also occur within Indonesia, as determined by seizures and personal observations of ille- gal sized fishes in trade within the country.

Geographic Location

South and Southeast Asia

Country

Indonesia

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Management

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

National / local private sector

International private sector

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

Wild-caught live animals destined for high-value luxury food in restaurants in export trade is the major use; Major destination is Hong Kong (much of which is transhipped to Mainland China). Also destinations in Singapore (much of which goes through to Hong Kong) and Taiwan.

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is negatively affecting the status (e.g., population is declining; extraction effort is increasing)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Source Reference(s)

Sadovy, Y. and Suharti, S. (n.d.) NDF Workshop Case Studies
WG 8 – Fishes: Napoleon Fish, Cheilinus Undulatus, Indonesia.

It is recommended that minimum size limits be added to the export quota to help strengthen existing legislation in Indonesia and to ensure maintenance of spawning biomass; a large proportion of exported fish are in their pre-reproductive phase.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Who is involved in the use?

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

IUCN National Red List Category

IUCN Global Red List Category

Endangered (EN)

Green Status Global Category

Yearly Financial Flows

Sustainability not determined

Country reference

Indonesia

Harvesting_Saguaro_Mexico

Emma_Hemmerle — Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:17:15 +0000

Harvesting_Saguaro_Mexico Emma_Hemmerle Mon, 01/31/2022 - 13:17

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Mon, 01/31/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

“Grey” literature (e.g., NGO reports, case studies, non-detriment studies; project documents etc. (not necessarily peer-reviewed))

Harvesting of Saguaro in Mexico for ornamentation and construction purposes.

Decreasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Yes

Population Status

Common but only within narrow areas of distribution

Formal international protection in place

International Level

National Level

No formal national protection in place

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Fire

Gathering/Cutting/Collecting Terrestrial Plants and Fungi or Their Products From the Wild

Additional Details (if available)

Cattle ranching, particularly the transformation of desert into pastures of exotic buffel grass (Pennisetum ciliare), has extirpated, or severely reduced many local populations contributing to fragmentation;

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

In Mexico, Carnegiea gigantea is primarily threatened by changes in land use for cattle ranching. In the Unites States, this species is primarily threatened by urbanization. Saguaros are also threatened by collection from the wild, including indiscriminate and illegal trade (Paredes et al. 2000). There is a high demand for Saguaro ribs, the internal woody frame of this cactus species, that leads to over-collection. The species is threatened by competition from the invasive buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) and from the increased frequency of fires associated with buffelgrass.

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Carnegiea gigantea

Common Name(s)

Saguaro

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

Details of parts/products taken

Trade in live wild specimens is carried in a small scale, mainly for ornamental purposes. These are usually limited to plants 1-3 m tall. Harvest of dead ribs for commercial purposes has increased since the 1990s.

How is the primary use carried out?

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Basic subsistence (meeting day to day essential needs)

Income generation from trade at individual or household or community

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

Additional Details (if available)

Harvesting of sahuaro “ribs”, the woody skeleton of dead sahuaros has been carried out by native peoples for centuries. Desert people, relied on these materials for construction, crafts, and firewood. Today, there is great demand, mainly in the USA markets for sahuaro ribs to make furniture and constructions in the “southwest style”.

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Ornamentation, decoration and apparel

Energy/Fuel

Building/construction

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Additional Details (if available)

There is no quota system, but Mexican government authorities have established a moratorium on issuing permits until the sustainable use of ribs is clarified.
Historically there are large discrepancies between the issued permits and the exported quantities reported.

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

As the species is protected in the USA, most stocks of sahuaro ribs have been imported legal and illegally from Mexico.

Geographic Location

Mesoamerica

Country

Mexico

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Management

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

National / local private sector

International private sector

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

traditional use by locals for ornamentation/food, and export to USA as construction material;

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Source Reference(s)

Búrquez, A. (n.d.) NDF Workshop Case Studies WG 3 – Succulents and Cycads: Sahuaro (Carnegiea gigantea) In Mexico.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Who is involved in the use?

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

IUCN National Red List Category

IUCN Global Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

Green Status Global Category

Yearly Financial Flows

Other

Gathering terrestrial plants;

Other

Gathering terrestrial plants;

No assessment recorded

No assessment has been recorded

Country reference

Mexico

Keeping_Yellow-crested Cockatoo_Indonesia

Emma_Hemmerle — Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:44:58 +0000

Keeping_Yellow-crested Cockatoo_Indonesia Emma_Hemmerle Mon, 01/31/2022 - 12:44

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Mon, 01/31/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

“Grey” literature (e.g., NGO reports, case studies, non-detriment studies; project documents etc. (not necessarily peer-reviewed))

case study: trade of Yellow-crested Cockatoo in Indonesia.

Decreasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Common and wildly distributed

Formal international protection in place

International Level

National Level

Formal national protection in place

Since 1999 all sub-species of C. sulphurea is fully protected in Indonesia in accordance with the Government Regulation No. 8 of 1999.

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Hunting and/or Trapping of live Terrestrial and Aerial Animals

Additional Details (if available)

Its precipitous decline is almost entirely attributable to unsustainable exploitation for internal and international trade. The capture of Yellow-crested Cockatoo for trade has undoubtedly been the most critical factor in its population decline over the past three decades, and is the key factor that limits its recovery. Large-scale logging and con- version of forest to agriculture across its range has exacerbated the decline, and the use of pesticides since around 1989 is a further potential threat. At least formerly, the species was regarded as a crop-pest, and consequently persecuted. High rainfall years appear to limit productivity considerably resulting in very low recruitment. Conversely, rainfall on Komodo has been low in recent years leading to limited availability of water sources. Competition for cavity nest sites with other parrots and owls in large trees (those by logging activities) leads to low productivity.

Population Trend

Decreasing

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Cacatua sulphurea

Common Name(s)

Yellow-crested Cockatoo

Lesser Sulphur-crested cockatoo

Kakatua-kecil jambul-kuning

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Non-Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

How is the primary use carried out?

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Keeping, display or breeding live animals and plants (e.g., pets, horticulture, zoos, botanic gardens)

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Additional Details (if available)

export moratorium imposed by Indonesia in 1994

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

export moratorium imposed by Indonesia in 1994

Geographic Location

South and Southeast Asia

Country

Indonesia

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Management

National / local private sector

International private sector

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Source Reference(s)

Prijono, S.N. (n.d.) NDF Workshop Case Studies
Wg 6 – Birds: Cacatua sulphurea.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Direct Persecution

Who is involved in the use?

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

IUCN National Red List Category

IUCN Global Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

Green Status Global Category

Yearly Financial Flows

No assessment recorded

No assessment has been recorded

Country reference

Indonesia

Fishing_European Eel_Sweden

Emma_Hemmerle — Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:10:34 +0000

Fishing_European Eel_Sweden Emma_Hemmerle Mon, 01/31/2022 - 12:10

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Mon, 01/31/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

“Grey” literature (e.g., NGO reports, case studies, non-detriment studies; project documents etc. (not necessarily peer-reviewed))

Non Detriment Findings For The European Eel - The Swedish Case

Decreasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

Formal international protection in place

International Level

CMS listing

National Level

Formal national protection in place

; the Species Protection Act 2007:845, as a species of national interest. The Species Protection Act 2007:845 prescribes that operations trading live specimens listed on (CITES appendix I or II) must have a license of operation

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Illegal/Unregulated Logging and Wood Extraction

Energy Production and Mining

Dams and other System Modifications

Pollution

Transportation and Service Corridors

Targeted fishing harvesting/exploiting or collecting wild aquatic resources

Additional Details (if available)

In Sweden the eel is under the same threats are as in most countries, viz. a high fishing mortality, inaccessibility to suitable growing areas, obstacles for both up- as downstream migration and high mortalities on hydropower screens and in turbines. In addition come POPs and several diseases and parasites. Among the latter, the introduced swim bladder parasite, Anguillicola crassus, does probably pose a significant hazard to a successful reproduction.

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Anguilla anguilla is susceptible to a number of natural and anthropogenic threats. These threats include but are not limited to; barriers to migration, climate change, habitat loss/degradation, invasive species, parasitism, pollution, predation and unsustainable exploitation (Drouineau et al. 2018). The occurrence and significance of these threats varies considerably from area to area across the species range. The significance of any single threat, or the synergy it may have with other threats is still poorly understood (Dekker 2004, Jacoby et al. 2015, Miller et al. 2016). It is therefore important to highlight that management measures focusing on a single threat, in isolation of other identified pressures (listed below), are less likely to have a significant positive effect on the stock than a combined approach.
As a fat, long lived, semelparous fish species eels also accumula- te a wide range of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) as DDT, PCBs, and dioxins, which is known to disturb their reproductive success.

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Anguilla anguilla

Common Name(s)

European Eel

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

How is the primary use carried out?

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

Additional Details (if available)

direct consumption as well as to be used as seed in aquaculture both in Europe and in e.g. China.

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Additional Details (if available)

With today’s legislation the fishermen still allowed to catch eels are obliged to report their catch using a logbook system. From the recreational fishery that still is allowed, i.e. upstream three hydropower turbines only eels that are sold in any quantities are reported to the Board of Fisheries. In parallel with the logbook system there is also a system based on contract notes drawn up by wholesale traders buying eels from the fishermen.
Being a fairly well paid species, eels are often traded outside the legal frames

Geographic Location

Europe

Country

Sweden

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Management

National / local private sector

International private sector

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

Eels are used for human consumption and there is a large-scale international market where Japan, followed by Korea and Hongkong are the main consumers of most eel species taken together. From Sweden most eels are exported live, fresh or frozen to The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

Wickström, H. (n.d.) NDF Workshop Case Studies Wg 8 – Fishes: Non Detriment Findings For The European Eel - The Swedish Case.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Dams and other System Modifications

Who is involved in the use?

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

IUCN National Red List Category

IUCN Global Red List Category

Green Status Global Category

Yearly Financial Flows

No assessment recorded

No assessment has been recorded

Country reference

Sweden

Keeping_Yellow-naped Amazon_Nicaragua

Emma_Hemmerle — Mon, 31 Jan 2022 09:46:23 +0000

Keeping_Yellow-naped Amazon_Nicaragua Emma_Hemmerle Mon, 01/31/2022 - 09:46

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Mon, 01/31/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Unknown/not recorded

Record Source

“Grey” literature (e.g., NGO reports, case studies, non-detriment studies; project documents etc. (not necessarily peer-reviewed))

Proposal For Making An NDF Based On A Psittacidae Recovery Program For Nicaragua: The Amazona Auropalliata Case

Decreasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

Formal international protection in place

International Level

National Level

Formal national protection in place

From January 2008 to date, the species has been under the protection of a national indefinite prohibition.

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Hunting and/or Trapping of live Terrestrial and Aerial Animals

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

The species is threatened by habitat loss and degradation, driven primarily by the expansion of agriculture, and capture for local and international trade (Juniper and Parr 1998; Anon. 2008). Deforestation has been a prevalent threat in all range states (Grijalva 2008). For example, mangrove forests in the Gulf of Fonseca region are being cleared for the development of aquaculture and extraction of firewood and timber (Grijalva 2008). In Honduras, the species has been recorded as being c.93% less common in modified habitats, such as cultivation, compared to broadleaved forest (Wiedenfeld 1993). The conversion of areas to sugar cane or rice production is also threatening its habitat, particularly in Nicaragua (C. Dahlin and T. Wright in litt. 2016). In Mexico, less than 30% of the original cover of primary habitat remains within the species's range (J. C. Cantú in litt. 2021). The species is considered one of the most sought-after psittacines in the Central American pet trade, owing to its vocal capabilities

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Amazona auropalliata

Common Name(s)

Yellow-naped Amazon

lora nuca amarilla

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Non-Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

How is the primary use carried out?

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Largescale commercial exploitation for trade

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

Keeping, display or breeding live animals and plants (e.g., pets, horticulture, zoos, botanic gardens)

Amount

900.00

Units Of Measurement

median value of animals that are moved annually through illegal traffic

Time period over which this has been recorded

annually

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Additional Details (if available)

In accordance with the national law (nation-wide indefinite prohibition) neither trade nor exploitation of psitticade birds are allowed. As a result of the cancellation of export permits issued by CITES in 2005, there is no exploitation quota for captive-bred animals and much less for animals captured in the wild. But regular non-compliance exists;

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

There is neither legal nor official harvesting since 2005.

Geographic Location

Mesoamerica

Country

Nicaragua

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Management

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

National / local private sector

International private sector

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Unknown/not recorded

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Source Reference(s)

Lezama-López, M. (n.d.) NDF Workshop Case Studies, Working Group 6: Proposal For Making An NDF Based On A Psittacidae Recovery Program For Nicaragua: The Amazona Auropalliata Case.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Who is involved in the use?

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

IUCN National Red List Category

IUCN Global Red List Category

Green Status Global Category

Yearly Financial Flows

Other

Predation

No assessment recorded

No assessment has been recorded

Country reference

Nicaragua

Harvesting_Swamp Ghost Crab_Brazil

Emma_Hemmerle — Mon, 31 Jan 2022 08:45:14 +0000

Harvesting_Swamp Ghost Crab_Brazil Emma_Hemmerle Mon, 01/31/2022 - 08:45

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Mon, 01/31/2022 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species used in its natural habitat

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

Primary Producer/harvester (e.g., NTFP collectors, egg collectors)

Record Source

Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

An examination of the techniques used to capture mangrove crabs, Ucides cordatus, in the Mamanguape River estuary, northeastern Brazil, with implications for management

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Unknown

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

National Level

Formal national protection in place

the Brazilian Federal Environmental Agency, considers the tangle-netting technique to have much greater environmental impacts than the traditional braceamento, and in 2003 prohibited its use as well as the use of the tamping technique in Brazil;

Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species

Hunting and/or Trapping of live Terrestrial and Aerial Animals

Additional Details (if available)

Boeger et al. (2005) stated that destruction of mangrove habitats, and diseases threaten local crab populations. Overfishing is also frequently suggested as a risk in many places, however for most Brazilian mangrove swamps available stock data are insufficient to confirm populational declines. crab stocks in the study area decreased significantly in 1998 due to significant die offs of U. cordatus (Alves and Nishida, 2002), probably due to the Lethargic Crab Disease (LCD) caused by the pathogenic fungus Exophiala cf psychrophila

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Ucides cordatus

Common Name(s)

Swamp Ghost Crab

mangrove crab

caranguejo-uça

Type of Use

Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)

If extractive, for the target species, is this use

Lethal

Does this use involve take/extraction of

The whole entire organism

How is the primary use carried out?

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Basic subsistence (meeting day to day essential needs)

What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?

What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?

Is there a regulatory or customary regime in place to govern this use?

Additional Details (if available)

prohibition of the tamping harvesting technique, but it is still used at the study site, as well as across the country;

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

two techniques are used at the study site for crab harvesting: tangle netting technique, and the now illegal tamping technique;

Geographic Location

South America

Country

Brazil

Sub region/state

Paraíba state

Name

Mamanguape River estuary

Site Description

The Mamanguape River estuary (06° 430 0200 e 06° 510 5400 S X 35° 07' 46" e 34° 54' 04"W) is the second largest estuary in the northeastern Brazilian Paraíba State (16,400 ha), with a mangrove swamp covering 45.7 km2

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Management

Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE

Yes – use is negatively affecting the status (e.g., population is declining; extraction effort is increasing)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?

Unknown/not recorded

Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?

Unknown/not reported

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species

Yes, it is having a negative effect (e.g., prey depletion, stress, disrupted breeding, movement, sleeping, feeding patterns)

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

the use of the tangle-netting technique involves the cutting of the roots of the mangrove species R. mangle

Details of assessment carried out

Given that tangle-netting results in greater harvesting pressure but lower selectivity compared to tamping, it may potentially be less sustainable. The tangle-netting technique is much less size selective than the tamping technique (22% versus 5% of total catch with illegal crab sizes), thus exercising a greater capture pressure on the crab pop- ulation. The lack of (i) data on the structure and resilience of the U. cordatus population in the Mamanguape River estuary, (ii) fish- ery stock assessments and (iii) knowledge of the magnitudes of secondary impacts caused by tangle-netting (pollution through discarded nets, cutting of the prop roots of R. mangle while setting the traps), does not yet allow to unambiguously evaluate whether the use of tangle-netting (and tamping) poses a real threat to the crab resources in the Mamanguape River estuary, and in many places elsewhere. Nonetheless, the perception of local crab har- vesters is that crab stocks have become reduced in the last 20 years, with decreasing average crab sizes suggesting overfishing. This perception of the crab harvesters, however, is based on long-term memories of harvesting stocks, memories that could well be exaggerated or otherwise inaccurate, and must be viewed with caution (Capistrano and Lopes, 2012).

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Details of assessment

Decreases in U. cordatus populations represent a threat to the sustainability of their harvesting, which can cause detrimental socio-economic impacts for thousands of people who depend on this resource for financial subsistence; Despite the fact that the tangle-net technique facilitates crab harvesting, the socio-economic status of these fishermen and their families remains very low. According to Alves et al. (2005), the almost complete economic dependence of these fishermen on harvesting U. cordatus results in significant environmental pressure on those animals and the mangrove ecosystem itself. The lack of alternative income options and the limited economic gains of crab harvesting make this activity barely economically sustainable;

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?

Unknown/not recorded

Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?

Unknown/not recorded

Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?

Unknown/not recorded

Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?

Unknown/not recorded

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Absent

High financial returns from use

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Source Reference(s)

Nascimento, D., Chaves Alves, Â., Nóbrega Alves, R., Duarte Barboza, R., Diele, K., & Mourão, J. (2016). An examination of the techniques used to capture mangrove crabs, Ucides cordatus , in the Mamanguape River estuary, northeastern Brazil, with implications for management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 130, 50-57. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.05.010

All of the crab harvesters interviewed having more than 20 years of experience (n 1⁄4 34) stated they perceived that stocks of U. cordatus had become reduced over the last 20 years, together with average crab sizes. The harvesters using the tangle-netting technique captured 16.2% more crabs below legal minimum size (60 mm CW) than those using the tamping technique. The crab harvesters interviewed were unanimous in recognizing decreases in crab abundance and average crab size over the years, and in attributing this to increased harvesting pressure.

Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record

Who is involved in the use?

Men

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Yes

Historically, the profession of harvesting mangrove crabs, U. cordatus, in the Mamanguape River estuary was male- dominated. Capture activities are considered, at least locally, as excessively rigorous for women to perform, even using the tangle- net technique. As such, the energetic costs of harvesting activities, added to the physical risks involved, makes the participation of women much less frequent, and for fact absent in the study area.

How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?

How many people outside the local area are employed

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs

Unknown/Not recorded

Scale of Assessment

Individual Site

IUCN National Red List Category

IUCN Global Red List Category

Green Status Global Category